Secret Trump Group Chat Leaks Just Got Worse! Fallout, Denials, & Possibly More Leaked Texts Soon
PDS Published 03/25/2025
-
The fallout from this Trump Signal war plans scandal just keeps getting crazier and crazier.
And if you missed yesterday’s show, here’s a 20-second recap.
Right, so it appears that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz accidentally added The Atlantic’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat where the vice president and top cabinet officials discussed Yemen war plans in fine detail. [Image and headline]
With Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly texting “precise information about weapons packages, targets and timing.” [Quote]
And legal experts saying the whole debacle could constitute violations of the Espionage Act and the Federal Records Act, not to mention a breach of national security.
This not only because Goldberg was added to the chat, but because the chat existed in the first place; right, classified materials are not supposed to be on private messaging platforms like Signal.
So in the wake of this, everyone involved has been absolutely ridiculed for what’s widely being slammed as egregious incompetence and carelessness.
With Jon Stewart taking a stab at the news on his show yesterday. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:59 - 02:15] Caption: “Back in my day if you were a journalist who wanted leaked war documents, you had to work the sources, meet them in a dark garage, gain the trust, pound the pavement. Now, just wait for the national security director to be distracted by the White Lotus while he’s setting up his bomb Yemen group chat.”
As well as Hillary Clinton herself, whom Donald Trump wanted put in jail for her use of a private email server as secretary of state, reacting to the news with: “You have got to be kidding me.” [Tweet]
Though to be clear, it wasn’t just Trump who called for her to be charged; Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, and John Ratcliffe – all of whom were in the Signal chat – did the same.
With CNN putting together a compilation of their past comments that has gone viral.
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:23]
But if they’re not getting charged with crimes, at the very least many critics are calling for those officials to resign.
With top Democrats on the House Armed Services, Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees all writing a letter to the White House demanding transparency. [Quote, find “separate letter”]
Specifically about any other instances in which senior officials discussed national security issues on unauthorized messaging platforms. [Same quote]
Now after claiming he knew nothing about the Signal chat and smearing the Atlantic yesterday, Trump apparently debriefed himself on the story, because he later responded.
Telling NBC News, “Michael Waltz has learned a lesson, and he’s a good man.” [Quote]
And then, when asked how Goldberg got added to the chat, saying, “It was one of Michael’s people on the phone. A staffer had his number on there.” [Quote same link]
With Trump expressing confidence in his team, saying he was not frustrated by the events leading up to The Atlantic's story. [Quote same link, find “frustrated”]
And adding that it was "the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one.” [Same quote]
But if the response from the president is eh, no biggie, the immediate reaction from other officials has been outright denial.
With White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt [Levit] claiming that war plans were not discussed and “no classified material was sent to the thread.” [Quote same link]
As well as Pete Hegseth calling Goldberg a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes” and then saying: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:06 - 01:11] Caption: “Nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that.”
But to be clear, the National Security Council has confirmed the authenticity of the Signal chat, so it’s unclear whether he’s nitpicking the term “war plans” or just flatly denying reality.
Either way, Goldberg responded to that clip on MSNBC. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 07:18 - 07:41] Caption: “By the standard vernacular understanding of what ‘war plan’ means, it was ‘at 01:45 this is gonna happen. At 01:52 this is gonna happen. Then this happens, then that happens, and then we do this, and then we do that. He’s telling this group, he’s letting them know probably more than they need to know. I mean the secretary of state, the chief of staff of the White House don’t actually need to know which weapons packages are being deployed in what way.”
And then, this factual dispute was taken straight to the halls of Congress.
Because on Tuesday morning, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a previously scheduled annual hearing where intelligence officials usually just present their assessment of the global threats facing the United States.
But this time, Democratic lawmakers used it as an opportunity to force two of the people in the Signal chat — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe — to answer for the scandal.
With Senator Mark Warner grilling Gabbard about one simple question: were you in the group chat or not? [Lead B roll into clip]
Next, he jumped on Ratcliffe, the CIA director, who had no problem telling Warner that he was a member of the group chat.
But then he went on to defend it, saying:
[Clip, 01:39 - 01:49, 02:02 - 02:08, 02:22 - 02:34, 02:48 - 02:59]
With Ratcliff also taking a beating from Senator Michael Bennet.
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:21, 00:33 - 00:38]
As well as Gabbard seeming to deny that detailed war plans would be classified at all.
[Clip, 00:53 - 01:10]
Though at another point, both of them denied not only that the information was classified, but that it was even sent at all.
[Clip, 02:51 - 03:15]
So John Ossoff just asked Ratcliffe, straight up:
[Clip, 00:28 - 00:36]
Now it’s looking like this is far from the end of this story, since both Gabbard and Ratcliffe said they’re open to being audited for other private message conversations.
And Democrats are chomping at the bit for any shred of accountability here, with Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer saying: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:56 - 00:09]
But notably with all this, it’s also looking like the use of Signal and other encrypted messaging apps in the federal government is more the rule than the exception.
Because more than two dozen government workers told The Washington Post that federal bureaucrats have migrated to Signal on mass since Trump took office because it allows them to talk to each other without being scrutinized by higher-ups. [Quote, find “two dozen”]
With one fired worker from the U.S. Digital Service who is in eight private Signal groups with current and former federal employees putting it bluntly: [Image]
“I’m not sure there is any government worker right now who isn’t talking to their colleagues on Signal.” [Same image and quote same link]
As well as others saying they worry that digital water cooler talk or questions about agency layoffs, return-to-office mandates and administration policies could be perceived as disloyal. [Quote same link, find “cooler”]
So in an administration where employees feel like they can’t speak freely for fear of losing their jobs, secrecy has become a valuable currency, not just at the top but at the bottom too.
Though to be clear, rank-and-file workers privately discussing their employment or whether to respond to that “what did you do last week?” email is way different than what Trump’s cabinet is accused of, both practically and legally.
-
The FBI has launched a Tesla Task Force to deal with the growing vandalism and threats targeting Tesla locations.
Right, according to NBC News, in addition to peaceful protests across the country, there have been at least 80 reported cases of vandalism or arson of Tesla vehicles in the U.S. and Canada recently, and at least 10 Tesla centers have been targeted by vandals. []
We talked about the trend a bit last week, it obviously comes as the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, has been facing tons of backlash for his government-cutting efforts over at DOGE.
And yesterday, the New York Post reported that the FBI created this task force in response to all this, and that was eventually confirmed by the bureau’s Assistant Director for Public Affairs, who said that the group will work:[][]
“in conjunction with ATF to coordinate investigative activity and crack down on violent Tesla attacks.”
With FBI Director Kash Patel also writing that the attacks targeting Tesla are:
“domestic terrorism [and] Those responsible will be pursued, caught, and brought to justice.”[]
The latest incident was in Austin, Texas, where the company is headquartered.
And police reportedly found incendiary devices at a Tesla dealership in the city.
Those devices were taken into custody without incident and the bomb squad was called in to investigate the situation. []
No injuries have been reported and the FBI is aiding in the investigation.[]
With the state’s attorney general Ken Paxton writing:[]
“The radical liberals encouraging these politically-motivated attacks are sick and twisted. I stand ready to assist in any way to bring these perpetrators to justice.”
A protest in Florida is also making headlines after a man was arrested for allegedly driving his car into a group of anti-DOGE protestors outside of a Tesla dealership.
With Palm Beach County Police saying that the man drove the car over the curb and onto the sidewalk at a slow speed,
And while the demonstrators were able to move out of the way, he did nearly strike several.
According to USA Today, the man walked into the dealership to say he supported Tesla before walking out. []
And he is being held on an assault charge.
But like we have talked about, anti-Musk sentiments are not only widespread in the US, right, there are people all over the world not happy with his new role in American politics, which has prompted boycott calls.
And at least in Europe, it seems those boycotts have been successful so far.
Because sales of Tesla cars in the region have dropped over 40% in the first two months of the year.
This even though there was nearly a 30% overall increase in sales of electric cars.
And while all that Tesla and Musk backlash is real, there is one piece of Musk criticism making news that is fake.
Right, if you have been scrolling Twitter or TikTok lately, you may have come across an audio clip claiming to show JD Vance slamming Elon.
“He’s making us look bad. He’s making me look bad. And I’ll tell you this, and he wouldn't like it if I said it, but he’s not even an American. He is from South Africa.” (0:09-0:23)
“And he has the audacity to act like he is an elected official. I am an elected official.” (0:35-0:43)
But before you grab the popcorn and cheer that the girls are fighting, I have to tell you this is reportedly just some good old fashioned AI.
With Vance’s communications director writing that:[]
“This audio is 100% fake and most certainly not the Vice President.”
The firm Reality Defender also told 404 media that its software detected the audio as “likely fake.”[]
But still, one upload of it on TikTok that did not have an AI label got over 2 million views and 8,000 comments, including from some who wondered if they should believe it or not.
And while it seems that highly-viewed video has been removed, there are still re-uploads of it on the platform, with some calling BS, but also some seemingly falling for it.[][]
And JD Vance reshared an upload of it on Twitter and said it could potentially be defamation.[]
But of course, I would love to know your thoughts on any of this here, the overall Tesla backlash and vandalism, the FBI’s response, this AI situation, anything.
-
Nazis got better treatment than migrants in the US are getting right now.
At least, that’s what one federal judge said yesterday.
And so we gotta talk about why she did, and more broadly, how the case this is about is fueling a GOP effort to rein in federal judges putting up roadblocks to Trump’s agenda.
And with that, the starting point is the Trump administration invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport 137 Venezuelan migrants with little or no due process –
Accusing them of being gang members, criminals, and terrorists without identifying these individuals or providing evidence,.
And not sending them back to their home country but to a prison in El Salvador where they’re being forced to work. (BROLL) []
Right, while that was happening, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg (Boze-berg - Boze rhymes with “goes”) issued a temporary restraining order to halt the deportations,
With the big legal concern – besides lack of evidence and due process – being that the deportation power claimed under the Alien Enemies Act is for times of war.
With The White House arguing the arrival of dozens of gang members to the U.S. constitutes a ‘state-sponsored invasion” or “predatory incursion” that justifies the law’s use without Congress declaring war.
Though, with that, a recent U.S. intelligence assessment contradicted Trump’s claim that this gang is committing crimes in the U.S. at the direction of the Venezuelan government.
But in any case, the planes were already in the air.
And the administration seemingly ignored the judge’s verbal instruction to have the flights turned around –
Later claiming it hadn’t truly defied the judge because his written decision didn’t also specify that the planes should be sent back.
But also claiming the judge lacked the authority in the first place.
But with that, it’s still trying to fight the decision in court.
Notably, continuing to withhold information demanded by Boze-berg to try and determine whether officials willingly violated his order.
And in fact, this week, the administration officially said that it would not disclose any further information about two flights –
Claiming that doing so would jeopardize state secrets, impede future counterterrorism operations, and harm diplomatic and national security.
With the DOJ writing in a court filing:
“The court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it.” []
And with that, I will say, the state secrets privilege is an actual legal doctrine that can allow the executive branch to block the use of evidence in court.
Notably, however, the executive branch would normally provide a detailed description of the sensitive evidence to a judge to show why it is too sensitive to discuss in open court.
And so, as the New York Times explains, the Trump administration’s move is “extraordinary” in part because it is refusing to provide any information at all – even privately and in a secure facility for handling classified information. []
Although, that said, the administration has not even technically claimed the information at issue is classified. []
Right, instead submitting statements from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem claiming that sharing the information with a court would jeopardize national security and foreign policy –
Including by making foreign partners less likely to trust the Trump administration to keep confidential negotiations and operational details secret, and by fueling public speculation about the matter. []
And with all that, Boze-berg yesterday denied the administration's motion to vacate his original order –
Writing that it should remain in place so the migrants could have the opportunity to challenge accusations that they belong to the gang. []
Also, yesterday, a federal appeals court in Washington held a nearly two-hour hearing on another request by the Trump administration to stay Boze-berg’s order.
With one member of the three-judge panel grilling a DOJ lawyer, and suggesting that if the Venezuelans could be deported without due process, then anyone — herself included — could simply be declared a national security threat and flown out of the country.
Also pointing out that even German citizens arrested under the Alien Enemies Act during World War II had the opportunity to argue in hearings that the law did not apply to them. []
And saying:
“Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act.”
On the other hand, one of the other judges questioned whether the case was in Boze-berg’s jurisdiction –
Suggesting that if migrants want to challenge their removal they should do so in Texas where they’re being held. []
And the third judge reportedly said almost nothing at the hearing.. []
So we’ll have to wait and see what their decision is, and how this ultimately ends up.
But in the meantime, this whole case has been at the center of conservative outrage over the judicial branch’s power.
Right, as we know, Trump, Elon Musk, and some hard-line conservatives in Congress have been pushing to impeach judges who block the administration’s agenda.
And actually, Republicans in the House have already introduced articles of impeachment against certain judges — most notably Boze-berg.
But as of now, at least, it seems extremely unlikely impeaching him or any other judge would win enough Republican support to reach a majority in the House.
In fact, some have already spoken out against the idea of impeaching judges because of their decisions.
With Don Bacon of Nebraska, for example, telling NBC News:
“If you don't like it, appeal it. That's been our tradition since 1789." []
And then, of course, with all that, even if a judge was impeached, 67 votes would be needed for convictions in the Senate, where Republicans only have a 53 to 47 majority.
And so with that, Republicans have been exploring other options to crack down on what it sees as a rogue judiciary.
Next week, for example, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on what Committee Chair Jim Jordan characterized as “activist judges” who are blocking Trump’s agenda, including Boze-berg
And then, Republicans have reportedly discussed cutting off funding for the federal District Court in Washington and other lower courts –
And even breaking up the existing system of district and circuit courts.
With Politico reporting, “That’s a fight likely to come to a head in the upcoming funding talks for fiscal 2026, according to three Republicans familiar with the conversations.” []
But the idea that may be getting the most traction?
A bill put forward by California Republican Darrell Issa (Ice-uh) entitled the "No Rogue Rulings Act” to bar district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.
Right, notably, Mike Johnson? The Speaker of the House? He’s now reportedly thrown his support behind the legislation, speaking about the issue more broadly today, saying:
“We do have authority over the federal courts. We can eliminate an entire district court. We do have power over funding over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act.”
And with that, the chamber is reportedly set to vote on the "No Rogue Rulings Act” sometime next week.
Though, again, even if the bill makes it through the House, passing the Senate is a bigger challenge.
Though, notably, Mike Davis, a close Trump ally who runs a right-wing judicial advocacy group?
He has reportedly speculated that the legislation could be part of a broader package of court reforms – even including some that the Democrats have pushed for in the past. []
And with that, actually, legal scholars from both sides of the aisle have in the past criticized the rapid rise of nationwide injunctions that, as we’ll get into a bit, actually began before Trump.
With one criticism, for example, being that the rise of nationwide injunctions has led to an uptick in what is known as “judge-shopping.”
Now with all that, there’s still questions about the impact this could have.
One legal scholar from UC Berkeley, for example, telling the LA Times that the bill is a “terrible idea” that would sow chaos in the system –
Creating conflicting rulings between districts and making Americans subject to different rules in different parts of the country.
On the other hand, however, some experts claiming that in many cases, the bill would have no effect because it carves out an exception for a 1946 law called the Administrative Procedure Act –
Which gives federal courts oversight with respect to the actions of federal agencies. []
And could mean that many decisions criticized by the Trump administration – including Boasberg’s – might not even be affected.
But that’s unclear and of course the bill is subject to revision.
Also, on top of that, Josh Hawley has announced that he would bring separate legislation in the Senate to limit nationwide injunctions –
Noting that District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration.
And with that being a point being made more and more lately to support this claim that the judiciary is somehow being unfair, we should talk about why it can be misleading.
First off, yes, it’s absolutely true that the courts have blocked Trump's agenda more than any other president.
But notably, when district courts issued 12 rulings halting Obama’s policies? That was also a record at the time. []
And so now you have the likes of Steve Vladeck (Vlah-dick), a Georgetown law professor who consistently cautioned about the increased use of nationwide injunctions, saying there's a "completely shameless amount of hypocrisy" right now about the issue.
Pointing to the fact that the same people now decrying "out-of-control" district courts celebrated their rulings against Biden.
And of course, on the flip side, Democrats who criticized those rulings against Obama or Biden aren’t complaining about them now.
Though, to be clear, the attacks against the judiciary we’re seeing from Republicans are on a whole new and ‘nother level.
And they might say those attacks are justified because Trump hasn’t just surpassed Obama’s record, he’s absolutely obliterated it.
Right, compared to the unprecedented 12 nationwide injunctions against Obama over two terms, there were 64 against Trump in just his first term. []
And already, at least 15 have been issued against his second-term policies. []
And so this was reportedly a point made by Ice-uh when he presented his bill to the Judiciary Committee with a chart showing the number of injunctions faced by each president.
But of course, as many were quick to point out, maybe the reason it’s happening so much more under Trump is because he’s doing so many more things that might be illegal.
With Democrat Jamie Raskin saying:
“The implication of this chart is that somehow the courts have done something wrong, rather than Donald Trump having done something wrong,”
“The reason there are 64 injunctions against him is because he is trampling the lawmaking and spending powers of the Congress of the United States.” []
So ultimately, we’ll have to wait and see how all those cases go, what Congress ends up doing, and if and what kind of impact it might have on them.
-
15 million people are scrambling to protect their data right now after the genetic-testing company 23&Me announced that it was filing for bankruptcy.
The company claims that it will still operate during this time, but for most people the real concern is what will happen to their data?
The company claims that it’s still dedicated to privacy, with a spokesperson saying:
“For our customers, our focus continues to be on transparency and choice over how they want their data to be managed.”
Additionally, it promises that the data it does have is anonymized… however there are some doubts as to how effective that is.
Despite this, 23&Me swears that this isn’t possible with their data -- but we’ll likely have to wait and see what happens if that data is ever sold due to bankruptcy proceedings.
…although even with that the company claims they still retain some data -- we just don’t know what.
23&Me going bankrupt is not super surprising when you look at their business model.
They have serious issues getting repeat customers with most of the 15 million users just being one-and-done.
And it's pretty hard to sustain a business like that.
Instead they’ve relied on selling anonymized customer data to medical research firms, with 80% of customers agreeing to have this done.[]
On top of that, the leadership has had a major falling out over the last few months.
CEO Anne Wojcicki (Woj-is-kee) had wanted to buy out all the shares of the company herself, but the board didn’t like that and resigned en masse.
They also didn’t like that Wojcicki had been promising to reveal a plan for how to move the company forward for months but never actually produced one.
All this means the stock price has also been steadily plummeting ever since they went public in 2021.
At the time they peaked at like $300 a share, whereas now the stocks are worth 99% less at under a dollar.[]
It’s widely expected that 23&Me will be out of business by next year unless bankruptcy proceedings can slow that down by restructuring the company.
In the meantime, we’ll have to wait and see if the company’s claims that the data is sufficiently anonymized holds up.
But what do you think? Is this a wakeup call for how much data companies have on us…. And how much are we willing to give up?
-
And for your daily drop of good news, I’d like you to meet Sebastien.
He’s 21 years old and for his entire life, he’s struggled with chronic pain from debilitating sickle cell anemia.
If you don’t know what sickle cell is, it’s an inherited blood disorder that, in the US, most commonly affects people of African, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern descent. []
And it can cause a range of symptoms including blood clots and strokes and it can even cut 20 years off your life. []
It’s caused by inheriting defective copies of a hemoglobin gene - which limits the hemoglobin’s ability to carry oxygen thus causing it to be misshapen.
And because they’re misshapen, the blood cells are more prone to clump together and cause blockages to blood vessels which can lead to severe pain and tissue damage. []
Normally, sickle cell anemia can be treated with therapies that can control it but not cure it.
There are some instances of getting bone marrow transplants from external donors which can cure it but those procedures don’t always work and come with a bunch of side effects and even a risk of death. []
In fact, according to the National Institutes of Health, about 1 in 20 children under 16 who have gotten bone marrow transplants for sickle cell anemia have died.
And that number jumps up to 1 in 10 for people older than 16.
But that wasn’t a risk Sebastien had to face.
Because back in December, he began treatment with a brand spanking new gene therapy approach called Lyfgenia. []
Which was developed by a biotech company called Bluebird Bio.
And it works by extracting the patient’s own blood stem cells and then genetically modifying them using a virus to paste copies of functional hemoglobin into the cells.
Then, with chemotherapy, the dysfunctional cells are cleared out of the body and the new ones are infused back in.
And then new, totally normal red blood cells are produced from the transplanted, modified blood stem cells.
Since his treatment back in December, Sebastien has had zero symptoms of sickle cell anemia - leading his doctors to believe that he’s been cured. []
With Sebastien saying,
"Sickle cell was like a blockade for me, but now it's just like a wall that I just jumped over.” []
With his mother adding,
"Sebastien’s been coming to this hospital since he was 2 months old. There is not enough words to show you how grateful I am.” []
And this is truly a medical history-making moment.
Because while Sebastien may not be the first person to have been cured using Lyfgenia, he is the first person in New York to be cured of sickle cell anemia.
And soon he’s going to be able to do things like travel, work out, and focus on his education. []
He even added that he wants to go into the medical field - saying,
“... I can't wait to get back to my day-to-day life because now I feel unstoppable.” [h]
And that is your bright spot of good news for the day.
Let me know your thoughts in those comments down below.
Head to Lumen for 20% off your purchase.
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/6bc3f417bb061f62dc9e894d03bf53a0/Ken_Paxton.jpg){kind=link}
