Jeffrey Goldberg outed US attack plans for the Houthis: Brave or very stupid?

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic and a prominent Jewish voice in American journalism, dropped a bombshell this week: he was accidentally added to a Signal group chat where top Trump administration officials debated a military strike on Yemen’s Houthi rebels. His subsequent exposé, published Monday, has since ignited a firestorm.

Here's how it all went down.

On March 11, when Goldberg received a Signal connection request from someone identified as Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser. Two days later, he found himself in the “Houthi PC small group” chat, alongside bigwigs like Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, watching in real time as they hashed out plans for a March 15 airstrike. Hegseth even shared operational details, including targets and attack sequencing, hours before bombs fell in Sanaa.

Goldberg got a big fright when he realized that it wasn't a hoax, when the strike unfolded exactly as it was supposed to, according to the chat. He then left the chat (alerting its members via Signal’s automatic notification) and published his account. Thankfully he was smart enough not to include specifics like a CIA operative’s name to avoid harm.

The White House also got a fright. First Waltz took “full responsibility” on Fox News, then Trump dismissed it as “no big deal” to NBC, and Hegseth slammed Goldberg as “deceitful” to reporters. Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, insisted no classified “war plans” were shared, a claim Goldberg disputes, hinting at more unreleased texts.

So, brave or stupid? Let’s unpack it.

The Case for Brave

For many in the Jewish community, Goldberg’s scoop resonates as a gutsy stand for transparency, values rooted in Jewish ethics of accountability and justice. The Talmud (Chafetz Chaim) permits sharing information to right a wrong if it’s verified and serves the public good. Here, Goldberg met that bar: he confirmed the chat’s authenticity, contacted officials, and exposed a reckless use of an unsecure app for sensitive talks, violating Pentagon rules against transmitting non-public info on platforms like Signal.

Hezbollah, an Iran-backed foe of Israel and the U.S., operates near Yemen’s Houthis. If a hostile actor, not a journalist, had stumbled into that chat, the consequences for American troops or Israeli security could’ve been dire. “The public needed to know this malpractice,” Goldberg told The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, doubling down on the administration’s “shocking recklessness.” His past, covering Middle East conflicts and criticizing Trump’s military disdain (remember the 2020 “losers and suckers” story), lends credibility to his instinct to sound the alarm.

First Amendment advocates agree. “He didn’t seek this; it fell in his lap,” says Jane Kirtley, a media law expert at the University of Minnesota. “Publishing was his duty, legally protected as a passive recipient of newsworthy info.”

The Case for Stupid

But critics, especially Trump allies, see folly, not heroism. “Incredibly irresponsible and anti-American,” fumed Mercedes Schlapp, a former Trump aide, arguing Goldberg endangered national security. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called it “irresponsible press activity” on Fox News, suggesting he should’ve quietly alerted Waltz and moved on. Posts on X echo this: “He’s just after attention,” one user griped, “should’ve done the right thing and walked away.”

The stupidity argument hinges on risk. Signal’s encryption isn’t foolproof, phones can be hacked, and Goldberg’s possession of strike details, even briefly, could’ve leaked further if his device were compromised. There are also some legal gray areas: while he’s unlikely to face Espionage Act charges (experts say prosecution requires intent), holding onto sensitive texts sparked debate. “Why not release it all to prove it’s classified?” pressed Miller on The Bulwark. Goldberg’s huffy answer, “No, because they’re wrong”, dodged the question, which only gave more fuel to skeptics, who see it as a self-aggrandizing stunt by a Trump critic with a history of provocative scoops.

For Jewish readers, there’s an extra layer to this: Trump’s supporters often link The Atlantic’s criticisms to “liberal Jewish elites,” which could stir up antisemitic backlash. Did Goldberg misread how this would look, giving MAGA a weapon to use against him and, by extension, the Jewish community?

A Jewish Perspective

Goldberg’s background sets this story apart. He was born in Brooklyn, served in the Israeli army, used to be an Israeli citizen, and now calls himself a proud American. His 2006 book Prisoners dug into the Middle East’s conflicts, and now he’s caught up in one himself. Jewish teachings might make you wonder: Did he weigh the value of saving lives by pointing out this mistake, or did he carelessly stir up trouble? He says it’s the first one, telling Tim Miller on The Bulwark, “I’m dead serious about keeping Americans safe.” Still, some people online joke that if he’d stuck around in the chat longer, he could’ve uncovered more to fix things, even if that meant taking a bigger risk.

As of today, he just released more incriminating details.

Goldberg’s reveal of the Signal group was a big win for journalism, exposing a careless administration at a moment when Israel and Jews around the world are watching America closely. But it wasn’t a clean victory. He’s holding back on sharing all the messages, and there’s a chance this could backfire in ways he didn’t expect, plus he's gone up against possibly the most powerful man in the world, which is not going to end well for him.

Read Goldberg’s full account at The Atlantic.