Europe excluded from the groupchat

Jeffrey Goldberg’s story in the Atlantic is so mind-blowing it’s hard to know what to say in response. It defies belief that Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, appears to have accidentally added a top journalist to a Signal messaging group with senior government officials – including the Vice President, Secretary of State, Defense Secretary and the Director of National Intelligence – to discuss a top-secret military action. It boggles the brain that the people running the most powerful country on the planet, the Principals Committee of US national security no less, use childish emojis to discuss a bombing campaign which reportedly killed 53 people. It’s another reminder that, whether Trump or Biden is in the White House, the free world is not being led by serious people.

And it’s not just a NeverTrumpish reaction to say, as the inveterate Trump critic Jacob Heilbrunn does in these pages, that, Waltz probably ought to resign, unless it’s proven that some nefarious foreign hacker (Russian, perhaps, or Ukrainian) somehow added Goldberg to the Signal account (and even then). A National Security Advisor really ought to take more care about national security.

As Goldberg, another long-standing critic of the Trump administration who authored the highly dubious story about Trump refusing to visit a World War Two cemetery in 2018, points out, Waltz appears to have broken the Espionage Act, among other laws. The other principals on the group really ought to have known better, too.   

But perhaps the most extraordinary aspect of the story is the contempt for Europe expressed in the messages. Vice President J.D. Vance raises his concern that unilateral action on the Iran-backed rebels, while sending “a message,” carries a real risk of undermining the new administration’s America First platform. “3 percent of US trade runs through the Suez,” says Vance. “40 percent of European trade does.”

Vance goes on: “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.”

Joe Kent, Trump’s nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center, agrees: “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.”

Then Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, responds: “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.”

Mike Waltz follows up with what Goldberg calls “a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies.” Waltz texts, “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.”

Vance rejoins the conversation, telling Hegseth: “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” 

“VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading,” replies Hegseth. “It’s PATHETIC.”

Then an account called S M – White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, we assume – “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.”

“Agree,” says Hegseth, who seems to specialize in agreeing. The Defense Secretary then, according to Goldberg, posted a detailed update about the upcoming strikes, two hours before the attacks occurred.

The recklessness and crassness of this conversation is revealing at one level. But the performative anti-European signaling is something else, and it is wrong-headed, too. America is clearly attacking these Iranian-backed rebels to further cripple Tehran, a major foreign policy goal of this administration, and to support Israel, which wants America’s support in diminishing Iranian influence in the region. Whether these goals truly in align with the America First agenda is a moot point, but it is not a clear case of the United States “bailing out” Europe, as Vance suggested.

There is clearly within the highest levels of the Trump administration a hasty tendency to pour scorn on Europe, no doubt related to the disagreements between Europe and Washington over what to do about Ukraine.

When it comes to war and peace, it seems, Trump’s America is increasingly seeking to please its allies in the Middle East – Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – while blaming European powers (and Egypt) for forcing America to act alone. This will be particularly galling for the European powers who took part in earlier, less dramatic strikes against the Houthis in co-ordination with the Biden administration – attacks which Mike Waltz has described as “feckless.” The sloppiness of discussing these acts on an insecure Signal group suggests that Waltz is not necessarily in a good position to lecture others about fecklessness. But the overall point is clear: the Trump administration will work with Middle Eastern powers to hurt Iran, but Europe is increasingly alone.