Mike Waltz’s Crisis of Trust: One Chat Threatened His Position

As President Trump prepares for what he has dubbed “Liberation Day” — a pivotal moment when sweeping tariffs on foreign nations are set to be announced — the White House finds itself embroiled in an unexpected political storm.

The ongoing Signal chat controversy involving national security adviser Mike Waltz has not only raised questions about internal White House dynamics but also added a layer of uncertainty as Trump’s economic team braces for a high-stakes moment.

In what started as a seemingly minor mistake — Waltz inadvertently adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic to a group chat discussing sensitive military operations — the fallout has morphed into a deeper crisis, with some in Trump’s inner circle questioning Waltz’s judgment and loyalty.

Despite the White House’s insistence that the matter is “closed,” the incident has caused ripples of distrust and exposed underlying tensions within the Trump administration.

The controversy began when Waltz mistakenly included Goldberg in a Signal chat, where senior administration officials were discussing plans for military strikes against the Houthis, a rebel group in Yemen.

While the mistake was acknowledged quickly, the fact that Goldberg, a journalist known for his critical reporting on the Trump administration, was included in the conversation has led to significant political fallout.

Trump has repeatedly praised Waltz in public, calling him a “good man,” but the president’s frustration with the episode is palpable. Sources close to the White House have revealed that Trump is deeply annoyed, especially because it was Waltz who created the chat that led to the inclusion of Goldberg.

The mistake, while seemingly minor, has served as an uncomfortable reminder of past controversies, with many drawing parallels to Trump’s firing of Michael Flynn during his first term.

Despite Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declaring that the “case is closed,” the lingering questions about Waltz’s role have not gone unnoticed. Senate Democrats held a press conference to shine a light on the issue, questioning the lack of transparency around what consequences, if any, Waltz faced for his mistake.

“The case is closed and the president continues to have confidence in his national security adviser,” Leavitt stated, aiming to quell further public speculation. However, the damage may have been done. The episode has left some wondering about Waltz’s future in the administration and his relationship with Trump’s loyalists, many of whom view any sign of weakness or disloyalty as a betrayal.

Trump is loath to give in to what he perceives as calls from the media and Democrats to remove someone from his inner circle, especially after the debacle with Flynn during his first term. In that case, Flynn was fired after just 24 days over lies regarding his contacts with Russian officials.

As the Signal chat controversy unfolded, some of the president’s closest allies started to raise concerns about Waltz’s relationship with key figures in the Trump administration.

The most pressing issue is Waltz’s apparent alignment with more hawkish policies — particularly his support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, a stance that stands in stark contrast to Trump’s public criticism of Ukraine’s leadership and his stated desire to broker peace with Moscow.

The fact that Waltz had Goldberg’s contact information in the first place has also raised eyebrows. Trump and his supporters have frequently derided Goldberg as a “partisan hack,” and the perception that Waltz was communicating with him has cast a shadow over his tenure as national security adviser.

Some observers have speculated that Waltz’s stance on Ukraine and his ties to the media could make him a liability in Trump’s increasingly isolationist foreign policy.

This tension is compounded by a Washington Post report that Waltz and some aides had used personal Gmail accounts for government business, raising further concerns about his handling of sensitive information.

Despite the growing criticism, Waltz still has political capital within the administration. White House officials have noted his longstanding relationships with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his allies in Congress, which could help him weather this storm.

Additionally, his expertise on Middle East and Ukraine policy is seen as valuable, especially given Trump’s focus on these regions throughout his presidency.

“Waltz has built up capital,” one source close to the White House said, citing his work on the Middle East and Ukraine, which have been major components of Trump’s foreign policy. His ties to Rubio and other Senate allies also position him well within the GOP establishment.

However, Trump’s base has been known to turn quickly on those they perceive as out of sync with the president’s vision. If Waltz is unable to regain Trump’s trust or appease his critics, his tenure could be in jeopardy.

As Waltz’s position is questioned, the White House is preparing for another high-stakes moment — Trump’s tariff announcement, which has been branded as “Liberation Day” by the president. This day will mark the imposition of sweeping tariffs on foreign countries, including a 20 percent tariff on a broad range of imports, according to some reports.

The president’s economic team is on edge, aware that the announcement could have significant economic consequences. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, known for his outspoken media presence and close ties to Trump, will play a key role in defending the tariff strategy.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has taken a more cautious approach, acknowledging the economic transition the country is undergoing as Trump reorients U.S. trade policy.

“They are very confident that this is all going to work,” Leavitt said during a press briefing. But experts have raised concerns about the potential for price increases and economic retaliation from other nations, which could harm U.S. consumers.

As Waltz comes under scrutiny, some have questioned why Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has not faced the same level of scrutiny. After all, Hegseth was the one who reportedly sent messages about the timing of the Houthi strikes, placing him at the center of this controversy.

However, Hegseth’s long-standing relationship with Trump and his firm alignment with the president’s agenda have likely shielded him from the backlash that Waltz is experiencing.

“Let me tell you right now, our movement will awaken from its slumber if you dare lay a hand on Pete Hegseth,” said Charlie Kirk, a staunch Trump ally, during a segment on his daily streaming show.

This dynamic highlights the importance of loyalty in Trump’s administration — those who are viewed as true believers in his vision are more likely to weather internal conflicts and retain their positions, even in the face of scandal.

The Signal chat incident, while it may have been a mistake, has brought uncomfortable scrutiny to Waltz. With Trump’s economic agenda poised to make waves with new tariffs, the president’s handling of internal dissent will be key.

If Trump is seen as losing control of his national security adviser — or worse, caving to political pressures to fire him — it could have long-term consequences for his administration’s credibility.

As the tariff announcement looms and the fallout from the Signal controversy continues, all eyes will be on Trump’s next moves. Will he take decisive action to reassert control? Or will this be yet another example of internal strife within an administration that has been defined by chaos and division?