Clash on ‘The Five’ Over National Security Leak: Recklessness or Political Deflection?

A fiery exchange took center stage on Fox News’ The Five as panelist Jessica Tarlov openly criticized a recently reported national security breach, only to be met with resistance from fellow co-host Jesse Watters. The controversy stemmed from a startling report alleging that members of the Trump administration had inadvertently added a journalist to a highly sensitive group chat where military operations were being discussed.

The incident came to light through a detailed piece by The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who claimed he was accidentally added to a group conversation on Signal—a popular encrypted messaging app. According to Goldberg, the chat appeared to involve key Trump-era national security officials, including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Within the chat, participants reportedly discussed the specifics of a planned airstrike on March 15 targeting Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Tarlov Condemns the Breach

During the Monday edition of The Five, Tarlov minced no words. She characterized the situation as a prime example of gross negligence at the highest levels of government. “This is incompetence and recklessness on a scale that’s hard to even process,” she asserted, visibly alarmed by the implications of such a lapse in operational security.

Tarlov went on to express disbelief that such sensitive discussions were taking place on a common smartphone app. “We’re talking about plans to bomb another country, shared in a regular group chat,” she said. “This wasn’t happening in a SCIF [Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility]. This wasn’t secured. It’s a risk to national security.”

She concluded her remarks with a pointed jab at conservatives who have long criticized Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. “After this, no one should bring up ‘her emails’ again,” Tarlov said.

Watters Fires Back With Clinton Comparison

Jesse Watters, known for his provocative style, attempted to downplay the gravity of the incident by drawing a comparison to Clinton’s well-documented email controversy. “At least they didn’t set up their own server in a bathroom and bleach it with acid,” he remarked sarcastically. “But her emails! There, I said it.”

Watters maintained that the leak was accidental, arguing that there was no malicious intent and comparing it to an everyday technological mishap. “You ever start a group chat and accidentally include someone you didn’t mean to? Now imagine that person was a journalist,” he said on his own show later that night, Jesse Watters Primetime. “It’s like telling your Aunt Mary all the wild plans for a bachelor party she was never meant to hear.”

Still, he conceded that Goldberg had “probably heard some things he shouldn’t have,” but insisted that the breach was minor and being blown out of proportion for political gain.

Tense On-Air Exchange

The discussion quickly escalated into a verbal skirmish. As Watters tried to paint the leak as a fluke, Tarlov jumped in to clarify that this wasn’t a simple leak—it was an invitation. “They didn’t leak it; they invited him in,” she corrected, emphasizing that Goldberg was directly added to the conversation, not simply forwarded messages or documents.

As Watters continued to pivot the conversation toward what he called “intentional leaks” by Democrats in the past, Tarlov repeatedly cut in, saying, “No, no,” refusing to allow what she saw as a false equivalency.

The Atlantic Report and Official Responses

In his exposé, Goldberg stated that the invitation to the chat seemed genuine and not part of an elaborate journalistic sting or infiltration. The conversation thread reportedly discussed logistical and tactical details of the Yemen strike, sparking concerns about the handling of classified or sensitive material.

The White House National Security Council issued a brief statement acknowledging the validity of the chat. Spokesperson Brian Hughes noted that the administration was investigating how an unintended number was added to the group, calling the situation “under review.”

Political and Public Fallout

Unsurprisingly, the incident has reignited political debate over how both major parties have handled sensitive information. Critics of the Trump administration are calling this a new low in operational security, while Trump loyalists are rallying to discredit Goldberg and the media narrative.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth responded harshly to the article and its author, lashing out at Goldberg during a press conference. “This is the same guy who pushed the Russia hoax, the ‘suckers and losers’ nonsense, and a bunch of other fabrications,” Hegseth said. “He makes a career out of peddling misinformation. I wouldn’t believe a word he says.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has long been a political lightning rod over her own handling of classified communications, responded sarcastically on X (formerly Twitter), writing, “You have got to be kidding me,” accompanied by a side-eye emoji.

Broader Implications and Public Concern

Beyond the partisan back-and-forth, experts warn that the real issue at hand is the potential damage to U.S. security credibility. If senior defense and intelligence officials are discussing active military plans on consumer-grade apps, it raises serious concerns about protocol and accountability.

“Whether intentional or not, this kind of mistake undermines the integrity of our decision-making processes and puts lives at risk,” said a former intelligence officer who requested anonymity. “It’s not just a political scandal. It’s a national security issue.”

The uproar on The Five reflects a broader national conversation on how sensitive information should be handled—especially by those at the highest levels of government. While some continue to invoke past controversies to justify or diminish current missteps, others argue that every breach must be treated seriously, regardless of party affiliation.

As the investigation into how Jeffrey Goldberg was added to the Signal chat continues, one thing is certain: this won’t be the last time America debates the boundaries between carelessness, criminality, and political spin.