U.S. Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, centre, speaks with Germany's Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, right, and Minister of Defense of Finland Antti Häkkänen, left, before the start of the meeting of North Atlantic Council in Defence Ministers at NATO headquarters during the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting on Feb. 13, in Brussels, Belgium.Omar Havana/Getty Images
Washington loves a scandal. And the Signalgate fiasco that has embroiled top Trump administration officials – who stand accused of putting U.S. national security at risk by discussing “war plans” in a group chat on a commercial messaging app – is suddenly all anyone in the U.S. capital seems to want to talk about.
Tariffs? Boring. The US$2-trillion budget deficit? Yawn. Elon Musk? So last month.
The unfolding Signalgate saga, on the other hand, has something for everyone. For military geeks, it offers an unprecedented fly-on-the-wall account of the run-up to the March 15 U.S. airstrikes on Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, who had been launching drone and missile attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden for almost 18 months.
For national security experts, it amounts to a firing offence both for National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who accidentally invited a journalist for The Atlantic to join their group chat, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who cavalierly shared what appeared to be classified information on the Signal texting app. Mr. Hegseth was already one of President Donald Trump’s most controversial cabinet picks. He barely made it through the Senate confirmation process and, after only two months on the job, he is facing calls to resign.
Still, what makes the Signalgate scandal really juicy for Washingtonians is what it reveals about the internal dynamics of this administration and the world views of its top players. About their obsequiousness toward their boss. And about their disdain for allies that do not pull their weight on defence.
The back-and-forth between Mr. Hegseth, Mr. Waltz, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, Vice-President JD Vance and other officials offers fascinating insight into the considerations this administration weighs in determining whether to intervene militarily abroad. Gone are the days when the United States could be counted on to uphold the post-Second World War global order.
Canada’s existential election has very quickly become unserious
Mr. Vance is clearly the strongest isolationist voice within the administration. On the Signal chat, he pushed Mr. Hegseth to hold off on the airstrikes on the Houthis, saying that the move risked leading to a spike in oil prices and carried little political upside for Mr. Trump.
“I think we are making a mistake,” the Signal user identified as “JD Vance” wrote, according to Jeffrey Goldberg, the Atlantic editor-in-chief inadvertently invited to join the chat. Mr. Vance insisted only a tiny fraction of U.S. trade runs the Suez Canal, compared to about 40 per cent of European trade. Besides, he added, the airstrikes would be “inconsistent” with Mr. Trump’s message that Europe needs to assume more responsibility for its own defence.
Mr. Hegseth countered that the airstrikes were still in the U.S. national interest, if only to restore the freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and to serve as deterrence against future attacks by the Houthis. He was seconded by Mr. Waltz: “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes.”
Mr. Vance relented, but not without adding: “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” To which Mr. Hegseth replied: “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”
To be sure, the Signal exchange appears to show that the non-isolationists within the Trump administration won the day, with the President’s backing. But the discussion also underscored the deep resentment within the administration toward European countries that benefit from U.S. military protection. Mr. Waltz and Mr. Miller insisted that United States should seek repayment from the Europeans for striking the Houthis.
“If the U.S. successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return,” the account holder named “SM,” presumed by Mr. Goldberg to be Mr. Miller, texted on the chat.
His words did not go unnoticed in European capitals.
The next NATO summit, to be held in June in the Netherlands, promises to be unlike any other in the Western alliance’s 76-year history. Mr. Trump has already demanded that NATO members, including Canada, increase their defence spending to 5 per cent of gross domestic product, up from the current 2-per-cent target. A reduction in the number of U.S. troops stationed in Europe, which currently stands at around 100,000, is also expected to be the on the table.
Faced with Mr. Trump’s threats, leaders in Europe and Canada have all promised to increase their countries’ military expenditures. The politics of boosting defence spending, likely at the expense of other government programs, suggests this will be no easy feat.
Yet, if the Signal chat tells us anything, it is that there is no other choice. In case you still had any doubts, America First is not just a political slogan. It is now the default option in U.S. foreign affairs and defence.