Jeffrey Goldberg rebuts Mike Waltz's false claims

On Sunday, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, made a direct and forceful rebuttal to National Security Adviser Mike Waltz’s claims regarding a group chat involving Trump administration officials.

Waltz had previously stated that Goldberg’s phone number was “sucked in” to his phone through “somebody else’s contact,” an assertion that left Goldberg both perplexed and concerned.

In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Goldberg addressed Waltz’s comments, asserting that “this isn’t The Matrix; phone numbers don’t just get sucked into other phones.”

Goldberg went on to clarify that the most straightforward explanation was likely the truth: “My phone number was in his phone, because my phone number is in his phone.”

His response was a simple yet direct dismissal of Waltz’s claim, which Goldberg found confusing at best and misleading at worst.

The controversy began earlier this week when it was revealed that Goldberg had been accidentally added to a group chat involving top Trump administration officials. 

The chat centered around an attack on Yemen, which raised serious national security concerns. Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat, which he described in a detailed report last Monday, sent ripples through Washington and sparked fears over how sensitive information was being handled.

The miscommunication over the group chat only intensified as the White House scrambled to downplay the situation, focusing on the difference between “attack plans” and “war plans” as a means to deflect from the broader security issue.

On Sunday, Goldberg wasn’t just responding to the technical question of how his phone number ended up in the wrong hands—he also took aim at Waltz’s broader narrative.

Waltz had claimed that he had “never met” Goldberg or communicated with him, a statement Goldberg vehemently denied.

In fact, Goldberg accused Waltz of being disingenuous, saying, “He’s telling everyone that he’s never met me or spoken to me, that’s simply not true.”

Goldberg was blunt in his assessment, understanding that Waltz’s comments were likely an attempt to deflect from the fallout of the group chat incident.

The exchange between Goldberg and Waltz is part of a broader tension between journalists and the Trump administration, where trust in the media has deteriorated to a point where such denials are not uncommon.

Waltz’s comments were not just an attempt to distance himself from Goldberg but a broader criticism of the media’s relationship with the president.

In a White House meeting on Tuesday, Waltz said that there were “a lot of journalists in this city who have made big names for themselves making up lies about this president,” referring to allegations against journalists related to the Russia investigation and other issues, including the controversy surrounding Gold Star families.

Goldberg’s response on Meet the Press clearly illustrated his frustration with the narrative being pushed by Waltz.

He suggested that the National Security Adviser’s efforts to rewrite the circumstances surrounding his involvement in the group chat were part of a broader pattern of hostility toward the press.

Goldberg, whose publication The Atlantic is known for its critical stance toward the Trump administration, emphasized that the explanation for his inclusion in the chat was simple and straightforward.

“The most obvious explanation is the explanation,” Goldberg remarked, reinforcing the notion that the phone number ended up in Waltz’s phone purely by chance.

For Goldberg, the situation was more than a simple mix-up—it represented the dangers of political officials playing fast and loose with the facts.

The idea that Waltz was trying to diminish the significance of the incident, downplaying its potential implications for national security, was deeply troubling to him.

It was a reminder that when it comes to sensitive issues like this one, clarity and transparency are paramount.

At the heart of the dispute was the question of accountability. The group chat incident highlighted just how easily sensitive information could be mishandled, and how individuals who might be privy to such information could easily become targets of political spin.

Goldberg’s inclusion in the chat and his subsequent reporting on the incident were evidence of the fine line that journalists walk when covering national security matters. 

It also demonstrated how the political narrative surrounding such events can quickly shift, with journalists becoming scapegoats for larger issues of government transparency and accountability.

Goldberg’s retort to Waltz also reflects the ongoing battle between the media and the Trump administration, which has often sought to delegitimize journalists and news outlets that challenge its narrative.

Waltz’s comments, casting doubt on Goldberg’s integrity and questioning his relationship with the president, were part of a broader strategy to discredit those who report critically on the administration.

For Goldberg, this was more than just a personal attack—it was a reflection of the administration’s broader disdain for independent journalism.

The situation with the group chat in question also highlights the broader challenges facing Washington as it grapples with the transparency of its actions and the management of sensitive information.

The White House’s attempt to downplay the significance of the leak by focusing on the semantics of “attack plans” versus “war plans” was a classic example of how language can be used to deflect from the core issues at hand.

The focus on technicalities, rather than addressing the substance of the issue, was a tactic designed to reduce public concern.

Waltz’s comments about the media—especially his claims regarding journalists “making up lies about this president”—speak to the larger cultural war between the media and the Trump administration.

Over the course of Trump’s presidency, the relationship between the media and the White House has been fraught with tension, with the administration frequently labeling unfavorable news stories as “fake news.”

In many ways, the group chat incident is another example of the administration’s attempt to manipulate the narrative surrounding critical national security matters. Goldberg’s frustration is not just with Waltz’s dismissal of the situation, but with the broader pattern of attempting to rewrite the facts when the administration’s actions are called into question.

Goldberg’s remarks were pointed, but they also illustrated the delicate balance that journalists must strike when reporting on national security issues. When information leaks, whether intentional or accidental, the consequences can be far-reaching.

The group chat involving top officials discussing an attack on Yemen was just one example of how sensitive information can be mishandled, leading to a firestorm of political fallout.

Journalists like Goldberg are tasked with holding the powerful accountable and ensuring that the public is informed, even when those in power try to spin the facts in their favor.

The incident has become a flashpoint in the broader conversation about media coverage of the Trump administration and the relationship between government officials and the press.

Waltz’s comments and Goldberg’s rebuttal are just the latest chapter in a long-running saga of mistrust between the White House and the media. As the situation develops, it’s clear that the role of journalists in holding the administration accountable will continue to be a contentious issue.

In the end, Goldberg’s simple and direct response to Waltz’s claims was not just an attempt to clear his name—it was a reminder of the importance of transparency and truth in an era where misinformation and political spin often dominate the discourse.

As the story unfolds, one thing is clear: the tension between the media and the Trump administration is far from over, and incidents like this one will continue to test the limits of press freedom and political accountability.

Goldberg’s defense of his reporting is a crucial part of the ongoing battle for truth in the face of political pressure.