It is improbable that Donald Trump will dismiss his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, or any other individuals tied to the notorious Signal group chat, as such an action would imply an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and could be perceived as conceding defeat to the Atlantic, according to two sources familiar with the president.
On Wednesday, Trump reaffirmed his endorsement of Waltz during an Oval Office meeting, stating that Waltz had taken accountability for initiating the group chat and for inadvertently including Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic.
The sources indicated that Trump seldom admits to mistakes and has reportedly relished the fierce reactions from Waltz and other officials in the White House, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in response to critical coverage regarding the leak.
The president also defended Hegseth’s participation. “Hegseth had nothing to do with this. Why would you involve Hegseth?”
Despite Hegseth being responsible for the messages that triggered classification concerns, the inconsistency suggests Trump is personally committed to withholding any “scalp” from the Atlantic, according to a source familiar with the situation, which indicates he will persist in portraying the leaked attack plans as trifling and inconsequential.
Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s efforts to justify the leak of sensitive military strategies on the basis that they were not classified faced increasing challenges on Wednesday, following the Atlantic’s release of the complete text chain that showcased the extensive detail of the attack plans.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that none of the messages were classified, while Hegseth and others made a semantic argument that the messages did not constitute a “war plan,” as initially described by the Atlantic, which later adjusted its wording to “attack plans.”
Former U.S. officials noted that a “war plan,” in technical terms, would provide more specific details regarding weapon types and routing, target coordinates, contingency options, and a comprehensive strategy discussion.
However, the information from Hegseth encompassed a summary of operational details pertinent to the strike against Houthi rebel targets in Yemen, such as the launch schedules for F-18 fighter jets, the anticipated times for the initial bomb drops, and when naval Tomahawk missiles were scheduled for deployment.
Former officials unanimously concurred that these military specifics were sensitive from a national security standpoint, as this information was disclosed prior to the attack beginning. A leak could have allowed the targets to evade or otherwise jeopardize the mission.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s own classification guidelines indicate that the comprehensive military plans discussed in the Signal chat would typically be classified at least at the “secret” level, with some real-time updates possibly warranting an even higher classification.
The group chat also contained a message from Waltz providing a real-time update, stating, “first target – their top missile guy – we had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed,” which would ordinarily be classified at least at the “secret” level if it originated from an asset within the intelligence community.
