April 2, 2025 • 26 mins
The SignalGate fallout isn’t just about an accidental group chat. It’s about the unraveling that happens when powerful people panic, deny, and deflect—all while trying to hold onto credibility in real time. This episode unpacks how a single journalist ended up in a military planning thread with top Trump officials, and why the aftermath says more about the communication breakdown inside the administration than it does about the strike itself. From strategic missteps to ethical high-wire acts, this one’s a case study in what not to do when a digital leak turns into a national headline.
There’s also a deeper layer at play: the psychological and political reasons behind denial, the misuse of secure platforms, and how blame is conveniently passed down the chain. For communicators and leaders, the fallout becomes a cautionary tale—a chance to stress-test your own crisis readiness and rethink what accountability should actually look like when power is on the line.
In this episode:
- Why denial is a weak (but often used) PR strategy in high-stakes situations
- The specific missteps that turned a comms error into a reputational mess
- How secure communication isn’t just an IT issue—it’s a leadership one
Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider’s hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.
Follow Molly → @MollyMcPherson
Subscribe to PR Breakdown on Substack → prbreakdown.media
Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.
Follow & Connect with Molly:
- https://www.youtube.com/mollymcpherson
- https://www.tiktok.com/@mollybmcpherson
- https://www.instagram.com/molly.mcpherson/
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/mollymcpherson/
© 2025 The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Molly McPherson (00:06):
The title says it all.
Inside the messaging meltdownof the signal chat fallout from
denial to damage control.
But that title doesn't evencome close to the title in the
Atlantic written by JeffreyGoldberg.
The Trump administrationaccidentally texted me its war
(00:26):
plans.
I don't know the last time youremember the Atlantic coming out
with a story that grabbed theheadlines for a number of days,
but this one certainly did thejob On this episode.
Let's break down the meltdown.
Hey there, welcome to the PRBreakdown Podcast.
I'm your host, Molly McPherson,and, as I said, that article
(00:47):
title in the Atlantic is a greattitle, but the article itself.
Let me bring you back a week.
I don't know if this is quitethe story where I ask you, where
were you when you read or heardabout the Atlantic article by
Jeffrey Goldberg, about theAtlantic article by Jeffrey
Goldberg?
But I was traveling.
(01:07):
I was in Chicago, I was out oftown for a work event, I was
speaking at a company, acorporate event, and it was
fabulous.
By the way, it was a two-parttrip.
The first half of the trip Iwas visiting my daughter,
Kathleen.
We were prepping for aninterview and also shopping for
that first interview Wardrobecapsule.
But the second half involved meparticipating in a corporate
event.
It was a corporate event inChicago, downtown, Great setup.
(01:31):
It was a great event and mydaughter attended that event as
well.
But this story was on my mindand I didn't really want to
weave it into this event, thoughI did touch on it because
here's the disclaimer.
Touch on it because here's thedisclaimer it's political.
I wanted to come up this storywithout a bias.
I don't want to fall on oneside or the other.
(01:51):
However, it is impossible totalk about this story without
looking and scrutinizing at whatthe Republicans are doing here.
So if you can try to remove thepolitical bias out of this, I
don't want to share it via bias.
Let's look at this as anonpartisan take at politics.
(02:16):
I'm coming in strictly in a PRcrisis management, reputation
management mode, but if you knowme and you know my ethics and
you know just my principle andcommunication, why this was such
a fail.
Now the Atlantic story.
This piece is good, One of thereasons why I loved it.
(02:37):
Not only was it like a bombdrop going out and you knew it
was going to have legs, it wasclever, it had a touch of snark
to it as well, Like you couldpicture yourself as Jeffrey
Goldberg and he brought youthrough so many of the stages.
And what I didn't trulyappreciate until days later when
I read it again, is not only ishe writing a story which isn't
(03:00):
easy, and he's writing it ondeadline because they likely
wanted to get it out because theattack already happened, so
they wanted to tighten thattimeline.
They were probably researchingit, vetting it, making sure that
they weren't breaching securityby what they were sharing.
(03:20):
And certainly in Goldberg'smeasured writing they did not
include all the informationinitially.
Now, once the administrationstarted backpedaling and denial
and pointing fingers, thencertainly the Atlantic came out
and released more of informationfrom the chat.
(03:41):
I should also say that JeffreyGoldberg does a really good job
giving credit to a contributorand that is Shane Harris.
So it sounds like Shane was,you know, back at the office
like researching like crazy,while Jeffrey Goldberg was
looking at this chat in realtime.
I'm not going to go too deepinto it.
It's a big news story.
(04:01):
If you haven't heard about it,just hit pause on the podcast
and then come on back, but it'sessentially everywhere but the
disclosure by the Atlantic ofthe Signal Group chat, where
senior Trump administrationofficials and figures discuss
plans for a military strike onHouthi targets in Yemen.
It did not ignite a firestormbecause of the attack itself.
(04:26):
It was the crisis PR meltdownthat happened.
Jeffrey Goldberg had to be verycareful in these sensitive
discussions when he wasreleasing this story.
The fact that he was able to doit and report on a breach at
this level just makes it a trulyextraordinary story.
(04:49):
Now the immediate aftermath sawa flurry of statements from
officials, administration, butalso the people who were on the
chat itself.
I mentioned I was in Chicagowhen this story hit.
I spent the morning in thehotel working, but it was a
chance that I had to put thetelevision on.
(05:10):
I normally don't work with thetelevision on, but not only did
I watch the coverage in themorning, I was watching Morning
Joe because they had theroundtable.
They had a big roundtable,which I like, and it wasn't
really a roundtable.
It had people on the screen andthey also had Jeffrey Goldberg.
I wanted to hear straight fromhim.
So that's the first time Iheard from Jeffrey Goldberg.
But also I had a chance towatch the hearing the Senate
(05:32):
hearing, Director of NationalIntelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and
CIA Director John Ratcliffe,who did not come off as a CIA
operative or a very good one,and it was an interesting watch.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I used an appropriate channel to communicate
sensitive information.
It was permissible to do so.
I didn't transfer anyclassified information and, at
the end of the day, what is mostimportant is that the mission
was a remarkable success.
Molly McPherson (06:02):
Now what I'm interested in was the denial and
the deflection.
I want to know who said whatand why they said it, because
I'm always looking to readbetween the lines to see what's
going on.
What I'm looking for inparticular is who's going to be
the fall guy Now, presidentTrump.
I'm going to list some of theclaims, charges, deflections,
(06:26):
denials that the administrationput out and a lot of the
characters.
We'll call them a cast ofcharacters.
So he led the charge byrepeatedly asserting quote it
wasn't classified information.
That is the talking point outof the administration right now.
It wasn't classified.
He dismissed the entire episode.
(06:47):
I don't know about downplaying.
The press upplays it.
I think it's all a witch hunt.
That's all.
I think it's a witch hunt.
I wasn't involved with it, Iwasn't there and labeled the
journalist, jeffrey Goldberg, asa quote total bleezbag, which I
found interesting becausetypically Trump uses that type
(07:10):
of derogatory language for women.
He only calls women those typesof terms Hillary Clinton, rosie
O'Donnell, megyn Kelly at atime, but now she's completely
back over on the other side.
Trump also suggested that quotesignal could be defective, to
be honest with you, as the andquote likely explanation for it.
(07:32):
He downplayed the severity ofit.
He called it quote the onlyhiccup in two months of his
administration.
And then he also attempted toshift blame by suggesting that,
quote Joe Biden should have donethis attack on Yemen.
Let's get into Pete Hegseth.
Before I get into this Pete,let's just do a quick sidebar on
(07:54):
the other Pete, pete Buttigieg.
The other piece of content thatI saw immediately after the
Atlantic like the algorithmserves me, it dishes me hard was
Pete Buttigieg's social mediapost Drops an F-bomb, drops an
S-bomb, but he's measured, he'scalm.
(08:16):
He's putting it out there in avery direct signal that I think
this guy is going to run withouta doubt.
He's talking about his militaryservice.
He's talking about theimportance of keeping
information secure, specificallyaround any type of military
action.
He's talking about incompetence.
He's talking about that livesare at risk.
(08:39):
It really was a spot-onresponse from a candidate whose
primary objective for anyonefrom theetives, that's a signal
that he was messaging towardshis way back into politics.
(09:11):
Just calling that one rightthere.
So let's go back to the otherPete, defense Secretary Pete
Hegseth Now.
He was the key participant inthe chat.
He stated unequivocally thechat.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
He stated unequivocally no units, no
locations, no routes, no flightpaths no sources, no methods, no
classified information.
Molly McPherson (09:37):
There wasn't a specific name in there.
There wasn't a specific streetaddress, location, but he
created the no list.
It was classified information.
Even though there weren't namesin it, it's still classified
information.
It doesn't mean that it has toinclude names to be classified.
What the Republicans are tryingto do, specifically Pete
Hegseth, is attempting to draw adistinction by claiming that
(09:59):
details were shared, were anattack plan rather than a war
plan.
Okay, again, semantics.
Hegseth later claimed that hisdisclosures were intended to
quote provide updates in realtime.
Justify is why he was doing it.
And they had to use a signalapp because it was in real time.
That is a statement thatstrains credibility, given the
(10:26):
pre-strike nature of theinformation and the chat.
The next character in our cast,national Security Advisor and
fall guy, michael Waltz.
He's the one who created thechat.
He is taking the fall for thechat.
He offered a variety ofexplanations.
(10:47):
He initially suggested thatGoldberg may have been quote
sucked into and quote the group.
He also claimed he was not aconspiracy theorist.
He later stated that quote astaffer wasn't responsible.
He was taking fullresponsibility, while also
claiming he had quote nevertexted Mr Goldberg and that he
(11:07):
wasn't on his phone at the timeof the chat and even after
acknowledging the mistake, waltzmaintained that all the
information in the exchange wasunclassified.
What's interesting is thatMichael Waltz by but falling on
the sword and takingresponsibility and not blaming a
staffer.
There is a crisis managementmove in there.
(11:28):
I call these crazy Ivansstraight out of Hunt for Red
October, one of my favoritemovies of all time.
One, one ping only.
You're going to turn into it.
You're going to turn into thecrisis.
You're going to turn into themissile that's coming.
He's not going to name thestaffers.
(11:48):
If you have access to New YorkTimes that's where I was reading
it you'll see that stafferswere involved Alex Wong, the
deputy to Michael Waltz.
He was tasked with pullingtogether a Tiger team.
Also, dan Katz he wasrepresenting Treasury Secretary
Scott Bessard.
Dan Caldwell, representingHegseth.
(12:08):
Andy Baker, representing VicePresident JD Vance.
Mike Needham, counselor to theState Department.
So there were other staffers onthere.
They could have figured it outas well.
So it may have been the stafferMichael Waltz staffer who made
the error when putting the chattogether, and he has no choice.
Waltz has no choice.
Trump has said you, my friend,are going to be the person who
(12:31):
takes the fall on that.
Then there is Secretary ofState Marco Rubio.
Called it quote a big mistakethat quote someone made in
adding a journalist.
He echoed the administrationline that quote there were no
war plans on there and suggestedthe incident could lead to
reforms.
Rubio wants to get in and hewants to get out.
(12:53):
Then there's Vice President JDVance, who has an additional
layer of stress on this textchat being exposed because it
showed that he publicly, or atleast in this group chat, went
against his boss, presidentTrump, which is not something
that people do in this cabinet,in this administration.
So he had concerns about thetiming and rationale for the
(13:17):
strikes.
He also worried about thepotential inconsistency with the
president's message on Europe.
He expressed a sentiment of notwanting to bail Europe out
again, aligning with theadministration's argument.
Here are the response tacticsby the Trump administration.
Imagine this as a talking pointsheet.
(13:39):
This is their plan of attack.
At the top, the key messagedownplay the significance of the
story, the significance of thechat.
You'll notice in a lot ofTrump's quotes he is
consistently downplaying it.
He's referring to it as aglitch.
(13:59):
And it wasn't classifiedinformation.
I was on Reddit I was onmilitary Reddit the amount of
people lighting up over this andeveryone is saying the same
thing If we did this we'd be inprison, we'd be in Leavenworth,
they'd be out defend and deflectwithout pointing it somewhere.
Trump, he blame shifted, hecalled the app itself that it
(14:20):
could be defective, as I said,was sucked into it, which
(14:46):
Jeffrey Goldberg himself said hewas worried that it was like a
media gadfly, like a trap to getthe journalists sucked in to
report incorrectly and then theadministration could say see,
journalists, they'reuntrustworthy.
Another tactic attacking thecredibility of the source.
This is where it's difficult.
Of all the journalists and ofall the media outlets that you
(15:08):
want to go after, the Atlanticis a tough one to go after.
First of all, it's print, it'sestablished, it's privately
owned.
There isn't a Jeff Bezos whoowns it.
He has the bona fides inWashington DC.
Jeffrey Goldberg as a writer,he's a good writer.
He's been in the Beltway foryears.
(15:28):
He's been considered a trustedjournalist.
There's never been storiesabout him, ethical challenges at
all.
Jeffrey Goldberg on Morning Joesaid we're privately owned and
we have over a millionsubscribers and growing.
That, particularly nowadays inthe media landscape, is pretty
(15:49):
strong.
He's a very difficult source toattack.
That is problematic.
So these instances that I justoutlined demonstrate a
multi-pronged approach to denialand deflection.
That's what it looks like infull display.
The administration was aimingto minimize the severity of the
(16:10):
situation.
They denied any classifiedinformation was a compromise.
They shifted the blame awayfrom senior officials, except
for poor Michael Waltz.
They discredited the reportingand they redirected the focus
towards perceived success of theTrump administration.
Was this push into Greenland?
(16:30):
In the same news cycle, ushaVance, jd Vance's wife, was
(16:51):
scheduled to go to Greenland, orthat her plans were released,
that she was going to Greenlandwith her young son and this was
a traveling group that was goingto be met with a lot of
resistance.
The administration could notmove from these talking points,
from the signal gate, onto apositive story.
(17:13):
They had to go dive headfirststraight into the Greenland
story.
Bad luck, bad timing, bad moves, bad response and bad
communication by discussing anattack plan on a commercial app
and then inadvertently adding ajournalist.
Now denial why do people refuseto acknowledge mistakes?
(17:37):
Denial it's a psychologicalstrategy to avoid anxiety,
emotional pain, shame it's whenpeople don't want to accept
uncomfortable truths.
It's usually considered animmature defense mechanism
because it's there to regulatethe emotions.
(17:58):
People do it when they'restressed, when there's fear.
You know I say fear is behindalmost every crisis.
The denial is something thatsoothes it because you don't
have to face it.
Now, why do public figures usedenial?
They do it to protect theirimage and to avoid
(18:19):
accountability.
The cast of characters on thattech staff if you could see
their feet under the water, theyare peddling like crazy because
they are worried about not onlytheir place in the
administration, the level oftrust that President Trump will
have with them.
Admitting mistakes could harmtheir reputation or career
(18:40):
prospects.
Avoiding accountability allowsthem to sidestep any
consequences.
They want to deny that it wasclassified information because
they don't want to have tomanage the fallout from that and
take the consequence of sharingclassified information.
There actually comes a legalconsequence with that.
There's also psychologicalvulnerabilities, insecurity,
(19:03):
fear of failure, particularly ifyou're dealing with a
narcissist.
There's also psychologicalvulnerabilities, insecurity,
fear of failure, particularly ifyou're dealing with a
narcissist.
That's going to be part of thecoping mechanism.
But it is also strategicmanipulation.
They needed to use denial intheir defense to just get
through this and hope thatsomething else happens in the
news cycle.
(19:23):
Now there is a psychologicalterm when overconfidence in
one's abilities can result indenial of limitations or
mistakes, and that is theDunning-Kruger effect.
How many of you remember thatfrom a college class or from a
high school class?
So that's why you're going tosee a lot of denial as a
(19:43):
strategic mechanism in the upperlevels, like politics and
celebrity people in the publiceye, and while it does provide
temporary relief, it can hinderproblems, it leads to long-term
damage.
Let's talk about media ethicsand journalistic integrity.
(20:04):
Did the Atlantic get it right?
Did they do the right thing?
Did Jeffrey Goldberg do theright thing?
Now worth noting, he is theeditor-in-chief.
This isn't a cub reporter whowent rogue.
You know that the Atlanticvetted every single thing that
they did.
He felt and addressed in hispiece.
He was justified.
(20:25):
He knew, like the Atlanticlikely knew, that they were
going to face scrutiny regardingthe decision to publish the
information sensitive militaryinformation.
The magazine defended it as anecessity to inform the public
as a potential national securitybreach.
I would have to agree with that.
I mean this is a massivesecurity breach.
(20:45):
Lives are on the line.
Also, they chose not to publishsensitive details.
Eventually it came out becauseof the denial tactic by the
administration.
But Jeffrey Goldberg statedthat they withheld certain
information, such as the name ofan active CIA officer mentioned
in the chat and specificoperational details that could
(21:06):
genuinely compromise security.
Now some might argue is heacting as a whistleblower or is
it for clout and subscribers?
Okay, there could be a pushthere.
Jeffrey Goldberg wasinterviewed, it seemed like by
everyone.
He was doing a lot ofinterviews, you know, first with
(21:27):
the Atlantic and then he wenteverywhere.
I don't blame the PR departmentfor setting it up they were
working overtime as well andthere's no doubt that the
subscriptions went up because somany people probably even
wanted to get behind the paywalland read it.
They're hoping that people willread it once and then stick
with the Atlantic, which likelywill happen.
(21:48):
I mean, there's going to be aresidual, probably uptick in
their subscribers, which is likeyay, rah, rah for journalism,
because that's an industrythat's struggling right now.
So from an ethical point ofview, you do have to give it to
Goldberg and the Atlantic.
They withheld information andhe stated.
Goldberg stated how difficultit was for him to decide what to
(22:11):
do and how.
He really questioned theveracity of what was happening
there.
The veracity of what washappening there and he only
fact-checked it.
When he saw that there wasindeed military action is when
he decided to publish.
Now, what are the lessons forcommunicators?
If you are part of acommunication team, is the
cascade of denial and deflection.
(22:33):
It definitely is a strategicdevice used to control the
narrative, but it always comeswith problems.
It always comes with aconsequence.
Transparency is key.
It builds trust.
Obstification erodes it.
The contrast between theadministration downplaying the
(22:57):
incident and the detailedoperational information that was
revealed damages public trust.
The Republicans took a hit.
The administration took a hit.
There's no consistency in yourmessaging.
The explanations are shifting.
You're trying to minimize theseriousness.
You're creating confusion.
The seriousness You're creatingconfusion.
What that does is underminecredibility of the office.
(23:20):
People see through it and ifyou are an administration, you
want to understandclassification, you want to
understand security.
It's non-negotiable forleadership.
That goes hand in hand withleadership.
So it's very, very difficult tobe a leader, to be a part of an
administration, a cabinet, anddismiss a breach like this.
(23:46):
Attacking the media Again, thepress always gets attacked.
People are so used to that as atactic.
But attacking it here?
Wrong publication, wrongjournalist.
In these cases you have tofocus on accountability.
You have to focus on correctiveaction.
Somewhat understandable why theTrump administration is not
(24:08):
going to do that.
However, for all of youlistening, you don't want to go
that playbook route ofdeflection and denial.
Moving forward some takeawaysfrom this.
If you're a leader, acommunicator, now's a really,
really good time to champion aculture of security awareness.
Why not newsjack this story?
Perfect time to look at yourown SOPs, your standard
operating procedures for yoursecurity measures.
(24:30):
Also, comprehensive training.
Do a tabletop, do a trainingwhen you're using secure
messaging.
Have enforceable, clearcommunication policies.
Be an advocate for securetechnology in your office.
This is a great example why youneed it.
Develop protocols for groupcommunications.
How do we communicate now onsocial media, on chats?
(24:53):
You do want to foster opencommunication at your
organization, but you also wantto foster secure communication
and it's good to have audits ofcommunication at your company
and, most importantly, develop acrisis communication plan.
You need to maintain controlover the message.
You need to maintain controlover the messenger.
(25:16):
You need to maintain controlover the messaging app.
The patterns from the falloutof the SignalGate crisis that
denial, deflection and attemptsto discredit are common in
crisis situations, but they areineffective in the long run.
In other words, don't do it.
(25:38):
That's our breakdown of theSignal Gate crisis.
Thanks so much for listening.
If you want more insightfulanalysis on navigating the
complexities of PR and crisismanagement, particularly in the
public space, which is where weall inhabit, you can listen to
me every week and you can alsofind me on Substack.
(26:00):
That is now my communicationhub.
I have an area for free members.
You can follow me there forfree or you can subscribe to my
PR breakdown.
That's where I go into moreextended commentary and a little
more off the record on how Ifeel about a lot of these crises
as they are happening.
I get a lot of comments onsocial media, people asking me
(26:23):
questions all the time.
Sometimes I just don't have thetime to do it on particular
social media apps, but I bringit all in to Substack, so you
want to check me out there.
You can find me by name onSubstack and my publication is
the PR Breakdown.
That's all for this week.
Bye for now.
The title says it all.
Inside the messaging meltdownof the signal chat fallout from
denial to damage control.
But that title doesn't evencome close to the title in the
Atlantic written by JeffreyGoldberg.
The Trump administrationaccidentally texted me its war
(00:26):
plans.
I don't know the last time youremember the Atlantic coming out
with a story that grabbed theheadlines for a number of days,
but this one certainly did thejob On this episode.
Let's break down the meltdown.
Hey there, welcome to the PRBreakdown Podcast.
I'm your host, Molly McPherson,and, as I said, that article
(00:47):
title in the Atlantic is a greattitle, but the article itself.
Let me bring you back a week.
I don't know if this is quitethe story where I ask you, where
were you when you read or heardabout the Atlantic article by
Jeffrey Goldberg, about theAtlantic article by Jeffrey
Goldberg?
But I was traveling.
(01:07):
I was in Chicago, I was out oftown for a work event, I was
speaking at a company, acorporate event, and it was
fabulous.
By the way, it was a two-parttrip.
The first half of the trip Iwas visiting my daughter,
Kathleen.
We were prepping for aninterview and also shopping for
that first interview Wardrobecapsule.
But the second half involved meparticipating in a corporate
event.
It was a corporate event inChicago, downtown, Great setup.
(01:31):
It was a great event and mydaughter attended that event as
well.
But this story was on my mindand I didn't really want to
weave it into this event, thoughI did touch on it because
here's the disclaimer.
Touch on it because here's thedisclaimer it's political.
I wanted to come up this storywithout a bias.
I don't want to fall on oneside or the other.
(01:51):
However, it is impossible totalk about this story without
looking and scrutinizing at whatthe Republicans are doing here.
So if you can try to remove thepolitical bias out of this, I
don't want to share it via bias.
Let's look at this as anonpartisan take at politics.
(02:16):
I'm coming in strictly in a PRcrisis management, reputation
management mode, but if you knowme and you know my ethics and
you know just my principle andcommunication, why this was such
a fail.
Now the Atlantic story.
This piece is good, One of thereasons why I loved it.
(02:37):
Not only was it like a bombdrop going out and you knew it
was going to have legs, it wasclever, it had a touch of snark
to it as well, Like you couldpicture yourself as Jeffrey
Goldberg and he brought youthrough so many of the stages.
And what I didn't trulyappreciate until days later when
I read it again, is not only ishe writing a story which isn't
(03:00):
easy, and he's writing it ondeadline because they likely
wanted to get it out because theattack already happened, so
they wanted to tighten thattimeline.
They were probably researchingit, vetting it, making sure that
they weren't breaching securityby what they were sharing.
(03:20):
And certainly in Goldberg'smeasured writing they did not
include all the informationinitially.
Now, once the administrationstarted backpedaling and denial
and pointing fingers, thencertainly the Atlantic came out
and released more of informationfrom the chat.
(03:41):
I should also say that JeffreyGoldberg does a really good job
giving credit to a contributorand that is Shane Harris.
So it sounds like Shane was,you know, back at the office
like researching like crazy,while Jeffrey Goldberg was
looking at this chat in realtime.
I'm not going to go too deepinto it.
It's a big news story.
(04:01):
If you haven't heard about it,just hit pause on the podcast
and then come on back, but it'sessentially everywhere but the
disclosure by the Atlantic ofthe Signal Group chat, where
senior Trump administrationofficials and figures discuss
plans for a military strike onHouthi targets in Yemen.
It did not ignite a firestormbecause of the attack itself.
(04:26):
It was the crisis PR meltdownthat happened.
Jeffrey Goldberg had to be verycareful in these sensitive
discussions when he wasreleasing this story.
The fact that he was able to doit and report on a breach at
this level just makes it a trulyextraordinary story.
(04:49):
Now the immediate aftermath sawa flurry of statements from
officials, administration, butalso the people who were on the
chat itself.
I mentioned I was in Chicagowhen this story hit.
I spent the morning in thehotel working, but it was a
chance that I had to put thetelevision on.
(05:10):
I normally don't work with thetelevision on, but not only did
I watch the coverage in themorning, I was watching Morning
Joe because they had theroundtable.
They had a big roundtable,which I like, and it wasn't
really a roundtable.
It had people on the screen andthey also had Jeffrey Goldberg.
I wanted to hear straight fromhim.
So that's the first time Iheard from Jeffrey Goldberg.
But also I had a chance towatch the hearing the Senate
(05:32):
hearing, Director of NationalIntelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and
CIA Director John Ratcliffe,who did not come off as a CIA
operative or a very good one,and it was an interesting watch.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
I used an appropriate channel to communicate
sensitive information.
It was permissible to do so.
I didn't transfer anyclassified information and, at
the end of the day, what is mostimportant is that the mission
was a remarkable success.
Molly McPherson (06:02):
Now what I'm interested in was the denial and
the deflection.
I want to know who said whatand why they said it, because
I'm always looking to readbetween the lines to see what's
going on.
What I'm looking for inparticular is who's going to be
the fall guy Now, presidentTrump.
I'm going to list some of theclaims, charges, deflections,
(06:26):
denials that the administrationput out and a lot of the
characters.
We'll call them a cast ofcharacters.
So he led the charge byrepeatedly asserting quote it
wasn't classified information.
That is the talking point outof the administration right now.
It wasn't classified.
He dismissed the entire episode.
(06:47):
I don't know about downplaying.
The press upplays it.
I think it's all a witch hunt.
That's all.
I think it's a witch hunt.
I wasn't involved with it, Iwasn't there and labeled the
journalist, jeffrey Goldberg, asa quote total bleezbag, which I
found interesting becausetypically Trump uses that type
(07:10):
of derogatory language for women.
He only calls women those typesof terms Hillary Clinton, rosie
O'Donnell, megyn Kelly at atime, but now she's completely
back over on the other side.
Trump also suggested that quotesignal could be defective, to
be honest with you, as the andquote likely explanation for it.
(07:32):
He downplayed the severity ofit.
He called it quote the onlyhiccup in two months of his
administration.
And then he also attempted toshift blame by suggesting that,
quote Joe Biden should have donethis attack on Yemen.
Let's get into Pete Hegseth.
Before I get into this Pete,let's just do a quick sidebar on
(07:54):
the other Pete, pete Buttigieg.
The other piece of content thatI saw immediately after the
Atlantic like the algorithmserves me, it dishes me hard was
Pete Buttigieg's social mediapost Drops an F-bomb, drops an
S-bomb, but he's measured, he'scalm.
(08:16):
He's putting it out there in avery direct signal that I think
this guy is going to run withouta doubt.
He's talking about his militaryservice.
He's talking about theimportance of keeping
information secure, specificallyaround any type of military
action.
He's talking about incompetence.
He's talking about that livesare at risk.
(08:39):
It really was a spot-onresponse from a candidate whose
primary objective for anyonefrom theetives, that's a signal
that he was messaging towardshis way back into politics.
(09:11):
Just calling that one rightthere.
So let's go back to the otherPete, defense Secretary Pete
Hegseth Now.
He was the key participant inthe chat.
He stated unequivocally thechat.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
He stated unequivocally no units, no
locations, no routes, no flightpaths no sources, no methods, no
classified information.
Molly McPherson (09:37):
There wasn't a specific name in there.
There wasn't a specific streetaddress, location, but he
created the no list.
It was classified information.
Even though there weren't namesin it, it's still classified
information.
It doesn't mean that it has toinclude names to be classified.
What the Republicans are tryingto do, specifically Pete
Hegseth, is attempting to draw adistinction by claiming that
(09:59):
details were shared, were anattack plan rather than a war
plan.
Okay, again, semantics.
Hegseth later claimed that hisdisclosures were intended to
quote provide updates in realtime.
Justify is why he was doing it.
And they had to use a signalapp because it was in real time.
That is a statement thatstrains credibility, given the
(10:26):
pre-strike nature of theinformation and the chat.
The next character in our cast,national Security Advisor and
fall guy, michael Waltz.
He's the one who created thechat.
He is taking the fall for thechat.
He offered a variety ofexplanations.
(10:47):
He initially suggested thatGoldberg may have been quote
sucked into and quote the group.
He also claimed he was not aconspiracy theorist.
He later stated that quote astaffer wasn't responsible.
He was taking fullresponsibility, while also
claiming he had quote nevertexted Mr Goldberg and that he
(11:07):
wasn't on his phone at the timeof the chat and even after
acknowledging the mistake, waltzmaintained that all the
information in the exchange wasunclassified.
What's interesting is thatMichael Waltz by but falling on
the sword and takingresponsibility and not blaming a
staffer.
There is a crisis managementmove in there.
(11:28):
I call these crazy Ivansstraight out of Hunt for Red
October, one of my favoritemovies of all time.
One, one ping only.
You're going to turn into it.
You're going to turn into thecrisis.
You're going to turn into themissile that's coming.
He's not going to name thestaffers.
(11:48):
If you have access to New YorkTimes that's where I was reading
it you'll see that stafferswere involved Alex Wong, the
deputy to Michael Waltz.
He was tasked with pullingtogether a Tiger team.
Also, dan Katz he wasrepresenting Treasury Secretary
Scott Bessard.
Dan Caldwell, representingHegseth.
(12:08):
Andy Baker, representing VicePresident JD Vance.
Mike Needham, counselor to theState Department.
So there were other staffers onthere.
They could have figured it outas well.
So it may have been the stafferMichael Waltz staffer who made
the error when putting the chattogether, and he has no choice.
Waltz has no choice.
Trump has said you, my friend,are going to be the person who
(12:31):
takes the fall on that.
Then there is Secretary ofState Marco Rubio.
Called it quote a big mistakethat quote someone made in
adding a journalist.
He echoed the administrationline that quote there were no
war plans on there and suggestedthe incident could lead to
reforms.
Rubio wants to get in and hewants to get out.
(12:53):
Then there's Vice President JDVance, who has an additional
layer of stress on this textchat being exposed because it
showed that he publicly, or atleast in this group chat, went
against his boss, presidentTrump, which is not something
that people do in this cabinet,in this administration.
So he had concerns about thetiming and rationale for the
(13:17):
strikes.
He also worried about thepotential inconsistency with the
president's message on Europe.
He expressed a sentiment of notwanting to bail Europe out
again, aligning with theadministration's argument.
Here are the response tacticsby the Trump administration.
Imagine this as a talking pointsheet.
(13:39):
This is their plan of attack.
At the top, the key messagedownplay the significance of the
story, the significance of thechat.
You'll notice in a lot ofTrump's quotes he is
consistently downplaying it.
He's referring to it as aglitch.
(13:59):
And it wasn't classifiedinformation.
I was on Reddit I was onmilitary Reddit the amount of
people lighting up over this andeveryone is saying the same
thing If we did this we'd be inprison, we'd be in Leavenworth,
they'd be out defend and deflectwithout pointing it somewhere.
Trump, he blame shifted, hecalled the app itself that it
(14:20):
could be defective, as I said,was sucked into it, which
(14:46):
Jeffrey Goldberg himself said hewas worried that it was like a
media gadfly, like a trap to getthe journalists sucked in to
report incorrectly and then theadministration could say see,
journalists, they'reuntrustworthy.
Another tactic attacking thecredibility of the source.
This is where it's difficult.
Of all the journalists and ofall the media outlets that you
(15:08):
want to go after, the Atlanticis a tough one to go after.
First of all, it's print, it'sestablished, it's privately
owned.
There isn't a Jeff Bezos whoowns it.
He has the bona fides inWashington DC.
Jeffrey Goldberg as a writer,he's a good writer.
He's been in the Beltway foryears.
(15:28):
He's been considered a trustedjournalist.
There's never been storiesabout him, ethical challenges at
all.
Jeffrey Goldberg on Morning Joesaid we're privately owned and
we have over a millionsubscribers and growing.
That, particularly nowadays inthe media landscape, is pretty
(15:49):
strong.
He's a very difficult source toattack.
That is problematic.
So these instances that I justoutlined demonstrate a
multi-pronged approach to denialand deflection.
That's what it looks like infull display.
The administration was aimingto minimize the severity of the
(16:10):
situation.
They denied any classifiedinformation was a compromise.
They shifted the blame awayfrom senior officials, except
for poor Michael Waltz.
They discredited the reportingand they redirected the focus
towards perceived success of theTrump administration.
Was this push into Greenland?
(16:30):
In the same news cycle, ushaVance, jd Vance's wife, was
(16:51):
scheduled to go to Greenland, orthat her plans were released,
that she was going to Greenlandwith her young son and this was
a traveling group that was goingto be met with a lot of
resistance.
The administration could notmove from these talking points,
from the signal gate, onto apositive story.
(17:13):
They had to go dive headfirststraight into the Greenland
story.
Bad luck, bad timing, bad moves, bad response and bad
communication by discussing anattack plan on a commercial app
and then inadvertently adding ajournalist.
Now denial why do people refuseto acknowledge mistakes?
(17:37):
Denial it's a psychologicalstrategy to avoid anxiety,
emotional pain, shame it's whenpeople don't want to accept
uncomfortable truths.
It's usually considered animmature defense mechanism
because it's there to regulatethe emotions.
(17:58):
People do it when they'restressed, when there's fear.
You know I say fear is behindalmost every crisis.
The denial is something thatsoothes it because you don't
have to face it.
Now, why do public figures usedenial?
They do it to protect theirimage and to avoid
(18:19):
accountability.
The cast of characters on thattech staff if you could see
their feet under the water, theyare peddling like crazy because
they are worried about not onlytheir place in the
administration, the level oftrust that President Trump will
have with them.
Admitting mistakes could harmtheir reputation or career
(18:40):
prospects.
Avoiding accountability allowsthem to sidestep any
consequences.
They want to deny that it wasclassified information because
they don't want to have tomanage the fallout from that and
take the consequence of sharingclassified information.
There actually comes a legalconsequence with that.
There's also psychologicalvulnerabilities, insecurity,
(19:03):
fear of failure, particularly ifyou're dealing with a
narcissist.
There's also psychologicalvulnerabilities, insecurity,
fear of failure, particularly ifyou're dealing with a
narcissist.
That's going to be part of thecoping mechanism.
But it is also strategicmanipulation.
They needed to use denial intheir defense to just get
through this and hope thatsomething else happens in the
news cycle.
(19:23):
Now there is a psychologicalterm when overconfidence in
one's abilities can result indenial of limitations or
mistakes, and that is theDunning-Kruger effect.
How many of you remember thatfrom a college class or from a
high school class?
So that's why you're going tosee a lot of denial as a
(19:43):
strategic mechanism in the upperlevels, like politics and
celebrity people in the publiceye, and while it does provide
temporary relief, it can hinderproblems, it leads to long-term
damage.
Let's talk about media ethicsand journalistic integrity.
(20:04):
Did the Atlantic get it right?
Did they do the right thing?
Did Jeffrey Goldberg do theright thing?
Now worth noting, he is theeditor-in-chief.
This isn't a cub reporter whowent rogue.
You know that the Atlanticvetted every single thing that
they did.
He felt and addressed in hispiece.
He was justified.
(20:25):
He knew, like the Atlanticlikely knew, that they were
going to face scrutiny regardingthe decision to publish the
information sensitive militaryinformation.
The magazine defended it as anecessity to inform the public
as a potential national securitybreach.
I would have to agree with that.
I mean this is a massivesecurity breach.
(20:45):
Lives are on the line.
Also, they chose not to publishsensitive details.
Eventually it came out becauseof the denial tactic by the
administration.
But Jeffrey Goldberg statedthat they withheld certain
information, such as the name ofan active CIA officer mentioned
in the chat and specificoperational details that could
(21:06):
genuinely compromise security.
Now some might argue is heacting as a whistleblower or is
it for clout and subscribers?
Okay, there could be a pushthere.
Jeffrey Goldberg wasinterviewed, it seemed like by
everyone.
He was doing a lot ofinterviews, you know, first with
(21:27):
the Atlantic and then he wenteverywhere.
I don't blame the PR departmentfor setting it up they were
working overtime as well andthere's no doubt that the
subscriptions went up because somany people probably even
wanted to get behind the paywalland read it.
They're hoping that people willread it once and then stick
with the Atlantic, which likelywill happen.
(21:48):
I mean, there's going to be aresidual, probably uptick in
their subscribers, which is likeyay, rah, rah for journalism,
because that's an industrythat's struggling right now.
So from an ethical point ofview, you do have to give it to
Goldberg and the Atlantic.
They withheld information andhe stated.
Goldberg stated how difficultit was for him to decide what to
(22:11):
do and how.
He really questioned theveracity of what was happening
there.
The veracity of what washappening there and he only
fact-checked it.
When he saw that there wasindeed military action is when
he decided to publish.
Now, what are the lessons forcommunicators?
If you are part of acommunication team, is the
cascade of denial and deflection.
(22:33):
It definitely is a strategicdevice used to control the
narrative, but it always comeswith problems.
It always comes with aconsequence.
Transparency is key.
It builds trust.
Obstification erodes it.
The contrast between theadministration downplaying the
(22:57):
incident and the detailedoperational information that was
revealed damages public trust.
The Republicans took a hit.
The administration took a hit.
There's no consistency in yourmessaging.
The explanations are shifting.
You're trying to minimize theseriousness.
You're creating confusion.
The seriousness You're creatingconfusion.
What that does is underminecredibility of the office.
(23:20):
People see through it and ifyou are an administration, you
want to understandclassification, you want to
understand security.
It's non-negotiable forleadership.
That goes hand in hand withleadership.
So it's very, very difficult tobe a leader, to be a part of an
administration, a cabinet, anddismiss a breach like this.
(23:46):
Attacking the media Again, thepress always gets attacked.
People are so used to that as atactic.
But attacking it here?
Wrong publication, wrongjournalist.
In these cases you have tofocus on accountability.
You have to focus on correctiveaction.
Somewhat understandable why theTrump administration is not
(24:08):
going to do that.
However, for all of youlistening, you don't want to go
that playbook route ofdeflection and denial.
Moving forward some takeawaysfrom this.
If you're a leader, acommunicator, now's a really,
really good time to champion aculture of security awareness.
Why not newsjack this story?
Perfect time to look at yourown SOPs, your standard
operating procedures for yoursecurity measures.
(24:30):
Also, comprehensive training.
Do a tabletop, do a trainingwhen you're using secure
messaging.
Have enforceable, clearcommunication policies.
Be an advocate for securetechnology in your office.
This is a great example why youneed it.
Develop protocols for groupcommunications.
How do we communicate now onsocial media, on chats?
(24:53):
You do want to foster opencommunication at your
organization, but you also wantto foster secure communication
and it's good to have audits ofcommunication at your company
and, most importantly, develop acrisis communication plan.
You need to maintain controlover the message.
You need to maintain controlover the messenger.
(25:16):
You need to maintain controlover the messaging app.
The patterns from the falloutof the SignalGate crisis that
denial, deflection and attemptsto discredit are common in
crisis situations, but they areineffective in the long run.
In other words, don't do it.
(25:38):
That's our breakdown of theSignal Gate crisis.
Thanks so much for listening.
If you want more insightfulanalysis on navigating the
complexities of PR and crisismanagement, particularly in the
public space, which is where weall inhabit, you can listen to
me every week and you can alsofind me on Substack.
(26:00):
That is now my communicationhub.
I have an area for free members.
You can follow me there forfree or you can subscribe to my
PR breakdown.
That's where I go into moreextended commentary and a little
more off the record on how Ifeel about a lot of these crises
as they are happening.
I get a lot of comments onsocial media, people asking me
(26:23):
questions all the time.
Sometimes I just don't have thetime to do it on particular
social media apps, but I bringit all in to Substack, so you
want to check me out there.
You can find me by name onSubstack and my publication is
the PR Breakdown.
That's all for this week.
Bye for now.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.