Trump 2.0: Group Chat Fallout

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Journal - "Trump 2.0: Group Chat Fallout"

Release Date: March 28, 2025

Introduction

In the episode titled "Trump 2.0: Group Chat Fallout," hosts Ryan Knutson and Molly Ball delve into a significant political scandal involving former President Donald Trump’s administration. The episode explores the inadvertent inclusion of journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into a highly sensitive group chat used by top national security officials to discuss military operations against the Houthis in Yemen. This mistake has ignited debates over the handling of classified information, administrative accountability, and the broader implications for U.S. national security.

---

Accidental Inclusion of a Journalist

The episode opens with a light-hearted discussion between Ryan Knutson and Molly Ball about the common mishaps of being added to unintended group chats. Ryan shares his experience of accidentally adding the wrong "Bjorn" to a party invitation ([00:23]). This segue leads into the core issue: the unintended addition of Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, to a private Signal group chat comprising Trump’s national security advisor, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and other key officials.

Ryan Knutson introduces the situation:

“The editor in chief of the Atlantic was inadvertently included on a signal conversation between Trump's national security advisor, Defense Secretary, Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of State, and others discussing an upcoming military strike on the Houthis in Yemen.” ([01:05])

---

The Fallout from the Group Chat Leak

Molly Ball reflects on the immediate reaction to the leak:

“Wow. I think everyone in Washington's jaw sort of dropped when we saw the initial report. It was pretty mind blowing.” ([01:23])

The incident is characterized as embarrassing for the Trump administration. Molly elaborates on its gravity:

“A lot of national security experts think this is deeply troubling because it potentially put American troops at risk.” ([01:38])

This sets the stage for an in-depth analysis of the implications of the scandal.

---

In-Depth Analysis with Nancy Youssef

To provide expert insight, the hosts bring in Nancy Youssef, a national security correspondent at The Wall Street Journal, who extensively covers the Pentagon.

Details of the Military Strike: Nancy explains the context of the U.S. strike against the Houthis:

“The Houthis are a militant group in Yemen... launched strikes on commercial and military vessels... reducing the use of those waters and fundamentally changed commercial shipping.” ([05:02])

She contrasts the current Trump administration's strategy with the previous Biden administration's approach:

“The big difference... they're going after leadership and personnel... trying to do it more offensively.” ([07:05])

Policy Debates Within the Administration: Nancy sheds light on internal disagreements within the Trump administration regarding the strike's alignment with U.S. interests:

“J.D. Vance... raises objections. Should the United States be investing in this kind of risky, expensive strike for something that doesn't pose a major economic threat to the United States?” ([08:34])

Use of Signal for Sensitive Communications: Addressing the unconventional use of Signal, Nancy states:

“Operations are always top secret and can be declassified after the operation is over... The Pentagon sees that as sensitive, classified information.” ([15:53])

---

Administration’s Defense and Accountability

The Trump administration presents two main defenses:

1. Non-Classification of the Information: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserts that no classified information was shared:

   “Nobody was texting war. And that's all I have to say about that.” ([15:17])

2. Nature of the Information: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard echoes that the shared content was not classified:

   “We took him at his word.” ([17:22])

However, Nancy challenges this by emphasizing the sensitivity of operational details:

“Attack plans are more sensitive than war plans. They have more details... Pentagon regulations... the information was treated as classified.” ([15:53])

Mike Waltz's Response: Defense Secretary Mike Waltz claims responsibility but also deflects blame onto Goldberg:

“I don't know this guy... We're going to figure out how this happened.” ([11:28])

This ambiguous stance has fueled further speculation and criticism.

---

Congressional Reactions and Bipartisan Concerns

The leak has provoked a bipartisan response in Congress. Despite party lines, both Democrats and certain Republicans express concern over the mishandling of sensitive information.

Examples of Bipartisan Concern:

• Congressman Don Bacon (Republican, Nebraska):

  “When I was in the service, this would have been unacceptable.” ([21:29])

• Senate Majority Leader John Thune (Republican):

  “The administration needs to admit that this was a mistake and move on.” ([21:29])

• Bipartisan Letter: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (Republican) co-authored a letter with his Democratic counterpart, calling for an internal investigation.

---

Journalistic Perspective on Jeffrey Goldberg’s Involvement

Molly Ball provides a journalistic analysis of Jeffrey Goldberg's role and response to being added to the group chat.

Goldberg’s Handling of the Situation:

“He was added to this group chat through no initiative of his own... He initially assumed that there was no way this could be a real conversation... He excused himself from the group chat and then proceeded to responsibly seek responses.” ([22:36])

Molly emphasizes Goldberg’s professionalism in navigating the inadvertent exposure to classified discussions.

---

Potential Consequences and Accountability

The episode explores the possible repercussions for those involved, especially Pete Hegseth, who is under scrutiny for sharing detailed operational information.

Possible Investigations:

“The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee... is shepherding Pete Hegseth... demanding an internal investigation.” ([21:29])

Administration's Stance on Accountability: Attorney General Pam Bondi downplays the likelihood of a criminal investigation:

“A criminal investigation was unlikely.” ([21:29])

This stance has not quelled bipartisan calls for accountability and transparency.

---

Conclusion

"Trump 2.0: Group Chat Fallout" offers a comprehensive examination of a significant breach in national security protocol within the Trump administration. Through expert analysis, firsthand accounts, and a balanced look at bipartisan concerns, the episode illuminates the complexities and potential ramifications of mishandling sensitive information at the highest levels of government. The fallout from this incident continues to unfold, highlighting enduring debates over security, transparency, and accountability in U.S. politics.

---

Notable Quotes

• Ryan Knutson ([01:05]):

  “The editor in chief of the Atlantic was inadvertently included on a signal conversation... discussing an upcoming military strike on the Houthis in Yemen.”

• Molly Ball ([01:23]):

  “Wow. I think everyone in Washington's jaw sort of dropped when we saw the initial report. It was pretty mind blowing.”

• Nancy Youssef ([05:02]):

  “The Houthis are a militant group in Yemen... launching strikes on commercial and military vessels...”

• J.D. Vance ([09:21]):

  “3% of US trade runs through the Suez Canal, while 40% of European trade does.”

• Pete Hegseth ([11:28]):

  “I don't know this guy... We're going to figure out how this happened.”

• Tulsi Gabbard ([15:38]):

  “No classified information was shared.”

• Roger Wicker ([21:29]):

  “Demanding an internal investigation.”

Timestamps for Key Discussions:

• Accidental Group Chat Addition: [01:05]
• Initial Reactions: [01:23]
• Nancy Youssef’s Analysis: [05:02] - [17:23]
• Administration’s Defense: [15:17] - [15:43]
• Congressional Reactions: [21:29] - [22:36]
• Journalistic Perspective: [22:36] - [24:58]
• Accountability and Consequences: [21:29] - [22:36]

Transcript

[Ryan Knudson]

Hey, Mollyball.

[Molly Ball]

Hey, Ryan Knudsen.

[Ryan Knudson]

Have you ever accidentally been added to a group chat?

[Molly Ball]

I cannot discuss that information. It is highly sensitive. You're not gonna say? I have from time to time received texts that were not intended for me that I could tell I was not supposed to know about.

[Ryan Knudson]

Hmm. But nothing that you can say, have you? I accidentally added the wrong person to a group chat once. I meant to include my friend Bjorn, inviting him to a party that we were having, and I accidentally, as I learned later, added the wrong Bjorn.

[Molly Ball]

I'm impressed. You know more than one Bjorn.

[Ryan Knudson]

Yeah, well, doesn't everybody have two Bjorns in their life?

[Molly Ball]

I don't know if I even have one Bjorn in my context, much less multiple Bjorns. That would necessitate a disambiguation of the Bjorns.

[Ryan Knudson]

If you need a Bjorn in your life, I have two people I can introduce you to.

[Molly Ball]

Do you have a spare? You have an extra Bjorn?

[Ryan Knudson]

We are, of course, talking about the group chat heard round the world. The editor in chief of the Atlantic was inadvertently included on a signal conversation between Trump's national security advisor, Defense Secretary, Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of State, and others discussing an upcoming military strike on the Houthis in Yemen. Molly, what did you think when you saw the story?

[Molly Ball]

Wow. I think everyone in Washington's jaw sort of dropped when we saw the initial report. It was pretty mind blowing.

[Ryan Knudson]

This is obviously embarrassing for the Trump administration, but how big of a deal is it, do you think?

[Molly Ball]

That is a matter of debate. One thing we've heard from the administration is, oh, the media is making too much of this. It was a simple mistake. Let's all move on. We've all learned something, et cetera. But I think a lot of national security experts think this is deeply troubling because it potentially put American troops at risk. So there is a lot of concern about the potential ramifications of this scandal beyond just the particular instance of this group chat.

[Ryan Knudson]

From the Journal, this is Trump 2.0. I'm Ryan Knudson.

[Molly Ball]

And I'm Molly Ball.

[Ryan Knudson]

It's Friday, March 28th. Today on the Trump 2.0 group chat. We're going inside the fallout from the private signal conversation that the entire world now gets to be a part of.

[Enrique Perez de la Rosa]

This episode of the Journal is brought to you by HubSpot. It takes a lot to grow your business. You've got to attract audiences, score leads, manage all the channels. But with Breez HubSpot's new AI tools, it's never been easier to be a marketer and crush your goals fast. Which means pretty soon your company will have a lot to celebrate, like 110% more leads in just 12 months. Visit HubSpot.com marketers to learn more.

[Unknown]

This episode is brought to you by Mint Mobile. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. They have wireless plans that start at 15 bucks a month, all with unlimited talk and text. Tap the banner to shop plans or visit mintmobile.comjournal that's mintmobile.comjournal upfront payment of $45 for three month 5GB plan required equivalent to $15 a month new customer offer for first three months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for.

[Ryan Knudson]

All right, Molly, so this isn't the first time that handling of classified information has been the subject of political scandal. President Biden and President Trump each had investigations launched against them because they held onto classified documents after leaving the White House. During the 2016 campaign, Trump and Republicans criticized Hillary Clinton for keeping sensitive information on a private email server when she was Secretary of State. So is this situation any different?

[Molly Ball]

It is and it isn't. As you say, there have been a lot of scandals involving the handling of classified and sensitive information over the years. This one is different in the specifics. In today's fast paced world, you know, almost everything that we do in our jobs can be done on our phones, but you're still not supposed to do war planning that way. And so I think that gives this scandal a new wrinkle.

[Ryan Knudson]

All right, well, to help us understand all of the wrinkles of this situation, our colleague Nancy Youssef, who covers national security in the Pentagon, has entered the group chat. Hi Nancy, thanks so much for being here.

[Nancy Youssef]

So great to be with you.

[Ryan Knudson]

Hey Nancy, so you cover national security. What was your reaction when you heard that this, that a journalist had accidentally been added to this highly sensitive group chat?

[Nancy Youssef]

I mean, I guess since they used emojis, the emoji I would have used is like head explosives floating when I first saw it because there were so many elements of it that were surprising. I cover the Pentagon primarily, so the idea that details about an OP would be on signal was shocking to me. That the decision around the strike would be made on signal, that a reporter would be added, that the times of strikes when F18s were taken off aircraft carriers would be included on a check. It was all so shocking to me. And also because I've covered a lot of these strikes, you rarely get to see sort of the behind the scenes in terms of what they're talking about in those critical minutes and hours before a strike. So to see that conversation and what's happening was interesting to me. So it was all really surprising in.

[Ryan Knudson]

Terms of the mission itself. What was the goal of this attack?

[Nancy Youssef]

So the Houthis are a militant group in Yemen. They control large swaths of Yemen. And after the war in Gaza began, the Houthis had started launching strikes and attacks on commercial and military vessels traveling through the Red Sea. And that is one of the busiest commercial shipping waters in the world. And so those strikes really reduced the use of those waters and fundamentally changed commercial shipping. And the Biden administration had conducted strikes on them to try to stop this and get those ships back in those waters, conducted about 200 such strikes intermittently throughout 2024. But the Houthis continued to just strike. Then there was a ceasefire in January, and the Houthis announced that they would stop the strikes in light of the ceasefire. Then when the ceasefire started to collapse, they announced that they'd resumed strikes. They hadn't yet when the US Launched this campaign that they have said will be different in targeting Houthis and reopening those waterways.

[Ryan Knudson]

The Trump administration, in this attack, the US Is going after Houthi leaders.

[Nancy Youssef]

The big difference that we see is that they're going after leadership and personnel. And I think that they are trying to do it more offensively rather than doing it sort of over a couple days, that they're going to try to do it over several days. I think we're in day 11 or 12. I've lost count of days on the strike campaign.

[Molly Ball]

And it sounds like what you're saying is this is an ongoing campaign, and we don't know yet whether it will achieve its ultimate objective of unblocking these sea lanes for commercial traffic.

[Nancy Youssef]

That's right. One of the main arguments we've heard from the administration is that, as you note, that this has been successful in terms of the initial objectives of that day, I think one could argue that they've been successful and that they hit what they wanted to hit. But in terms of the broader campaign goals, it is too early to say that. And we haven't heard anything in the last few days that indicates that this campaign over this last 11 or 12 days has gone such that they think they're on track to reaching a point where the Houthis can no longer pose a threat to ships transiting the Red Sea and other nearby waters.

[Ryan Knudson]

One of the interesting things about this chat is that you get some insight into the policy debate that's taking place between high ranking Trump administration officials. And in there, you can see some debate between J.D. vance and other administration officials about whether or not to proceed with this attack, whether or not the attack conflicts with President Trump's policy agenda when it comes to Europe. Can you explain, Nancy, what this debate is about and what you learned from it?

[Nancy Youssef]

So the US Is not the primary user of those waters in terms of having goods transited to the United States. It's primarily used by Europe. And the President has said that he wants to see Europe take more control over their own security concerns and issues, including commercial shipping that they depend on. And so J.D. vance, who has been opposed to using U.S. military resources for things that are not primarily U.S. military, U.S. security concern interests, raises objections. Should the United States be investing in this kind of risky, expensive strike for something that doesn't pose a major economic threat to the United States? Were the minority in terms of using those shipping waters?

[Ryan Knudson]

Yeah, I think in the chat Vance says something like 3% of US trade runs through the Suez Canal, while 40% of European trade does.

[Nancy Youssef]

Yeah, I don't know the numbers, but that doesn't sound off to me based on prior reporting. And then Stephen Miller comes in and says, no, this is what the President's asked for and this is what we're going to give them. And so to hear them sort of debating it, literally days, hours before the strike was really interesting to me and speaks to sort of the divisions about how the US Military is used. So, you know, in the past, we have been the leading nation in terms of defending not only US Interests, but that of our allies. And there's a real time debate going on about how much we're willing to continue to do that going forward.

[Ryan Knudson]

Yeah, I love how, you know, J.D. vance in that chat says, I'm willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying. Those concerns are no longer being kept to himself.

[Nancy Youssef]

That's right.

[Ryan Knudson]

This group chat has been made public.

[Nancy Youssef]

That's right. That's right. And by the way, Europe saw that, and I think you saw a lot of reaction to Europe about that because I think they've been concerned about how much the US Would come to their defense and to see that debate happening. I think for those who are concerned that maybe the United States wouldn't be as a reliable partner, this sort of reaffirmed their fears. Now, having said that, the U.S. did do the strikes. So you get a sense, though, that this is an ongoing debate in some ways not One that's been resolved.

[Molly Ball]

So let's talk about Mike Waltz, Trump's national security advisor. He's the one who, according to the screenshots, created the group chat and added the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. How has he accounted for what happened?

[Nancy Youssef]

So he. He said he took full responsibility. He had the president's backing at a briefing earlier this week, but then subsequently sort of launched an attack on Goldberg and said that he wasn't a credible journalist and that maybe he wasn't solely strictly responsible for the creating of the chat, that he didn't know. Jeffrey Goldberg didn't have reason to have him in his phone.

[Unknown]

I can tell you for 100%, I don't know this guy. I. I know him by his horrible reputation, and he really is the bottom scum of journalists, and I know him in the sense that he hates the President, but I don't text him. He wasn't on my phone. And we're going to figure out how this happened.

[Molly Ball]

So you don't know what.

[Nancy Youssef]

And so it was sort of a yes, but kind of scenario, for lack of a better term, if it was.

[Molly Ball]

A mistake and if it was Walt who did it, do we have any idea who he might have meant to put on there?

[Nancy Youssef]

No, there's a lot of speculation about that. Sort of a search for every JG in government who might have been involved. I mean, it's sort of the parlor game in Washington. The other reason it's hard for me to answer is I'm used to what used to happen, or at least what happens at dod, which is like, these guys at that level, top level, have a communications team that travels with them. So first of all, they have a secure communications set up in their house. But let's say they're out when something is happening, the communications person is with them to give them a secure phone to set up a secure communications channel. So it's hard for me to know because it's an unconventional way to even start this conversation.

[Ryan Knudson]

Is signal even allowed on government phones? I know there was an alert that went out recently from the Pentagon about Signal being a potential target of hackers.

[Nancy Youssef]

So I went on the Pentagon the other day just asking people for their government phones and asking them if they could download Signal and they could. They could actually get the app on the government phone, but no one had the gall, and I didn't have the gall to push it to, like, try to start a Signal chat to find out if you could actually send messages on a government phone. What I saw is on Signal, you can actually download the app on a government phone. But there are all sorts of regulations about then using that to send communications about anything other than something innocuous like let's meet at this time or that time.

[Ryan Knudson]

Where do you want to get lunch later?

[Nancy Youssef]

Yeah. And I should note, like we've the most similar scenario that I've seen along these lines is in Afghanistan. They use WhatsApp all the time to communicate with the Afghans because the Afghans didn't have secured comms. That's the closest that I've seen where military sort of planning has gone over an unsecured system.

[Ryan Knudson]

All right, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we'll talk more with Nancy about the potential repercussions of the signal leak.

[Molly Ball]

Foreign.

[Unknown]

This episode is brought to you by Universal Pictures. Today's the day. From Universal Pictures and Blumhouse come a storm of terror from the director of the Shallows. The Woman in the yard, don't let her in. Where does she come from? What does she want? When will she leave? The Woman in the Yard in theaters now.

[Enrique Perez de la Rosa]

Your data is like gold to hackers. They're selling your passwords, bank details and private messages. McAfee helps stop them. Secure VPN keeps your online activity private. AI powered text scam detector spots phishing attempts instantly. And with award winning antivirus, you get top tier hacker protection. Plus you'll get up to $2 million in identity theft coverage, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit McAfee.com, cancel anytime terms apply.

[Ryan Knudson]

So the administration is sort of saying two things in its defense here. One is that these were not war plans. We heard Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth say that in an interview this week.

[Unknown]

Nobody was texting war. And that's all I have to say about that.

[Ryan Knudson]

And two, that it was not classified. Here's Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, talking about that during a Senate hearing.

[Molly Ball]

The conversation was candid and sensitive, but.

[Nancy Youssef]

As the President, National Security Advisor stated, no classified information was shared.

[Ryan Knudson]

There were no sources, methods, locations or.

[Nancy Youssef]

War plans that were shared.

[Ryan Knudson]

Nancy, the Atlantic released the full text thread so we can see what was actually being discussed here. What do you make of these two arguments that the administration is putting forward?

[Nancy Youssef]

So to me, this is an argument about semantics. In the Pentagon, war plans refers to like the macro war planning, the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Attack plans are that sort of individual unit plans assigned to do a specific task. And one could argue that attack plans are More sensitive than war plans. They have more details. They have names of units. They're much more detail oriented. So technically, they're not war plans, but I think to a layman, they are war plans in that they provide details about an upcoming military operation. Now, they don't have the specific name of the person they were targeting or the specific building or the specific unit, but there's a framework there of what the military is getting ready to do on a military campaign. But that is a sensitive time and has always been treated as classified. And I have yet to find someone in the building who considers that unclassified information. I can just say that the Pentagon sees that as sensitive, classified information. The regulations say that operations are always top secret and can be declassified after the operation is over. They often don't even tell us about these operations until that last fighter jet is back after the mission is over. That's been the standard practice before. I'm so sorry. This is a source calling that I have to take.

[Ryan Knudson]

Oh, she hung up. I guess that's what happens when you are a busy reporter.

[Molly Ball]

Yep.

[Nancy Youssef]

Sorry.

[Ryan Knudson]

Oh, wait, Nancy's back.

[Nancy Youssef]

The guy who never calls me out of the blue. And then I think it was a butt call. So I was like, ah, he added.

[Molly Ball]

You to the group chat by mistake.

[Ryan Knudson]

Not quite as good as getting added to the group chat, but I know. All right, I know you're busy, Nancy, so I'll just ask you one more question before we let you go. What's the follow up been like for Pete Hegseth, who was the one who texted what appears to be the most sensitive information, which is the details about the actual pending attack on the Houthis.

[Nancy Youssef]

So on Wednesday, there was a hearing on the House side with Tulsi Gabbard, the ODNI director, John Radcliffe, the CIA director. And they both basically said, well, we thought it was okay because Pete Hegseth said it was okay. He says it's unclassified. So we took him at his word. And so there was a lot of suggestion on Wednesday that the responsibility of assessing whether to share that information sat with Pete Hegseth. It is the biggest sort of pointing at him that we've seen so far this week and suggests that they are looking at him, at least on that portion of it. I think it's because that was among some of the most sensitive information released on that text thread.

[Ryan Knudson]

Thanks, Nancy, so much for your time. Appreciate it.

[Nancy Youssef]

Thank you so much.

[Molly Ball]

Thank you, Nancy.

[Nancy Youssef]

Bye, guys.

[Ryan Knudson]

All right, Nancy has now left the group chat, and it is Just you and me, Molly. At least I think so. How have other members of the chat been explaining themselves? There were these hearings this week on Capitol Hill where we heard from two other members of the chat, Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. What did they say?

[Molly Ball]

It was very interesting because, as you say, there were two days of hearings, and in between the first and second day, the Atlantic released the transcripts of the full text message exchange that showed just how detailed and sensitive the information being shared in this group chat was. And so on the first day, the administration officials had said, oh, I don't remember exactly what was in there. I couldn't tell you. It's not in front of me, et cetera. But then they came back, and they were sort of confronted with it, and particularly the Democrats on the committee were really pushing them to acknowledge that they were trying to cover something up and to account for the discrepancies in the administration's explanations for all of this. And what we saw was Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, saying, well, the things that I shared were not classified, and if you have concerns about these attack plans, you're going to have to ask the person who shared them, which was Pete Hegseth. And the CIA director, John Radcliffe, also sang a version of this. So it was interesting in that it really put the focus on Hegseth, who has been traveling in Asia this whole time and won't be back for a while and has made only very limited public statements, both in person and on his social media account, defending his conduct here.

[Unknown]

As it said, atop of that, everybody's seen it now. Team update is to provide updates in real time, general updates in real time, keep everybody informed. That's what I did. That's my job. The war fighter.

[Molly Ball]

But it really became clear that the other officials in the group chat felt like if anyone was responsible for sharing this sensitive information, it was Hegseth. Because outside of him talking in great detail about literally when bombs were going to drop and where, you could say that everyone else was just having sort of an abstract policy debate or doing sort of logistical coordination, it was Hegseth who, of his own accord, without being prompted, came in to share these very detailed battle plans.

[Ryan Knudson]

Democrats have been expressing a lot of outrage over this, but they don't have the power to open investigations. Right now. Being in the minority, President Trump seems like he's supporting everybody so far. His Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said that a criminal investigation was unlikely. Is there any chance that Anyone gets held accountable for this.

[Molly Ball]

It is not just Democrats who have expressed concern about this situation. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill have publicly and privately expressed concern. You know, a lot of Republican lawmakers have military backgrounds. Congressman Don Bacon, who's a moderate Republican from Nebraska who has a military background, has expressed, expressed concern, said when he was in the service, this would have been unacceptable. The Senate Majority leader, John Thune, said the administration needs to admit that this was a mistake and move on. And there is a bipartisan letter. The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, who shepherded Pete Hegseth through his confirmation hearings to become Secretary of Defense, co authored a bipartisan letter with his Democratic counterpart, basically demanding an internal investigation of this.

[Ryan Knudson]

And Mike Waltz on Fox said that he was having Elon Musk look into it from a technical perspective, too. So we'll see where that goes.

[Molly Ball]

We'll see where that goes.

[Ryan Knudson]

Some on the right in the Trump administration have been critical of Jeffrey Goldberg, the journalist who was added to this chat. What's your sort of just general take from a journalistic point of view about how Jeffrey Goldberg handled this situation?

[Molly Ball]

I should say that Jeffrey Goldberg is my former boss. I worked at the Atlantic a long time ago and have great respect for him. It's hard to say that he did anything wrong in this case. He was added to this group chat through no initiative of his own. He didn't ask to be put there. It was a surprise to him. As he detailed in his first report for the Atlantic, he initially assumed that there was no way this could be a real conversation between national security officials, because, of course, the would never do it on signal. Of course they would never do it with a journalist present. And so he describes this process of initially thinking this is some kind of elaborate catfishing attempt and then watching as the messages continued to come into his phone, and then the sort of incredible denouement of seeing the bombs fall. So that was sort of when he knew that this was all for real. He excused himself from the group chat and then proceeded to try to responsibly seek response from the officials in question and decide what was prudent to publish and how. So the initial report included very few of the actual details of these conversations, in part because he wanted to be mindful of the security concerns in question. And it was only when the administration spent 24 hours insisting that he was essentially lying that he said, well, all right, if you're going to that none of this is sensitive information and you're going to call my integrity into question. We'll put it out there for the public to see and judge for themselves.

[Ryan Knudson]

All right, Molly, last question before I let you go. How is your March Madness bracket?

[Molly Ball]

I don't have a bracket. Ryan, how's yours?

[Ryan Knudson]

I took Jess Braven's advice and put the Supreme Court. I picked them to win, but they haven't played any games. So what surprising rip off?

[Molly Ball]

Well, more importantly, this week was baseball opening day. So finally we have real sports to watch.

[Ryan Knudson]

Yes. Right. You're a baseball fan.

[Molly Ball]

I'm a huge baseball fan. Go Rockies.

[Ryan Knudson]

Go Rockies.

[Molly Ball]

I have the great misfortune of being a Colorado Rockies fan, but I believe very strongly that you have a moral obligation to root for your hometown team, even if they are perpetually terrible like the Colorado Rockies.

[Ryan Knudson]

Yes. I mean, I am a Seattle Mariners fan first and foremost. And it has been a very, very sad 25 years.

[Molly Ball]

We're in the same boat there. Every once in a while they make the playoffs, but you just can't have any hope.

[Ryan Knudson]

Okay, great. Thanks again.

[Molly Ball]

Thanks. Ryan.

[Ryan Knudson]

Before we go, do you have any questions about what the Trump administration is doing? Email us and let us know. Please send a voice Note to thejournalsj.com that's thejournalsj.com Trump 2.0 is part of the Journal, which is a co production of Spotify and the Wall Street Journal. This episode was produced by Enrique Perez de la Rosa and edited by Katherine Whelan with help from Matt Kwong and Alessandra Rizzo. Molly Ball is the Wall Street Journal's senior political correspondent. I'm Ryan Knudson. This episode was engineered by Greg Griffin Tanner. Our theme music is by so Wiley and remixed by Peter Leonard. Additional music in this episode by Emma Munger and Griffin Tanner, fact checking by Kate Gallagher, artwork by James Walton. Trump 2.0 will be back with a new episode next Friday morning. See you then.