Lessons from Signal chat on Houthi

The security breach will fade as a story, but the same can’t be said about what the chat revealed of the views Trump officials hold about US allies – particularly JD Vance’s contempt.

Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office with, seated from L to R, Vice President JD Vance, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. Picture: AFP.

Democrats had fun pounding away at the Trump Administration Tuesday over a security leak to a journalist on the Signal messaging app, and we trust the White House has learned a lesson. It’s amusing to hear journalists who dine out on leaks deplore this leak. But the lasting import won’t be the security breach as much as what Trump officials really think about our European allies.

The White House is insisting that no classified information appeared on the now infamous group chat about the Houthis, and Mr Trump’s chief spooks Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe said as much at a Capitol Hill hearing on Tuesday. It was nonetheless notable to watch Ms. Gabbard, the supposed enemy of the intelligence deep state before she became director of national intelligence, obfuscate about the thread’s contents. What you admit apparently depends on where you sit.

President Trump reacted to the blunder better than anyone. He defended as “a good man” his national security adviser Mike Waltz, who may have been the one to add the Atlantic editor to the group chat. Democrats want heads to roll. Mr Waltz appears to have been defending the President’s decision to protect freedom of navigation from the Houthis, and telling his colleagues they could find classified information on the usual secure channels.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s behaviour looks less defensible a day later, as he may have been cavalier about the details of incoming military strikes. He also tried to shift the blame for the fiasco on the journalist who was put on the chat, which is silly given that the Atlantic editor did nothing but listen and says he declined to publish information he said might jeopardise US troops.

A real security scandal is that the Signal chat apparently included Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump’s envoy to wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. Press reports say Mr Witkoff was receiving these messages on the commercial app while in Moscow. This is security malpractice. Russian intelligence services must be listening to Mr Witkoff’s every eyebrow flutter. This adds to the building perception that Mr Witkoff, the President’s friend from New York, is out of his depth in dealing with world crises.

The security breach will fade as a story, but we can’t say the same about what the chat said about the views that Trump officials hold about our allies in Europe. The President had decided to strike the Houthis in Yemen by the time of the leaked Signal chat.

That was a good decision by the Commander in Chief. The Houthis are terrorising global shipping and taking shots at US military ships and planes, which nobody should be allowed to do without paying a price. Mr Trump understands that element of deterrence.

Yet Vice President JD Vance second-guessed the President’s strikes on the chat because he said only “3 per cent of US trade runs through the suez” canal, while “40 per cent of European trade does.” That understates the US interest in freedom of navigation. Mr Vance even suggested his boss didn’t understand that striking the Houthis was at odds with Mr Trump’s “message on Europe right now.”

He added that “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” So the Vice President is willing to let the Houthis shut down shipping to spite the Europeans?

The lesson Europeans — and many friends elsewhere — will take from this episode is that officials at the top of the Trump Administration think the US relationship isn’t based on common interests or values. It’s closer to a protection racket (see nearby). It’s another reason many of America’s allies may conclude they can no longer trust the US in a crisis.

The Wall St Journal