US national security

Subterms

    Latest story

    188 Shares27 Views

    Maga influencer and de facto national security adviser Laura Loomer holds outsized sway on Trump

    by

    After years of claiming to be the vanguard of a new “America First” isolationist movement rebelling against the neoconservative policies of the George W Bush administration that led to the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Maga’s online influencers are cheering for another war in the Middle East.And not just any war: they are applauding Donald Trump’s high-risk decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that was considered a war too far even by the Bush administration.Maga’s quick flip-flop has made it clear that Maga was never really anti-war. Maga is about xenophobia, not isolationism, and its support for Trump’s decision to bomb a Muslim country fits in with its support for his draconian campaign against immigrants.But above all, Maga is about fealty to Trump.That formula certainly helps explain why Laura Loomer, who has emerged as the most prominent Maga America First influencer in the early days of Trump’s second term, has given her full support to his Iran strike.In early April, Loomer, a 32-year-old pro-Trump online influencer widely seen as a rightwing conspiracy theorist, met with Trump and gave him a list of names of people on the staff of the national security council that she believed were not loyal enough to Trump or at least had professional backgrounds that she considered suspect. Trump fired six staffers. Later, national security adviser Mike Waltz, whom Loomer had criticized for his role in the Signalgate chat leak scandal, was ousted as well.Loomer doesn’t have a job in the government, but she has still emerged as one of Trump’s most important and most polarizing foreign policy advisers in the early days of his second administration. She has had direct access to Trump and has used it to push for ideological purges inside the administration, instilling fear and anger among national security professionals.In fact, when it comes to the national security side of the Trump administration, Loomer has been something akin to a one-woman Doge. Now the big question is how long her influence with Trump will last, or whether she will soon go out the same way as Elon Musk.Loomer’s power in the Trump administration is ill-defined. Her many critics say she has just been taking credit for moves that Trump was already planning. But Trump himself has said he takes her seriously, so it may be more accurate to describe her as Trump’s de facto national security adviser.Press reports recently suggested that Loomer’s status in the White House was waning because she had overreached, much like Musk. She has left a trail of bitter Trump aides, while there have also been reports that Trump himself has grown weary of her. But, as if to disprove the reports that she was getting frozen out, Loomer had a private meeting with JD Vance in early June.In a revealing interview on journalist Tara Palmeri’s podcast in late April, Loomer said that her White House access came directly from Trump himself, and that she maintained her relationship with the president even as his aides tried to keep her out. “Donald Trump is my biggest ally in the White House,” she said.“I don’t have delusions of grandeur, but I certainly do believe that a lot of the information I have given him has protected him and has prevented disasters from happening,” she added. “I believe that the information that I provide is valuable. And I believe that it has proven itself to be an asset to President Trump and his apparatus. I don’t know why some of the people that work for him don’t want that information around him. But I’m not going to let that stop me. I’m going to keep on uncovering information and finding ways to get it to President Trump – and informing President Trump about individuals within his inner circle that are working against his agenda.”Loomer added that “it all comes down to vetting at the end of the day”.Loomer’s close ties to Trump first became big news during the 2024 presidential campaign, when she traveled with the Republican candidate on his campaign plane despite repeated efforts by Trump aides to keep her away. The aides were particularly upset that Loomer traveled with Trump on September 11, since she had earlier gained online infamy after posting a video claiming that the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center was an “inside job”. To be sure, fears by his aides that Trump was associating with a conspiracy theorist ignored the fact that he relishes in spreading conspiracy theories far and wide. During the 2024 campaign, Trump promoted a conspiracy theory that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio; that xenophobic lie became the hallmark of Trump’s fall campaign.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionOnce Trump returned to office, Loomer began to flex her newfound power, and even professional ties to top Trump administration officials weren’t enough to protect staffers from being fired after Loomer gave her list of names to Trump. Among those fired at the NSC was Brian Walsh, who had worked on the staff of the Senate intelligence committee for Marco Rubio, now serving as both secretary of state and national security adviser, when Rubio was in the Senate.The most stunning purge attributed to Loomer came in April when Trump fired Gen Timothy Haugh, the director of the National Security Agency, along with his top deputy, after they had found their way on to Loomer’s list as well. The fact that Loomer could trigger the firing of a senior military officer in charge of the nation’s largest intelligence agency finally led to a bipartisan outcry in Washington. A group of Senate Democrats wrote to Trump saying that the firings were “inexplicable”, while Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican senator who is now a leading Trump critic, lamented that experienced military leaders were being ousted while “amateur isolationists” are in senior policy positions. The moves even troubled Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican senator and Trump loyalist who is the chair of the cybersecurity subcommittee of the Senate armed services committee. Rounds made a point of praising Haugh during a subcommittee hearing soon after his firing and noted that “men and women capable of leading the National Security Agency … are in short supply. We do not have enough of these types of leaders, and a loss of any one of them without strong justification is disappointing.”But like Musk, Loomer has been so red-hot in the early days of Trump’s second term that her fall seems almost inevitable, especially after she began to call out White House actions she didn’t like.In May, for example, she publicly criticized Trump’s decision to accept a luxury jet from Qatar.When news of the gift was first reported, Loomer posted a statement saying: “This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true.” She added: “I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump. I’m so disappointed.” She later backtracked and became more supportive. But later she was critical of Trump’s decision to withdraw the nomination of billionaire Jared Isaacman to be the head of Nasa, whose nomination she had supported. “There is reason to believe that Isaacman may be facing retaliation because of his friendship with @elonmusk,” Loomer posted as the news first broke. Days later, Isaacman suggested that he also believes that his nomination was withdrawn because of his ties to Musk.Loomer has been careful to try to limit her criticism to Trump’s aides, and not to Trump himself. But it is an open question how long that distinction will make a difference for Loomer. During the Palmeri podcast, Loomer said that she is “not going to be a sycophant and sit there and pretend that every little thing is great”. She added that “there’s a lot of incompetence in the White House. There’s a lot of people in positions they shouldn’t be in and they embarrass the president on a daily basis.”That is the backdrop for Loomer’s strong support for Trump’s decision to attack Iran. Perhaps concerned that her earlier criticism was damaging her ties to Trump world, Loomer has been profuse with her praise of Trump’s Iran attack, while also defending her America First credentials. In one post, she asked “How is it not AMERICA FIRST to congratulate those who just made sure Islamists who chant ‘DEATH TO AMERICA’ … never have an opportunity to have a nuke?” She has even gone on the offensive against other rightwing influencers, including Tucker Carlson, who have dared criticize the Iran strike. “I am screenshotting everyone’s posts and I’m going to deliver them in a package to President Trump so he sees who is truly with him and who isn’t,” Loomer posted. “And I think by now everyone knows I mean it when I say I’m going to deliver something to Trump.”For Maga influencers, staying on Trump’s good side seems to matter more than issues of war and peace. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares132 Views

      in US Politics

      House Democratic veterans back moves to limit Trump’s military authority

      by

      A group of 12 House Democratic military veterans have thrown their weight behind efforts to constrain Donald Trump’s military authority, announcing they will support a War Powers Act resolution in response to the US president’s go ahead for airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.The veterans – some of whom served in Iraq and Afghanistan – were strongly critical of Trump’s decision to launch what they called “preventive air strikes” without US congressional approval, drawing explicit parallels to the run-up to some of America’s longest recent wars.“Twenty years ago, in their rush to appear strong and tough, politicians – from both parties – failed to ask the hard questions before starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” they wrote in a letter led by Representative Pat Ryan to Trump sent on Monday. “We refuse to make those same mistakes.”Their intervention comes as multiple war powers resolutions are gaining momentum on Capitol Hill, with the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, pushing for a vote as early as this week to rein in the president’s military actions. The veterans did not specify which measure they would support, as competing versions are being drafted by different Democratic factions alongside a bipartisan effort.The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the US president’s ability to commit armed forces to fight abroad without congressional consent in the form of a vote.Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, have been championing one bipartisan resolution, while the ranking Democrats on the House foreign affairs, armed services and intelligence committees are preparing an alternative, according to Punchbowl News.Democratic aides described the latter to the outlet as providing cover for members uncomfortable with backing the Massie-Khanna approach, though lawmakers will not be discouraged from supporting both measures.The adamance against the legality of America’s involvement has only intensified since Trump’s Saturday night strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, and the line from centrist to progressive Democrats has been to charge the president with executive overreach.The New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for Trump’s impeachment, describing the attacks as “a grave violation of the constitution and congressional war powers”, while the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, accused the president of misleading Americans and dramatically increasing the risk of war.For the 12 veteran House members, the issue cuts to the heart of their military oath.“We all swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 explicitly requires a vote by Congress to declare war,” they wrote, demanding clear answers about military objectives, estimated costs and potential American casualties before any escalation.The signatories included representatives Gilbert Ray Cisneros Jr, Eugene Simon Vindman, Chris Deluzio, Jimmy Panetta and Ted Lieu.Still, their letter walked a careful line on the broader Middle East conflict, labeling Iran as “evil” and pledging continued support for Israel while warning against the strategic limitations of military action. “While destroying nuclear sites may achieve initial tactical success, it far from guarantees longterm strategic victory,” they argued.The dispute has built on uncomfortable divisions within Trump’s own party, most notably with conservative influencers and independent news media that lean to the right, with Massie and senator Rand Paul emerging as Congress’s most vocal Republican critics of the Iran strikes.But Trump has since escalated his rhetoric, posting on Truth Social about potential “regime change” in Iran and asking: “MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”Congressional leaders have also expressed frustration over the administration’s failure to provide adequate consultation before the weekend operation.While Schumer received a call from Trump officials, he was reportedly not told which country would be targeted, and Jeffries “could not be reached until after” the strikes had begun, according to the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt. More

    • 138 Shares83 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s war with Iran signals perilous shift from showman to strongman

      by

      So the military parade that brought tanks to the streets of Washington on Donald Trump’s birthday was more than just an authoritarian ego trip. It was a show of strength and statement of intent.Exactly a week later, sporting a “Make America great again” (Maga) cap in the situation room, the American president ordered the biggest US military intervention in decades as more than 125 aircraft and 75 weapons – including 14 bunker-busting bombs – struck three Iranian nuclear sites. Trump called it a “spectacular military success” – but it remains unclear how much damage had actually been inflicted.Trump’s gamble was cheered by Israel and Republican hawks. It alarmed some in his Maga base who fell for his rhetoric promising to be an isolationist who would end forever wars. It left egg on the face of Pakistan, which only a day earlier had said it would nominate Trump for the Nobel peace prize.But there was no inconsistency for those paying close attention to the president’s war on democracy, which since January has included a draconian crackdown on immigration – including masked government agents grabbing people off the street and deporting them without due process – and the deployment of marines and national guard troops against protesters in Los Angeles.Trump’s strike on Iran was another example of both his disregard for public opinion – six in 10 Americans opposed US military involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran, according to an Economist/ YouGov poll released on 17 June – and his contempt for Congress.Democrats were quick to point out that his actions were a clear violation of the constitution, which grants Congress the power to declare war on foreign countries. There was no evidence of an imminent threat to the US that might have provided grounds for Trump to act unilaterally.Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the bipartisan Senate national security working group, noted there was no intelligence showing Iran had made the decision to build a nuclear bomb or was constructing the mechanism of a bomb. And in a breach of protocol, leading national security Democrats were not informed of the strikes until after Trump announced them on social media.But once again, Democrats find themselves shut out of power and shouting into the void. Many called for Congress to pass a measure based on the War Powers Act that seeks to block “unauthorized hostilities” in Iran. Congresswoman Summer Lee of Pennsylvania called it a necessary step to “rein in this out-of-control, wannabe dictator”. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called for Trump’s impeachment.Fat chance. Republicans, who control the majorities of both chambers, are willing accomplices in their own subjugation. They remained mostly silent as Trump unleashed Elon Musk’s Doge on the federal bureaucracy, gutting USAID and other agencies under Congress’s purview. In the House of Representatives, they buried their differences to pass Trump’s signature “one big beautiful bill”.Therefore, do not expect Republicans to pull the emergency brake on a Trump train that might be hurtling towards world war three. Mike Johnson, the House speaker, and John Thune, the Senate majority leader, led a chorus of praise for the attack. Frequent Trump dissenters such as Nikki Haley and Mitch McConnell joined the commendation.Perversely, this most unconventional of presidents who ruined the party brand had reverted to Republican Original, taking the kind of action that would meet approval from George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton and John McCain.The America First wing, meanwhile, was mostly muted and subdued. Trump’s cult of personality typically trumps differences over policy – and that is not likely to change over a military operation that took place more than 7,000 miles away with apparent success. (A damaging Iranian retaliation, or any suggested of a need for US boots on the ground, could of course change that narrative.)After all, Trump’s isolationism has always been selective: there is Dove Trump and Hawk Trump. Last year, Dove Trump falsely claimed to be the only president in 72 years to have no wars; in fact, Jimmy Carter never declared war or lost a single soldier to hostile action. In his inaugural address in January, he said: “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end – and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”Yet Hawk Trump looks familiar enough to any student of US foreign adventurism. In his first term, he ordered cruise missile strikes in Syria, expanded military operations in Somalia, intensified the campaign against the Islamic State, dropped a Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb in Afghanistan and ordered a drone strike that killed the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani. In his second term, Trump’s bombing campaign in Yemen has led to the deaths of almost as many civilians in two months as in the previous 23 years of US attacks on Islamists and militants in the country.View image in fullscreenThese contradictions are where JD Vance, the vice-president, becomes a useful foil. He has been an outspoken isolationist, openly questioning why the US should care about Ukraine’s borders rather than its own. During the Iran crisis he has remained staunchly supportive of Trump, standing beside the president during Saturday night’s televised address and defending the intervention on Sunday’s Meet the Press programme on the NBC network.“We’re not at war with Iran; we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear programme,” Vance said, using the type of doublespeak that the Bush administration specialised in to conjure phantom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.He added in the same interview: “I certainly empathise with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America’s national security objective.”Trump has called on Iran to “agree to end this war”, saying that “now is the time for peace”. It remains to be seen whether the strikes will push Tehran to de-escalate the conflict or widen it further.The former would allow Trump and his army of loyalists to declare victory. The latter would give him potential for a “rally around the flag” effect that puts Democrats in a bind. Nothing suits an authoritarian better than an external threat.The Trump who threw a birthday parade and used the military like a prop invited ridicule. The Trump who deploys troops to the streets of Los Angeles and drops bombs on Iran is altogether more dangerous.Exit the showman. Enter the strongman. More

    • 175 Shares118 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats say they were left in dark about plans for US strikes on Iran

      by

      Senior Democrats have claimed they were left in the dark about operation Midnight Hammer, the US’s highly coordinated strike on Saturday on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.Neither Mark Warner, a US senator of Virginia, nor Jim Himes, a representative of Connecticut, both top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, were briefed before the attack, according to reports.But that came amid claims that Republican counterparts were given advance notice of the operation, which involved 125 aircraft – including seven B-2 bombers carrying 14 bunker busters weighing three tons – and 75 Tomahawk missiles launched from US submarines. Axios reported that the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, had been informed shortly before the attacks began at 6.40pm eastern time.Himes’s committee staff received notification about the strike from the Pentagon only after Donald Trump made the announcement on social media soon before 8pm, according to the outlet.The president’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, told a press conference early on Sunday that the strikes “took months and weeks of positioning and preparation so that we could be ready when the president called”.“It took misdirection and the highest of operational security,” Hegseth said, in part alluding to the US’s deployment of B-2 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam earlier on Saturday.The US attack of Iran came as most Democrats had left Washington for the Juneteenth holiday – but the apparent lack of forewarning to lawmakers on intelligence committees is striking. Top lawmakers are typically informed of military operations in advance.“Cost, duration, risk to our troops, strategy – the basics before we make a decision of this consequence,” said Chris Coons, a senior Democratic member of the Senate foreign relations committee, last week.Arizona senator Mark Kelly told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday that the White House should have been “right up front” in coming to Congress “and asking for authorization to do this”.“That’s the constitutional approach to this,” Kelly said. “He could have talked to us about what the goal is and what the plan is ahead of time.”Tim Kaine, a Virginia senator who sits on the armed services as well as the foreign relations committees, said Congress needed to be informed ahead of time.“Congress needs to authorize a war against Iran,” he said. “This Trump war against Iran – we have not.” Senators are expected to receive a briefing on the strikes next week. But the signs that an attack was imminent were there to see: additional US military assets had been moved into the region, and the director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, had postponed a briefing with the Senate intelligence committee last week.Moderate and progressive Democrats have been in conflict over the engagement of US forces in support of Israel. Trump’s use of force could now deepen the ideological schism.Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, told CNN on Sunday that “the destruction of these facilities is a positive in the sense that it will set back Iran’s program”. But he warned that Iran could now “sprint for a bomb”.He added that the strikes were “not constitutional” and Congress should be brought in “on an action this substantial that could lead to a major outbreak of war”. But Schiff refused to be drawn in on whether the world was safer following the strike. “We simply don’t know,” he said.Schiff maintained that in absence of a briefing “this is an order that should not have been given”.Prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations have been notably silent on the 10-day war between Israel and Iran. “They are sort of hedging their bets,” said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state during the Obama administration.“The beasts of the Democratic party’s constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel’s war in Gaza that it’s really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.”But some had spoken out. Ro Khanna, a California congressman, called the White House threats of an attack on Iran “a defining moment for our party”. That came as progressive and isolationist lawmakers on the right found themselves uncomfortably aligned.Khanna had introduced legislation with the Kentucky Republican US House member Thomas Massie that called on Trump to “terminate” the use of US armed forces against Iran unless “explicitly authorized” by a declaration of war from Congress.Following the strike, Khanna posted on X: “Trump struck Iran without any authorization of Congress.”Khanna said Congress needed to “immediately return” to Washington to vote on the measure he and Massie co-authored. Kaine said he would bring a similar resolution to the Senate in the coming days.Massie said in response to the strikes: “This is not Constitutional.”The independent US senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, said supporting the Israeli prime minister Benjamin “Netanyahu’s war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake”. He introduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran.The New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said on X that the decision to attack Iran’s nuclear sites was “disastrous”.“The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.Halie Soifer, the chief executive officer of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said in a statement: “This is an incredibly difficult moment for the vast majority of American Jews, who are supportive of Israel, concerned about the security and safety of the Israeli people and Jews in the United States and around the world, and fearful that president Trump lacks a clear strategy about what happens next with Iran.”On NBC’s Meet the Press JD Vance, the US vice-president, maintained that it was untrue to say that Saturday’s strikes in Iran exceeded Trump’s presidential authority.Schiff, meanwhile, declined to support calls for impeachment proceedings against Trump, saying the failure to brief Democrats ahead of the strike was “another partisan exercise”. More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Loyalty matters most in race to become Trump’s next national security adviser

      by

      The race is officially on to become Donald Trump’s next national security adviser – but in this White House, the personalities and egos surrounding the president can matter far more than the titles they hold.Speaking from Air Force One on Sunday evening, Trump suggested secretary of state Marco Rubio could continue to double-hat as the interim national security adviser. But he also praised Stephen Miller, whom he said was “at the top of the totem pole” for the appointment and said he was in effect already doing the job.“I think he sort of indirectly already has that job … because he has a lot to say about a lot of things,” Trump said of Miller on board Air Force One. “He’s a very valued person in the administration, Stephen Miller.”Rubio will have around six months to test drive the dual roles. “A lot of people say it really works in with what Marco is doing,” he said. “But we have a lot of people. I’m going to be naming somebody.”The two men represent distinct wings of Trump’s Republican support: Rubio is a former rival who has tried to shapeshift into a Maga Republican, preserving his role in the Trump administration and potentially setting up a 2028 presidential run. Miller is a rightwing ideologue who has staked out a reputation as the administration’s driving hawk on immigration and a Trump enforcer among his top aides.The fact that two men with such disparate backgrounds could both vie for the position indicates how the president relies more on the personalities around him than the positions they hold.Mike Waltz was always the odd man out – a hawk who reportedly conspired with Benjamin Netanyahu on options to bomb Iran, and perhaps more importantly failed to jell with key Trump aides like chief of staff Susie Wiles. Then there was Signalgate, when Waltz accidentally added the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg into a top-level group chat discussing strikes against Yemen’s Houthis.The country’s national security adviser is tasked with briefing the president and coordinating discussions among the key foreign policy and national security advisers. While Henry Kissinger famously served as secretary of state and national security adviser for two years during the Vietnam war, that was 50 years ago and there are doubts that Rubio can both travel the world as the US’s top diplomat and also fulfill a role where he should be attached to Trump’s hip at the White House.“If Rubio is going to maintain his role as secretary of state, there is absolutely no way for him to do both jobs sustainably,” said Edward Price, a former senior adviser to secretary of state Antony Blinken who also served on the national security council. “2025 is not 1975 [when Henry Kissinger served in both roles] in terms of the issues that the foreign policy establishment has to deal with and running a department of 80,000 people and being the nation’s top diplomat should be more than a 24/7 job.“If it’s not, you’re you’re not doing it right,” he said.The role of national security adviser “really can’t be performed by someone who’s also got a cabinet department to run”, said John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser during his first term, in a CNN interview.Miller is among the most ardent members of the Maga wing of Trump’s coterie. While he mainly focuses on domestic issues – in particular curating the government’s aggressive anti-immigration policy – he has also matched the president’s skepticism of Ukraine and his pro-Israel policies as well, particularly regarding the crackdown on anti-war protestors in the United States.But more importantly, he has proven himself as a powerful enforcer in the administration.The leaked transcripts of the Signal chats among top officials showed that Miller effectively cut off a discussion of whether or not the timing was right to strike the Houthis in Yemen by citing the desires of the president. “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return,” he wrote, prompting defense secretary Pete Hegseth to respond: “Agree.”Many took that to signal his weight in the administration. “I think that Signal chat is exhibit A,” said Price. “He goes in there and speaks on an issue that, as homeland security Adviser and deputy chief of staff, really shouldn’t be clearly within his purview.” He said “the president has spoken, and this is what he said, and this is what we’re going to do. And everyone sort of got in line, and, you know, it’s clear that he’s the power center of this White House.”That matters far less than policy bonafides, of which Miller has few when it comes to US foreign policy. “Miller’s a very bright person, no one should underestimate him,” said Bolton. “If he were to become national security adviser, you would have a clear merging of the homeland and national security adviser jobs … but it’s hard to see what [he] would contribute to discussions on national nuclear weapons strategy.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump moves Mike Waltz from national security adviser to UN ambassador role

      by

      Donald Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, and his deputy, Alex Wong, will be leaving their posts after they lost the confidence of other administration officials and found themselves without allies at the White House, according to two people familiar with the matter.The exit of Waltz and Wong marked the conclusion of a fraught tenure. In March, Waltz inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, to a Signal group chat that shared sensitive information about US missile strikes in Yemen before they took place.Trump announced in a Truth Social post later on Thursday that he would name his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, to also take on the job of the national security adviser on an interim basis, and that he would nominate Waltz to be the US ambassador to the United Nations.The president briefly considered firing Waltz over the Signal episode, but decided he was unwilling to give the news media the satisfaction of forcing the ouster of a top cabinet official weeks into his second term. Trump was also mollified by an internal review that found Waltz’s error was a mistake.The furore over the Signal group chat, if anything, was widely seen to have bought Waltz and Wong additional time after they had both been on shaky ground for weeks. That was in large part because of a strained working relationship with Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, and other senior officials.The interpersonal difficulties extended to Wong, according to a person directly familiar with the ousters. Wong frustrated some officials at other agencies who were involved in national security matters and complained to people in the West Wing that Waltz refused to rein him in, the person said.In the days after the Signal group chat episode, Waltz sought advice from JD Vance and others in the vice-president’s circle about how to reset relations. Vance counseled Waltz to be more deferential to Wiles, who had pushed for him to get the job, and throw around his weight less.But Waltz also came under fire from other quarters. Even though he was cleared in the internal review into Signalgate, as it came to be known, Waltz faced pressure for being seen as a war hawk and at odds with Trump’s “America first” agenda.That included scrutiny at a dinner that Waltz attended with Trump and some of Trump’s allies including Tucker Carlson, who has been skeptical of the adviser. The outside pressure campaign to remove Waltz additionally included an effort led by Steve Bannon, the people said.And the far-right activist Laura Loomer, who pushed a conspiracy theory that Wong had loyalties to China, weakened Waltz’s power after she went to the White House last month at Trump’s invitation and successfully pushed for Trump to fire a number of Waltz’s staffers.The gutting of Waltz’s staff was widely seen to have weakened his position inside Trump’s orbit. As Carlson, Bannon and Loomer separately pushed a whisper campaign that Waltz would be out before June, officials in the White House concurred that Waltz’s influence was waning.This week, it was quietly made clear to Waltz and Wong that their time at the national security council would be coming to an end. Waltz tried to extend his tenure by attending a cabinet meeting on Wednesday but was informed of his removal on Thursday, one of the people said.The top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, welcomed the firing of Waltz but said that the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, was most deserving of losing his job.“They should fire him, but they’re firing the wrong guy. They should be firing Hegseth,” the minority leader told reporters at the Capitol.He accused Republicans of confirming a defense secretary who was unfit for the job, and predicted scandals similar to Signalgate – where Hegseth, Waltz and other national security officials shared details of airstrikes in Yemen in a group chat – would happen in the future.“They fired the [national security council] guy, but there are going to be many more problems, just like Signalgate that come out of the defense department, as long as Hegseth is in charge. This is not a one-off. This is going to happen over and over and over again.”Trump’s move to name Rubio the interim national security adviser took officials at the state department by surprise. Tammy Bruce, the spokesperson for the state department, appeared to learn about the decision from a reporter during a news conference in real time.The appointment means Rubio has taken on a total of four positions in the administration. In addition to being secretary of state and interim national security adviser, he is also currently serving as the acting USAID administrator and the acting national archivist.Chris Stein contributed reporting More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Hegseth blames ousted officials for leaks in latest Signal chat scandal

      by

      The embattled US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has defended his most recent use of the encrypted messaging app Signal to discuss sensitive military operations, blaming fired Pentagon officials for orchestrating leaks against the Trump administration.In an interview with former colleagues at Fox News on Tuesday morning, the defense secretary suggested the problems stemmed from former officials, appointed by this administration, for leaking information to damage him and Donald Trump, adding that there was an internal investigation and that evidence would eventually be handed to the justice department.“When you dismiss people who you believe are leaking classified information … Why would it surprise anybody if those very same people keep leaking to the very same reporters whatever information they think they can have to try to sabotage the agenda of the president or the secretary?” Hegseth said.In a statement posted on X over the weekend, the three dismissed top officials – Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll and Darin Selnick – wrote that they were “incredibly disappointed” by the way they were removed, adding that “unnamed Pentagon officials have slandered our character with baseless attacks on our way out the door.”Hegseth, in the interview, also confirmed the news that his chief of staff, Joe Kasper, will stay at the Pentagon, but it’s “going to be in a slightly different role”.The controversy stems from recent reporting in the New York Times, after a second Signal chat was identified in which Hegseth is again believed to have shared sensitive operational details about strikes against Houthis in Yemen – including launch times of fighter jets, bomb drop timings and missile launches – with a group of 13 people, including his wife, brother and personal lawyer, some of whom possessed no security clearance.Hegseth dismissed those reports in the interview, characterizing criticism as politically motivated attacks.“No one’s texting war plans,” Hegseth told Fox and Friends. “What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations for media coordination among other things.”An earlier revelation in March detailed how Hegseth had shared similar military information in another Signal chat that included Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, who later published the messages after Hegseth and the White House insisted they were not classified.After the interview, NBC News reported that the operational details came from army Gen Michael Erik Kurilla, commander of US Central Command, who shared the strike plans minutes before launch, according to three US officials with direct knowledge of the matter.Less than 10 minutes later, Hegseth is said to have forwarded some of that sensitive information to the aforementioned Signal group chats on his personal phone.The first chat leak appeared to be a violation of the defense department’s own classification guidelines, and it triggered an investigation by the Pentagon’s inspector general into his use of the encrypted messaging app.The backlash against Hegseth’s misuse of Signal while running the government’s largest and most funded office – that could get a budget of $1tn – has only gotten more intense over the last few days.Representative Don Bacon, a Republican and former air force general who chairs the House armed services committee’s cyber subcommittee, became the first member of the GOP to openly support Hegseth’s removal.“I had concerns from the get-go because Pete Hegseth didn’t have a lot of experience,” Bacon told Politico. “If it’s true that he had another [Signal] chat with his family, about the missions against the Houthis, it’s totally unacceptable,” he added later.The former chief Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot wrote in a Politico Magazine opinion piece over the weekend that “the building is in disarray” and that “it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer.”Retired US navy admiral James Stavridis similarly condemned Hegseth’s actions, telling CNN: “There is absolutely no reason on the planet Earth he should be doing that and he knows it.”Despite the professional controversies – and the fact that the current administration appointed the officials he is now attacking – Hegseth portrayed himself as a disruptive force against entrenched interests at the Pentagon.“They’ve come after me from day one, just like they’ve come after President Trump,” Hegseth said. “A lot of people come to Washington and they just play the game … That’s not why I’m here. I’m here because President Trump asked me to bring war fighting back to the Pentagon every single day. If people don’t like it, they can come after me.” More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says Hegseth is ‘doing a great job’ despite reports of second Signal chat

      by

      Donald Trump offered public support for defense secretary Pete Hegseth a day after it emerged that Hegseth had shared information about US strikes in Yemen last month in a second Signal group chat that included family, his personal lawyer and several top Pentagon aides.“He’s doing a great job. Ask the Houthis how he’s doing,” Trump said dismissively, referring to the rebel group in Yemen targeted by those missile strikes, on the sidelines of the White House Easter egg roll event on Monday.Hegseth was revealed to have shared, in a series of messages, plans about US strikes against the Houthis on 15 March before they happened in the Signal group chat that included his wife, his brother and a number of his top military aides.The details that Hegseth sent in were essentially the same information that he shared in a separate Signal group chat earlier this year that mistakenly included the editor of the Atlantic in addition to JD Vance and other top Trump officials, a person directly familiar with the messages said.But pressure on Hegseth has so far come from people outside of the White House. Trump called the defense secretary on Sunday after the story broke and aides concluded that it had been leaked to the news media by a former Hegseth aide who was in the group chat but abruptly fired last week.Trump has resisted firing top officials in his second term, not wanting to be seen as caving to a media swarm even if he has been unhappy with the negative coverage. Trump also stuck by his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, who had added the editor of the Atlantic to the first chat.According to a person familiar with the call, Trump told Hegseth that he had his support and that disgruntled leakers were to blame for the story, which was first reported by the New York Times.Trump also told his team to back Hegseth in public, and senior Trump aides repeated their defense line that none of the information shared in either of the group chats were classified, although the accusations have centered on why it was shared with Hegseth’s wife, for instance, since she is not a Pentagon official.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe defense secretary himself appeared furious when asked about the second Signal chat during the White House Easter egg roll event on the South Lawn, telling reporters that the story was a “hit piece” that repeated his defense that it had been pushed by “disgruntled former employees”.But Hegseth faced growing pressure to resign after John Ullyot, his former spokesperson, wrote in an extraordinary opinion essay in Politico on Sunday that the Pentagon was “in disarray under Hegseth’s leadership”.Republican congressman Don Bacon, who sits on the House armed services committee, did not explicitly call for Hegseth’s resignation but suggested he would not keep Hegseth in place were he was the president.“I had concerns from the get-go because Pete Hegseth didn’t have a lot of experience,” said Bacon, a former air force general. “I’m not in the White House and I’m not going to tell the White House how to manage this … but I find it unacceptable and I wouldn’t tolerate it if I was in charge.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Full-blown meltdown’ at Pentagon after Hegseth’s second Signal chat revealed

      by

      Pressure was mounting on the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, on Monday following reports of a second Signal chatroom used to discuss sensitive military operations, while a former top Pentagon spokesperson slammed the US’s top military official’s leadership of the Department of Defense.John Ullyot, who resigned last week after initially serving as Pentagon spokesperson, said in a opinion essay published by Politico on Sunday that the Pentagon has been overwhelmed by staff drama and turnover in the initial months of the second Trump administration.Ullyot called the situation a “full-blown meltdown” that could cost Hegseth, a 44-year-old former Fox News host and national guard officer, his job as defense secretary.“It’s been a month of total chaos at the Pentagon. From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president – who deserves better from his senior leadership,” Ullyot wrote.Donald Trump Jr pushed back on the opinion piece, saying the author is “officially exiled” from Trump’s political movement. “This guy is not America First,” Trump Jr wrote on X. “I’ve been hearing for years that he works his ass off to subvert my father’s agenda. That ends today.”The warning came as the New York Times reported that Hegseth shared details of a US attack on Yemeni Houthi rebels last month in a second Signal chat that he created himself and included his wife, his brother and about a dozen other people.The Guardian has independently confirmed the existence of Hegseth’s own private group chat.According to unnamed sources familiar with the chat who spoke to the Times, Hegseth sent the private group of his personal associates some of the same information, including the flight schedules for the F/A-18 Hornets that would strike Houthi rebel targets in Yemen, that he also shared with another Signal group of top officials that was created by Mike Waltz, the national security adviser.The existence of the Signal group chat created by Waltz, in which detailed attack plans were divulged by Hegseth to other Trump administration officials on the private messaging app, were made public by the Atlantic magazine’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who had been accidentally added to the group.The existence of a second Signal chat, coupled with Ullyot’s devastating portrait of the Pentagon under Hegseth, is likely to increase pressure on the White House to take action.Trump defended Hegseth at the annual Easter egg roll event at the White House.“Pete’s doing a great job,” the president said. “Just ask the Houthis how he’s doing. It’s just fake news. They just bring up stories. It sounds like disgruntled employees. He was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people and that’s what he’s doing. You don’t always have friends when you do that.”Hegseth himself blamed “disgruntled former employees” in remarks to reporters at the same event.“What a big surprise that a few leakers get fired and suddenly a bunch of hit pieces come out from the same media that peddled the Russia hoax,” Hegseth said. “This is what the media does. They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees, and then they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.”He continued: “Not going to work with me, because we’re changing the defense department, putting the Pentagon back in the hands of war-fighters. And anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news doesn’t matter.”The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell, issued a statement in a post on X on Sunday night following the New York Times report.“Another day, another old story – back from the dead,” Parnell said. “The Trump-hating media continues to be obsessed with destroying anyone committed to President Trump’s agenda. This time, the New York Times – and all other Fake News that repeat their garbage – are enthusiastically taking the grievances of disgruntled former employees as the sole sources for their article.“There was no classified information in any Signal chat, no matter how many ways they try to write the story. What is true is that the Office of the Secretary of Defense is continuing to become stronger and more efficient in executing President Trump’s agenda. We’ve already achieved so much for the American warfighter, and will never back down.”Tammy Duckworth, a Democratic senator from Illinois and combat veteran, said in a statement that the second Signal chat put the lives of US men and women in uniform at greater risk:“How many times does Pete Hegseth need to leak classified intelligence before Donald Trump and Republicans understand that he isn’t only a f*cking liar, he is a threat to our national security?“Every day he stays in his job is another day our troops’ lives are endangered by his singular stupidity,” Duckworth said. “He must resign in disgrace.”Jack Reed, a Democratic senator from Rhode Island and a senior member of the Senate armed services committee, said the report, if true, “is another troubling example of Secretary Hegseth’s reckless disregard for the laws and protocols that every other military service member is required to follow”.Reed called on Hegseth to “immediately explain why he reportedly texted classified information that could endanger American service members’ lives on a commercial app that included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer”.Reed said he had “warned that Mr Hegseth lacks the experience, competence, and character to run the Department of Defense. In light of the ongoing chaos, dysfunction, and mass firings under Mr Hegseth’s leadership, it seems that those objections were well-founded.”Ullyot warned that under Hegseth “the Pentagon focus is no longer on warfighting, but on endless drama” and said “the president deserves better than the current mishegoss at the Pentagon.” More