EXPLOSIVE LEAK: Karoline Leavitt Caught on Tape Calling Jeffrey Goldberg ‘Useless Scum’ Amid US War Plan Scandal—Who’s Hiding the Truth?

On March 26, 2025, Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary under Donald Trump, found herself at the center of a fiery public controversy. During a press briefing, Leavitt launched a blistering attack on Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, after he unintentionally leaked sensitive U.S. military plans regarding attacks in Yemen. Leavitt did not mince words, calling Goldberg “useless” and accusing him of endangering national security by publishing details of the military strike.

The Background of the Incident

The incident began when a group of senior Trump administration officials, including National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, inadvertently exposed information about a military plan to strike Houthi forces in Yemen through the encrypted messaging app Signal. Although Signal is generally secure, the fact that the sensitive details were shared via the platform raised concerns about security lapses within the administration.

Goldberg and The Atlantic later obtained and published the documents detailing the military strike. These leaks revealed crucial aspects of the operation, including the timing, targets, and methods of attack. While the White House initially downplayed the significance of the leak, insisting no classified information had been compromised, Leavitt took a far more aggressive stance when addressing the media.

Leavitt’s Harsh Criticism

In her press briefing, Leavitt fired back at the leak, asserting that Goldberg had put the lives of U.S. military personnel and citizens at risk. “We cannot allow people like Goldberg to continue to harm our work,” she said, adding, “His actions only hurt national security and put millions in danger.” Leavitt’s words were forceful and deliberate as she condemned the journalist’s actions.

Her direct attack quickly garnered attention, sparking both support and backlash. Leavitt’s critics accused her of focusing on personal insults rather than addressing the deeper issues of the leak and its potential impact on national security. Some saw her comments as a way to deflect from the administration’s own security vulnerabilities, while others argued that the leak had been blown out of proportion by those with an agenda.

Goldberg’s Response

Jeffrey Goldberg, the longtime editor of The Atlantic, did not respond directly to Leavitt’s harsh words right away. However, in the aftermath, his colleagues came to his defense, arguing that Goldberg’s actions were a necessary part of journalistic duty. One journalist from The New York Times stated, “Press freedom is fundamental to democracy, and Goldberg was simply doing his job: bringing information to the public to ensure transparency and accountability.”

While Goldberg remained silent for the moment, others in the media rallied behind him, citing the importance of exposing government actions, especially when they pertain to military operations that could have far-reaching consequences for U.S. citizens and foreign relations. The incident quickly became a flashpoint for a broader debate on the limits of press freedom versus national security concerns.

National Security Concerns

National security experts have weighed in on the incident, debating whether the leak could genuinely harm U.S. national security. Critics of the leak argue that exposing military strategies and targets, even through an encrypted platform like Signal, is inherently dangerous. They contend that it undermines the country’s ability to execute covert operations and could embolden U.S. enemies to retaliate.

Leavitt and her supporters in the White House have maintained that the leak was unnecessary and irresponsible. “We must protect our sources and maintain absolute confidentiality,” Leavitt reiterated during the briefing. The White House’s narrative focused on the need to keep sensitive military operations under wraps to safeguard national interests.

However, political opponents of the Trump administration argue that such leaks may indicate deeper issues within the White House’s handling of classified information. They have called for an investigation to determine how the leak happened, why it was allowed to occur, and who should be held accountable for it.

Legal Repercussions

Beyond the media criticism, the incident has also attracted attention from legal experts and lawmakers. Some have suggested that Goldberg’s leak could lead to legal repercussions for The Atlantic and the individuals responsible for the breach of security. Several Democratic lawmakers have called for an investigation into whether national security laws were violated and whether legal action should be pursued against those involved in disclosing classified information.

Meanwhile, Leavitt and White House officials have defended the administration’s actions, arguing that all decisions made were in the best interest of protecting national security. However, legal experts have pointed out that the publication of classified information—whether intentional or accidental—could lead to serious diplomatic and military consequences, particularly when it involves military strikes on foreign soil.

The Fallout and the Future of the White House

The fallout from this leak continues to reverberate across Washington and beyond. As Leavitt and the Trump administration face mounting pressure, the growing tensions between the White House and the media become increasingly apparent. Leavitt, who has emerged as one of the most prominent faces of the Trump administration, is now seen as a key figure in the ongoing battle over media freedom and national security.

Despite her harsh words for Goldberg, Leavitt’s critics argue that her response may have been more about protecting the administration’s image than addressing the real security concerns raised by the leak. Some have suggested that the administration should focus more on preventing future leaks rather than attacking the press for doing their job.

Meanwhile, Leavitt’s supporters continue to praise her for standing up for national security and calling out the press when they believe it is putting American lives at risk. They argue that her actions are part of a broader strategy to prioritize the safety and well-being of U.S. citizens over political correctness and media sensationalism.

Conclusion: The Bigger Picture

The controversy surrounding Karoline Leavitt’s comments about Jeffrey Goldberg is about more than just a heated exchange between two individuals. It’s part of a larger debate about the role of the press in national security matters and the potential consequences of leaking classified information.

While Leavitt’s attack on Goldberg may have been an attempt to defend the administration’s handling of national security, it also highlights the ongoing tension between the Trump administration and the media. As this issue continues to unfold, it raises important questions about the balance between press freedom and national security, and the responsibility that journalists have in handling sensitive information.

For now, the battle between Leavitt and the media continues to escalate, with each side doubling down on their position. Whether or not the Trump administration can maintain control over its narrative in the face of such challenges remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the U.S. media landscape is at a crossroads, and the outcome of this conflict could have far-reaching consequences for both national security and the future of journalism in America.