Signals Crossed: From Typo to Spy Show

---

We’re transforming your reading experience by removing all ads and focusing on high-quality, in-depth geopolitical analysis. Enjoy a cleaner, more enjoyable news experience, free from distractions. Help us continue to provide exceptional content by donating today. Your support ensures we remain independent and reader-funded. Visit linktapgo.com/thedumshow to contribute. Thank you for making The DUM News better than ever! – Matt

---

---

EDITORIAL AND OPINION – During my time serving in Naval Intelligence and working alongside multiple U.S. intelligence agencies over the span of a decade, operational security wasn’t just a guideline—it was a religion. I’ve sat in SCIFs with people who had more acronyms behind their names than letters, and not one of them would tolerate a slip-up when it came to classified communications. I’ve watched entire operations get paused over a single unsecured ping. That’s how seriously we took it. But that same career also taught me something else—never trust a source just because they wear a title or hold a press badge. I learned to verify everything. Healthy skepticism isn’t cynicism, it’s discipline. Especially when dealing with media outlets that have agendas buried beneath their bylines. Just because someone claims they were “mistakenly added” to a chat involving war plans doesn’t mean the story begins and ends there. In my world, it rarely did.

Operational security isn’t a suggestion. It’s a necessity. Anyone who’s ever worn a uniform, handled intelligence, or worked in national defense understands that seemingly minor slip-ups can carry massive consequences. That’s what makes this latest Signal chat scandal—featuring Pete Hegseth, JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Marco Rubio, and several other senior officials—so disturbing and, frankly, a little suspect. At the center of it is a man who shouldn’t have been there: Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.

Let’s be clear from the start. Mistakes do happen. People fat-finger phone numbers all the time, especially in rushed situations. But if you believe that one of the most private and secure group chats—created by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to coordinate responses in the Red Sea and discuss military operations involving the Houthis—accidentally added a mainstream media reporter, then you also believe the Titanic sunk because of a navigational typo.

THE LATEST DUM SHOW: Silent Revolt Begins, Hands Off Our Kids, Left Cozy With Socialists, Biden Reenters Spotlight

Goldberg didn’t just stumble across this chat like a tourist who took the wrong exit. He was added to a Signal thread reportedly titled “Houthi PC small group.” The participants weren’t low-level staffers. They were key players in American defense and intelligence: Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Rubio, Defense Secretary Hegseth, CIA Director Ratcliffe, DNI Gabbard, and Treasury Secretary Bessent. These aren’t folks who discuss grocery lists. These are people involved in strategic briefings, likely read in on contingency plans, airstrike coordinates, and weapon deployment strategies. So we’re now asked to believe that the same people entrusted with managing American response to Iranian proxies somehow hit “Jeffrey Goldberg” instead of a senior NSC advisor?

There’s another twist. Goldberg himself sat silently in the group for days, observing everything. He didn’t notify the administration. He didn’t recuse himself or warn the group they had mistakenly added a member of the press. He did what The Atlantic does best—he waited, watched, and turned it into content.

Now, let’s talk about The Atlantic and why skepticism is warranted. The publication’s reputation has taken hit after hit for spinning narratives. This is the same outlet that peddled the now-debunked Russian collusion saga. This is the same Goldberg who reported that Donald Trump called fallen American soldiers “losers”—a claim that was heavily disputed and lacked corroboration. This is the same media class that breathlessly reported on the “pee tape,” another fable in the Steele dossier fantasy. And it’s also worth noting that the owner of The Atlantic, Laurene Powell Jobs, has made headlines not for journalism but for her cozy associations—including attending events with Ghislaine Maxwell. That’s not a great look when your publication claims to be the conscience of American integrity.

During COVID, The Atlantic was among the loudest voices pushing fear, censorship, and attacks on dissenting voices, only to quietly walk back claims as new evidence emerged. They were wrong about lockdowns, wrong about school closures, and wrong about the effectiveness of cloth masks—yet no apologies were issued. Now we’re expected to believe that the editorial leadership at The Atlantic, with its track record of partisan spin and selective outrage, is purely acting in the public’s interest by exposing this chat leak?

There’s also something comically rich about the sudden pearl-clutching from the same media and political figures who ignored far worse. Remember when Obama spied on the Associated Press? Crickets. Remember when Hillary Clinton used a private server for classified communications and deleted tens of thousands of emails after they were subpoenaed? The media wrote it off as a non-story. And Joe Biden? He’s been leaking classified information since his Senate days, casually name-dropping SEAL Team 6 in speeches and allegedly sharing sensitive material with ghostwriters.

Now that it’s someone from the America First crowd, the outrage machine has fired up. Suddenly, the same people who shrugged at real, sustained national security violations want hearings, removals, and investigations because of a group chat. Let’s not pretend this isn’t political. Had a journalist from The Atlantic been mistakenly added to a chat involving the Biden administration, this story would’ve never seen the light of day—or would’ve been written as a humorous anecdote about technology and “the perils of encryption.”

Signal itself has been widely adopted by individuals in government, media, and even corporate leadership because of its high-end encryption and minimal data retention. The app doesn’t store user data, doesn’t keep chat histories on a server, and provides full end-to-end encryption. It’s a good option for unclassified but sensitive communication. It’s also not authorized for handling top-secret material, and everyone on that chat would know it. That makes the content shared—detailed strike information, war planning, timing, target acquisition, and weapons strategy—even more alarming. If this material wasn’t classified, it was damn close.

The real danger here isn’t just the Signal chat. It’s the political weaponization of security breaches. The media’s selective outrage always seems to align with partisan interests. One can’t help but recall the breathless coverage of Trump holding onto classified documents at Mar-a-Lago while ignoring Biden’s garage stash of sensitive material. No FBI raid for him. No breathless Rachel Maddow countdown to arrest. Just a quiet pass and a promise it was all an accident.

So what happens now? There will be calls for hearings, no doubt. Expect dramatic readings of chat transcripts and puffed-up demands for accountability. But don’t expect consistency. Don’t expect the same pundits demanding Hegseth’s head to explain why no one cared when classified CIA talking points were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Don’t expect Goldberg to clarify whether he shared anything from that chat with other journalists. Don’t expect The Atlantic to hold itself to any standard they demand of the people they report on. (CONTINUED BELOW)

There’s also a larger, more uncomfortable truth at play here. We live in a time where information, warfare, and media are no longer separate silos. Everything bleeds into everything. Journalists are no longer passive observers—they are actors in the drama. Politicians leak stories to gain power, journalists publish them to shape narratives, and both sides pretend the game isn’t rigged.

That’s what this Signal story represents. Not just a blunder. Not just an embarrassing lapse in judgment. But another example of how secure communication, political agendas, and media complicity collide in a perfect storm of hypocrisy. And we’re all supposed to pretend this is new.

Let’s not. Let’s remember that true operational security means knowing who’s in the room, who has access, and what they’ll do with it. Let’s also remember that some people only care about breaches when it suits their politics. And finally, let’s acknowledge that until we hold everyone to the same standard—media, government, and political parties alike—these “scandals” are nothing more than theater.