Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth responded to Jeffrey Goldberg’s newest Sign chat leak on Wednesday morning.
It was reported on Monday that Jeffrey Goldberg, the anti-Trump editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, claimed he was unintentionally added to a safe Sign group chat the place high Trump administration officers mentioned delicate army operations in opposition to Iran-backed Houthi terrorists in Yemen.
In response to Jeffrey Goldberg, Nationwide Safety Adviser Mike Waltz, Protection Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Vice President JD Vance have been in a Sign group known as “Houthi PC small group,” discussing plans to strike terrorists in Yemen.
After the primary launch of chats from the Sign group, Jeffrey Goldberg vowed to launch the ‘conflict plans’ mentioned within the textual content chain.
Goldberg released the second spherical of messages from the chat group on Wednesday at it was clear that he over promised and below delivered.
No conflict plans have been mentioned within the textual content chain.
Full Sign textual content chain has been launched.
There’s nothing in it however the professionals and cons of placing now vs ready a month.
It is not conflict plans. It is not categorised data.
It is a dialog, and good to see cupboard members and staffers hashing out one of the best ways to maneuver ahead.… pic.twitter.com/OTNYgHr3VP
— Shawn Farash (@Shawn_Farash) March 26, 2025
Pete Hegseth destroyed Jeffrey Goldberg on Wednesday.
The Protection Secretary mocked Goldberg’s claims the group chat included “conflict plans” regardless that there was nearly zero particulars in regards to the Houthi strike.
Full response from Pete Hegseth:
So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic launched the so-called “conflict plans” and people “plans” embrace: No names. No targets. No places. No items. No routes. No sources. No strategies. And no categorised data.
These are some actually shitty conflict plans.
This solely proves one factor: Jeff Goldberg has by no means seen a conflict plan or an “assault plan” (as he now calls it). Not even shut.
As I sort this, my crew and I are touring the INDOPACOM area, assembly w/ Commanders (the fellows who make REAL “conflict plans”) and speaking to troops.
We are going to proceed to do our job, whereas the media does what it does greatest: peddle hoaxes.
So, let’s me get this straight. The Atlantic launched the so-called “conflict plans” and people “plans” embrace: No names. No targets. No places. No items. No routes. No sources. No strategies. And no categorised data.
These are some actually shitty conflict plans.
This solely proves…
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) March 26, 2025
