Silence Wins PR Crises Every Time and Trump’s Team Proved It the Hard Way
I’ve long advised clients that during a PR crisis, unless a loss of life or injuries are involved, sometime the best defensive strategy is not to answer reporter’s questions until all the reasons for the crisis has been determined and an investigation has been completed.
If the crisis involves injuries or a loss of life, a statement expressing sympathy for the victim’s and their families should be made, adding that “We are investigating the cause of the situation and will not comment on it until our investigation is completed.” Period.
If no injuries or loss of life is involved, I’ve advised clients to make the following statement to reporters. “We are investigating the cause of the situation and will not comment on it until our investigation is completed.” Period.
Perhaps, the prime examples of speaking too much during a PR crisis were Boeing’s Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg and his successor, David Calhoun, both of whom partially blamed pilots for the crashes of two 747 Max planes, one in 2018, the second in 2019.
Their “it’s not all our fault” statements resulted in a barrage of negative news stories. They would have been better off saying, “We’re investigating the reasons for the crash and will make the findings public when the investigation is completed” and again express sympathy for the victims and their families.” Period.
Speaking too much has also resulted in massive negative media coverage for those involved in the Signal chat conference during which sensitive or secret information about an attack on the Houthis was discussed on a commercial site.
According to U.S News & World Report, here is what those involved in the chat said after The Atlantic magazine reported on the chat: Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence. “There’s a difference between inadvertent release versus malicious leaks of classified information,” she said during a Senate hearing. “There was no classified information that was shared in that Signal chat.”
Pete Hegseth, secretary of defense. “So, let’s me get this straight,” Hegseth posted on social media. “The Atlantic released the so-called ‘war plans’ and those ‘plans’ include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information. Those are some really shitty war plans. This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an ‘attack plan’ (as he now calls it). Not even close.” Soon after learning about The Atlantic’s report, Hegseth lashed out at the reporter: “You're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called 'journalist' who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again. This is a guy that pedals in garbage. It’s what he does.” This from a guy who worked for Fox News. Incredible.
Stephen Miller, adviser to Trump on homeland security and deputy chief of staff. Miller has not commented publicly about the scandal.
John Ratcliffe, director of the CIA. “My communications, to be clear, in the Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information,” Ratcliffe said during a Senate hearing.
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State. The secretary of state has not directly confirmed that he was in the chat, but a Signal account with the name “MAR” – Rubio’s middle name is Antonio – sent at least two messages, according to The Atlantic, the magazine that broke the story. “Obviously, someone made a mistake, someone made a big mistake and added a journalist. Nothing against journalists, but you ain’t supposed to be on that thing.”
JD Vance, vice president, “It’s very clear Goldberg oversold what he had,” Vance wrote in a post on X after The Atlantic published more messages. The Atlantic’s first article included a reference to Ratcliffe texting the name of a CIA official in the chat, but Goldberg wrote that he wasn’t publishing the name because that person is an active intelligence officer.” But one thing in particular really stands out,” Vance’s post went on to say. “Remember when he was attacking Ratcliffe for blowing the cover for a CIA agent? Turns out Ratcliffe was simply naming his chief of staff.”
The Atlantic’s article noted that a CIA spokesperson had asked them to withhold the name of Ratcliffe’s chief of staff because CIA intelligence officers are traditionally not publicly identified.
Susie Wiles, the president’s chief of staff. She has not commented directly on the situation. Remember, how when she was named by Mr. Trump how she was praised by reporters –even liberal ones – who wrote and said what a great choice the president made, because she would moderate the president’s actions and bring order to the White House? How’s that working out, guys? You too, girls?
Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security adviser, created the “Houthi PC small group” chat thread and invited Goldberg, according to The Atlantic. Waltz has been criticized for using his Signal account to set some of the group’s messages to eventually disappear, which could violate federal laws about preserving government documents. Waltz said in a Fox News interview that he takes “full responsibility” for what happened and even called it “embarrassing.” But after The Atlantic released more messages from the thread, the national security adviser took a different approach, writing in an X post, “No locations. No sources & methods” and “NO WAR PLANS.” He also had criticized Goldberg as “bottom scum” during the Fox News interview. “Have you ever had somebody’s contact that shows their name and then you have somebody else’s number there?” Waltz said. (AS Answer: Nope.) “Of course I didn’t see this loser, (Goldberg), in the group. It looked like someone else. Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something we’re trying to figure out, said Mr. Waltz.”
“Steven Witkoff, special envoy to the Middle East. Witkoff wrote in a X post disputing accusations in a Wall Street Journal commentary that he was receiving messages in the group chat while in Russia. “I had no access to my personal devices until I returned from my trip. That is the responsible way for me to make these trips and that is how I always conduct myself.”
Joseph Kent, Trump’s nominee to lead the National Counterterrorism Center. Kent has not released a direct statement, but he has shared several X posts commenting on the situation, including from two Republican lawmakers.
Attempting to defend their actions days after the security breach was disclosed gave the incident legs and resulted in additional negative media coverage that continues today. If I was representing those on the Signal chat, I would have advised them to issue one, and only one, joint statement saying that it was a mistake to invite Mr. Goldberg and that no classified material was discussed. Period. And then refrain from trying to defend themselves. The result of not asking me for advice, which I would have gladly provided pro bono, was to create a “he said, she said” situation, which always results in continuing negative press coverage.
Below are suggestions how clients in crisis should react:
Never lie or mislead the media. History shows that the truth will eventually come out and not telling the truth will result in additional negative press coverage.
Don’t play down the crisis as President Trump and those on the Signal chat are trying to do. It’s best for a client to acknowledge the crisis and than say nothing until a wrap-up statement about it is released.
Don’t try to blame others for the crisis. It results in a “he said, she said,” situation that leads to additional negative coverage.
As new favorable information is discovered during an investigation post it on the company website and send it to reporters covering the situation.
If the crisis is of a long duration, invite beat reporters to participate in an email “press conference” once a month, but only if positive news is to be disclosed.
Do not rush to respond to a negative story. Doing so will give it legs. Remember, a negative story or two is not a crisis situation. Usually, it’s a one day and done situation.
During a PR crisis meeting, invite colleagues who do not work on the account. Fresh eyes can bring a new perspective to the situation.
Account people should never relinquish control of a crisis situation to others, like outside crisis experts. Have the final say on plans, because no one knows more about a client’s wants, strengths, weaknesses than the account team (or at least they should).
Any response by a PR practitioner to a reporter’s question during a PR crisis should be approved by the corporate attorney.
Any questions by reporters should immediately be disseminated to everyone involved, along with answers given to the question.
And never think that you’re the smartest person in the room. (Others in the room think they are.)
A common mistake, I believe, is automatically having the CEO or president of an entity be the chief spokesperson during a crisis. I always suggest that the person who knows most about the details of the crisis be the prime spokesperson. That will prevent erroneous information from being disseminated, which will later be retracted.
Also important to remember is that PR practitioners and their clients always think that their crisis is big news and must be publicly addressed. The truth is that most people aren’t interested in an entity’s s crisis unless it affects them personally. Keep that in mind when planning a crisis response. People not involved are worried about their own problems, not those of multi-million dollar corporations or what will happen to the officers of entities who make seven figure salaries.
Note to all of President Trump’s national; security personnel: I’ve never been mistakenly invited to a security chat as Jeffrey Goldberg has. But if you want to get an outsiders view from a patriotic citizen, who proudly served in the Army, ours, and had some level of security clearance, I’m available, free of charge. To make it 100% clear, in case you are wondering who in this essay AS is, it’s me, Arthur Solomon. And I can keep a secret.
