this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
1323 points (99.6% liked)

politics

22535 readers
3693 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Atlantic has published unredacted attack plans (non-paywall link) shared in a Signal group chat of senior Trump officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg released the full texts after officials denied sharing war plans or classified information, arguing transparency was necessary amid accusations of dishonesty.

The leaked messages detailed U.S. military strikes targeting Houthis in Yemen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 155 points 6 days ago (5 children)

The Atlantic putting a paywall on this when they got the texts for free from a government handout is peak America....

[–] [email protected] 48 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Good journalism is very expensive to produce. You got to pay for it somehow.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Exactly why I used to subscribe to the Washington Post until Bezos wiped his ass with it. I’ll have to look into subscribing to The Atlantic now.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Yeah I’m considering dumping NYT too. I heard Reuters was a better ‘investment’. Please someone tell me if that’s wrong. I don’t want to support Billionaires.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

PBS and NPR are pretty decent places to put your subscription moneys

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago

Hopefully they survive this administration.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Wired "has been killing it" during the ongoing soft coup, to quote my journalist wife, and we've replaced our WaPo subscription with that. We can never dump NYT just because of the recipes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

I have been The Atlantic subscriber for about 5 years now. I think it has pretty great writers on staff. Their physical subscription is pretty cheap too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

This was a gift given to the Atlantic, though. I guess you gotta milk it for what it’s worth.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm not disagreeing in a general sense, but it's funny to make that argument here when this info basically fell into the journalist's lap. Very little actual journalism went into making this story possible

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

But think of how much money is going to be needed for the security detail this guy is gonna need for the foreseeable future. Or the costs of retaining legal representation to help him navigate through what is guaranteed to be an endless sea of investigations, frivilous lawsuits, etc. that the Trump administration is guaranteed to launch until something sticks.

I wouldn't be getting on any planes any time in the near future if I were him either.

This story may have fallen into his lap, but it sure as hell wasn't free.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

JG got the texts for free but he's probably gonna need someone watching his 6 now. And I'm pretty sure a lawyer is billing for helping them figure out how to publish the details and still avoid getting trapped into anything illegal, like naming the CIA agent.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

Nah, the guilty parties already told congress nothing the texts did not contain classified material, so releasing them should be fine. It's not like this administration would suddenly change its mind now, surely.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 6 days ago

OP linked an archive link, and updated the post to have it.

But I clicked it before and had the same reaction as if I opened a box labeled "dead dove".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Government official work => no copyright?