President Donald Trump publicly defended National Security Adviser Michael Waltz in late March 2025 while privately asking advisers and allies whether Waltz should remain in his job, according to reporting at the time. The deliberations followed an extraordinary security lapse in which Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a Signal group used by senior administration officials discussing upcoming U.S. military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.
The controversy became public on March 24, when Goldberg disclosed how he had been added to the Signal conversation. Two days later, The Atlantic published additional messages showing that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had shared operational details, including strike timing and weapons information, before the March 15 attacks were carried out.
Trump Publicly Backed Waltz While Weighing His Future
In public, Trump repeatedly supported Waltz. He described his national security adviser as a “good man†and said he did not believe Waltz needed to apologize. Behind the scenes, however, Trump asked people inside and outside the administration whether he should fire him, according to contemporaneous reporting cited by multiple news organizations.
The president was reported to be frustrated both by the mistake itself and by the continuing news coverage. At the same time, advisers said Trump did not want a dismissal to appear to have been forced by media pressure. Another consideration was the president's desire to avoid an early wave of high-level personnel turnover during his second term.
That concern carried historical significance. During Trump's first administration, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned in February 2017 after less than a month in office. The first Trump administration subsequently experienced unusually high turnover among senior advisers; Brookings tracked the turnover rate among senior White House officials during that period.
What Happened in the Signal Group
The Signal group included senior officials involved in national security policy, among them Vice President JD Vance, Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Waltz.
Goldberg's accidental inclusion was especially consequential because the discussion concerned imminent U.S. military action. The administration initially disputed characterizations that “war plans†or classified material had been shared. The published messages nevertheless showed specific operational information about the timing and sequencing of the strikes.
The central factual distinction was therefore not simply whether officials had discussed Yemen on Signal. They had. The dispute centered on the sensitivity and classification status of the information transmitted, whether officials had complied with government communications and records requirements, and how a journalist had been added to a high-level national security conversation.
The episode prompted bipartisan scrutiny in Congress. Republican Sen. Roger Wicker and Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked the Defense Department inspector general to examine the use of Signal and determine whether Defense Department policies on information handling, classification and records retention had been followed.
Waltz Took Responsibility for Adding Goldberg
Waltz publicly accepted responsibility for creating the group and for the presence of Goldberg's contact in the conversation, although his explanations of how the journalist's number entered his contacts drew further questions.
Waltz said in television interviews that he did not personally know Goldberg. Goldberg disputed that characterization, saying the two had previously spoken. Photographs also circulated showing Waltz and Goldberg at the same 2021 event, although being photographed near one another did not by itself establish the nature of their relationship.
For Trump, according to reporting at the time, the question of how Goldberg's number came to be associated with Waltz became part of the internal discussion. That was separate from the broader national-security questions surrounding the use of a commercial encrypted messaging application for sensitive government deliberations.
Internal Policy Disagreements Added Pressure
The Signal controversy was not the only issue surrounding Waltz. Reports described policy disagreements inside the administration over Iran and other foreign-policy questions. Waltz, a former Army Green Beret, Republican congressman and George W. Bush administration official, was generally associated with a more hawkish approach than some other figures in Trump's circle.
Some advisers questioned whether his views were fully aligned with Trump's stated preference at the time for negotiating with Iran rather than moving immediately toward military action. Those differences were part of a larger debate within the administration and should not be confused with the separate question of responsibility for the Signal episode.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump's national security team engaged in vigorous internal debate but ultimately followed the president's decisions. Vice President Vance likewise publicly defended Waltz, while acknowledging that Goldberg should never have been included in the group.
Hegseth Also Faced Scrutiny
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth came under separate scrutiny because he was the official who posted detailed information about the forthcoming strikes in the Signal thread. Trump publicly defended Hegseth as well and resisted calls from critics for senior officials to be dismissed.
On April 3, 2025, the Defense Department's inspector general formally announced an evaluation of Hegseth's reported use of Signal for official business. The review examined compliance with Defense Department policies governing commercially available messaging applications, classification requirements and records retention. The inspector general later published its evaluation in December 2025.
What Happened to Waltz Later
At the time of the original controversy in late March, Waltz remained national security adviser and Trump continued to defend him publicly. That situation did not last.
Later, on May 1, 2025, Trump removed Waltz from the national security adviser position. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was assigned to serve as interim national security adviser while continuing as secretary of state. Trump simultaneously announced that he would nominate Waltz to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
The personnel change therefore came several weeks after the Signal controversy rather than during the initial burst of public pressure. Reporting at the time indicated that the Signal episode was one factor in Waltz's weakened position, alongside broader concerns about internal coordination and foreign-policy differences.
Waltz's move to the United Nations eventually became official. The Senate confirmed his nomination on September 19, 2025, by a vote of 47-43.
A Controversy That Raised Broader Security Questions
The episode ultimately extended beyond Trump's immediate decision about one adviser. It raised questions about how senior officials handle sensitive military information, which communications platforms are appropriate for government business, how official records are preserved and what safeguards are needed to prevent unintended participants from entering national-security discussions.
In late March 2025, those questions were still unfolding, and Trump's immediate answer was to keep Waltz in place. The subsequent removal of Waltz in May, his nomination to the United Nations and his Senate confirmation later that year provide the later context that was not yet known when the original story was developing.
0 Comments