Trump Administration Rallies to Defend National Security Officials Amid Signal Scandal
The Trump administration’s loyalists are closing ranks to shield top national security officials from potential dismissal following the recent Signal messaging scandal, according to insiders speaking to Axios.
Why This Matters
Democrats and critics are pushing for the removal of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz over the controversy. However, sources suggest that this opposition could actually bolster Waltz’s chances of remaining in his position. Four senior administration officials and four external advisers indicated their belief that the uproar will soon dissipate.
“We don’t care what the media says,” a Trump adviser remarked. “We can handle controversies that would cripple other administrations. This will pass.”
A senior White House official added, “Trump wasn’t thrilled, but the speculation about Waltz’s removal is premature. This is just a classic Washington feeding frenzy. Giving in to public pressure isn’t how we operate.”
The Controversy
The incident in question involved Waltz inadvertently adding Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to a Signal group chat named “Houthi PC small group,” used by the National Security Council’s (NSC) top officials. The group chat, which included more than a dozen senior Trump administration officials, discussed classified military plans.
Goldberg reported that he was mistakenly exposed to messages containing sensitive information, including detailed war plans for U.S. strikes on Houthi militants in Yemen. According to him, the messages outlined weapons packages, target details, and precise attack sequences.
Fallout and Defense
Despite the fallout, Trump’s inner circle remains defiant. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth allegedly shared operational details within the chat, further fueling criticism. However, Trump’s supporters argue that the administration’s resilience will see it through this scandal.
For now, the administration is betting on the controversy fading with time, leaving Waltz and others untouched by the backlash. Time will tell whether their confidence is justified.
Via: CNN
What We’re Hearing
“The main criticism Mike Waltz is likely to face revolves around the fact that the story was published in The Atlantic. The boss absolutely hates The Atlantic,” an outside adviser told Axios with a chuckle.
“But beyond that, the situation is genuinely awful — just incredibly embarrassing,” the adviser added.
A longtime Trump ally, who has worked closely with both Trump and Waltz, said, “Waltz is utterly humiliated by this whole ordeal. I imagine he feels like disappearing entirely.”
“I wouldn’t be shocked if Waltz offered his resignation. And, in typical Trump fashion, I could see him refusing it,” the ally continued.
However, a ninth senior Trump adviser expressed uncertainty on Tuesday morning about Waltz’s fate, adding, “It’s too early to say what Trump will decide.”
Related: At Least 59 Killed, Over 100 Injured in Tragic Nightclub Fire: ‘A Heartbreaking and Devastating Day’
Between the Lines
White House officials privately acknowledge the fallout has been deeply damaging, putting several high-ranking Trump administration figures under the spotlight. The incident, which exposed a major security lapse, has cast a shadow on the competence of Trump’s inner circle.
Waltz now faces criticism from multiple senior officials and their teams. Many are frustrated that his involvement has drawn unwanted media attention and tarnished the administration’s public image.
“There are a lot of angry people right now,” one official said. “Nobody wants to be part of a scandal like this.”
Reality Check
Trump’s response remains unpredictable. Historically, his reactions are heavily influenced by media coverage. If the story continues to dominate cable news cycles and critics within Trump’s circle seize the opportunity to undermine Waltz, it could significantly damage Waltz’s standing.
“Trump doesn’t like losing,” a former adviser noted. “If the perception builds that firing Waltz would be a win for the media, Trump might resist that move out of sheer defiance.”
Furthermore, Trump is known for tolerating loyal allies through scandals, especially if he believes removing them would be seen as a concession to his critics.
Behind the Scenes
The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, explained how the situation unfolded. After accepting a Signal connection request on March 11, he and his colleagues speculated that the messages could be part of a deliberate disinformation campaign.
“We considered the possibility that this could be the work of a foreign intelligence service or perhaps a rogue media figure,” Goldberg stated.
Initially skeptical, Goldberg said his doubts faded after Waltz’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. “That’s when I concluded the Signal messages were almost certainly authentic,” he wrote.
Shortly thereafter, Goldberg left the Signal group, fully aware that his departure would trigger an automatic notification to the group’s creator, “Michael Waltz.”
On Monday morning, Goldberg contacted senior administration officials with questions regarding the leaked messages. Within two hours, a spokesperson from the National Security Council confirmed the authenticity of the Signal conversation.
The Fallout
While en route to Hawaii for an Indo-Pacific trip, Fox News host Pete Hegseth blasted Goldberg, calling him a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who has made a career of spreading hoaxes.”
Goldberg responded firmly on CNN later that evening. “That’s a lie,” he said. “Waltz was discussing war plans and potential attack strategies. This was no hoax.”
What’s Next
The fallout from the Signal scandal will likely intensify in the coming days. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — both participants in the Signal chat — are set to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee at 10 a.m. ET today.
Tomorrow, they will face additional questioning from the House Intelligence Committee. Axios reporters on Capitol Hill indicate that House Democrats plan to make the Signal debacle a central theme of their inquiries, using it as a case study in administrative mismanagement and national security lapses.
A senior Democratic staffer told Axios, “This is a clear example of reckless behavior. We’re going to demand accountability.”
The question remains: Will Trump stand by Waltz, or will mounting pressure from within and outside the administration force his hand? The answer may depend on how the media narrative evolves and how fiercely Trump’s allies come to Waltz’s defense.
