The ‘Signalgate' theories may be entertaining, but they're probably not correct
The venerable logical principle known as Occam's razor, attributed to the 14th century English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham, asserts that when confronted with multiple possible explanations for a causal phenomenon, the simplest explanation is — absent persuasive evidence to the contrary — usually correct.
Although hardly foolproof or comprehensive, Occam's razor has the benefit of simply making a lot of sense. The problem is that Occam's razor, as a general signpost to help make sense of the many things happening all around us, falls out of favor in an era when institutional trust is in free-fall. And so it is today: From organized religion to the military to the media to Wall Street to public health authorities to Congress and the Supreme Court, public polling across recent decades typically shows a very negative trendline when it comes to Americans' trust in virtually all of our major institutions.
To be sure, much of this collapse in public trust has been self-inflicted.
The Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal, which first came to light more than two decades ago, undermined public trust in institutional religion in general. Many legacy media brands have largely abandoned objectivity or political neutrality, acting instead as culture-warring crusaders. Wall Street did itself no favors with the 2008 global financial crisis — as well as the subsequent Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout. Public health officials utterly botched aspects of their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, from lockdown rules to the virus' origins. Congress often seems incapable of doing anything other than hurl petty invectives across the aisle. And the Supreme Court is led by a chief justice who ironically exalts his tribunal's 'institutional integrity' so much that he ends up delegitimizing it.
We live in a decidedly populist age, and much of our underlying angst is justified — indeed, it is sometimes righteous. Public authorities have routinely dropped the ball and made egregiously bad decisions. Media bias is very real — and so is congressional incompetence. Oftentimes, the American ruling class — as the late, great intellectual Angelo Codevilla famously described it in a 2010 essay — really does prioritize its own parochial interests over the supreme imperative of the common good.
But there is a profound danger, always bubbling just below the surface, of anti-institutional sentiment going too far. Institutional dysfunction trains us to find or dream up arcane and irrational explanations for what we see in the world. At some point, Occam's razor gets turned on its head: The simplest or most logical explanation cannot possibly be true because that's what the powers that be want you to believe! Alternative explanations, often wildly elaborate and bearing little to no basis in factual reality, are proposed — sometimes in a circuitous manner, done in the ostensible name of 'just asking questions.'
We saw this familiar script play out in the major domestic story of the past week: the 'Signalgate' group chat texting scandal that has taken the nation by storm.
On Monday, the editor of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, reported that he had inexplicably been added to a high-level group chat earlier this month on the encrypted commercial messaging app Signal. The chat, comprising top-ranking Trump administration officials such as Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and national security advisor Michael Waltz, debated and discussed plans for U.S. strikes on the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen (which have since come to fruition). They all seemed oblivious to Goldberg's presence.
There are numerous glaring questions that must be asked from this most embarrassing error, perhaps chief among them: How in the world did Jeffrey Goldberg, who did more than any other journalist in America to sell Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal one decade ago, get added to this chat?
Waltz organized the Signal chat, and many have been calling for his head all week. Waltz, a four-time Bronze Star recipient who became the first Army Special Forces soldier ever elected to Congress, tends — like President Trump himself — to be more aggressive when it comes to confronting the terrorist Iranian regime and its sprawling web of regional proxies. Accordingly, there are actors on the left and the Tucker Carlson-aligned right who want to sideline Waltz. Some of these propagandists have thus speculated that perhaps Waltz intentionally leaked to Goldberg — or perhaps that Waltz served as a Goldberg source inside the Trump administration.
But these ideologically driven explanations for 'Signalgate' are implausible. The simplest explanation, per Occam's razor, is that someone in Waltz's office messed up — badly — by adding the wrong person styled 'JG' into a group chat. To borrow another logical principle, Hanlon's razor: Don't ascribe to malice that which can be otherwise explained by rank incompetence. And so it is here as well. In this instance, the offender should be fired posthaste, the administration should vow to do better — like not letting life-or-death military intel fall into unknown hands. And that ought to be the end of the matter.
Many of the leading institutions in American public life do deserve our skepticism. Quite a few even deserve our outright scorn. But we cannot let that sad state of affairs melt our minds, either. Go outside, touch some grass, and remember that oftentimes the exciting 'alternative' explanation should be rejected for the simpler and more straightforward one.
Josh Hammer's latest book is 'Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.' This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

an hour ago
Ahead of UN climate talks, Brazil fast-tracks oil and highway projects that threaten the Amazon
MANAUS, Brazil -- Months before hosting the U.N.'s first climate talks held in the Amazon, Brazil is fast-tracking a series of controversial decisions that undercut President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's lofty environmental rhetoric and show widening divisions within his cabinet. The country's federal environmental agency approved plans for offshore drilling near the mouth of the Amazon and rock blasting along another river in the rainforest, while Congress is moving to make it harder to recognize Indigenous land and easier to build infrastructure in the rainforest. These efforts would be controversial in normal times. But on the eve of the COP30 climate summit, environmental advocates say they're undermining Lula's claims to be an environmental defender whose administration has made headway in slowing deforestation in the Amazon. 'What will Brazil show up with at COP30 in November?" asked Cleberson Zavaski, president of the National Association of Environmental Public Servants. "Will it be, once again, a list of commitments that contradict what the country itself is putting on the table today — such as expanding the highway network and oil exploitation?' Protecting the environment was a central part of Lula's presidential campaign in 2022, when he ran against President Jair Bolsonaro, who presided over increasing deforestation and illegal activities in the Amazon, such as gold mining and land-grabbing. But when Brazil's environmental protection agency rejected the state-run oil company's bid to conduct exploratory drilling in an about 160 kilometers (99 miles) off Brazil's Amazonian coast, Lula supported the company's appeal and in February criticized the agency for taking too long, saying it 'seems like it's working against the government.' On May 19, the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources or IBAMA, approved an emergency plan to allow the drilling. A week later, IBAMA approved a rock-blasting operation along 40 km (25 miles) of the Tocantins River to enable year-round navigation, despite criticism from local grassroots organizations. The river, which cuts through the Amazon rainforest, is set to become a critical waterway to ship soybeans, mainly to China. The Federal Prosecutor's Office said the authorization was illegal because it failed to address issues highlighted during the environmental study, and filed a lawsuit seeking to have it overturned. Since taking office in 2023, Lula has argued that Brazil can both further its development while protecting the environment. 'France, the U.K., Norway and the U.S. also produce oil. And Brazil has the cleanest energy mix in the world: 90% of our electricity comes from renewables,' Lula said in an interview to French newspaper Le Monde published last week. Brazil gets most of its own electricity from hydropower and other green energies, while its oil exports, a major source of income for the country, are on the rise. Emails to the president's chief of staff seeking comment were not answered. On May 21, the Senate approved sweeping legislation that weakens federal agencies' environmental licensing powers. Among other measures, the bill streamlines review for projects deemed priorities by the federal government, reducing the approval process from three bureaucratic steps to one and imposing a one-year deadline for review. It also elimates reviews for upgrades to existing highways, which could clear the way for to pave the whole of BR-319, a highway that runs about 900 kilometers (560 miles) through the western part of the Amazon. Environmentalists argue that the paving will lead to mass clearing of a pristine area of rainforest. The bill is opposed by Lula's Workers' Party, but it's expected to pass the lower chamber of Congress. Lula could veto all or parts of the bill, but according to press reports he is expected to support of the bulk of the changes with only minor adjustments. Lula has said he has no position on the environmental bill. Meanwhile, Congress has also approved rules that make it harder demarcate Indigenous lands and is moving forward with legislation to weaken licensing rules that, among other impacts. The bill is opposed by Lula's Workers' Party, but according to several press reports Lula will support of the bulk of the changes and will only negotiate minor adjustments. 'It's the perfect combo to wipe out environmental protections and Indigenous land demarcations in the country, accelerate the tipping point of the world's largest tropical forest and set off a carbon bomb against the global climate,' Climate Observatory, a network of 133 environmental, civil society and academic groups, said in a statement. Former U.S. Interior Interior Bruce Babbitt, who sits on the board of the nonprofit Amazon Conservation, said in a statement that the bill 'will lead to massive destruction of the Amazon rainforest. It should be opposed by all Brazilians and friends of Brazil in the international community.' The licensing bill has also deepened internal divisions within Brazil's government. Environment Minister Marina Silva said the law will end one of Brazil's crucial mechanisms of environmental protection, but she appears increasingly sidelined in the administration. Local media have reported that Lula's Chief of Staff Rui Costa promised the bill's sponsor that Lula would not oppose changes to licensing rules, and Minister of Transportation Renan Filho said in a social media post that the bill is 'excellent' news that will get the highway project moving. At a press conference last week, Lula praised Silva, calling her 'loyal' and adding that it's normal to have friction between the environmental and other ministries of government. But many see echoes of Lula's previous administration, during which Silva resigned from the same post after being marginalized by the rising influence of agribusiness. João Paulo Capobianco, executive secretary of the environment ministry, reiterated her criticism of the bill in a speech last week, calling it a 'real risk of setback.' He added that Silva is working with Lula's cabinet toward 'a point of convergence between those who seek efficiency — and deserve a response — and the need to preserve the system without dismantling environmental licensing.'

an hour ago
Homeless people may be arrested after refusing offers of shelter in Silicon Valley
SAN FRANCISCO -- Homeless people who reject three offers of shelter could be arrested under a controversial proposal before the city council of the most populous city in California's Silicon Valley on Tuesday. The proposal being pushed by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahon is eye-opening because it comes from a liberal city headed by a Democrat in the left-leaning San Francisco Bay Area. It is among the stricter anti-encampment deterrents proposed by elected officials since the Supreme Court in 2023 made it easier to ban homeless people from camping on public property. And it's another sign of just how frustrated people have become with squalid tents lining sidewalks and riverbanks, and erratic behavior of those using drugs or in distress in a state with an estimated 187,000 homeless people. California is home to roughly a quarter of all homeless people in the country. Mahan says most people do accept offers of shelter. But he wants to make clear to the small percentage of people who refuse, that as the city builds more shelter and interim housing, they have a responsibility to move indoors. 'I think we need a cultural change, a culture of accountability for everyone involved,' said Mahan. 'I don't want to use the criminal justice system to make vulnerable people's lives harder. I want to use it as a last resort.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and former mayor of San Francisco, has repeatedly urged cities to ban encampments. Arrests for illegal lodging have soared in San Francisco, and its current mayor, Daniel Lurie, has reiterated that it is not appropriate for people to live outdoors. Advocates for homeless people say cracking down on encampments is traumatizing and even counterproductive. Forcing a person to clear out sets them back in their search for stability as they could lose important documents needed to apply for work and housing, they said. 'Pushing people with mental health needs or drug addiction into incarceration — without any crime committed — is both inhumane and ineffective,' said Otto Lee, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in a written statement emailed Monday to The Associated Press. Lee and other county leaders are opposed to the mayor's proposal. They say they need more housing, beds and services, and not punishment. The 'responsibility to shelter' proposal does not mandate an arrest after three rejected offers. After talking with the city attorney's office and police, Mahan said it made more sense to give front-line outreach workers and police officers discretion to decide when to escalate or prioritize a situation. The city will set up a new six-officer quality of life unit within the police department. 'We don't want to overly tie their hands and tell them this is the only way to do it,' the mayor said. People who repeatedly violate the city's encampment code of conduct — which also includes keeping tents free of trash and not blocking the public right of way — could be sent to a recovery center for detox or petitioned for court-mandated treatment to mental health and substance use disorder care, Mahan said. San Jose has nearly 1,400 shelter spots and hopes to add another 800 by the end of the year. Officials are aware they do not have enough beds, and Mahan said that people will not be punished if beds are unavailable or the only options are unsuitable.

Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Hegseth's return to Congress turns heated as Democrats go on offense
Congressional Democrats on Tuesday clashed repeatedly with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, demanding details on the Trump administration's sparsely outlined defense budget request and admonishing him for a string of controversies — including his deployment of thousands of military personnel to Los Angeles over the objections of California's governor. Hegseth's appearance before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee was the first of four hearings scheduled over the next week and, from the outset, offered a forecast what is likely to be a series of explosive exchanges as lawmakers air frustration with the former Fox News host's unabashed partisanship since taking the helm of what has traditionally been a staunchly apolitical institution