CIA director shreds journalist for one blatant lie

Trump’s cabinet is taking no prisoners. It doesn’t matter who you are.

And now the CIA director shredded this journalist for one blatant lie.

Ratcliffe Pushes Back on Atlantic Report

CIA Director John Ratcliffe didn’t mince words during a House Intelligence Committee session, taking aim at a journalist from The Atlantic over a report about a Signal chat group that accidentally roped in the reporter.

Testifying alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, NSA Director Gen. Timothy Haugh, and DIA Director Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, Ratcliffe called out what he sees as flat-out distortions in the piece, which detailed top Trump officials discussing a Houthi strike.

He set the tone early, emphasizing his core duty. “My responsibility as CIA Director, one of its responsibilities is to k*ll terrorists, and that’s exactly what I did along with President Trump’s excellent national security team,” he said.

“That’s what we should be focused on.” For Ratcliffe, the real story isn’t a chat glitch—it’s the wins racked up under a sharp-eyed administration, a point he’s keen to keep front and center.

Calling Out the Missteps

Ratcliffe zeroed in on the article’s flaws, arguing it spun a tale that didn’t match reality.

“I spent four hours answering questions from Senators as a result of that article that were intimating that I transmitted classified information because they were hidden messages,” he said.

“Those messages were revealed today and revealed that I did not transmit classified information and that the reporter, who I don’t know, I think intentionally intended it to indicate that.” It’s a firm rebuttal, suggesting the piece wasn’t just off-base but deliberately skewed.

He didn’t stop there. “That reporter also indicated that I had released the name of an undercover CIA operative in that Signal chat,” he continued.

“In fact, I had released the name of my chief of staff, who is not operating undercover. That was deliberately false and misleading.”

Ratcliffe’s sticking to his guns—proper channels were used, no secrets spilled—and he’s framing the narrative as a distraction from what matters.

Keeping Eyes on the Prize

Through it all, Ratcliffe’s message stayed steady: the mission worked, and that’s the headline worth chasing.

“At the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success is what everyone should be focused on here because that’s what did happen, not what possibly could have happened,” he said. It’s a call to cut through the noise—a botched report shouldn’t overshadow a job well done by a team that delivered.

With no wavering on his account and a clear nod to the administration’s security chops, Ratcliffe’s pushing a practical take: let’s talk about what went right, not hypothetical slip-ups. The hearing’s dust-up might fade, but his focus on the win could linger longer.