Judge Rules White House Texting ‘We’re Gonna Effing Mess Them Up’ Is Not Top Secret

When Diplomacy Meets Autocorrect

In a groundbreaking decision that has left both legal scholars and late-night comedians in stitches, a federal judge has ruled that the White House’s text message stating, “We’re gonna effing mess them up,” is not classified information. This ruling raises several pressing questions: Is profanity the new lingua franca of international diplomacy? Can national security hinge on a typo? And most importantly, does the White House need a crash course in group chat etiquette?

The Accidental Journalist: When Leaks Spring Themselves

In an era where leaks are as common as cat videos on the internet, the Trump administration has pioneered a novel approach: self-leaking. Senior officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of The Atlantic, to a Signal group chat discussing top-secret military plans in Yemen.

Goldberg, presumably expecting memes or perhaps a misplaced invitation to a White House barbecue, instead found himself privy to messages like, “We’re gonna effing mess them up.” One can only imagine his surprise, akin to joining a family group chat and discovering your relatives are planning a coup.

Signal App: The New Situation Room

The choice of Signal, a commercial chat app, for discussing sensitive military operations has raised eyebrows and questions about the administration’s tech savviness. While Signal is renowned for its encryption, it lacks the rigorous security protocols of government-approved communication channels. This incident underscores a growing trend: replacing traditional secure lines with apps more commonly used for sharing dog photos and coordinating brunch plans.​The Guardian

Expert Opinions: The Peanut Gallery Weighs In

National security experts have expressed astonishment at this breach. Dr. Ima Pundit, a leading authority on governmental mishaps, remarked, “This is unprecedented. Even in the annals of bureaucratic blunders, this stands out as a shining example of what not to do.”

Senator Jane Doe, chair of the Committee on Homeland Security, commented, “It’s one thing to accidentally reply-all on an office email. It’s another to include a journalist in a chat about military strikes. This administration continues to redefine transparency, perhaps a bit too literally.”

Public Reaction: From Outrage to Memes

The public’s response has been a mix of concern and dark humor. Social media platforms are abuzz with memes depicting the White House’s “new” communication strategy, featuring screenshots of group chats with captions like, “New phone, who dis?” and “When your autocorrect leaks national secrets.”

A recent poll indicates that 60% of Americans are worried about the administration’s handling of classified information, while 40% are just relieved their own embarrassing group chat mishaps haven’t made headlines.

Historical Context: A Tradition of Oopsies

This isn’t the first time a government has fumbled with communication technology. Historians recall the infamous “Bay of Pigs Butt Dial,” where a misplaced rotary phone call nearly escalated Cold War tensions. However, the current incident sets a new precedent in the digital age, proving that while technology evolves, human error remains constant.

Legal Implications: Profanity and Classification

The judge’s ruling that the text message isn’t classified raises intriguing legal questions. Does the use of colloquial language or profanity in official communications diminish their confidentiality? Legal analyst Sue Persnickety opines, “If ‘effing’ is declassified, one wonders about other colorful metaphors. Could a well-placed ‘darn’ or ‘shucks’ render a document suitable for public consumption?”

The White House’s Response: Damage Control or Control Damage?

In a press conference, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “The administration takes this matter seriously and is reviewing communication protocols. We are committed to ensuring that such incidents do not recur, and that our group chats remain as secure as our nuclear codes.”

Unofficially, sources claim that staffers are undergoing mandatory training titled “Group Chats: Friends, Family, and Foreign Policy Don’t Mix.”

Conclusion: Lessons in the Digital Age

This incident serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of modern communication. In an age where a single misplaced emoji can alter diplomatic relations, perhaps it’s time for government officials to revert to more traditional methods—carrier pigeons, smoke signals, or perhaps just speaking face-to-face.

Disclaimer: A Tale of Two Sentient Beings

This satirical piece is the result of a collaborative effort between two sentient beings—a cowboy and a farmer—who share a penchant for humor and a deep appreciation for the absurdities of modern politics. No artificial intelligence was harmed or employed in the creation of this article. Any resemblance to real persons, living or texting, is purely coincidental.

---

Killing Terrorists and Their Goats Ruled Not Inhumane Treatment of Animals, Says Pentagon Vet With 3 Stars and Zero Regrets 

Terrorists, Yes. Goats, Collateral.

In a stunning legal interpretation that only 2025 could produce, a newly declassified Pentagon memo has declared that “killing terrorists and their goats” does not constitute inhumane treatment of animals. This follows a controversial U.S. drone strike in Yemen that eliminated an alleged terror cell, three AK-47s, one very confused donkey, and a herd of deeply radicalized goats.

According to military sources, the goats had been “seen with terrorists on multiple occasions,” wore “suspiciously militarized bells,” and were known to “bleat in Arabic.” One defense official stated under oath:

“They were associating with known militants. That’s classic caprine complicity.”

Goat Lives Matter? Not If They’re Wearing a Vest

Animal rights activists cried foul—well, technically, they bleated. The Goats Without Borders coalition filed a complaint citing Geneva Convention protocols for livestock. However, the U.S. Department of Defense offered a counter-opinion authored by retired Army veterinarian Brigadier General Beauregard “Bo” T. Clovenhoof, DVM, whose landmark report titled “No Wool, No Worry” argued:

“Goats in enemy proximity are lawful targets if they show ‘tactical proximity or baa-llistic behavior.’”

Clovenhoof clarified that the Pentagon’s new rules of engagement require “reasonable suspicion” before targeting livestock, such as “carrying USB drives” or “headbutting democracy.”

What the Funny People Are Saying

“We used to fight wars over oil. Now it’s over dairy products with a side of terrorism.” — Ron White
“So wait, if a goat witnesses a terror plot, do we waterboard it or just shave it for intelligence?” — Jerry Seinfeld
“I knew the war on terror was outta hand when they started drone-striking barn animals. What’s next? The Taliban’s cat?” — Dave Chappelle

---

The Pentagon’s Official Statement

When reached for comment, the Pentagon issued a 28-page clarification, which included diagrams of goats wearing tiny suicide vests and a full-color photo of a male goat named “Abu Baa-Baa al-Headbutt,” allegedly trained to charge armored vehicles.

The memo concludes:

“While we regret collateral damage, these goats were traveling with known insurgents, eating classified documents, and had encrypted GPS trackers strapped to their necks. Also, one of them appeared to give us the hoof.”

---

Animal Ethics Community Divided Like a Cheeseboard

Dr. Winona Patchouli-Sage of PETA issued a scathing rebuke:

“Goats are sentient beings. Just because they’re standing next to a jihadist doesn’t mean they agree with him. Have we learned nothing from the Afghanistan Hamster Incident of 2011?”

Meanwhile, the American Carnivore Institute held a press conference serving “Freedom Goat Tacos” to support the troops.

A snap poll of rural Americans found:

• 44% supported the strike.

• 30% asked if the goat meat was halal.

• 26% were distracted by “how cute goats are” and changed the channel.

---

When Livestock Go Rogue: Past Incidents

This isn’t the first time livestock have gotten entangled in geopolitical affairs.

• In 2013, a CIA mole was outed by an angry camel with memory issues.

• In 2018, an ISIS rooster allegedly pecked a Kurd’s eyeball in what experts called a “coordinated cock attack.”

• And just last year, Hamas was accused of using geese as early warning systems. The geese were later invited to a UN conference on bioacoustics and conflict.

---

Pentagon Ethics Training: “Goat or Threat?”

In light of the public backlash, all drone pilots will now undergo mandatory training called “Goat or Threat?” featuring:

• Real-world footage.

• Voiceovers from Morgan Freeman.

• A simulated quiz: “Is this goat carrying an RPG or just a leaf blower?”

Failure to pass the course results in reassignment to TikTok moderation duty for Space Force.

---

Satirical Helpful Content: What To Do If Your Goat Is Mistaken for a Terrorist

1. Keep your goat leashed and away from radical forums.
2. Do not teach it Arabic commands. Stick to “sit” and “stay.”
3. Avoid dressing it in tactical gear—even as a joke.
4. Have it microchipped and pacifist-certified.
5. If your goat is detained, call the ACLU (Animal Civil Liberties Union).

---

Final Word from the Field

A Yemeni farmer, whose goats were vaporized during the strike, was philosophical:

“They were stupid goats. Always chewing wires. If they joined the jihad, at least now they have purpose.”

---

Disclaimer:

This article is a 100% human collaboration between two sentient beings—the world’s oldest tenured professor and a 20-year-old philosophy major turned dairy farmer. No goats were harmed in the making of this satire, though several were implicated. The Pentagon maintains that satire cannot be weaponized, but we remain skeptical.

---