By John Q. Hosedrinker 
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz accepted full responsibility for a Signal group chat inadvertently including journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, leading to the leak of sensitive information about planned Yemen airstrikes. Waltz, while blaming Goldberg and criticizing media coverage, admitted to creating the group and stated he was investigating the incident with technical experts. Despite Waltz’s claim of no staffer involvement, President Trump suggested otherwise, though his account was unclear. The incident sparked widespread criticism, with concerns raised about potential Espionage Act violations and accusations of careless handling of classified information.
Read the original article here
Mike Waltz’s claim of “full responsibility” for the leaked Signal chat group, containing sensitive information and inadvertently including a journalist, presents a complex and troubling situation. While Waltz stated he takes responsibility, his comments simultaneously attempt to shift blame onto the journalist, describing the situation as possibly accidental and questioning the journalist’s motives. This deflection, however, fails to address the core issues at play.
The assertion of full responsibility feels disingenuous when considering Waltz’s attempts to downplay his role. His explanation, involving a contact mix-up, seems unlikely given the nature of Signal group chats and the ability to easily verify participants before sending sensitive information. The fact that Waltz is even attempting to place blame elsewhere suggests a lack of true accountability.
The incident raises serious concerns about protocol violations and security breaches. The use of Signal, an unsecured platform, for discussions involving sensitive or classified information is a significant lapse in judgment on the part of everyone involved. Proper security protocols would have prevented accidental inclusion of an unauthorized individual, highlighting the negligence of those participating in the group chat. The gravity of the situation is magnified by the fact that classified information, potentially involving national security matters, was discussed within this unsecured group.
Furthermore, Waltz’s implication that the journalist was responsible for adding himself is a blatant attempt to avoid personal accountability. The focus should not solely rest on how the journalist ended up in the group, but rather on the far more critical issue of why such sensitive discussions were taking place on an insecure platform in the first place. The entire situation points towards a systemic failure within the chain of command. The notion that this sort of breach was merely an “honest mistake” or a “glitch” is an insufficient and unacceptable explanation for the handling of classified information.
The response from other officials involved only exacerbates the issue. Instead of accepting responsibility, there seems to be an ongoing effort to downplay the severity of the situation and shift the blame onto various scapegoats. This lack of accountability at the highest levels of government is deeply concerning. One can reasonably expect an immediate resignation or severe disciplinary action in the military or intelligence community for such a blatant breach of security, yet the response seems to be minimal, if not nonexistent.
The use of the term “full responsibility” feels hollow given the lack of genuine contrition or concrete action. It seems more like a performative statement meant to appease public outcry rather than a genuine acknowledgment of error. The lack of internal repercussions suggests a systemic problem, where consequences for such gross negligence are minimal.
This entire affair demonstrates a significant lack of understanding and adherence to security protocols by high-ranking officials. The incident highlights a troubling pattern of disregard for sensitive information, and calls into question the competence and judgment of those entrusted with national security. The casual attitude towards classified information and the subsequent attempts to evade accountability cast doubt on the integrity and trustworthiness of the entire administration.
Finally, the claim of consulting Elon Musk about the technical aspects of the leak adds a peculiar layer to the situation. Musk’s involvement, while perhaps intended to appear as an attempt at damage control, adds to the air of confusion and raises questions about the appropriateness of relying on outside entities to address such critical national security concerns. It serves only to reinforce the overarching sense of incompetence and disarray.