"There was no problem": Trump says he's "very comfortable" with Yemen leaks

Salon - Mar 26th, 2025

President Donald Trump downplayed the concerns surrounding a leaked group chat that accidentally included The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. This chat, which involved senior officials such as Mike Waltz, Marco Rubio, and JD Vance, inadvertently revealed sensitive information regarding planned military actions. Trump appeared on Newsmax's "Greg Kelly Reports" to address the situation, stating that no classified information was shared and the military operation was a success. Mike Waltz, responsible for organizing the chat, has publicly taken responsibility for the mishap while simultaneously accusing Goldberg of exploiting the situation.

The incident highlights ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the media, as well as raises questions about the handling of sensitive information by high-level officials. While Trump attempted to deflect blame onto a lower-level staffer, the situation has sparked criticism from both political opponents and the public. This event signifies potential security vulnerabilities within the administration's communication processes and emphasizes the contentious relationship between the Trump administration and the press, particularly in light of sensitive military operations like those in Yemen.

Donald Trump Yemen Mike Waltz Media Relations Jeffrey Goldberg The Atlantic Military Leaks

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant account of a security breach involving senior government officials. It captures the public's interest by addressing themes of national security and governmental accountability. However, the story could benefit from more balanced reporting, with a broader range of perspectives and expert opinions to provide a comprehensive understanding of the incident. The reliance on statements from interested parties without independent verification or additional context limits the article's accuracy and source quality. Despite these shortcomings, the article is generally clear and accessible, offering a straightforward narrative that highlights the key issues at play.

Accuracy

The story presents several claims that need verification, such as President Trump's assertion that no classified information was shared and that a lower-level employee might have added Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat. These claims are central to understanding the incident's gravity but lack concrete evidence or corroboration in the article. The story's accuracy is moderately supported by Trump's direct quotes, but it lacks independent verification or additional sources to substantiate the claims, especially regarding the classification of the leaked information and the exact circumstances of Goldberg's inclusion in the chat.

Balance

The article predominantly focuses on the perspectives of Trump and his administration, with limited representation of other viewpoints. While it mentions Waltz's criticism of journalists and Democrats' reactions, these are not explored in depth, leading to an imbalance. The story could benefit from more detailed accounts from Democrats or independent experts on the potential implications of the leak, which would provide a more balanced view of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its presentation, with a straightforward narrative that outlines the key events and statements. The language is accessible, and the structure allows readers to follow the progression of the story. However, the tone occasionally leans towards sensationalism, particularly in phrases like 'bombshell report,' which could detract from the article's neutrality and clarity.

Source quality

The primary sources in the article are statements from President Trump and Mike Waltz, both of whom have vested interests in minimizing the incident's impact. The article lacks input from independent sources or experts who could provide a more objective analysis of the situation. Additionally, there is no reference to any official documents or third-party reports that could lend credibility to the claims made by the administration.

Transparency

The article provides some context regarding the incident, such as the involvement of senior officials and the nature of the leaked information. However, it does not fully disclose the methodology behind the claims or explore potential conflicts of interest. The lack of transparency about how the information was verified and the absence of a clear explanation of the potential legal or operational consequences of the leak reduce the article's overall transparency.