I Knew the Signal Chat Leak Reminded Me of Something. Now I Know What.

 Luke Winkie

Thu, March 27, 2025 at 2:45 AM PDT

By now you know that several members of the Trump administration unwittingly leaked high-level discussions about military strikes against Yemen to the Atlantic. They pulled this off with Dr. Strangelove–esque flair, by accidentally including Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a Signal group where those discussions were taking place.

This has raised a few pertinent questions about the integrity of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, because—generally speaking—you don’t want the nation’s CIA director and defense secretary directing bombing operations over a consumer chatting app.

Smarter people than I have analyzed the legal and political fallout from the scandal. I was attracted to something far dumber. Reading through the full transcript released Wednesday, it became clear to me that beyond a secretive attack-planning committee, the dynamics of the discussion reminded me of the typical boys group chat. All of the archetypes and characters I’m familiar with in my own life were there. So I took it upon myself to annotate the thread like the frat house that has become our executive branch.

You can trust me on this. I went to the University of Texas.

Let’s go. Here’s national security adviser Mike Waltz:

Team–establishing a principles group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the Sit Room this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening.

 

Pls provide the best staff POC from your team for us to coordinate with over the next couple days and over the weekend. Thx.

 Each and every boys chat is centralized around a single figure who is willing to throw the loose semblance of a plan up in the air. Ideally this occurs midway through the first beer of the night, which is when the possibility of an imminent group hang is at its most enticing. Waltz is absolutely identifying himself as the Reservations Guy here. Or at least the person most likely to suggest hitting a bar for Thursday Night Football approximately 25 minutes before kickoff. (Again, this occurs most often during those wondrous early moments of light intoxication.)

A day later, Vice President J.D. Vance chimes in.

Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake.

 

3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.

 

I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices.

There are a couple things going on here, but the most pressing revelation is that J.D. Vance is questioning the wisdom of the president—and, therefore, is talking shit about someone who’s not in the boys chat. This is a controversial practice but also one of the great traditions of boys chat culture. At any given moment I would say that at least 60 percent of all digital communication is centralized around the admonishing, humiliation, or dirty laundry–airing of someone deemed to not be worthy of boys chat privileges. Clearly, Vance is a prime instigator. With this evidence, I am willing to bet that there isn’t anyone in the entire Trump administration that he hasn’t privately bashed on Signal, Discord, Twitter DM, or whatever else. (If you’d like my Signal handle to add me, let me know.)

One more Vance quote we need to cover:

 am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.

So, not only is Vance a drama instigator, he is also the sort of guy who pulls that “highly reluctant acquiescence” move. You know, the guy who complains about the price, the seats, and the food before finally agreeing to come along to a baseball game. (Upon arrival, he is practically guaranteed to sink into one of those dissociative temper tantrums unique to men.) Only a few messages into the transcript, and I think I can say with confidence that Vance is the group chat Least Valuable Player.

Moving on to CIA Director John Ratcliffe …

From CIA perspective, we are mobilizing assets to support now but a delay would not negatively impact us and additional time would be used to identify better starting points for coverage on Houthi leadership

There is always one member of a boys chat who cannot write to save his life. “Not negatively?” That’s the type of double negative that makes me want to gouge my eyes out.

On to Pete Hegseth.

VP:

 

I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded.

 

Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don’t get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both.

 

We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered.

 

But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC. I welcome other thoughts.

 Considering my impression of the man during the nomination process was that he was a maniac Fox News guy known for crushing breakfast gin and tonics, Hegseth comes off as reasonable here. My boys chat features one member, a career wonk that works at Politico, who tries to distill all of our lengthy arguments—whether it be about Israel or the Detroit Pistons—into sensible both sides–ism. Hegseth comes off as that type of peacemaker, while still managing to ultimately advocate for his own causes, which is the true skill of this role. “I hear your concerns, but we should, actually, bomb the Houthis” and “Donovan Mitchell is having a great season, but Cade Cunningham does indeed deserve first-team All-NBA” are essentially the same approach.

A Waltz double-text follows, which is too boring and too lengthy to quote at length. But I do need to add that double-texting is a classic Reservations Guy tactic. He wants to get stuff locked in. Afterward, J.D. Vance chimes in to do some more whining.

@Pete Hegseth if you think we should do it let’s go.

I just hate bailing Europe out again.

The line-break with the last-minute expression of dissent! Lord have mercy. I cannot fully articulate how much I don’t want to be in a chat with Vance. It needs to be said that he is ostensibly the second most powerful person in the Trump government, and nonetheless continues to be steamrolled by a bunch of irradiated military guys—undercutting the pastoral isolationism he envisions for the future of the nation at every turn. Hope it’s worth it, buddy!

Next we have a text from the initials SM, which everyone assumes to be deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.

As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t renumerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.

He’s the Venmo guy. Stephen Miller is the Venmo guy. He never lets a group Uber go unitemized. “Hey man, would you mind sending me $3.72 for the $15 pizza we split?”

Hegseth:

TEAM UPDATE:

TIME NOW (1144et): Weather is FAVORABLE. Just CONFIRMED w/CENTCOM we are a GO for mission launch.

1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package)

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)

Big War Guy Knows War Words, like when your friends spiral off into a highly technical discussion of some competitive multiplayer game. My primary takeaway of Hegseth, from reading these messages, is that he’s a bit of a dork.

Vance chimes in with a lifeless “I will say a prayer for victory,” which oozes with reluctant participation, and then gets confused by a Waltz text, responding, hilariously, with “What?” Waltz clarifies that our military forces destroyed an entire building to kill exactly one guy—a perfect distillation of the psychotic foreign policy orthodoxy that has plagued our great nation for decades—and wraps things up with three emoji: a fist, an American flag, and a fireball. Reservations Guys do love when a plan comes together.

Right before the transcript cuts off, Susie Wiles—Trump’s chief of staff who has been silent throughout—offers “kudos to all.” (“Really great, god bless.”) There is something both horrifying and vaguely gratifying to know that no matter what you are doing in a boys chat—finding a bar with a patio or organizing drone strikes—there is always going to be a lurker or two. Of course, a good rule of thumb is to make sure that lurker isn’t a journalist whom you’ve just handed the scoop of the year.

The liberal international order is slowly coming apart

 

Its collapse could be sudden and irreversible

At first glance, the world economy looks reassuringly resilient. America has boomed even as its trade war with China has escalated. Germany has withstood the loss of Russian gas supplies without suffering an economic disaster. War in the Middle East has brought no oil shock. Missile-firing Houthi rebels have barely touched the global flow of goods. As a share of global GDP, trade has bounced back from the pandemic and is forecast to grow healthily this year.

Look deeper, though, and you see fragility. For years the order that has governed the global economy since the second world war has been eroded. Today it is close to collapse. A worrying number of triggers could set off a descent into anarchy, where might is right and war is once again the resort of great powers. Even if it never comes to conflict, the effect on the economy of a breakdown in norms could be fast and brutal.

At first glance, the world economy looks reassuringly resilient. America has boomed even as its trade war with China has escalated. Germany has withstood the loss of Russian gas supplies without suffering an economic disaster. War in the Middle East has brought no oil shock. Missile-firing Houthi rebels have barely touched the global flow of goods. As a share of global GDP, trade has bounced back from the pandemic and is forecast to grow healthily this year.

Look deeper, though, and you see fragility. For years the order that has governed the global economy since the second world war has been eroded. Today it is close to collapse. A worrying number of triggers could set off a descent into anarchy, where might is right and war is once again the resort of great powers. Even if it never comes to conflict, the effect on the economy of a breakdown in norms could be fast and brutal.

As we report, the disintegration of the old order is visible everywhere. Sanctions are used four times as much as they were during the 1990s; America has recently imposed “secondary” penalties on entities that support Russia’s armies. A subsidy war is under way, as countries seek to copy China’s and America’s vast state backing for green manufacturing. Although the dollar remains dominant and emerging economies are more resilient, global capital flows are starting to fragment, as our special report explains.

The institutions that safeguarded the old system are either already defunct or fast losing credibility. The World Trade Organisation turns 30 next year, but will have spent more than five years in stasis, owing to American neglect. The IMF is gripped by an identity crisis, caught between a green agenda and ensuring financial stability. The un security council is paralysed. And, as we report, supranational courts like the International Court of Justice are increasingly weaponised by warring parties. Last month American politicians including Mitch McConnell, the leader of Republicans in the Senate, threatened the International Criminal Court with sanctions if it issues arrest warrants for the leaders of Israel, which also stands accused of genocide by South Africa at the International Court of Justice.

So far fragmentation and decay have imposed a stealth tax on the global economy: perceptible, but only if you know where to look. Unfortunately, history shows that deeper, more chaotic collapses are possible—and can strike suddenly once the decline sets in. The first world war killed off a golden age of globalisation that many at the time assumed would last for ever. In the early 1930s, following the onset of the Depression and the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, America’s imports collapsed by 40% in just two years. In August 1971 Richard Nixon unexpectedly suspended the convertibility of dollars into gold; only 19 months later, the Bretton Woods system of fixed-exchange rates fell apart.

Today a similar rupture feels all too imaginable. The return of Donald Trump to the White House, with his zero-sum worldview, would continue the erosion of institutions and norms. The fear of a second wave of cheap Chinese imports could accelerate it. Outright war between America and China over Taiwan, or between the West and Russia, could cause an almighty collapse.

In many of these scenarios, the loss will be more profound than many people think. It is fashionable to criticise untrammelled globalisation as the cause of inequality, the global financial crisis and neglect of the climate. But the achievements of the 1990s and 2000s—the high point of liberal capitalism—are unmatched in history. Hundreds of millions escaped poverty in China as it integrated into the global economy. The infant-mortality rate worldwide is less than half what it was in 1990. The percentage of the global population killed by state-based conflicts hit a post-war low of 0.0002% in 2005; in 1972 it was nearly 40 times as high. The latest research shows that the era of the “Washington consensus”, which today’s leaders hope to replace, was one in which poor countries began to enjoy catch-up growth, closing the gap with the rich world.

The decline of the system threatens to slow that progress, or even throw it into reverse. Once broken, it is unlikely to be replaced by new rules. Instead, world affairs will descend into their natural state of anarchy that favours banditry and violence. Without trust and an institutional framework for co-operation, it will become harder for countries to deal with the 21st century’s challenges, from containing an arms race in artificial intelligence to collaborating in space. Problems will be tackled by clubs of like-minded countries. That can work, but will more often involve coercion and resentment, as with Europe’s carbon border-tariffs or China’s feud with the IMF. When co-operation gives way to strong-arming, countries have less reason to keep the peace.

In the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party, Vladimir Putin or other cynics, a system in which might is right would be nothing new. They see the liberal order not as an enactment of lofty ideals but an exercise of raw American power—power that is now in relative decline.

Gradually, then suddenly

It is true that the system established after the second world war achieved a marriage between America’s internationalist principles and its strategic interests. Yet the liberal order also brought vast benefits to the rest of the world. Many of the world’s poor are already suffering from the inability of the IMF to resolve the sovereign-debt crisis that followed the covid-19 pandemic. Middle-income countries such as India and Indonesia hoping to trade their way to riches are exploiting opportunities created by the old order’s fragmentation, but will ultimately rely on the global economy staying integrated and predictable. And the prosperity of much of the developed world, especially small, open economies such as Britain and South Korea, depends utterly on trade. Buttressed by strong growth in America, it may seem as if the world economy can survive everything that is thrown at it. It can’t. ■

纽约时报评论：载入历史的一天，美国的耻辱日

 本文作者简介：

布雷特·斯蒂芬斯是《纽约时报》的保守派专栏作家（不是左派），主要撰写外交政策、国内政治和文化议题。虽被视为保守派，但他对共和党的方向持批评态度。他支持自由企业、自由贸易、言论自由以及保护国内外民主制度。他曾在《华尔街日报》担任外交事务专栏作家，并因此获得2013年普利策评论奖。他的著作《美国的撤退：新孤立主义与即将到来的全球失序》探讨了美国外交政策，2022年还被俄罗斯政府终身禁止入境。

正文：

1941年8月，在日本偷袭珍珠港前约四个月，富兰克林·罗斯福与温斯顿·丘吉尔在纽芬兰普拉森西亚湾的军舰上会面，共同签署了《大西洋宪章》——这份由世界主要民主强国就战后世界"共同原则"所作的联合宣言。

该宪章的核心要点包括："不谋求领土或其他方面的扩张"；"归还被强行剥夺主权权利和自治权的国家"；"免于恐惧和匮乏的自由"；海洋自由；以及"平等获取世界贸易和原材料的权利，这些对各国经济繁荣至关重要"。

这份宪章及其后建立的联盟，是美国外交艺术的巅峰之作。然而，就在本周五的椭圆形办公室，世界目睹了截然相反的一幕。乌克兰饱受煎熬的民主领导人泽连斯基来到华盛顿，准备牺牲一切——除了他国家的自由、安全和基本理性——以换取特朗普总统的支持。作为回报，他却遭到了白宫史上最不诚实、最粗俗、最不友善的主人对其礼仪的责难。

如果设想罗斯福曾命令丘吉尔以任何条件向阿道夫·希特勒求和，并将英国的煤炭储备交给美国以换取零安全保障，这或许可以类比特朗普对泽连斯基所做之事。无论如何评价泽连斯基的战略失误——不论是未能表现出特朗普要求的极度谄媚，还是在面对JD万斯虚伪挑衅时难以保持冷静——这一天无疑是美国外交史上的耻辱。

我们将何去何从？

如果说这场外交灾难中还有一丝希望的话，那就是泽连斯基没有签署财政部长斯科特·贝森特本月强迫他接受的乌克兰矿产协议。在这个宛如黑帮保护费勒索集团的政府中，贝森特扮演的角色就像《教父》中的汤姆·黑根。诚然，美国应该因帮助乌克兰自卫而获得某种形式的回报——但乌克兰已经摧毁了俄罗斯相当部分的军事力量，这本身就是最大的回报，其次是乌克兰在创新低成本无人机战争方面的突破性贡献，这些创新成果五角大楼无疑将迫不及待地学习和采纳。

但如果特朗普政府追求的是经济回报，最佳方案应是与欧洲伙伴合作，冻结并征用俄罗斯资产，将其存入专门账户，供乌克兰购买美国制造的武器。若美国不愿这样做，欧洲国家应当采取行动：让乌克兰转而依靠达索、萨博、莱茵金属、BAE系统等欧洲国防承包商的武器，看看"美国优先"支持者对此作何反应。希望这能成为欧洲国家尽快、大规模投资其日渐耗竭军力的另一个推动力，不仅为加强北约，也为防范北约可能的解体做准备。

此外还有第二个契机：虽然特朗普对泽连斯基的羞辱可能会取悦MAGA支持者，但对大多数选民而言，包括现在仍有近30%认为与乌克兰站在一起符合美国利益的共和党人，这种行为恐难以获得认同。尽管大多数美国人希望看到乌克兰战争结束，但他们几乎肯定不希望战争以弗拉基米尔·普京的条件收场。

特朗普政府也不应如此轻易妥协。俄罗斯在乌克兰的胜利，包括允许莫斯科巩固战果并在下一轮攻势前恢复实力的停火协议，将产生与塔利班在阿富汗胜利完全相同的效果：鼓励美国的敌人更加肆无忌惮地采取侵略行动。

这些正是有良知的保守派人士应当强调的观点：肯塔基州参议员米奇·麦康奈尔和内布拉斯加州众议员唐·培根——两位在乌克兰问题上坚守原则的共和党人——能否带领志同道合的保守派代表团前往基辅？

更为重要的是，这应成为民主党人的历史性机遇。乔·拜登称这是自由世界未来的"决定性十年"时洞见非凡；只可惜他作为信使过于软弱和谨慎。

但民主党中不乏具有军事和安全背景的强硬派人物——如科罗拉多州众议员杰森·克罗、马萨诸塞州众议员塞思·莫尔顿和密歇根州参议员伊丽莎·斯洛特金——他们可以将杜鲁门和约翰·F·肯尼迪的精神重新注入民主党。这种关于坚韧和自由的信息，或许也能打动至少部分特朗普选民，那些在11月为了建设更美好的美国——而非更强大的俄罗斯——而投票的选民们。

然而，无法回避的事实是，这个周五是一个黑暗的日子——对乌克兰、对自由世界、对那个曾经代表《大西洋宪章》原则的美国声誉而言，都是如此。

罗斯福和里根必定在地下翻身，丘吉尔和撒切尔同样如此。如今，重新夺回美国荣誉、将其从那些在白宫玷污它的政治匪徒手中拯救出来的责任，落在了我们其余人的肩上。

'China is the real winner': Trump's reversal in Ukraine aids Beijing

 In less than two weeks, President Donald Trump has upended America’s long-standing role in the world.

At the United Nations on Monday, in the same hall where U.S. diplomats for decades confronted their Russian counterparts on behalf of the “free world,” Washington’s envoy joined Moscow in voting against a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The vote followed a week in which Trump seemed to side with Russia against Ukraine, announcing plans to negotiate a peace deal without Ukraine at the table, and blaming Kyiv for starting the war that Russian President Vladimir Putin launched with a full-scale invasion three years ago.

Governments in Europe and democracies around the world are treating Trump’s actions and statements not as provocative posturing, but as an earthquake.

“This administration’s policies are a fundamental shift,” said James Bindenagel, a former senior U.S. diplomat who served for years in Germany.

After Trump’s move toward Russia, threats of tariffs against NATO allies and talk of acquiring Greenland, European and other democratic governments are adjusting to the reality that the U.S. can no longer be considered a trusted ally, current and former Western diplomats told NBC News.

An opportunity for China

With American reliability in doubt, some European nations and other countries may seek alternative partners and markets, possibly in China, Bindenagel said.

“The loss of trust in America creates a vacuum, and that vacuum is likely to be filled by cooperation between Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang and Iran,” said Bindenagel, professor emeritus at the University of Bonn.

Trump’s shift away from Europe creates an opportunity for Beijing to try to draw Europe further into its orbit, he said, adding, “China is the real winner here.”

If the Trump administration continues to antagonize its partners and question its alliances, there is a risk that China — as well as Russia— could expand their spheres of influence in the Asia-Pacific region, Africa and Eastern Europe, experts said. In Asia, stunned officials in countries aligned with the United States are grappling with the implications of the apparent about-face in Washington, said Michael Green, chief executive officer of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

“It is no exaggeration to say that this deeply unnerved even our closest allies in Asia,” said Green, who served on the White House National Security Council under President George W. Bush.

The Trump administration’s aggressive dismantling of the U.S. agency overseeing foreign aid has had ripple effects abroad, according to Green. U.S. embassies are hampered by the chaos in Washington and funding for democracy programs has dried up, a potential boon for China, he said.

“Senior officials in Japan, Australia, Indonesia and Thailand have told me that China is swooping in, offering to replace the United States as the partner of choice,” Green said.

The Trump administration’s treatment of Ukraine has raised fears among Asian allies that Washington may not come to the aid of Taiwan if China seeks to seize control of the island by force or coercion, former U.S. officials said.

Before French President Emmanuel Macron met with Trump in Washington on Monday, Macron said: “How can you, then, be credible in the face of China if you’re weak in the face of Putin?”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said that if America were to scale back military assistance for Ukraine, it would allow the U.S. to focus its resources on the Asia-Pacific region.

The image that America has long tried to present to the world, as a champion of democratic rule and a counterweight to autocracy, also seemed to be radically altered. Singaporean Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen said last week that America had once been seen as a force for “moral legitimacy” and was now looking like “a landlord seeking rent.”

Pushing allies?

The Trump administration and its supporters say the president is merely pushing allies to pay a bigger share of their own defense needs, recalibrating trade relationships and working to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

“President Trump’s America First approach to diplomacy prioritizes what’s in the best interest of the United States,” said Brian Hughes, spokesperson for the White House National Security Council.

“The Trump administration will continue to engage our allies and partners to improve burden-sharing measures for defense spending, rebalancing trade deficits and ensuring global adversaries do not take advantage of America as they did under Biden,” Hughes added.

But for Europe, there is now a grim determination to prepare for a future without America at its side.

Friedrich Merz, the presumptive next chancellor of Germany after the country’s parliamentary elections Sunday, said it was unclear if the NATO alliance would survive.

“After Donald Trump’s statements in the last week, it is clear that the Americans are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe,” Merz, the leader of the center-right CDU/CSU alliance, said on German television.

Members of NATO and the European Union currently lack the military strength, economic unity and political will to be able to secure peace in Ukraine and fill the void currently filled by the U.S., Bindenagel and other former officials said.

“Russia is not an all-powerful adversary with an economy the size of Italy’s,” he said. “It is simply far more determined than we are, which amplifies its limited potential tremendously.”

Nile Gardiner, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation think tank, which strongly supports the president’s agenda, said that despite the friction with European governments, Trump will likely bolster the NATO alliance with his policies and possibly end a war that threatens to destabilize Europe.

European countries, including the United Kingdom, recently announced further increases in defense spending, which Gardiner said was a response to Trump’s demands for NATO allies to take more responsibility for the continent’s defense.

“You’re already seeing the Trump effect across Europe, and I think that Trump’s goal is to leave NATO in far, far stronger shape four years from now, than when he inherited it,” he said.

But a flawed peace agreement that fails to provide sufficient security guarantees for Ukraine against future Russian attacks could embolden Putin and produce even greater dangers for Europe, said Timothy Sayle, author of "Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order."

“What might feel like peace in the short term could be laying the conditions for a broader war in the future,” said Sayle, an associate professor of history at the University of Toronto.

If Russia is allowed to retain the territory it has seized in Ukraine, a peace deal could provide Moscow with a platform to stage further incursions or covert operations against other European countries nearby, including the Baltic states, he said.

In a speech at Monday’s U.N. session on Ukraine, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said that ending the war “at any cost” by appeasing Russia would be a fatal error.

Such a move would only invite further aggression, he said. “If Ukraine is abandoned today, who will be next?”

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com