Newscenter Media News Ivo Daalder, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is CEO of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and host of the weekly podcast “World Review with Ivo Daalder.” He writes POLITICO’s From Across the Pond column.
Signalgate is taking Washington by storm.
All week, a journalist’s surprise inclusion in a Signal group chat of top U.S. officials discussing details of a military operation has been dominating headlines, congressional hearings and press conferences.
So far, much of the discussion has focused on why this happened, when information is classified, what constitutes a war plan and whether anyone needs to be held accountable. But while these are all important issues, what these text messages (all of which are now released) say is equally revealing.
Namely, they tell us what key administration officials think about the world. And that, if anything, is even more worrying than the discussion of highly sensitive operational issues on an open digital platform.
Let’s start with what this episode tells about process: The reason we got this unique insight into the workings of U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is because National Security Advisor Mike Waltz mistakenly added the Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat of top national security officials.
Of course, anyone can make a mistake. But the only reason Goldberg was invited to join is because Waltz and the other officials were using a commercial application available to anyone. One reason to use closed systems for sensitive information is so outsiders can’t be mistakenly added to chats, email chains or other official communications. So, why use a commercial app for government business?
According to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the app was pre-installed on government-issued cell phones. If true, that would be remarkable. Commercial apps are generally banned from government devices. Moreover, apps that allow messages to disappear in a week or less would certainly seem to violate the Federal Records Act, which requires all official communications be retained and stored.
Equally interesting is that the Signal group excluded one of Trump’s most important presidential advisers: Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Christopher W. Grady. And while the group included most principals and many deputies, the exclusion of the administration’s most senior military adviser raises profound questions about how top officials get their information.
Process aside, though, the chats also provide real insight into how top Trump officials see the world — especially America’s oldest allies in Europe. And it’s not a pretty picture.
Vice President JD Vance is the first to mention the continent in the chat, while raising doubts about Trump’s decision to strike the Houthis. “I think we are making a mistake,” he writes. It’s Europe, not the U.S., that relies on the trade route through the Suez Canal. The American public won’t understand why the U.S. is launching strikes to open the sea lanes when the main beneficiary is Europe, he says.
Waltz responds by noting it’s unclear how much of the trade passing through Suez eventually ends up in the U.S., but he agrees it will benefit Europe most. (Interestingly, no one seems to think about China, which is clearly the most dependent on these sea lanes, but I digress).
The chats also provide real insight into how top Donald Trump officials see the world —especially America’s oldest allies in Europe. | Win McNamee/Getty Images
European navies, Waltz contends, cannot “defend against the types of sophisticated, antiship, cruise missiles, and drones the Houthis are now using” — only the U.S. can open these lanes. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth agrees: “We are the only ones on the planet … who can do this.”
The exchange raises two questions. First, its military analysis is debatable. European navies have, in fact, been sailing these seas for more than a year, and some have participated in striking Houthi targets in Yemen in past operations. Of course, the U.S. Navy is more capable and packs more firepower, but that doesn’t mean it can stop the Houthis from threatening shipping and effectively closing the sea lanes.
Perhaps having a real military expert in the chat would have helped better inform the discussion.
The other question is about America’s role in the world. It’s clear from the exchange that Trump decided to authorize the strikes because he wanted the sea lanes open — which is consistent with the longstanding view of America’s global role. Indeed, a major reason the U.S. has a blue-water navy is to ensure freedom of navigation for all commercial and other shipping.
But Vance sees the military operation as a favor to Europe — not a general need Washington has long fulfilled. When he finally agrees to support the strikes, he adds: “I just hate bailing out Europe again.” And he’s not alone. “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC,” Hegseth writes, while Waltz notes it should be added to the list of “horribles on why the Europeans need to invest in their defense.”
Maybe I missed it, but I’m not aware of any European nation asking the U.S. to strike the Houthis at this time. That was a decision Trump and his team made on their own — and a key reason, Hegesth noted, was to restore deterrence vis-à-vis Iran.
That said, it’s clear Trump shares his advisers’ views. Indeed, at one point, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — whom Waltz added to the chat only after Vance disagreed with the president’s decision — chimes in. The president has given a “green light” for the strikes, but, he adds, “we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return.” And that includes economic concessions: “If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost, there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”
Freedom of navigation may be a national interest, but that’s only up to a point. Apparently, the U.S. military is for hire, even if there has been no request for its services. And if you want us — you have to pay.