And They Rule You
I like Jeffrey Goldberg. I admit it. Guilty as charged. I know him, of course, only through his writing for The Atlantic, which delivers long-form journalism for a short-attention span world, and at which he has been a writer since 2007 and editor in chief since 2016.
Perhaps I am just another old guy yelling at clouds, but one of my biggest complaints about journalism over the last twenty-five years or so isn’t just that it has shamelessly pandered and catered, but that the writing is so bad.
I have never been a part of, or even sympathetic to, the left-wing. Its subjectivist epistemology and altruist ethics are obviously and wildly wrong. But for decades, I read and benefitted from leftist writers. In addition to challenging my priors, I felt smarter for having read them.
The New York Times has always been left-wing but it was always good. For the last twenty-five years or so, it’s been unreadable.
The Atlantic, by contrast, has managed—at least to some degree—to buck the trend toward mindless partisan fan service. It remains, remarkably, well written.
Just today, I read a literate objective, long form profile of White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, written by Atlantic staff writer Elaine Godfrey. If your objective is to actually be informed, this is the kind of thing you should read. It is the antithesis of anything churned out by MSNBC or Fox News.
Goldberg, himself is an excellent writer. A former war correspondent, he has focused his work on the military and foreign affairs. While more inclined to wear his left-wing politics on his sleeve than would be my preference, he generally avoids the memes and tropes that infect writers from all points on the conventional political spectrum.
Did He Say It? Probably
It’s long been my view that reporters should stay out of the spotlight. That, however, has not always been the case with Jeffrey Goldberg.
In 2020, he wrote a piece in The Atlantic claiming, among other things, that then-President Trump had referred to U.S. soldiers who died in World War I as “suckers” and “losers.”
Goldberg’s story was quickly refuted by John Bolton, Trump’s National Security Advisor at the time who claimed to have been in the room. Bolton, to his credit, has apparently stuck by his denial over the years, despite a rather dramatic falling out with the president.
Although, it must be said, his story has shifted. He first claimed he “hadn’t heard it,” then, days later, declared that Goldberg’s reporting was “simply false.”
Still, the remark sounds like Trump. It’s of a piece with his comments about John McCain—one of the politicians I found most reprehensible—and George H. W. Bush, as well as the appalling way he engaged with the family of Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004 and posthumously awarded a Bronze Star.
I’ve reread the piece in recent days. It’s deeply reported and includes several examples of Trump’s crass remarks about America’s war dead. And honestly, if you were a Trump hater inventing a smear, suckers and losers seems like a strange place to land. I may be wrong, but I’m inclined to believe Goldberg.
How Not To Plan a War
Unless you’ve been living under a rock these past two weeks, you know the basics: Trump’s national security team—including Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz—convened a group chat on Signal to discuss and finalize plans to attack the Houthis, the Iran-backed terrorist group that has been targeting shipping lanes, including U.S. warships, in the Red Sea.
Incredibly—and apparently by accident—Waltz added one “J.G.” to the chat. That turned out to be Jeffrey Goldberg.
Goldberg, acting like a journalist, reported the story. In a series of articles for The Atlantic, he laid out the conversation—carefully omitting anything that might endanger U.S. military or intelligence personnel.
And everyone involved in the chat lost their minds.
Politicians are dumb. Collectively, they’re a bunch of idiots. Even the ones who are nominally intelligent—Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and yes, J.D. Vance—seem to grow measurably dumber with each passing day in power.
But this? This was next-level dumb. Inviting a potentially hostile journalist into a live conversation about imminent military action? You couldn’t make it up.
The whole episode has so many layers of stupid, it’s hard to know where to begin.
“His Texts”
Let’s try Hillary Clinton.
Say what you will about her—I certainly have—but when she became Secretary of State in 2009, she received a full day of classified training on how to properly handle government communications. Then she went home and set up a private, unsecured email server in her house. I’ve read detailed, credible reports suggesting that every one of her emails was likely read by the Chinese, the Russians, and probably dozens of other foreign actors, friendly and hostile alike.
If she had been a colonel in the U.S. military, she’d have gone to prison. For a long time. There are government officials in prison right now for far less.
And who were the loudest voices demanding Clinton be held accountable for that breach? Pete Hegseth. Mike Waltz. And, of course, Donald Trump, who turned “Lock Her Up” into a campaign slogan.
So which is worse? Clinton’s server? Or SignalGate?
Honestly, who cares? They’re both disqualifying. And if Clinton should have gone to jail, then everyone on that Signal chat should be prosecuted as well.
And the Trump team’s response? Even dumber than the offense itself.
Richard Nixon, of all people, gave us the maxim: the cover-up is worse than the crime. That applies here.
This scandal might have had zero political fallout if they’d simply acknowledged the mistake, fired Waltz, and pledged to do better. That’s what a competent team would have done. That’s what grownups do. Own it. Fix it. Move on.
But no. That wouldn’t have been dumb enough.
Sean Hannity Has Entered the Chat
Now imagine this: let’s say Hillary Clinton, by some fluke of email server configuration, accidentally copied Sean Hannity on all her communications. And Hannity, acting as a journalist (a stretch, I know), wrote a well-sourced book on the matter, disclosing everything that didn’t directly endanger U.S. personnel. Do you think Hegseth and Waltz would be calling him “scum”? Of course not. They’d be erecting a statue of him on the National Mall.
But because it was Goldberg—because it was their blunder—they’ve been calling him scum. And worse.
Even if Goldberg had acted irresponsibly (he didn’t), their outrage still wouldn’t make sense. The people calling for his head were the ones who added him to the chat. They knew exactly what had been said. Their hysterical attacks only goaded Goldberg into defending himself—by publishing more of the chat.
Have you read it? It’s fascinating.
Jeffrey Goldberg did nothing wrong. To claim otherwise is stupid.
Adding a left-leaning, mostly anti-Trump journalist to your war-planning group chat is dumb. Keeping the story alive by refusing to admit the obvious is dumber. But the dumb doesn’t stop there. Oh no.
You’re Too Dumb to Notice
Consider the claim—repeated endlessly—that Jeffrey Goldberg is just a no-good leftist, but it doesn’t matter because no war plans were discussed. No classified information was shared. Nothing to see here.
Are you kidding me?
Unless you’re using definitions so watered down they’ve lost all meaning, the entire chat was nothing but a discussion of war planning and information that was—or should have been—classified.
The Trump administration officials in that group chat know this better than anyone. They’re not confused. They’re lying. And they’re doing it because they assume you are the dumb one.
If you believe them—if you trust them to be honest in any future dealing with you or the public—they’re right.
Your Tax Dollars at Play
The United States spends hundreds of billions—trillions, over time—on national security. We outspend the rest of the world on intelligence, covert ops, cyberwarfare, and secure communications. And yet, somehow, the top figures in our national defense establishment—the principals—believed they had no better option for planning a military strike than to use Signal, a free app anyone can download from the App Store.
I heard one commentator suggest that the secure communications systems provided to U.S. officials haven’t been updated in years—possibly a decade or more. Maybe Signal really is the most secure option. It’s certainly the most convenient. Of course, that convenience includes the ability to accidentally add a journalist to your group chat.
Which raises a different question: Where the hell is all our money going?
Signal was built on a shoestring budget. And yet it apparently uses encryption protocols superior to those developed by the federal government—despite the trillions spent.
We’re not just funding a bloated bureaucracy—we’re funding one that can’t even build a messaging app as secure or as usable as what two privacy-minded software engineers built in their spare time.
Europe Is the Problem, Let’s Bomb Yemen
In broad terms, I support the Trump administration’s efforts to end European dependence on U.S. forbearance—especially when it comes to defense spending. Trump is right: the EU hasn’t even tried to hold up its end of the bargain. Perhaps that made sense in the aftermath of World War II, or during the Cold War. No longer. Defending Europe is an indulgence the U.S.—and its taxpayers—can no longer afford.
J.D. Vance made this point in the Signal chat, noting that most of the trade passing through the Red Sea and Suez Canal is bound not for the United States, but for Europe. He’s sick of bailing out Europe. So am I.
But if that’s the position—then why are we attacking the Houthis at all?
Yes, it’s true: there have been more than 175 Houthi attacks on U.S. shipping—including Navy vessels—since the October 7th Hamas assault on Israel. But why is U.S. shipping there in the first place? If this is Europe’s problem—and I could be persuaded that it is—then why doesn’t the U.S. get the hell out and let Europe solve it?
The Trump administration has fixated on the U.S. trade deficit. That’s the wrong metric—but that’s a topic for another time. Regardless, it’s been Trump’s singular obsession.
So, here’s a fun fact: do you know which region of the world the U.S. actually runs a trade surplus with?
The European Union.
That same trade—now endangered by Houthi attacks—is what ultimately fuels imports into Europe from the United States. It’s hardly a stretch to argue that keeping those sea lanes open supports American exports.
J.D. Vance, whom I’ve long considered one of the more intelligent people to ascend to high office in a generation or more, just cannot see the trap he’s set for himself. Like most American politicians, he just wants to blow stuff up.
And that might be the dumbest idea of all.
Selective Outrage, Selective Warfare
The Houthis are evil. There’s no doubt about that. They’ve caused endless suffering in Yemen—a country already shattered by war, famine, and political collapse.
But evil exists everywhere. Some of it is even inside the United States.
No one suggests we bomb the western provinces of China in response to its horrific treatment of the Uyghurs. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—and its deliberate use of kidnapping and rape as tools of war—is unimaginably evil. Yet the Trump administration has cozied up to Putin and his enablers.
The regime in Venezuela has driven its people to eat cats and dogs to survive. It has kidnapped, tortured, and murdered thousands of its own citizens. Trump wants to deport the few who have escaped, sending them back to face their tormentors.
Evil is everywhere. Mostly, we ignore it. And often, that’s the right choice.
News reports from war zones are always messy, but it appears that U.S. strikes on the Houthis have killed around sixty people. Every one of them had a mother, a father, siblings, children, friends. And every one of those people now hates the United States. Some will seek revenge. Some will get it.
And They Rule You
There is wisdom in protecting the sea lanes. Trade among nations raises living standards, fosters connection, and can build peace. And yes, there are moments when the use of military force is justified. But those moments are rare—far rarer, I think, than the people we elect are willing to admit.
These are hard decisions. Weighty ones. They demand seriousness, prudence, objectivity.
And they ought to be made by people who aren’t this dumb. People who aren’t suckers and losers.