In Donald Trump’s White House, it matters less what you screw up than how hard you fight back.
The uproar over operational details of military strikes on Yemen posted on a group chat among top administration officials is highlighting this fundamental rule of life in the president’s orbit.
Naive and sloppy behavior by top Trump aides could have endangered US pilots. One of the worst intelligence breaches by top officials in years, it raises grave questions about the competence of top officials meant to keep Americans safe.
But the administration’s main concern is protecting the president and his team. They are demonizing those who point out their malfeasance and embroidering the wider conspiratorial narrative that Trump is again a victim of a deep state witch hunt.
The obsession with answering a national security scandal with a fiercely political argument is characteristic of a White House that never admits wrongdoing — following one of the core principles of Trump’s pre-political life.
But the drama may already have damaged US operations in Yemen as well as America’s reputation more broadly and offered an intelligence bonanza to its enemies. The contempt by top officials for basic security precautions and a refusal to hold themselves to account for transgressions that could get a subordinate dismissed or even prosecuted can only compromise the integrity of government.
It’s too early to say, however, whether the careers of top Cabinet members and officials are threatened and whether Trump himself might pay a political price. The president’s process of souring on subordinates is often a slow burn, which can be affected by media coverage and where blemishes gather their own momentum and limit the shelf life of top aides.
White House pulls out one of its favorite excuses: It’s a ‘hoax’
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Wednesday insisted that the affair was a big “hoax” and showed that “Democrats and their propagandists in the mainstream media know how to fabricate, orchestrate and disseminate a misinformation campaign quite well.” She also attacked the integrity of Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who was mistakenly added to the chat among senior officials.
Trump, meanwhile, claimed that the explicit pre-mission details of attacks on Huthi rebels posted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were no big deal, arguing that national security adviser Mike Waltz took responsibility for putting Goldberg into the chat on the Signal app. “How do you bring Hegseth into this?” Trump asked a reporter in the Oval Office. “Hegseth had nothing to do with this.”
At the heart of the president’s strategy is a willingness to blatantly deny facts that are obvious to anyone who reads the additional text messaged published by the Atlantic on Wednesday. In a way, this refusal to accept the truth gives the administration a special kind of power, since it suggests there is nothing that it can’t get away with. Democratic lawmakers and media commentators who point out the truth make little headway because they are playing a conventional game that can’t engage with Trump’s shifting of realities.
The White House also tried to blur the damning evidence of the controversy with a semantic argument about whether the information posted by Hegseth was classified or amounted to “war plans.” Leavitt tried to pass off specific information on the thread about the timing of US attacks by warplanes and drones as a “policy discussion” and as usual blamed everything on Trump’s predecessor, referring to Iran-backed Huthi militants as terrorists who were “allowed to run wild by the Biden administration.”
The Trump strategy of never admitting wrongdoing and going for all-out attack was quickly adopted by Hegseth and Waltz as soon as the story broke. The defense secretary fiercely attacked Goldberg and insisted repeatedly and inaccurately that “no one is texting war plans.” He claimed in a statement that no classified information was posted nor information “about sources and methods.” “We will continue to do our job, while the media does what it does best: peddle hoaxes,” he added.
Hegseth’s defiance was typical of the bombast that Trump spotted when he was a Fox News anchor and vehement defender of the president in his first term and that made him defense secretary, despite his lack of high-level national security experience.
Waltz also indulged in several of the histrionic television appearances that Trump demands of his subordinates. On Fox News on Tuesday, he called Goldberg a “loser” and launched a new conspiracy that suggested he had somehow hacked his way into the chat.
The consequences of the security breach are still reverberating
While blasting coverage of their poor operational security and incompetence as a “hoax” – a timeworn tactic to give direction to the conservative media machine – senior Trump officials were ignoring the gravity of their errors.
The most obvious danger of the notorious group chat was that it could have put American service personnel at risk during raids over Yemen. Despite his denials, Hegseth posted information on timing, targets and weapons systems before attacks took place, according to details of the chat posted by the Atlantic.
“215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)” one of the texts read. “1345: ‘Trigger Based’ F-18 1st Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @ his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME – also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s)” another one said.
Normal practice in US military operations is to keep intelligence under the tightest hold until all Americans are out of danger. Posting details of forthcoming strikes on a platform that could be intercepted by hostile intelligence agencies and passed on to Huthi units was hugely irresponsible.
In this case, no US pilots or planes were brought down by anti-aircraft fire. But their luck may not hold in the event of a future such lapse. And hostile powers now have an even greater reason to monitor the insecure communications of top officials.
“It’s a level of arrogance and incompetence that frankly is terrifying,” Sen. Mark Warner told CNN’s Kasie Hunt on “The Arena.” The top Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence added: “Why I’m so upset is this puts our guys and gals in harm’s way.”
An enemy spy agency might also have used such information to alert targets to escape. Such is the inaccessibility of Yemen that it’s hard to make independent judgments about Trump’s claim that US military operations against Huthis who targeted commercial shipping in the Red Sea are hugely successful.
Hegseth’s indiscreet texts also pose serious intelligence risks. He boasted, for instance, that the US had taken out “their top missile guy” and that the US had positive identification of the target walking into his girlfriend’s building, which had collapsed after the US attack. Such knowledge is valuable to surviving Huthi leaders and could lead them to increase their own security. And while Hegseth insisted that there were “no sources and methods” disclosed, Huthi rebels now know the US has great visibility into granular movements in Yemen, either through satellite or airborne surveillance or from intelligence assets.
“(Huthis) know that we have probably some human intelligence on the ground watching that apartment,” retired US Army Brigadier General Steven Anderson told Jim Sciutto on CNN International. “That person might very well be being tortured or dead right now as a result of that thread.”
The fallout from the Signal chat also threatens to create divides within top national security agencies. While Trump and Hegseth argue that there is nothing wrong in the potential exposure of details of ongoing military operations, it’s unlikely a lower-level official or member of the uniformed military would get leniency for similar behavior. “I assure you, if this had been (a) major and captain and young lieutenants who had been on a chat and revealed a bunch of classified information, they would be prosecuted. They would probably lose their commissions,” said retired Admiral James Stavridis on “CNN News Central.”
Selective accountability
Hegseth’s credibility is especially in question, and his vow at his confirmation hearing that true leadership was now returning to the US military rings hollow.
“Accountability is coming, because everybody in this room knows, if you’re a rifleman and you lose your rifle, they’re throwing the book at you. But if you’re a general who loses a war, you get a promotion,” Hegseth said, at a hearing memorable for warnings by Democrats that he lacked the experience for the job. “Everyone from the top, from the most senior general to the most lowly private, (we) will ensure that they’re treated fairly.”
While Hegseth is not holding himself accountable, the chances that he or any other officials will face outside discipline or investigations appear slim. The White House has installed Trump ultra-loyalists at the Department of Justice and the FBI – agencies that in a normal administration might investigate such breaches as the Signal thread. Independent watchdog officials known as inspectors general have also been fired throughout the government. And Republican lawmakers have proved loath to submit the Trump administration to serious oversight.
For now, Trump is standing behind his officials, including Waltz and Hegseth. To do otherwise would validate political opponents who say he chose aides who were deeply unqualified for their jobs.
Leavitt said on Fox News on Tuesday that “President Trump absolutely has the full confidence in his national security team.” But history shows such assurances are worth little. The president backs his officials – until he doesn’t. National security advisers have proven to be especially vulnerable: The president worked his way through four permanent appointees in the post in his first term. In February 2018, for example, then-White House press secretary Sarah Sanders was asked about Trump’s attitude towards his then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster. “He still has confidence in General McMaster,” Sanders said.
A month later, McMaster was gone.
