logo
The ‘Signalgate' theories may be entertaining, but they're probably not correct

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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests
Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests

Reflecting on the recent protests in Los Angeles, Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told CNN that he considered it 'absolutely insane' to see protesters 'carrying a foreign flag.' When 'State of the Union' host Dana Bash reminded the Oklahoma senator that carrying a flag 'is not illegal,' Mullin quickly interjected, 'A foreign flag while you're attacking law enforcement, it's pretty bad.' Of course, during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Americans also saw foreign flags and rioters attacking law enforcement, and much of the Republican Party now treats those violent criminals as victims and heroes. A day before Mullin's on-air comments, U.S. Customs and Border Protection used its social media platform to issue a statement that read, 'Let this be clear: Anyone who assaults or impedes a federal law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their duties will be arrested and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Attack a cop, and life long consequences will follow!' That certainly seemed like an uncontroversial sentiment, except, again, Jan. 6 rioters assaulted and impeded law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. And while they were arrested and prosecuted, and it appeared that many of them might face serious consequences, Trump returned to the White House and started handing out pardons — including to those who were convicted of violent assaults. And then there was FBI Director Kash Patel, who published a related online item of his own over the weekend: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail ... doesn't matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you.' Not only did the president who appointed Patel come to the opposite conclusion when handing out Jan. 6 pardons, but the comment also brought to mind this Mother Jones report published after Patel's Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. [Patel] hailed January 6 rioters convicted of violence against police officers as 'political prisoners.' ... Several Democrats pressed Patel on his work with the J6 Prison Choir, a group of January 6 rioters who recorded a version of the national anthem mashed up with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The song became a mainstay at Trump's campaign rallies. Patel told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he promoted the song to raise money for the families of January 6 attackers. To be sure, 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail' seemed like an undebatable point. The trouble is, in the Trump administration, it's a maxim that comes with some important fine print: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail, unless the president likes the reason you hit a cop, in which case you're getting a pardon.' This article was originally published on

Committee explores nuclear solutions to AI demand
Committee explores nuclear solutions to AI demand

E&E News

time35 minutes ago

  • E&E News

Committee explores nuclear solutions to AI demand

House Science, Space and Technology Committee lawmakers will meet this week to discuss how nuclear energy could help meet a projected surge in demand from artificial intelligence operations. The Energy Subcommittee hearing — to be led by Chair Randy Weber (R-Texas) — continues Republicans' early focus and significant concern regarding supply and demand in the 119th Congress. They believe baseload energy sources, such as nuclear and fossil fuels, need to be built at a rapid pace to offset a surge in intermittent, renewable energy generation that could put grid reliability at risk. Indeed, transmission providers are forecasting an 8.2 percent growth in electricity load over the next five years primarily due to AI data center proliferation. That's equivalent to hooking up nearly 50 million homes to the grid by 2029. Advertisement But whether nuclear energy can actually meet that demand remains a point of debate among energy and policy experts.

House schedules vote on climate cuts, more spending bills
House schedules vote on climate cuts, more spending bills

E&E News

time35 minutes ago

  • E&E News

House schedules vote on climate cuts, more spending bills

House Republicans will take major steps this week toward cutting discretionary funding, including a vote to claw back more than half a billion dollars for international disaster assistance and climate programs. Members will debate the rescissions package that the White House sent to Congress last week during a Rules Committee hearing Tuesday. The full House could vote on it as soon as Wednesday. The request for $9.4 billion in total clawbacks targets $496 million in already appropriated funding to help other countries recover from natural disasters and $125 million for clean energy projects around the world. Advertisement It will be a significant test of Congress' willingness to codify some of the cuts proposed by the Department of Government Efficiency and comes amid a flurry of other efforts by the GOP to slash environmental programs that Democrats support. House appropriators are expected to unveil two new fiscal 2026 spending bills this week.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store