When The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was mistakenly included in a chat among top-level Trump officials as they planned an attack in March 2025 on Houthi pirates, he assumed the chat was a joke. No serious national security professionals, he thought, would reveal highly sensitive military information over a non-secure network, especially with a journalist in their midst. But when bombs fell in Yemen, Goldberg realized that the Signal chat had actually been used to plan the operation – and that he had to decide whether and how to write about it. Any misstep by The Atlantic could have had catastrophic consequences. The story might have endangered members of the U.S. military or intelligence officers. And Goldberg’s reporting could put him and The Atlantic at risk of retaliation, including potential criminal charges, by the Trump Administration.

All of the potential catastrophes were averted because of The Atlantic’s careful choices, including initially withholding the full Signal messages exchanged by Trump Administration officials to avoid compromising national security. Its stories are a model of how to hold the government accountable even in the riskiest of circumstances.