In March 2025, a significant security breach occurred when The Atlantic‘s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, inadvertently gained access to a classified Signal group chat. The chat, which was intended for senior administration officials, contained sensitive information about military operations, including planned strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen.

The exact cause of Goldberg’s inclusion in the group remains unclear. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz took responsibility for the breach, though he has stated he is unsure how Goldberg’s contact information ended up in the chat.

Waltz said, “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy (Goldberg) who has lied about the president, who has lied to Gold Star families, lied to their attorneys, and gone to Russia hoax, gone to just all kinds of lengths to lie and smear the president of the United States, and he’s the one that somehow gets on somebody’s contact and then gets sucked into this group,”

He emphasized that no staff member was at fault and acknowledged the mistake as “embarrassing.”

Which leads to the question – did Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, break the law by revealing classified information that was sent to him? The legal analysis depends on several key factors:

---

1. Was the Information Actually Classified?

• If the material was officially classified (Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret) at the time of disclosure, its unauthorized release could violate:
  • The Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793) – prohibits unauthorized possession or dissemination of national defense information.
  • Executive Order 13526 – governs the handling of classified material.
• If the information was already declassified or never properly classified, no crime occurred.

2. How Did Goldberg Obtain the Information?

• Passive receipt: If someone sent him classified material unsolicited (e.g., a leak), Goldberg’s initial possession might not be illegal (see Bartnicki v. Vopper, 2001, where the Supreme Court protected a journalist who received illegally intercepted material, provided they did not participate in the illegal act).
• Active solicitation: If Goldberg encouraged or conspired with a source to leak classified info, he could face legal risk (e.g., aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 793).
• First Amendment protections generally shield journalists from prosecution for publishing classified information (New York Times v. United States, 1971, the Pentagon Papers case).
• However, if Goldberg knew the material was illegally obtained and his source violated secrecy laws (e.g., a government leak), the government could attempt legal action (though prosecutions of journalists are rare).

---

Key Precedents:

• Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001): The Supreme Court ruled that punishing a journalist for publishing illegally intercepted material (if obtained lawfully by the journalist) violates the First Amendment.
• Julian Assange (WikiLeaks): The U.S. government argues that actively soliciting and publishing classified material crosses a legal line (Assange is charged under the Espionage Act). Goldberg’s case would differ unless he actively conspired to obtain secrets.

---

Bottom Line:

• If Goldberg merely received and published classified info unsolicited, he’s likely protected by the First Amendment – a reporter could even publish a D-Day-level secret without prosecution unless they helped steal it.
• If he conspired to obtain it, he could face legal risk (though prosecuting journalists is politically fraught and rare).
• The U.S. government typically targets leakers (e.g., Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden) rather than journalists.

• Espionage laws (18 U.S.C. §§ 793-798) apply to anyone, including journalists, who:
  • Conspire with foreign governments to obtain/secrets.
  • Accept payment or direction from a foreign intelligence service.
  • Knowingly publish information that harms U.S. security at a foreign power’s request.

The First Amendment protects even dangerous speech. Our Founding Fathers believed the alternative (letting the government decide what’s “too risky” to publish) is seen as worse.