White House Officials Express Displeasure Over National Security Advisor’s Chat Leak
Tensions are reportedly high within the White House following revelations that National Security Advisor Michael Waltz included a journalist in a confidential group message discussing sensitive military plans. Insiders have expressed significant displeasure, with one source reportedly labeling Waltz as ‘incompetent’ after it was discovered he shared details of highly sensitive deliberations regarding military operations with a member of the press. This incident has raised concerns about information security and judgment within the highest levels of the administration, prompting questions about Waltz’s future in his role.
White House Source Criticizes Waltz’s Actions
According to a source described as ‘close to the White House,’ there is widespread agreement within the administration regarding the National Security Advisor’s recent actions. Speaking to Politico, the source stated bluntly, “Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is incompetent.” This strong condemnation underscores the gravity with which senior officials are viewing the situation.
Journalist Invited to Sensitive Military Discussion
Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, disclosed that Waltz invited him to join a Signal group chat titled ‘Houthi PC small group.’ This invitation granted Goldberg access to conversations among Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and other senior administration figures. The discussions reportedly centered on potential military strikes targeting Houthi positions in Yemen, revealing sensitive operational details.
Security Breach Concerns Raised
Goldberg, reflecting on the situation, remarked on MSNBC: “I’m thinking to myself, I’m glad Mike Waltz didn’t invite a Houthi into the group or a Russian spy, or an adversary of the United States.”
The extent of classified information shared via the commercial messaging application and the rationale for including individuals outside of authorized personnel remain unclear, prompting serious security questions within the White House.
Recklessness Allegations Against Waltz
An unnamed official, speaking to Politico, described the situation as a lapse in judgment with significant consequences. “It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the national security advisor,” the official asserted, highlighting the perceived irresponsibility of Waltz’s actions.
Calls for Resignation or Removal
Reports late last night from the news site indicate that some officials believe Waltz’s position has become untenable. These officials argue that for the benefit of President Trump and to avoid further negative repercussions, Waltz must either resign or be removed from his post.
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz appears to be the most endangered Trump official after The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief revealed he had been invited to a group chat to discuss an attack on Houthi rebels
Some White House officials believe that Waltz will need to be pushed out or resign to save President Trump from being put in a ‘bad position’
The secret Signal messages were mistakenly sent to Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of The Atlantic magazine
Waltz’s Future Under Scrutiny
A senior administration official disclosed to the news site that internal discussions are actively taking place regarding Waltz’s future within the White House. These conversations, conducted via text messages, reflect the divided opinions on the National Security Advisor’s standing.
“Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” the official revealed, indicating the severity of the internal debate.
Two senior White House aides have reportedly suggested that Waltz should offer his resignation to shield President Trump from potential political damage. A third source confirmed to Politico that President Trump has directly addressed the matter with Waltz.
Senator Murkowski Expresses Concern
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voiced her apprehension to Semafor, a news outlet, drawing a parallel to potential criticism under a different administration. “Think about what we would do if Biden were president and this came out… we would raise the roof,” Murkowski stated, highlighting the bipartisan nature of security concerns.
“It’s going to be interesting to see if anybody loses their job over this,” she added, underscoring the potential ramifications of the incident.
Hillary Clinton Reacts to Message Leak
Hillary Clinton, former Democratic presidential candidate and a frequent critic of President Trump, responded to the news of the leaked messages on X, stating simply: “You have got to be kidding me,” reflecting widespread disbelief and concern over the security lapse.
Initial Suspicions and Confirmation
Goldberg recounted his initial reaction upon receiving a connection request from Waltz’s account on March 11, prior to being added to the chat two days later. He admitted that he initially suspected it might be a scam or an impersonation attempt.
However, the White House has since verified the authenticity of the chat and stated they are currently reviewing “how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,” suggesting an accidental inclusion rather than an intentional security breach.
Broader Implications of the Security Fiasco
Beyond the immediate security implications of sensitive information reaching unauthorized individuals, Goldberg expressed additional concerns about the scope of information shared in the group chat. He questioned the necessity of certain high-ranking officials’ access to granular military details.
“I’m reading this and I’m wondering – not only ‘why am I reading this?’ – but why would the Secretary of the Treasury need to know the precise attack sequence of this upcoming operation?” Goldberg questioned, indicating a potential over-dissemination of sensitive information.
He further cautioned that the leaked messages contained information that could be exploited by U.S. adversaries to endanger American personnel and assets in the region.
In his article in The Atlantic, Goldberg elaborated: “The information contained in them, if they had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility.”
“What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing,” Goldberg explained, emphasizing the sensitive nature of the disclosed information.
White House Defends Chat as Policy Coordination
Despite the widespread criticism, a White House spokesperson characterized the chat as evidence of “the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials,” attempting to downplay the security concerns and frame the incident positively.
For the moment, at least, the White House appears to be publicly supporting Waltz amidst the controversy.
Goldberg was privy to conversations between Waltz, Vice President JD Vance and other top administration officials, about military strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen
President Trump Expresses Confidence in Waltz
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement earlier Monday, affirming, “As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective. President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including national security advisor Mike Waltz.” This statement suggests a unified front of support from the administration, at least publicly.
When questioned by reporters at the White House about the leaked messages, President Trump stated on Monday that he was unaware of The Atlantic story detailing the group chat.
Appearing puzzled, Trump remarked, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic. It’s to me, it’s a magazine that’s going out of business,” seemingly dismissing the credibility of the publication.
Potential Political Ramifications
Analysts suggest that politically, President Trump might find it easier to dismiss Waltz compared to other officials like Hegseth, given the political capital invested in Hegseth’s Senate confirmation.
Skepticism regarding Waltz exists among some MAGA Republicans due to his prior association with Vice President Dick Cheney, whose ‘neoconservative’ views are seen as differing from Trump’s ‘America First’ approach.
Conversely, some Congressional Democrats have argued that Hegseth’s alleged sharing of classified information in the text chain represents a more serious offense meriting dismissal.
Sensitive Details Withheld for Security
Goldberg indicated that he deliberately refrained from sharing certain messages verbatim out of concern for the safety of U.S. military personnel.
The group chat was accidentally shared with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine
“What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the US would be deploying, and attack sequencing,” Goldberg reiterated, emphasizing the severity without disclosing potentially damaging specifics.
Possible Shift in Blame and Foreign Policy Discord
Sources within Politico suggest that President Trump might opt to place blame on officials such as Hegseth or Vance, rather than Waltz, for the embarrassing leak incident.
The leaked text exchange also highlighted potential disagreements between President Trump and Vice President Vance concerning foreign policy matters.
According to The Atlantic’s report, Vance expressed reservations, writing, “I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with this 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.”
Vance’s comments reflect a divergence in viewpoints, particularly concerning the financial implications and strategic alignment with U.S. policy towards European allies. Trump has consistently urged NATO allies to increase financial contributions, especially towards the Ukraine conflict, while Vance reportedly viewed military action against the Houthis as potentially another instance of the U.S. ‘bailing Europe out again.’