Grok says:
There’s no definitive evidence to confirm whether Mike Waltz, Trump’s National Security Adviser, personally knows Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. The question stems from a March 2025 incident where Waltz inadvertently added Goldberg to a Signal group chat discussing U.S. military plans against Houthi rebels in Yemen. This has sparked speculation about their relationship—or lack thereof.
Waltz has publicly stated he doesn’t know Goldberg. On March 25, 2025, during a Fox News interview with Laura Ingraham, he said, “I can tell you 100 percent I don’t know this guy,” and added, “I’ve never met, don’t know, never communicated with” Goldberg. He claimed the inclusion was a mistake, possibly due to a misidentified contact in his phone, though he didn’t clarify whose number he intended to add. In a press interaction that day, he reiterated, “This one in particular I’ve never met, don’t know, never communicated with,” suggesting a technical error under review.
Goldberg, however, hinted at a possible prior encounter. In his Atlantic article on March 24, he wrote, “I have met him in the past,” referring to Waltz, though he provided no specifics about when or where. This vague statement contrasts with Waltz’s firm denial, leaving room for doubt. Goldberg’s account suggests Waltz initiated the Signal connection on March 11, implying Waltz had his number—raising questions about how it got there if they’d never interacted.
Theories abound. Waltz, a former congressman and military veteran, might have crossed paths with Goldberg, a prominent national security journalist, at a professional event years ago, with Waltz forgetting or downplaying it. Alternatively, Goldberg’s number could’ve been in Waltz’s contacts via a staffer, a shared database, or even a mix-up (e.g., a similar name like “JG” for someone else). Signal requires a phone number to connect, so it wasn’t random—someone input it. Posts on X reflect skepticism, with some users calling Waltz’s denial a lie, though that’s unproven.
No hard proof—like emails, call logs, or witness accounts—confirms they’ve met beyond Goldberg’s passing remark. Waltz’s role in a media-wary administration and Goldberg’s history of critical Trump coverage (e.g., the 2020 “losers and suckers” story) make a close tie unlikely. The simplest explanation? A clerical error by Waltz or an aide, with Goldberg’s “met him” line possibly overstating a brief, forgotten encounter. Without more data, it’s a wash—Waltz says no, Goldberg implies maybe, and the truth’s stuck in the middle.
