58 Comments
User's avatar
tevan's avatar

Let’s not forget Jeffrey Goldberg was one of the great cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq based on completely debunked WMD claims. So he’s never really been anything other than a nat sec plant

Expand full comment
Mark Holden's avatar

A lot of people including Powell were supportive of the invasion narrative until it was debunked, until they knew they were lied to. The real question is did they keep supporting the lie after it was reviled. Did Goldberg do that?

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Mar 25Edited
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Mark Holden's avatar

Oops yes revealed. But back at ya, boot licking?

Expand full comment
Clayton Eskew's avatar

Ken, journalists who hold power to account are on the wane. Keep doing you and let the others power up the clown car that is now our government.

Expand full comment
Gary Milligan's avatar

I just recommended you to some friends, Ken. This is incredible. The truth is, security interests would be BETTER served in the long run by those in charge experiencing the actual consequences of their actions and the public knowing what's actually happening.

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Thanks, Gary! Couldn't agree more.

Expand full comment
Bill M's avatar

Thank you for calling this out. It is obvious that Goldberg is concealing a huge amount of information. It's also obvious he sat on this for 2 weeks. The story here appears to be Waltz intended to include a pet journalist in the discussion so he could use this as part of the inside Washington power games. He accidentally included the wrong pet journalist, but literally anyone in Washington is tame enough to work, so here we are, with journalists considering themselves agents of the national security state.

Expand full comment
Stephen Noonoo's avatar

Sooner or later, this administration will start arresting journalists and detain them without due process and not give it a second thought. That has to be top of mind too.

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Goldberg says his concern is "national security," not that

Expand full comment
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

And by national security, he means American empire.

Expand full comment
Gladwyn d'Souza's avatar

As if it isn’t dangerous enough holding the government accountable, you are doing a good job holding the media too accountable!

Expand full comment
Hank Tallman's avatar

They just use Signal like the rest of us?

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Yes! It's actually quite secure

Expand full comment
William A. Finnegan's avatar

Now... if only rated for SCI materials... hmmmm :)

Expand full comment
Todd's avatar

Privacy folks hope so . . . .

Expand full comment
Tyler's avatar

This one convinced me to pay for my subscription.

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Thanks, Tyler!

Expand full comment
Scott Burson's avatar

You make a good case, Ken, and I've agreed with your publish-everything stance so far, but I can't make a final judgment on this one without knowing exactly what was in those texts. If they really contained "operational details of forthcoming strikes", as one report says, I would not have wanted to see those published until after the strikes were carried out.

I hope Goldberg does publish them once they are no longer so sensitive.

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Scott, I think people need to just think this stuff through. Suppose news of a planned strike goes public and the Houthis scramble for cover. Well, the Pentagon would just wait and conduct the strike later. I think there's a lot of catastrophizing about this stuff.

Expand full comment
Scott Burson's avatar

I've now read Goldberg's piece about it, and it contains a lot of very damning details. The suggestion that Goldberg will have gained favor within the Trump Administration by withholding what he saw as the most sensitive information strikes me as quite absurd.

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

I agree with you on that point. It's not about the Trump WH but the favor of the national security community in general - think of the many nonpolitical beaucratic officials.

Expand full comment
Scott Burson's avatar

Still, I think I would have done the same thing as Goldberg. While I agree that the government's legitimate need for secrecy is frequently grossly exaggerated (Ed Snowden deserves a pardon!), that doesn't mean, to me, that that need is nonexistent.

Expand full comment
Brandon's avatar

I think they lose a lot of that deference with sloppy work like this. This isn't something that a person like Chelsea Manning leaked that was otherwise secure, these dudes broke all basic security protocol because they're the top guys, they make the rules so they don't need to follow them.

That kind of flagrant disregard for process should have real consequence that is felt.

Expand full comment
Scott Burson's avatar

Absolutely agree. I just don't think those consequences should have included putting our pilots in danger.

They still don't seem to have figured out how Goldberg got added to the chat. This is also wildly unacceptable and demonstrates their incompetence. Waltz must step down, and Hegseth too.

Expand full comment
Nick Richards's avatar

Well, one advantage to doing it this way is Hegseth just denied it happened: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/24/hegseth-trump-atlantic-yemen-houthis-text-war-plan (the discussing of war plans part)

So now Goldberg can prove Hegseth was lying.

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Sounds like quibbling over what he considers the definition of "War plan"

Expand full comment
William A. Finnegan's avatar

Ken I ask this seriously...

You really wanna see an OPLAN out in the open? Or even details of it?

I totally get and mostly agree with the argument. But consider this, THE ATLANTIC is taking more steps to preserve classified information and national security, than the Secretary of Defense (and company) did...

Also consider that if The Atlantic publishes this... Goldberg is most certainly getting arrested and charged under the Espionage Act.

You think for a minute Pam Bondi won't send Kash Patel's peeps to bust down the door and drag him off in leg-irons?

Do I think it would stick? No. Do I think it's a fight worth having to out information that shouldn't be in the public domain in the first place?

No.

The story was made without revealing SCI.

Thoughts?

Expand full comment
May's avatar

I'm Proud to support your journalism, Ken. Goldberg and the like want to protect their access, but it is more than that. They are captured media, propagandists. They do not report news but just propagate narratives for the deep state. They have lost all their journalistic cred and many people now know it.

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Thanks for your support, May!

Expand full comment
Madeline's avatar

Thank you for calling this out. Honestly when I tried and failed to find the text of the leaked messages, I assumed that Goldberg's personal lawyer was to blame. Minimize possible personal liability, etc. Didn't even occur to me how paternalistic it is to only share which emoji were used rather than just the *primary source in its entirety* - seriously didn't we all learn about primary vs secondary sources in school? Thank you Ken for being awesome

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

Thanks, Madeline! I was honestly offended when I read the story and it occurred to me that these guys think we'll be satisfied with a few emojis lol.

Expand full comment
kathleen quinn's avatar

the Trump cabinet members ARE the adversaries of the US

Expand full comment
direwolff's avatar

Ken, do what you do, stick to your solid principles, and let cards fall where they may. You’ll never have to second guess yourself later in life when you maintain this high level of integrity. While I perused Goldberg’s noise, I didn’t fret given his pedigree, as I have a low level of trust in the integrity of his “reporting”. Had this discovery come from you, I would have taken it a lot more seriously. The trust that you’ve been building is hard to take away, and something the MSM has long given up on, hence their declining readership and trust numbers. I get more satisfaction out of being a paying subscriber of your Substack than I ever did paying the NYT or the WSJ. Please don’t ever give in to the temptation to change who your customers are 😃

Expand full comment
Ken Klippenstein's avatar

What a nice thing to say. Thank you! Being independent is an uphill battle but one I'm glad to fight alongside people who believe in me.

Expand full comment
Susan Windle's avatar

Thank you for what you do, Ken.

Expand full comment