Semantics as Strategy: When Language Undermines Accountability.

Semantics as Strategy: When Language Undermines Accountability

The aftermath of SignalGate has revealed not just a failure of operational security, but a coordinated effort to redefine the terms of culpability through language. In the face of a clear breach of national security protocol, administration spokespeople—including Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt—have resorted to semantic deflection:

“These weren’t war plans, just policy coordination.”
“There was no formal document, just discussions among key stakeholders.”
“It’s inaccurate to say anything classified was shared—it was informal and dynamic.”

These carefully chosen phrases do not exist to clarify. They exist to blur. To confuse. To turn truth into a matter of opinion. And they are being deployed by individuals who know better—and who carry the weight of national security in their portfolios.

Naming Names: Hegseth, Gabbard, Ratcliffe, Rubio, and Leavitt

Let’s be clear. This isn’t just a case of a press office fumbling a message. These are senior officials, many with intelligence or military backgrounds, who either directly participated in the Signal thread, misled Congress about it, or attempted to cover up its implications.

Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, was the most vocal participant in the Signal chat. He laid out operational details of the Yemen strike—timing, units, targets. This wasn’t idle speculation. According to The Atlantic, the chat’s timeline corresponded exactly with real-world strikes. Hegseth’s actions were, at best, reckless. At worst? Criminal negligence.

Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, was in the chat and is now under bipartisan scrutiny after claiming to the Senate Intelligence Committee that she “didn’t recall” the contents or even her participation. Her defense? Amnesia. From the nation’s top intelligence official.

John Ratcliffe, now CIA Director, backed Gabbard’s version during sworn testimony—falsely stating that no classified information was discussed, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. If confirmed, this would amount to perjury, plain and simple.

Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, initially appeared to be following the silence strategy. But in a recent press conference, he broke ranks and placed the blame squarely on National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. He admitted the inclusion of a journalist in the Signal chat was a “big mistake” and stated, “Someone added a number they shouldn’t have. That’s on Mike [Waltz].”

This shift signals growing fractures within the administration, with finger-pointing now out in the open. As accountability pressure builds, the remaining question is: who will turn next?

Karoline Leavitt, the White House Press Secretary, continues to serve as the front line of the semantics strategy. Her responses have relied heavily on linguistic gymnastics, designed to minimize the significance of what has clearly become a full-blown national security breach.

Words as Weapons of Obfuscation

This isn’t new—but the intensity and frequency of the tactic represent a new level of institutional gaslighting. By engaging in this kind of language laundering, the administration avoids the one thing it cannot survive: clear public understanding of what actually happened.

This approach also creates plausible deniability within the media cycle. Each time a term like “attack plan” is walked back into “policy discussion,” it buys another 12-hour news cycle of uncertainty—enough for distractions to emerge and attention to fade.

It’s no coincidence that this playbook mirrors tactics used in past scandals:

• During Watergate: “A third-rate burglary.”
• During Iran-Contra: “Arms for hostages was not the policy.”
• During the Trump impeachments: “A perfect call.”

But SignalGate is different in scale. The euphemisms are being used in real time, even as evidence piles up and national security is clearly at stake. There are no sealed archives—only live chat logs, public confirmation, and complete refusal to yield ground.

The semantics game is not harmless.
It’s not spin.
It’s the soft architecture of authoritarianism, where meaning itself is stripped for parts.

If we allow the powerful to define away reality—to argue that leaking real-time military strike plans isn’t technically leaking—then what we’re witnessing isn’t just a scandal. It’s a linguistic coup against the accountability language was meant to uphold.

This is where the danger lies—not just in the breach, but in the effort to convince a nation it wasn’t one.

And now, as inner circles begin to fracture and insiders quietly shift blame, we’re left wondering: who will turn tomorrow?