The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans
The Trump administration made headlines this past week after it was revealed that members had accidentally added journalist and Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat where administration officials discussed war plans. Goldberg said he received a connection request on the app Signal from a user identified as White House National Security Adviser Michael Waltz. Goldberg said he initially thought it was a joke until the United States launched strikes on Yemen.
The war plans referred to the U.S. strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. They come after the Houthis have blocked critical trade routes in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. The blockade comes as part of the Houthi’s efforts to undermine Western support for the Israeli government amidst the Gaza War. The Houthis are a Shi’ite Islamist group with ties to Iran and Hamas, the Islamist group that has governed Gaza for nearly 20 years. The U.S. has been working with its European allies and Egypt to combat Houthi piracy and the blockade in the Red Sea.
Screenshots of the chat discussing the war plans were also leaked, including some telling comments by the U.S. Vice President, J.D. Vance and U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, regarding the U.S.’ European allies. Vance urged the team not to follow through with the strikes, saying it was a gift to the Europeans. He mentioned that 40% of European trade goes through the Suez Canal while only 3% of U.S. trade does. He said that by doing this, the President is sending a mixed message regarding Europe, given Trump’s increasingly harsh rhetoric against the European Union.
Waltz mentions the limited capacities of the European navies and says the U.S. must do this. Vance ultimately relents but complains that he hates “bailing Europe out again,” to which Hegseth says he entirely agrees and loathes European “freeloading,” but Waltz is right.
The saga is just the most recent blunder of the administration. In what has been seen as a belligerent foreign policy toward the U.S.’ closest allies, this Signal group chat, which was not supposed to be leaked to the public, showcases those in the administration who genuinely despise America’s European allies. The rhetoric of Vance and Hegseth shows a complete disdain for Europe and the nations of Europe. With Vance and Hegseth playing vital roles in the Trump administration’s foreign policy, European leaders must be aware that their former ally’s administration is filled with ideological disdain for Europe and Europeans.
Additionally, the saga showcases the administration’s complete disregard for official processes and the rule of law. Meetings and discussions like this typically should have an official record, which can potentially be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which gives citizens a right to petition to see official meetings. However, by holding this discussion on Signal, there is no official record that can be accessed later on, as FOIA does not apply to app groups.
Administration officials have since gone back and forth between calling Goldberg a liar and admitting they made a mistake. Opposition lawmakers from the Democrats meanwhile have called the whole spectacle embarrassing and illegal.
This whole saga showcased a sense of unprofessionalism from the administration and that the U.S. is in the hands of people with no regard for the official way of doing things. While the strikes on the Houthis were thus far successful, one has to wonder how secure is the U.S. and its foreign policy objectives if the administration can incompetently include journalists in top-secret war plan discussions. The Trump campaign in 2016 attacked Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for compromising U.S. security through her emails scandal; now, it seems the tables have turned. As for Europe, the chat leaks should make it clear that the administration of the U.S. cannot be trusted and holds deep personal contempt for the U.S.’ oldest and closest allies.
India accused of meddling in Canada’s Conservative Party race
Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, recently called a snap election for April 28. As Canadians prepare for an election riddled with threats of tariffs and jokes of annexation by its neighbour, the United States, the political landscape has shifted entirely. A few months ago, the Conservative Party opposition was set to get a landslide plurality and substantial majority in seats.
The Liberals were on the verge of falling to third place less than a year ago. However, Trump’s threats toward Canada, combined with the previously unpopular Justin Trudeau stepping down, have reinvigorated Canadian support for the Liberals. Canada has seen a “rally-around-the-flag” effect as Canadian nationalism has surged, separatism in places like Quebec has declined, and the Liberals have rallied this surge of patriotism to their benefit by taking a strong stance against threats by the U.S. and the Trump administration.
The Conservatives have lost all their momentum, and in their most recent poll, they are now projected to gain only eight seats more than they got in the last election, far from the majority they were projected not long ago. However, the bad news keeps coming for the Conservatives and their leader, Pierre Poilievre, whose populist style, capitalising off polarisation against Trudeau, has lost its effect amid this new political climate that Canada is in.
Poilievre has faced accusations of his leadership election being influenced by Indian agents involved in fundraising and campaigning in Canada’s large Indian and South Asian communities. While there is no evidence Poilievre was aware of what was happening, Canadian intelligence has been unable to question him as he refused the necessary security clearance. He is now the only party leader in the next election not to have it. He has defended the decision, calling it an “oath of secrecy.”
By getting a security clearance, he would undergo a check where intelligence services could discover if there are any ties between his leadership campaign and a foreign country (in this case, India).
The interference by the Indian government comes after diplomatic ties between Canada and India were severely damaged due to India accusing Canada of harbouring extremists from the Khalistan movement, a Sikh separatist movement in the Indian state of Punjab, India’s only Sikh majority state. The movement was at its peak in the 1980s, during which many Indians migrated to Canada, including primarily Indian Sikhs who were targeted as part of the Indian government’s anti-terror activities.
Fast forward to today, and Canada has the biggest Sikh population outside of India. The Indian government has accused Canada of harbouring militants and those with links to terrorist separatist groups. Canada has denied this and claims to fight against all terrorism, including by Sikh extremists within Canada.
The two countries have been in a diplomatic row since September 2023, when the Canadian government alleged that India was behind the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen of Punjabi descent who had involvement with Sikh terrorist organisations. The Indian government believed this was justification to assassinate him. However, critics point out that assassinating a suspect without trial, especially one who is a citizen of another country, is against international law.
Both countries expelled each other’s diplomatic spat, and many observers speculated that Indian relations with Canada would improve with Trudeau gone. However, with these newfound allegations, many questions must be answered. Additionally, while Trudeau is gone, his Liberal party is set to get a majority of seats and hold a six-point lead in the popular vote, which might complicate relations with India going forward.
Leave a Reply