- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 Revelations from the Leaked Texts
🌊 Revelations from the Leaked Texts
We break down how each foreign policy official’s private statements aligned with their public ones
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Max Frost
Earlier this week, it emerged that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz accidentally added The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, to a group chat where military plans were being discussed. In real time, Goldberg watched the group – which included Waltz, the secretaries of defense, state, and treasury; Stephen Miller, Trump’s senior adviser; VP JD Vance; and DNI Chief Tulsi Gabbard – discuss whether and how to strike the Houthi militants in Yemen.
Much has been written about the security lapse and potential implications of the gaffe. Among various consequences, the group may have broken the law by having a confidential discussion on Signal, a private messaging app, and by setting messages to auto-delete, potentially violating records-keeping laws.
And, of course, accidentally adding someone outside the government to a conversation where top officials are discussing the minutiae of defense policy has raised concerns about national security. All the officials involved have said the conversation didn’t actually involve top-secret information. In response, Goldberg released screenshots of the officials discussing the exact time and way they would be hitting the Houthis.
Regardless of that debate, the chat provided something indisputable: An uncensored look into decision-making at the highest levels of the Trump Administration. Such a look into what officials believe behind closed doors is rare, if not unheard of.
So in today’s story, we examine what each member of the chat said and how their private statements align with their public ones.
What the chat made clear is that there is an isolationist-interventionist spectrum within the White House, and Trump…
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
Curious to hear your thoughts on this. When we wrote about the Houthi strikes last week, a number of you expressed displeasure, alleging that Trump was violating his promise of getting the US out of Middle East wars. Has seeing these interactions changed your perspective? After reading the texts, does anyone come out worse or better in your eyes? Let us know by replying here.
If you missed the recent stories, find them here:
Also, regarding that Mexico story (which is free to read), we asked our Mexican readers for their thoughts. We’ve featured a selection of that below.
David wrote:
If you're genuinely asking if President Sheinbaum is serious about taking on the cartels I only have one question for you...
How many candidates did the cartels assassinate so that she would become president?
Is any other question even relevant?
Alfonso wrote:
I don't believe Mexico's president is serious about tackling the problem. The Morena Party just had their most successful elections to date, there is no reason for them to want to improve anything when the masses will blindly follow. She will do just enough to appear to the US and the Mexican population that something is being done. Specially now that Cartels were labeled terrorist organizations by the Trump administration.
And Angel:
I personally believe President Sheinbaum is like the rest of the Presidents Mexico has had in recent years.
Began with well wishes and realized the country is in more of a hot mess, so just damage control. What sucks for her is she is the first Madam President, making it a spotlight on her for the rest of the women in the country with future political ambitions. Any bad thing will be her fault regardless if it's true or not. Trump will only make things more difficult.
That’s all for today. See you tomorrow,
Max and Max