Internet culture is chaotic—but we’ll break it down for you in one daily email. Sign up for the Daily Dot’s web_crawlr newsletter here. You’ll get the best (and worst) of the internet straight into your inbox.
Supporters of President Donald Trump are attempting to pass off the administration’s inadvertent leak of sensitive war plans as a purposeful and calculated maneuver.
On Monday, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, revealed that he’d been added to a group chat on the encrypted messaging app Signal where top-level Trump officials discussed plans to strike Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
The chat included prominent figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and national security adviser Michael Waltz.
The legitimacy of the group was aided by the fact that the strikes, as laid out in the chats, began taking place just two hours after Goldberg read the messages.
The White House confirmed to the Washington Post that Goldberg had been included by mistake.
Despite the Trump administration’s colossal and amateur security failure, supporters of the president are attempting to downplay its significance.
An article from the right-leaning satirical outlet known as the Babylon Bee described the leak as “4D chess,” a term Trump fans use when attempting to portray Trump’s blunders as secret strokes of genius.
“4D Chess: Genius Trump Leaks War Plans To ‘The Atlantic’ Where No One Will Ever See Them,” the outlet wrote.
While the post may have been tongue-in-cheek, many conservatives appear to genuinely hold the belief that the leak was all part of a clandestine plan orchestrated by Trump.
“I don’t buy the Atlantic story at face value,” conservative podcaster Dale Stark wrote. “It’s likely a deliberate leak to put Europe on notice or to root out a traitor from within. Someone didn’t just accidentally add lyin’ Jeff Goldberg to the group chat.”
Goldberg says he received an invitation to join the group from Waltz, the national security adviser, but no evidence suggests that Waltz did so purposefully. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Monday that Trump still has the “utmost confidence” in Waltz.
Nevertheless, conservatives continue to paint the security failure as an example of Trump’s brilliance.
“Classic counterintelligence trick as old as can be,” the X user @SuitMooseEsq wrote. “Don’t assume that all ‘leaks’ are unintentional, especially when there is something to gain and the information actually revealed is non-actionable.”
Added Joey Mannarino, a Trump influencer known for accidentally posting from the wrong account, “If you believe for one minute that Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Mike Walz and JD Vance randomly and accidentally added this most rabidly anti-Trump journalist to a ‘national security’ group chat… you’re definitely the mark … Simply not possible. This is called media strategy.”
Similar takes on the masterstroke by Trump officials abounded on Truth Social.
“The minute I read the chat my very first thought was that Goldberg was specifically and deliberately included so that he would leak what he saw to the public. The idea was to let Europe know just how unhappy American leadership is with Europe’s unwillingness to pull its weight militarily. The backchannel, seemingly accidental nature of that reveal was powerful and I believe intentional,” wrote a user on this site.
On Capitol Hill, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson conceded that the administration made a “terrible mistake.” But he also described the mission in Yemen as being “accomplished with precision.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, instead described the leak as “one of the most egregious failures of operational security and common sense I have ever seen.”