[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. David Graham is with us. Staff writer at The Atlantic and an author of the Atlantic Daily Newsletter. He's also author of the book, The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America. We'll talk mostly about two things David Graham is writing about, the accidental release to The Atlantic's editor, his boss, Jeffrey Goldberg, of the Pentagon's attack plans for the recent bombings of the Houthis in Yemen via text messages and the commercial app Signal, not a government level secure platform. He had a piece last week called, A Warning for Columbia University. Surrendering to the Trump administration's $400 million ransom demand would be a disaster for higher education and for the United States. David, thanks for coming on. Welcome back to WNYC.

David Graham: Thank you for having me.

Brian Lehrer: On Columbia, want to summarize your warning? As you used that word?

David Graham: Yes. I mean, I think the warning is, although there may be things that people are troubled about at Columbia, trying to find accommodation with the Trump administration, trying to do something that will sort of get them off of your back is never a good deal. It's only a start. They will keep coming back for more. Once you start giving up independence, and you start giving up control, you have opened up the door to more from Trump.

Brian Lehrer: Your article reminds us of some of the basics. In a letter earlier this month, the Trump administration sought to dictate how the university disciplines students involved in pro-Palestinian protests last year, structures its disciplinary process, handles masking on campus, and runs its admissions. It also demands that the university begin the process of placing its Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies under "academic receivership" for a minimum of five years, as the administration put it. You describe it as a process where universities put departments that have failed to govern themselves under the supervision of some university official outside the department.

Basically, that's what they did. Right? Do you think Columbia has now done, with its plans announced last week, after your article was published, that what they do is basically capitulate to Trump's demands? Would you use that word?

David Graham: I think that's right.

Brian Lehrer: Because--

David Graham: I mean, this is, as you know, like you say, these are the things they're asking for, and these are demands. Some of these things are directly related to the question or more directly related to questions about campus protests, but some of them are simply an ideological grab. When you see the administration demanding control or demanding a voice in admissions policies, these are the sort of things that erode the control of the university. This is not just a public university, this is a private university.

It's coming from an administration that has shown, both in the first Trump administration and now, a real hostility towards higher education and a desire to rework it. I think they're inviting the wolf in by allowing the Trump administration to dictate these changes.

Brian Lehrer: You wrote, "These demands are ostensibly about addressing antisemitism on Columbia's campus. Antisemitism is a genuine problem at the school," you wrote, "but these are not genuine fixes." We got two views on that question, earlier in the week, from two Columbia faculty members. Why do you say not genuine fixes?

David Graham: I think if you look at the questions here, they don't, for the most part, attack the problems. I mean, the problem here is people involved in protests, voicing heinous views. The university has disciplinary policies to deal with those. The university has said that it needs to enforce those. That doesn't really connect to things like what the admissions policy is. That doesn't connect to masking, which is hard to disaggregate from the sort of antipathy toward COVID measures.

Also, by attacking the Middle Eastern studies department, it's a question of academic freedom as well. It's the administration attempting to secondhand, but attempting to dictate what the university can teach. That doesn't really have a whole lot to do with protests either.

Brian Lehrer: Even if there's an internal debate at Columbia about the same things, right? Because some people argue-

David Graham: Right, exactly.

Brian Lehrer: -some people argue that it doesn't-- that they were going to do this anyway. This is part of what we heard on Monday. These were internal debates at Columbia. They were heading toward doing most of this anyway, so why not do it and save the $400 million?

David Graham: Right. I think that there's a little bit of a question of courage of administration. There is a sense, I gather, that some of these things can be done, it solves a couple problems. It makes the administration internally the bad guy who's forced these things, but it also solves problems for the university. I think you can see why that might appear like an elegant solution for an administrator who's pinched between arrest of faculty, angry donors and alums, angry students.

Suddenly, they don't have to be the person doing this, but I think when you start allowing the federal government to intervene in these ways, in particular, this executive branch and this president, you're opening yourself up to a lot of trouble down the line, even if you solve the short-term problem.

Brian Lehrer: Does it matter that the $400 million, A, is a lot of money, and B, was going for medical research and other things that we might consider vital and in the public interest, if it was a close call for them on the policy anyway? That they were having this internal debate, they were also under pressure from donors, they were under pressure from their own students. People on campus, without any outside pressure, had different points of view on this. Does the $400 million matter? How much virtuous funding for important purposes do they give up for a close call?

David Graham: Yes. I think the 400 million figure certainly matters for somebody making a decision under pressure. It's a gun to the head of the administration. That's why the Trump administration is using it. It understands that that's a lot of money, and that's a lot of money especially at a time when they're also, and I think this is important context, when they're also cutting funding to universities for a variety of other things. They understand the power of that. It's interesting to see what a lot of legal experts have thought about this. Generally, the view is, it's hard to imagine that holding this money back would survive a court challenge.

If it did go through a court challenge, it would take years to resolve. You could probably have that money held in place, in the meantime. With a stout legal challenge, you may not be facing any sort of immediate shortfall, but the administration doesn't seem to want to have that fight. They would rather get the money now and [crosstalk].

Brian Lehrer: The administration of Columbia. Yes, but one of the interesting developments this week is that faculty members, as represented by the American-- what's it actually called? The--

David Graham: Association of University Professors.

Brian Lehrer: That one, and the American Federation of Teachers. So, faculty members, as represented by those two organizations, they've gone to court to sue the Trump administration to restore the $400 million in federal funds. I don't know if you have a thought about that distinction, but yes, the Columbia administration, from what I've read reported, looked at suing themselves, suing Trump, declined, and now the faculty, through their organizations, are suing. Pretty interesting. I mean, it's a backhanded slap at the administration, as well as at the Trump administration, but now faculty members are taking this on their own.

David Graham: Yes, I think it's a really interesting development. I'm curious to see how well it works. Obviously, the university is in a particularly strong position to push back on this if it wants to, and whether the professor can make the same kind of legal case for standing, I think will be interesting. It feels of a piece with some of the other pushback we've seen against the Trump presidency in other places. We see employees' unions in the federal government, for example, leading the charge against some of the rearrangements. That seems to be where there are people, people who are most directly affected at this are some of the ones who are trying to stand up to the administration's moves.

Brian Lehrer: Also, some people argue Columbia has a $15 billion endowment. That's a number I've heard reported. Use 400 million of that to stand up for their independence, and they'll still have plenty of money left, and they'll set a good precedent. Have you considered that as an argument or looked into it? I don't know if the endowment is that liquid, or if it's that simple, but I've heard it as a scenario.

David Graham: I think it's an interesting question, and I think it's understandable that people look at these university endowments and say, "Oh, come on. You're sitting on a pile of money." I think this is a moment where university-- the business model of these universities is so much in flux, and I think there's a little bit of a danger there, if you start cutting into your endowment. It's easy for the federal government to say, "Well, okay, we're going to cut all of your funding." That's the sort of retributive action that I think we've seen from Trump.

I think we see people around him who are of the view simply that the federal government shouldn't be funding what's going on on these campuses. It's not their business, it's funding ideologies they don't like, and they want to cut all of the funding off. It's hard to know quite where the line ends there. I think there's dangers in that as well, but it is possible that it's one way to stand up in the short term.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, your calls for David Graham on his articles on Columbia and Trump's demands and on the accidental leak of attack plans to his editor, Jeffrey Goldberg. One of the ways they covered that was that David Graham interviewed Jeffrey Goldberg, and put it out as one of David's articles. We're going to get to that in the second half of this segment. Your calls are welcome. Questions or comments on either of these topics. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

We're talking still about his article published last week called, A Warning for Columbia University. Surrendering to the Trump administration's $400 million ransom demand would be a disaster for higher education and for the United States. Let's get to the subtitle part of that. Why does it matter to other universities that they did this? In your view, could it not be case by case, school by school? We know Trump is pressuring other schools as well, University of Maine, over a trans athlete policy, Rutgers, and many other schools, over their DEI policies. Each school could be case by case, or I think you're arguing Columbia sets a precedent and makes it harder for them. Yes?

David Graham: Yes, I think it sets a precedent, and I think it's also intended to send a message. Trump is taking on a university that is one of the finest universities in the country, one of the most prominent universities in the country, and a historical bastion of liberalism. If he can mow these people down, if he can force them into submission, I think that's going to be a message to other colleges that don't have the same sort of money and status behind them, that they can't stand up to the administration. We see even immediately, for example, to go after University of Pennsylvania, there's a sort of movement on these prominent Ivy League institutions.

The reason I think that this is simply a first place, is because of the rhetoric that we've heard from Trump and other people in the administration about colleges, particularly about prominent colleges, and the way they ought to be operating. There's little reason to believe that even-- that this is a one-off case, I think.

Brian Lehrer: Is this like the prisoner's dilemma? You know the prisoner's dilemma? What's in your interest as a prisoner might be good for you individually in the short term, but bad for the community of prisoners, which in turn comes back to hurt you.

David Graham: I think that's a good analogy. Yes. It's hard for universities to organize, in this sort of moment. They are, as I guess what we've seen at Columbia over the last couple years, they tend to be kind of slow moving organizations. There are a lot of different interests. The faculty tends to view itself as somewhat autonomous. Sometimes the students do as well. So it's hard to organize. The Trump administration is taking advantage of, I think, by moving quickly against a lot of campuses before the universities have had a chance to get their strategy straight.

Brian Lehrer: Do you think it's this bad? A listener writes, "There is no desire for a money addict." They're characterizing Columbia and its trustees, I guess, as money addicts. "There is no desire for a money addict to decrease their own wealth. They will always choose the immoral option if it further enriches them. Please start calling these selfish individuals money addicts."

David Graham: I mean, I understand the anger. I do think that it's worth thinking hard about the way that these universities work. I think it's something that has not been discussed a lot publicly, until Trump took office. Universities run on federal money, and there's a lot of things that universities do that requires that money. That is things like basic research, like medical research. Things that benefit the whole country. I don't think we should treat that as charity from the federal government. If we want these universities to do these things that benefit society, they do need money to do it, and it has to come from somewhere.

I don't think it's as simple as casting the university for wanting money. They want that money to do things with it. Some of those priorities, maybe not things that everybody favors, but they're using the money for a purpose.

Brian Lehrer: Listener writes, "Trump has a grudge against Columbia because of a past development dispute where they blocked a building that he wanted." Any insight on either that past incident or speculation about whether it could be related?

David Graham: This is a fascinating idea. The New York Times laid this out. Trump was trying to sell attractive land to Columbia for an expansion. He wanted to charge them $400 million for that. The university decided that it wasn't where they wanted to expand. They wanted to keep their expansion in Morningside Heights and declined that. The theory of The Times article is that he has been bearing a grudge about that for a long time. It's hard to know what's in Trump's mind. It is striking that they are the same numbers, and we certainly know that Trump is a man who has a very long memory for people he believes have slighted him.

Brian Lehrer: Ellen, in Manhattan, you're on WNYC with David Graham from The Atlantic. Hi, Ellen.

Ellen: Good morning. Thanks for taking my call. I want to say that I think that part of this battle was lost when the universities did not push back in the first place against this antisemitism argument. I think if you substitute apartheid for Zionism, and most major human rights organizations have stated that Israel is an apartheid state, then being against Zionism is not antisemitic. That whole entanglement of those two concepts, if you don't pull them apart, you're always going to lose this battle.

Brian Lehrer: I think what Columbia would say is they are not censoring speech that's anti-Zionist. Of course, people will debate the premise that you just called in with, if all of Zionism is illegitimate, but I think Columbia would say they don't call anti-Zionism antisemitism. Anti-Zionism is a political point of view. The statement that Columbia released on Friday, with the definition of antisemitism, that they're apparently going to use at the school is certain double standards that are applied to Israel would be considered antisemitic.

They lacked laying out what some of those might be, but I think they would say that your assertion goes too far, Ellen. That Zionism equals racism as a given, as opposed to something that can be debated at the university and that the protesters were allowed to debate just the way they did it.

Ellen: Well, your guest said, just a few minutes ago, something about heinous things that were being said on campuses. As far as I can tell, there's actually been very little heinous things said on campus. That most of what the students and the vast majority of the Palestine Support Solidarity Movement is not antisemitic. I'm Jewish, I'm an anti-Zionist, and I personally have never encountered antisemitism in the Palestine Solidarity Movement, nor in the West Bank, where I have traveled many times.

So, I think that this whole muddying of this, because sure, there are few antisemites, but the most-- I mean, the really most powerful antisemitic forces in this country are the Christian nationalists who are super Zionists.

Brian Lehrer: Ellen, thank you very much. That is certainly a double standard on the part of a lot of people who support the Trump administration. David, you did assert as sort of a given, in your article, that antisemitism at Columbia is a problem. We have Ellen saying the whole problem isn't real.

David Graham: I mean, I think Ellen is right. That most of the protests are not, in fact, antisemitic. Also, it is clear there are examples of people saying plainly antisemitic things as part of these protests. I don't think it's most. I think it's a small minority. I also think that the questions that she's raising about where the lines are between these things are really important conversations to have in a place like a university community. A university is really well suited to have these sorts of debates if it is running the debate effectively. It's not a conversation, and I think we want the federal government coming in.

We don't want the federal government, any president of any party, setting these definitions for how speech can work at a private university campus. It's simply not a role for the federal government. I think that's the danger of Columbia allowing the federal government to take these actions and to sort of set a definition for antisemitism that the university will then adopt.

Brian Lehrer: Right. Bringing it back to the central point of the federal government's role here. On the prisoner's dilemma, you write in your article, about the time in 2016 when Chris Christie was among those running against Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, and then he was the first rival candidate to endorse Trump and assist him. As you write, that won him a job leading the Trump transition until he was unceremoniously fired, became the butt of cruel Trump jokes, and emerged as a prominent Trump critic once it was too late. How does the Chris Christie 2016 story relate to the Columbia University 2025 story?

David Graham: We talk about what interest Columbia might have here. It's, I think, there is a clear interest. They would like to have that money for funding, for funding for good causes. They don't really want to have an enemy of the White House. So there's a real temptation to try to sort of seek accommodation in a way that will not only get Trump off of their back, but maybe turn him into a bit of an ally. I think there's a long history of people trying to do that that shows why it doesn't work. Christie, I think, is one of the very first examples of this. He's not the only one.

We saw, during the 2016 race, in the Republican Party as a whole sort of tried to keep Trump at arm's length. Then they started to accommodate him, they realized he was going to win, and they looked to see how they could work with him. They thought maybe they can manipulate him and push him into being a vessel for their policy needs. That's, of course, not what happened. It's not what happened with Christie, who got fired and then is now sort of a never Trumper, but at a point when it's too late.

It's not what happened with, say, Senator Mitch McConnell, who tried to accommodate Trump, tried to accommodate Trump even after the January 6th riots, on the premise that he was going to burn himself out and is also another senator who's now the butt of cruel Trump jokes. I just think that the past shows Trump is unlikely to strike a deal and then leave someone alone. It doesn't work that way for him.

Brian Lehrer: Here's an example in a text of how complicated this gets regarding people's experiences and feelings and opinions that kind of get mixed up and sometimes leave people feeling conflicted. Listener writes, "My son went to a protest in support of the Tufts student yesterday, that disappeared," I think was disappeared by the government, "and he was in full support of free speech, pro-democracy, and in support of both Israel and Palestine, but did feel uncomfortable with speech that he felt supported the Houthis, et cetera. Still, he didn't feel government should be involved." Interesting set of complex emotions experienced by the son of the writer. Right?

David Graham: That's a really rich tapestry of emotions. Yes, that's very interesting. I think that makes a lot of sense. I can see why someone would be pretty uncomfortable with support for the Houthis, [chuckles] to put it mildly. I think it's also an admirable stand that that's not the role of the government to tell people what to say.

Brian Lehrer: Right. That's where we have to sort of keep our eye on the ball. I mean, there are many balls, right? One could debate whether there is meaningful antisemitism at Columbia or other schools, and that's a legitimate debate to have, and people can share their experiences and their views of what they've experienced and all of that, but there's the separate question, which is really the question certainly of your article and for what's going on right now between Columbia and Trump, of what is the government's legitimate role here? That's where we are, right?

David Graham: Yes. I mean, I think your analogy of balls is really well put. There is more than one ball, and we do have to keep our eyes on them, but I also think it's important to keep-- to be conscious of where these things don't belong together. Where the division should be between what debates we want to have about the proper role of American foreign policy, or the proper role of discussions about Israel in American life versus where the government's role is in those.

Brian Lehrer: One more call on this, and then we're going to turn the page and talk about the leaking of that Signal chat about the war plans against the Houthis to your boss, the editor of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. First, TJ, in Manhattan, you're on WNYC with David Graham from The Atlantic. Hi, TJ.

TJ: Yes, good morning to you and your guest. Basically, want to mention that Trump started with university and managed to basically bring them to their knees. After that, he went after really major law firms, and he brought them to their knees. They basically did everything he asked. Now he's targeting television and radio. I mean, I've seen on television yesterday that NPR and public television, he's going after them. The door is open wide for him to go after any company, anyone he wants now. What do you think?

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, TJ. Yes, David, the widest context here?

David Graham: Yes, I think TJ is exactly right. I think the collapse of law firms in the face of pressure from Trump has been notable and happening around the same time. Just after Columbia, we saw the law firm of Paul, Weiss striking this agreement with Trump. I think the agreement [crosstalk]-

Brian Lehrer: That's a major law firm. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind.

David Graham: Right.

Brian Lehrer: Right.

David Graham: If anyone has the legal firepower to push back on the administration, it is surely these big white shoe law firms. In the case of this Paul, Weiss agreement, there's even a dispute about what's in the-- what is agreed upon. The law firm put out one list and the Trump administration put out its own list of what it believe is in there. There's some conflict, and I think that's an indication of the danger of trying to strike a deal. You're simply not going to get it. You can't agree on a deal with a bad faith negotiator, which is what Trump appears to be, and you can't assume that he's going to stop with whatever you think you have agreed to.

Brian Lehrer: What are the details of what Paul, Weiss agreed to? I haven't read into that, and so probably a lot of the listeners haven't either. What happened there?

David Graham: I think for the background, Trump is angry at these law firms because they have somehow been involved, or members of the law firms have been involved in litigation against him. In the case of Paul, Weiss, it's that a lawyer named Mark Pomerantz, who was formerly a partner there, was involved in the Manhattan District Attorney's investigation into him that resulted in his felony conviction. In other cases, for example, he's going after the law firm of Jenner & Block, which is another major law firm. Andrew Weissmann, who is a prominent member of Robert Mueller's team, has been on the staff there.

The agreements, and I'm a little bit-- I'm trying to remember all the specific details. They include statements that things they did were wrong. Commitments, basically, to root DEI, whatever that means, out of the law firm, and to hire "based on merit" rather than demographics. Then also to donate pro bono legal work to causes that Trump supports. There are some disagreement about what that might be. They are supposedly sort of public interest issues, but it is Trump directing a lot of legal firepower from a private law firm towards his political causes.

Brian Lehrer: Now, listeners, we're going to turn the page, with David Graham. From this point on, we're only going to take phone calls on topic two, which is the leak to his boss, the editor of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. As David sums it up, if you've been under a rock for the last few days and haven't heard this story, in essence, a reporter was invited to listen while the nation's top security officials weighed and debated a military action and was sent detailed information about the strike. We will delve into that with David Graham and with you right after this.

[theme music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we continue with The Atlantic magazine staff writer David Graham. Now we're going to pivot to his article called, A Conversation with Jeffrey Goldberg About His Extraordinary Scoop. You can weigh in with your comments or questions about that whole story. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text. David, I think in fairness, on these leaked attack plans, people can still be confused by this story despite all the coverage it's been getting. Would you like to do a 101 on what exactly happened here with the Trump officials and your boss?

David Graham: Yes, sure. About a week ago, a little bit more than a week ago, my boss got a request on Signal, the encrypted messaging act from somebody who appeared to be Michael Waltz, the national security advisor, who's someone who Jeff had met on occasion. Then shortly after that, he was added to a Signal group that was a discussion of attacks on Houthi rebels in Yemen, or this is what it appeared to be.

Jeff was, I think-- in this moment, journalists are wary of hoaxes, and this seems so improbable that Jeff assumed that somebody was pulling some sort of gag on him. Then over time, it became clear to him, after they discussed specific plans for a strike and then the strike happened, that in fact, this was a genuine group where members of the Cabinet and the vice president were discussing a plan to attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Brian Lehrer: One of the questions that you asked Jeffrey Goldberg was, "Tell me how you came to conclude that this group was real." How did he know he wasn't being punked?

David Graham: The moment that he realized it was real, there was a-- after some discussion about whether and when to launch these strikes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out specifically how strikes would happen, what airplanes would strike, at what time, and said it would happen in two hours. So, Jeff waited for two hours, and lo and behold, at the appointed time, these strikes happened. That confirmed to him that what he was looking at was real. Later, then he went for comment to the administration, and a spokesman for the National Security Council also confirmed that they were genuine.

Brian Lehrer: We'll get into more details of what you asked Jeffrey Goldberg and what he told you, but is this a tempest in a teapot? It was an accident, no harm was apparently done to the mission. It won't happen again, I think we can safely say. Do the Democrats or the media risk making too much of it?

David Graham: I think it won't happen again is an interesting question. It won't happen again that Jeffrey Goldberg is added to one of these chats. I think we can say that's safe.

Brian Lehrer: Or that they use Signal as opposed to government-secured platforms.

David Graham: I don't know that we know that. They keep insisting that nothing wrong happened and that no classified information was shared here, which many experts disagree with, but insofar as they think that nothing wrong happened, it's hard to see why they would change that. Also, I think it's a fair rule that if government officials don't face repercussions for things they're doing, they are unlikely to change their behavior, and we don't see a lot of prospect for that. The one other thing I'd add is, we won't know.

One of the problems with using a platform like chat is it is not preserved for public records, for posterity, for accountability. So, if they are using encrypted chats like this and they are deleting the messages, we would have no way of knowing, in the future, whether or not they had been doing it.

Brian Lehrer: How insecure is Signal? For people who haven't used it, it does consistently get described in the media as an encrypted messaging platform. So, how much worse is Signal as opposed to just the simple fact that they actually accidentally put Jeffrey Goldberg on the list, how bad is it from a security standpoint that they were using Signal at all compared to a government platform?

David Graham: As I understand it, there are two places to be concerned. One is it's true that Signal is encrypted. Once you are sending a message on Signal, it's unlikely to be intercepted, but the problem is who you add on Signal is wide open. If you have, for example, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic in your phone contacts, you might accidentally add them to a conversation like this, or you might add any number of people who may not treat the information with the same sort of seriousness that my boss did.

The other problem is, suggests that they are probably using, and we don't know, they've been a little bit cagey about this, but they're probably using personal devices rather than secure government devices that are made for this on secure platforms. That raises a danger that their devices could be compromised. If a malicious actor is in your device, it doesn't really matter whether the messages you're sending to someone else are encrypted or not, they're still going to be able to read them on your device.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Jonathan, in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jonathan.

Jonathan: Hi, Brian. Thanks for taking my call. The media and the Democrats seems to have focused on the illegal nature of using Signal for this classified information, but it's frustrating to me that both the media and the Democrats haven't focused on what I think is an equally important facet, which is that the Cabinet and the VP are clearly using Signal and deleting these messages to what I think is avoid having their communication subject to federal record requirements and FOIA requests, which is illegal.

Furthermore, there was one message from Michael Waltz that even referenced the first chat, meaning that the one that Jeffrey was added to was the second one. It's clearly a repeated behavior, and I kind of wish this aspect of it was being investigated more thoroughly, given that it likely means it's happening maybe across the government, about a whole host of other very serious topics.

Brian Lehrer: That's a really interesting thing to bring up. Jonathan, I wonder, since you're looking at that aspect, you'll agree this recalls the Hillary Clinton emails controversy in the 2016 election campaign. Of course, this is being compared to that now. "Oh, you cared so much about Hillary Clinton using a private platform. Now you're saying it doesn't matter that we use the private platform."

I think part of the legitimate critique, at that time, of what Hillary Clinton did, and we talked about it on the show, was that arguably, at least, she as Secretary of State, was trying to avoid having some of the things that she was writing or doing or reading being FOIA-able. That is a freedom of information request, because it's a government record. So she was keeping them on a private server. This is--

Jonathan: Right.

Brian Lehrer: You're raising that issue, right?

Jonathan: Yes, that's exactly right. I think you're completely correct about what Hillary did, and that should have been addressed, but there seems to be always the way in which the Republicans go for the jugular on issues, and fully blow everything up. The media then takes that approach and they blow it up, front page news in New York Times, et cetera. Then on top of that, the Democrats, when they have the opportunity to do the same thing, they sort of don't. They do like a skinny attack, in a way.

The media has been focusing on one aspect and it's just-- I mean, look, as a Democrat, it's also very upsetting to not see the Democrats go for the jugular when it is fully deserved and earned, when these people need to be addressed accordingly. It's just upsetting to feel that your party doesn't have teeth when they need to.

Brian Lehrer: Jonathan, thank you. David Graham, your thoughts?

David Graham: I mean, I think that Jonathan is right. The apparent avoidance of public records is a very serious problem. I think there's been some coverage of that, and I do think it's-- there's a lot going on and there's certainly more room for that. I mean, I think to your point, the avoidance of public records laws is a chronic problem by both parties. The fact that both parties have-- do it and that both have been doing it for a long time does not make it any more serious a problem. They're depriving the public of their right to know, they're depriving historians of an important resource. It is a problem that we should be very concerned about.

Brian Lehrer: Justin, in Bed–Stuy, you're on WNYC, with David Graham from The Atlantic. Hi, Justin.

Justin: Hi, Brian. Thanks for taking my call. I wanted to ask about the actual substance of what they're talking about here. Why are we bombing the Houthis? When Trump came in, as far as I understand, they stopped going after US vessels and are only targeting Israeli vessels, as in solidarity with people who are being ethnically cleansed in Gaza and in the West Bank. Trump, just eight months ago, was on TV and criticizing Biden for doing the exact same thing.

I wanted to ask, what do you think the political-- do you think there'll be any repercussions from his base who got him in there on an anti-interventionist, anti-war policy? I didn't believe that for a second, but I'm curious what the guest thinks the political ramifications of that. Also, just why are we bombing the Houthis and why aren't any Democrats speaking out against that action? Thank you so much.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, Justin. David, a couple of good questions there.

David Graham: Yes. I think, why aren't Democrats speaking out about it? One reason is, I think it's a tough case to make. That although the Houthis are bad guys, which I think is the consensus view of most Democrats, they shouldn't be struck. That may not be a profile on political courage, but I think that's probably a lot of it. The reason that these strikes are happening is both to support Israel and also to assert some American power and to guarantee freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. It's interesting.

To the question of whether this will create political ramifications and whether it's in the US interest, I think one of the more interesting moments in this chat is when Vice President JD Vance weighs in and says, "3% of US trade runs through the Suez, 40% of European trade does." There's a real risk that the public doesn't understand this, or why it's necessary. So, you hear him saying, "Yes, there's a real question about whether this is politically useful, and whether this is actually in the interest of the United States."

It's a little bit arcane, and so I wonder how much people will really tune into it, but I think having this chat leaked is turning a lot of attention to that. We may get questions about whether this is really a useful demonstration of American power. It's certainly at odds with Trump's rhetoric about pulling back from military engagement overseas. I would agree about that.

Brian Lehrer: That would be the pure or the purer America first position. Right? The US doesn't use those shipping lanes that much, other countries use them much more, so let's leave this to Europe or whoever else, to put their service people's lives at risk. It's interesting that that dissent, or at least questioning, by JD Vance came out. I guess from the way Jeffrey describes it, it was Stephen Miller, who kind of had to intervene on behalf of Trump.

Trump himself wasn't in the meeting, and say, "No, no, the President really wants this." Correct me if that's a incorrect interpretation, but I wonder if we'd be having a very different national conversation now, about the caller's question. If any Americans had been killed in pursuit of this mission.

David Graham: Yes. I think, first, your characterization is right. You see a little bit of the battle between two wings of Trumpism. On the one hand, you have Vance representing the sort of pure America first position saying, "Hey, what's in this for us?" On the other hand, you have Stephen Miller representing the sort of transactional side of Trumpism. He says, "Green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. There's got to be something back. We don't do something for nothing."

I think you're right. Americans tend to tune in most of the news when there are American lives at risk. As long as the government feels or is able to launch these strikes more or less from afar, without any American damage, they will certainly do so, and try to assert power that way.

Brian Lehrer: Let me ask you one more thing about how Jeffrey Goldberg handled it, before we run out of time. A, how did he handle it at first? Did he consider releasing what he knew before the attack? I can imagine at least a theoretical hypothetical conversation among journalists, like, "Okay, this was leaked to us by mistake, but this is important public information. Let's put it out there so the public can debate whether we want to get involved in that war at this level right now." Versus, "Oh, my God, I got this by mistake. The last thing I want to do is jeopardize a military operation that could put American lives at risk by publicizing it."

Was Jeffrey torn at all? That's just actually the first part of my question, but I'll leave that part there, because it's complicated enough. Did Jeffrey consider at all releasing it right away?

David Graham: In this case, I don't think he was confident that what he had was actually a genuine conversation between principals, until the strike happened. He was waiting to see if it was real, and he was only able to confirm it by seeing the events happen. So, in that sense, it was-- there wasn't really an opportunity to act before the strikes.

Brian Lehrer: Part two is, he only released a little bit of the information at first. Mostly just enough to show the public that this happened, that this mistake was made, using that platform and accidentally including him, but then yesterday, he released much more. Maybe all, I don't know, you tell me, of what was in that thread. The Politico headline on this was, Jeffrey Goldberg goes there, or The Atlantic goes there, because I guess there was an eternal debate at your shop, at The Atlantic, as to how much to even eventually publish, and now they did. Can you take us inside that a little bit?

David Graham: Yes. The initial decision was that-- what was interesting about this chat was, one, the fact that it was happening, two, the fact that it was happening in this forum where it shouldn't have been happening, and three, the substance of the debate. That is, for example, this exchange started off by Vance and then closed out by Stephen Miller, about whether this is the right exercise of American power. Things like the specifics of which planes are attacking and at which time are not things that are particularly, I think, as obviously relevant to the public debate.

Journalists tend to be fairly deferential about those sorts of things. We want to make sure that the public is getting information that is valuable in understanding what the government is doing, and understanding why it is doing it, but those sorts of nuts and bolts are not especially helpful to the public debate, they don't really mean a lot to most of the public, and they are potentially very helpful to foreign adversaries.

So you want to have-- you want to put the weight on making sure you're not endangering anyone's lives unnecessarily. Then after we published that story, we had 48 hours or so, of the Trump administration insisting, one, that Jeff was lying and that none of this was real, and two, that none of this, in fact, involved war plans. Third, that anything that was in there was absolutely not classified. That made it hard for us to look at this and think, "Well, this must be classified information."

I mean, the administration has said-- many administration officials said, in many places, that there was nothing sensitive here. If the information is not sensitive, by their own account, it seems like it must be safer to publish. I think that's the balance that he was trying to strike in the follow up report yesterday.

Brian Lehrer: Yes, that's been a pretty interesting part of what the administration has been saying. On the one hand, "This is not a big deal. There was no classified information here." On the other hand, "How dare you publish this top secret information?" They'll have to try to resolve that in the public's mind. There we leave it with David Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic, who, by the way, has a forthcoming book, The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America. Please come back when your book comes out.

David Graham: I would love to. It's always a pleasure.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.