According to Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic [SEE HERE], National Security Advisor Mike Waltz invited him to a group chat on the Signal app, where various Trump administration officials and cabinet members were discussing how to address the Houthi rebels in Yemen in advance of military airstrikes.
The media is having a field day with the story, and it does have multiple angles that will unfold in the next several days and weeks. Some media even claiming the story could take down Mike Waltz and/or Pete Hegseth due to the national security implications in the series of events [Politico Here]. However, I wouldn’t go that far at all.
(left, Mike Waltz – right, Pete Hegseth)
Why Mike Waltz would be texting an invite to Jeffrey Goldberg is an issue for later discussion. Generally, given the nature of these things it is not the principle who sets up the text network, usually a top aide or lead staff, which might indicate Waltz’s wife Julia Nesheiwat was involved [SEE WHY], but let’s put that aside.
Goldberg claims “details of war plans” were discussed in the group chat. Perhaps so, perhaps not. This specific part of the story is refuted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. What was discussed and further shared and outlined by Breitbart News [SEE HERE] is a conversation about the strategic reasoning for the U.S. to directly attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen and reopen the sea lanes into and out of the Suez Canal.
The EU and Egypt are the primary beneficiaries of U.S. involvement toward stopping the Houthi terrorists from targeting ships in the region. Egypt manages the Suez Canal, and obviously there are some strategic U.S. benefits in the region from helping Egypt deal with the Houthi issue. Specifically, as President Trump seeks to have Egypt, Saudi Arabia and partners help solve the problem in Gaza.
Additionally, most of the shipping through the region is headed to the European Union through the canal. Reestablishing safe maritime flow of goods economically assists the EU more than any other region. Again, a point of leverage for the Trump administration as President Trump confronts the issues of EU support for a Ukraine conflict he is trying to resolve.
These geopolitical considerations show up in the story as JD Vance engaged in the text message discussion, as shared by Breitbart News:
The 18 members of the group chat included Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, United States Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, someone believed to be Homeland Security Advisor and White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, and others.
The group chat was called “Houthi PC small group,” with PC meaning “Principles Committee” — a reference to the group of top decision-makers from each agency during National Security Council meetings.
Waltz reportedly sent the following message on March 13:
Team — establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.
Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.
Members of the group chat then sent names for points of contact for them on the strikes.
The next day, Waltz told the group they should have received messages in their classified computer and communications systems regarding taskings.
The text conversation then begins a dive into the geopolitical considerations behind any operation with a myriad of issues to be considered. Vice-President JD Vance overlays the strategic geopolitical dynamic:
Vance said regarding the strikes, “I think we are making a mistake,” adding, “3 percent of US trade runs through the Suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.,” he argued.
The back and forth between Defense Secretary Hegseth, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, Vice-President JD Vance and Assistant Chief of Staff to POTUS, Stephen Miller, is then included:
Hegseth reportedly wrote, “VP: I understand your concerns — and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what — nobody knows who the Houthis are — which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.”
He reportedly added, “Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first — or Gaza cease fire falls apart — and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC—operations security. I welcome other thoughts.”
Waltz then reportedly posted a “lengthy note” about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies.
“Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans,” Waltz said.
Vance then reportedly wrote to Hegseth, “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.”
Hegseth responded: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space.”
The person identified as potentially [Stephen] Miller wrote, “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
Hegseth reportedly responded, “Agree.” (Sourcing)
Anyone who follows the intersection of U.S. policy and geopolitical analysis would be fascinated, but this type of discussion doesn’t come as any big surprise. Indeed, the conversation is quite factually correct and the type of prudent background one would expect to see in any decision-making conversation of strategic importance.
In essence, every fly on the wall would be supportive of the tone, angles and prudent ‘American Interest’ considerations within the conversation. This overview is, quite simply, what we would expect to see. There is no negative here outside the fact the security of the conversation was seemingly compromised by Waltz, or someone on his behalf, inviting a journalist to watch it.
When Mike Waltz was selected as National Security Advisor, one of my first outlines included my expectation that “Waltz would likely to be the first Trump official removed from his position.” My thinking at the time was essentially that Congressman Mike Waltz and his wife Julia Nesheiwat (national security background) held traditional interventionist beliefs (neocon tendencies) in combination with ideological alignment with the climate change crowd.
The DC social circle of Mike Waltz and Julia Nesheiwat almost certainly contains friends with Jeffrey Goldberg’s outlook and worldview (a Pence like tribe). How would that interventionist, pro-NATO, pro-industrial military complex, social circle balance with a hardline ‘America First’ geopolitical policy approach. It is an ongoing question.
Up until this issue with Jeffrey Goldberg, both Nat Sec Advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have seemed to embrace President Trump’s foreign policy, and both have delivered on the execution of that policy.
I also find it very interesting that former Senate Intel Committee Chairman, now Secretary of State Marco Rubio is included in the Signal app chat group as reported, but there are no remarks from him within it.
It is important for us to remember, the entire apparatus of the DC foreign policy establishment, including the legislative branch members who benefit financially from policy, are against President Trump’s larger “America First” geopolitical efforts. The same opposition exists from the EU and NATO traditionalists.
An inside story like this is blood in the piranha pool for all those interests who oppose Donald Trump.
The content of the chat messaging, at least what we can see, is a non-issue. However, as this story unfolds it will be interesting to watch how Mike Waltz responds to questions about his ‘accidental’ inclusion of Jeffrey Goldberg in the chat group. How exactly did that happen?
