Signal Yemen Chat Intel Leak Exposes Trump Team’s Contempt for Europe

Europe may have thought it was already on notice, but the recent scandalous leak of internal discussions among JD Vance and senior Trump administration officials about a planned strike on Yemen has left little doubt: the continent remains firmly in the crosshairs of American criticism, The Guardian‘s global affairs correspondent, Andrew Roth, maintained in an analysis piece. 

The officials inadvertently granted Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic an inside look at their deliberations—a stunning intelligence breach that has sparked outrage, particularly from Republicans who previously demanded criminal investigations into figures like Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information.

While the strike against Yemen appeared to have far more to do with the administration’s policies on protecting maritime trade and containing Iran than its concerns about Europe taking advantage of US defense spending and military prowess, Vance seemed determined to push that angle as a reason to postpone the strike.

“I think we are making a mistake,” Vance wrote, noting that while only 3% of US trade flows through the Suez Canal, it accounts for 40% of Europe’s trade. “There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,” he added. “The strongest reason to do this is, as [Trump] said, to send a message.”

His remarks aligned with his longstanding view that the US overpays for European security. He also displayed clear disdain for European allies—likely referring to the UK and France—by calling them “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years,” noting that both nations were active in the war on Afghanistan, and the UK also participated in the invasion of Iraq.

Goldberg observed that this exchange revealed the unfiltered views of Vance, as well as those of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller.

Vance then went further, subtly acknowledging a divergence between his foreign policy stance and Trump’s. He warned that the operation would contradict the president’s position on Europe, a stance he reinforced in his controversial speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he accused European leaders of ignoring their electorates.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance wrote. “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.”

‘I just hate bailing Europe out again’

The composition of the discussion participants underscored Vance’s growing influence in foreign policy circles, as per the piece, he designated Andy Baker, his national security advisor who played a key role in the Pentagon transition, as his representative. Meanwhile, Hegseth chose Dan Caldwell, an advocate of US military restraint, signaling the Vance faction’s presence in top Pentagon discussions.

At its core, the dispute highlighted that Vance’s foreign policy vision is not entirely aligned with Trump’s. While Trump tends to view global affairs through a transactional lens—believing he can push Europe toward higher defense spending—Vance is far more ideological in his skepticism of the transatlantic alliance. He has openly criticized European leaders for supporting values he claims are incompatible with US interests.

This has made Vance a growing concern for European officials. Kaja Kallas, the European foreign policy chief, accused him of “trying to pick a fight” with allies. Another European diplomat warned, “He is very dangerous for Europe … maybe the most [dangerous] in the administration.” A third suggested that Vance is “obsessed” with driving a wedge between the US and Europe.

Some officials on the chat cautiously attempted to temper Vance’s stance. Hegseth argued that the strike would uphold “core” American values, such as freedom of navigation and deterrence, but acknowledged it could be postponed if necessary. Waltz, a more conventional foreign policy thinker, remarked, “It will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes” but agreed that the US should “compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”

“If you think we should do it, let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance responded. Hegseth concurred, saying, “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” However, he added, “We are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.”

Miller, a close Trump ally, ended the debate by reaffirming the president’s stance, “Green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return.”

Overall, the administration’s policy toward Europe, as per the piece, is becoming increasingly evident, with few voices advocating for NATO or the broader transatlantic alliance. In a podcast interview over the weekend, senior Trump envoy Steve Witkoff suggested that Gulf economies could potentially replace Europe’s economic role.

“It could be much bigger than Europe. Europe is dysfunctional today,” he remarked.

Tucker Carlson, another Trump confidant, agreed. “It would be good for the world because Europe is dying,” he said.

A leak worthy of stepping down?

Speaker Mike Johnson stated on Monday that senior White House national security officials made a “mistake” by sharing secret war plans over an unsecured Signal chat, inadvertently including a journalist in the discussion. However, he expressed confidence that the issue would be swiftly addressed.

“Clearly, I think the White House has acknowledged it’s a mistake,” Johnson told reporters on Tuesday, adding that he expected the situation to be “tightened up” to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

The shocking revelation that senior officials accidentally included a reporter in a private group chat about military plans prompted intense discussions within the White House, with some speculating that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz might need to step down.

Though no decision has been made yet, White House officials indicated that President Donald Trump would ultimately decide within the next few days, based on how the situation unfolds in the media. A senior administration official told Politico on Monday that staffers were involved in multiple text threads discussing Waltz’s future after the explosive report.

“Half of them saying he’s never going to survive or shouldn’t survive,” the official said, requesting anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Two senior White House aides even suggested that Waltz should resign to avoid putting the president in a “bad position.”

“It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can’t have recklessness as the national security adviser,” the official added.

A person close to the White House was more blunt, saying, “Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is a [expletive] idiot.”

According to the report, Goldberg received a request to join the encrypted messaging app Signal from “Mike Waltz” on March 11 and was added to a group chat titled “Houthi PC small group,” which included other senior administration officials, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and others.

A third source familiar with the fallout said Trump has already spoken with Waltz about the incident and that the White House, for now, continues to support him.

“As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective. President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including national security adviser Mike Waltz,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Monday. The press office declined to comment further.

To resign or not to resign

A fourth official noted the internal pressure on Waltz to acknowledge his mistake, possibly even leading to his resignation. However, the official pointed out that Waltz’s fate largely depends on how Trump personally feels about the situation and noted the involvement of other officials in the Signal chat as well.

Two of the officials speculated that while Trump may hold Waltz responsible for potentially compromising national security, he could also direct his frustration at Vance for deviating from the administration’s foreign policy or target Hegseth for allegedly sharing sensitive details.

“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,” Vance said, according to The Atlantic report. “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.”

This shift sparked skepticism among isolationist conservatives on social media, who questioned why Waltz had the Atlantic editor-in-chief’s phone number in the first place, suggesting it indicated his lingering neoconservative leanings.