What the Trump war-plan chat reveals

Waltz and Hegseth backed Trump over the Houthi strikes while Vance voted for retreat. The President now knows which of his deputies tried to block the operation and who tried to carry it out.

Donald Trump with Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth in the White House. Picture: Pool via AP)

President Trump claims to run the most transparent Administration in history, but maybe not like this. His team somehow added a journalist to a high-level Yemen war-planning chat conducted over Signal, the commercial messaging app, with operational details about targets, weapons and attack sequencing.

A National Security Council spokesman confirmed the accuracy of the story in the Atlantic on Monday: “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.”

The news is that the characters played to their public type. National-security adviser Mike Waltz was a voice for US leadership — and for carrying out the President’s policy. Vice President JD Vance was a voice for US retreat even when Mr Trump directed otherwise.

“As I heard it, the president was clear: green light” to take on the Houthis, wrote “S M,” presumed to be Mr Trump’s senior aide Stephen Miller. Why should Tehran’s proxy get away, as under Joe Biden, with shooting at Navy ships and aircraft and blocking critical waterways for everyone but Iran, Russia and China?

The key exchange began March 14, a day before US strikes on Yemen, when the Signal user “Michael Waltz” wrote, “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance.” But not all preferred to take that guidance. “I think we are making a mistake,” the user “JD Vance” replied. “3 per cent of US trade runs through the suez,” the canal blocked by Houthi fire, while “40 per cent of European trade does.”

He continued, “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.” In sum, “there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

This counsel of delay — waiting for economic news that may never come — was echoed by Joe Kent, a noted isolationist whom Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had named in the chat as her point of contact.

In reply, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pointed out risks of waiting, stressed Iran’s role and made the case for the operation. “I see it as two things,” he wrote: “1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered.” Mr Trump later made similar points in public.

This reflects well on Mr Hegseth, though it’s notable that he named Dan Caldwell as his point of contact. Mr Caldwell comes from the isolationist Koch network, which Mr Trump said he wanted out of his Administration.

Mr Waltz explained the damage to global trade and the limits of Europe’s navies. “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes,” he wrote.

Mr Vance finally conceded to reality. “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” he wrote. Mr Hegseth agreed: “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. But Mike [Waltz] is correct.”

The President’s policy carried the day. Mr Trump now knows which of his deputies tried to block it and which tried to carry it out.

The Wall St Journal