The Corrupted Reporting of Anti-Trump Journalism

This has been evident since he announced his first run for president of the Republican Party in 2015. Even though he had been covered in the news for decades as a businessman, he had not played the political game in a way aspirers to the nation’s capital understood. More significantly, by aligning himself as a conservative (at the end of the Obama Presidency) meant he was potentially a threat to Democrats’ hold on power. Veterans of the GOP were lining up for their shot at the White House, but largely due to his massive ego and bombastic style, journalists spent an inordinate amount of time covering him. What was novelty and genuine interest devolved into rejection of his alignment on issues. Sadly, the professional responsibility to report facts & data overwhelmingly gave way to personal attacks and disdain for Trump’s common sense legislative positions.

It’s important to understand that mainstream journalists have been carrying water for the Democratic Party for years.

Their pursuit of shaping social and political progressivism started in the same institutions as their heroes in Washington, D.C. Finding injustice everywhere they look (as opposed to the realities of a complicated, disparate world,) they determined that they were going to shape all Americans’ perspectives to be like theirs. These reporters attend the same gatherings, galas, and fundraisers as the politicians they are paid to investigate. They do not report on events so much as give guidance to their readers how they should perceive them. In short, mainstream media now seldom report information on the Trump Administration as much as grandstand for their personal feelings with each issue.

As we have seen with the Signal thread debacle, the accidental inclusion of a reporter has proffered a host of political attacks. It was a huge mistake that could have resulted in harm to American service members if it involved troops on the ground. There is justified criticism of the national security team. This was a screwup that should never have happened. The intended receipient to be American trade representative Jamieson Greer (initials: JG,) because one of the driving factors for the strike is the constraint on global shipping through the Red Sea. (h/t https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-ben-shapiro-show). While this mistake is one that everyone with a smart phone has made at some point (eg, texting the wrong person,) leftist journalists care less about the who, what, where, when, why & how of the strike, and have focused almost entirely on conspiracy theories and distorted information from dubious sources.

Using this technical error as justification to question sound foreign policy, https://x.com/nat_droz & https://x.com/jamietarabay report that “President Donald Trump dismissed the disclosure of Houthi attack plans in a Signal chat as a “glitch” with no impact on national security. Intelligence experts argue that it gave foreign adversaries priceless insight into US spycraft far beyond the obvious.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-28/trump-s-team-signal-chat-exposed-us-spycraft-to-adversaries?utm_source=website&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=copy. This is a simple attempt to cut into the foundation of this administration and sow seeds of discord amongst its cabinet leaders.

War movies in the 1990s were showing surveillance aircraft and spy satellites tracking targets on the ground. Intelligence/Surveillance/Reconnaissance (ISR) drones are well known to even our most dangerous and crafty enemies. Nothing about this is novel or revealing. They are still effective because there’s little the Houthis can do to combat them. In this Bloomberg piece (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-28/trump-s-team-signal-chat-exposed-us-spycraft-to-adversaries?utm_campaign=pol&utm_medium=bd&utm_source=applenews&leadSource=uverify%20wall), National Security Advisor Mike Waltz “…elaborates on the success of the strike. “The first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed.”

Kudos to the team for focusing on exactly the right guy!

“Yet under the surface, the text is more revealing. It suggests the US was tracking the Houthis’ “top missile guy” in real time — either via a human source or airborne platform. American intelligence also knew the identity of the woman he was dating, as well as where she lived. All of that will give valuable clues to adversaries looking for insight into American spycraft.“

Actually no, it will not.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the Horn of Africa; these are all places where drones have been used by the US for decades to keep track of hard targets and enemy combatants. And, it is not hard to imagine there are dozens of other locations where we are keeping tabs and testing new drones all the time. To embellish this as some kind of big reveal that Russia, China, Iran, et al, were hoping for shows how desperate Bloomberg is to capture clicks without reporting something that is real news.

And while it might seem intriguing to cite a former spy to make a point of how revealing this could be, anyone that has watched a war movie in the last 20 years has experienced what the owner of this quote should know is not damaging, though he implies otherwise: “Details like those disclosed in the chat “are the kinds of things that intelligence agencies salivate over,” said John Sipher, an Atlantic Council fellow and retired CIA officer. He said the conversations disclosed in the texts could help foreign leaders” know how to engage with and potentially manipulate the US.” (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-28/trump-s-team-signal-chat-exposed-us-spycraft-to-adversaries?utm_campaign=pol&utm_medium=bd&utm_source=applenews&leadSource=uverify%20wall). So, what does offering a seminar on spycraft at Oklahoma State University (https://news.okstate.edu/articles/global-studies/2025/inside_the_intelligence_world_former_cia_officer_breaks_down_spies_and_conspiracies_in_global_briefing_series.html) and running your own business specifically addressing the spy business (https://www.thecipherbrief.com/experts/john-sipher) do to keep national secrets?

It’s probably not best to use a retired intelligence officer capitalizing on his professional history to make a case for secrecy and discretion.

With a particularly strong start, Democrats are doing everything they can to stymie President Trump’s 2nd Administration. That is to be expected, but is distasteful coming from mainstream media. Their job is to report the news, not become part of the news, yet this article from The Hill is shockingly obvious in its effort to sow strife: “What truly matters is that “The plan was deemed a successful military operation.” The Wall Street Journal declared: “The President’s policy carried the day.” Sadly, the reason the messages were communicated: disabling the leadership of a terrorist organization responsible for hundreds of billions of dollars of global inflation, is almost gleefully downplayed by https://twitter.com/elizabethcrisp as she reports that the Wall Street Journal is trying to make the President suspicious of those around him (https://thehill.com/homenews/5212926-trump-security-officials-signal-app/.)

Attempting to Paint VP Vance as a Naysayer is Bad Analysis

Vice President Vance’s position on the attacks potentially being a mistake was an educated, rational statement to raise a differing point of view. The smartest people gather smart people around them do this: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/yemen-houthi-group-chat-jd-vance-mike-waltz-pete-hegseth-stephen-miller-donald-trump-d8f2f635?mod=opinion_lead_pos3 (firewall). Of course there will be different perspectives before a significant military action like this. The United States is not only responsible how it uses its military, but also long been seen as the world’s police force securing free passage of global shipping. There are always reverberations for anything America does on the global stage and its leaders need to address the ‘how’ and ‘why’ in advance so these can be mitigated.

To imply that Vance is undermining Trump, or his agenda, is ludicrous. It is not only reasonable for the person seconded to the most powerful leader in the world to voice concern when necessary, it is expected. The author (https://substack.com/@therationalconservative?utm_source=about-page) ignoring the fact that Vance explicitly stated he would support whichever direction the group decided to go shows that he’s not only a capable leader, he is also a true believer in the essential democratic process: majority wins.

Due to the disastrous Biden Administration, America must have a more disciplined, self-focused period of recovery.

It seems mainstream journalists have fallen prey to the progressive deadening that you fall in line behind one leader and no one questions anything beyond that. The nature of the Trump national security team addressing many facets of the results of these attacks shows they thoroughly examined the serious impact of warfare in the world because a number of them are distinguished combat veterans with experience fighting radical jihadists. Questioning why a variety of congressionally vetted, national security leaders would even have discussions before taking serious measures seems lost on reporters covering this exchange. But this reality being lost on liberals is not surprising, as Republicans have long been the party willing to make the hard decisions and correct Democrats’ mistakes.

“At the same time, adversaries like Russia and China, which have formidable hacking capabilities, would have been eager to know that US officials might have been using personal phones and were willing to share information in an insecure way.” (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/signal-app-used-hegseth-can-leave-door-open-hackers-rcna197956.) Nothing about using the Signal app is revelatory on national security information, so Russia and China are getting no usable intelligence.

“Signal, the most secure widely available messaging app, has become a go-to resource for journalists, leakers and other people concerned about privacy.”

“At first glance, it might not seem a major problem. Cybersecurity experts widely consider Signal to be the leading easy-to-use encrypted messaging service, and there are no public reports of its ever having been compromised by hackers.”

“The report cited no examples of Signal’s being compromised.”

In fact, this article from 11 years ago implores iPhone users not to be concerned about their phones being hacked. “Ah, but that’s the thing: You can’t build a “back door” that only the good guys can walk through. Encryption protects against cybercriminals, industrial competitors, the Chinese secret police and the FBI. You’re either vulnerable to eavesdropping by any of them, or you’re secure from eavesdropping from all of them.” https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/03/opinion/schneier-apple-encryption-hysteria/index.html. With advancements in hardware and software over the last 11 years, what are the chances that it’s easier for Russia and China to personally hack iPhones in 2025 than in 2014?

Undoubtedly, the individual that inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg to the message thread instead of the intended recipient needs to be reprimanded for making a reckless mistake. And whil military actions that were as yet, unknown, were shared with the wrong person—and editor for a well-known left-leaning publication—that mistake did not result in any adverse outcomes. Despite headlines filled with hyperbole, nothing about US attacks on the Houthis or the means used to identify targets were a surprise.

Sadly, this is further evidence of the small-minded, biased journalism around the Trump Administration. As ardent objectors to everything he does, reporting on this crucial event will be secondary for reporters to what they can gleefully point out was a chink in his armor. In the end, this embarrasing blackeye will heal, and serve as powerful learning lesson for those responsible. Articles crafted like exposés on a national security meltdown was simply a predictable outcome for them that resulted in nothing.