Dems Fume Over Strategy Group Chat; Contemplating Effective Ways to Counter GOP Remains Unclear.
Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts described the situation as “incompetence incarnate.”
TroibNews 
Democrats have capitalized on the news that senior officials from the Trump administration discussed military action in a group messaging app, seeking to outmaneuver Republicans on matters of competence and national security.
They have pointed out what they consider to be hypocrisy on the part of Republicans, who previously focused heavily on Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information during the 2016 campaign. Several Democratic elected and appointed officials, strategists, and staffers who spoke to PMG expressed hesitance to politicize what they viewed as a significant national security issue.
“Incompetence incarnate,” Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, who previously commanded a Marine infantry platoon in Afghanistan, remarked to PMG. “What national security and foreign policy does is it influences the trust of the electorate in the competence and strength of the governing party.”
Auchincloss compared the political implications of this event to President Joe Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. He noted, “His approval ratings took a 10-point hit and never recovered. I don’t think people went to the polls three years later and said, ‘I’m going to vote for Trump because of Afghanistan. But there’s no question that ended his honeymoon.’” However, he believes “Democrats have an opportunity to be the party of national security.”
Chris Meagher, a former aide to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, characterized the actions as “sloppy with America’s national security.” Doug Wilson, a former Pentagon public affairs official who has advised various Democratic presidential candidates, described it as “amateur hour with the safety and security of our troops.”
Democrats have witnessed Donald Trump navigate numerous controversies and political difficulties over the years, from the Access Hollywood tape to his refusal to concede in 2020 and the Capitol riot in 2021. They have often struggled to resonate with voters who identify as patriotic, and some warned that the group chat episode is unlikely to have a lasting impact beyond Washington.
Nonetheless, many Democrats, especially those with military connections, framed the incident within a larger narrative of dysfunction and hypocrisy from Trump. “He called for the most severe punishment of Hillary Clinton for inappropriate email practices. You know what Hillary Clinton didn't do? Post war plans on her email,” stated Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
According to Himes, the Signal chat is part of a broader context showing “the American people learning what happens when you anarchically upset the apple cart.” He cited examples, stating, “The people who look after our nuclear weapons get fired. Stupidity around tariffs takes 10 percent off of your 401.”
He further noted, “Government is a deadly serious thing, and what we saw on these Signal threads were what you would expect if the brothers of Sigma Chi were running our national security.”
An early report from the Atlantic revealed that top Trump officials included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a private chat concerning a military strike against Houthis. Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin described the officials involved as “incompetent people,” while former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has a Navy intelligence background, told CNN's Kaitlin Collins that this incident reflects “a bigger pattern, right? The sloppiness and the incompetence.”
“Nobody in Donald Trump's family is on a ship in the Mediterranean,” Buttigieg asserted. “Nobody in Elon Musk's family is at risk from the kinds of economic or security arms that are going on here. They think all of this is a joke or a game, because these are incredibly rich, powerful men who, frankly, don't have to worry about the kinds of things most Americans do.”
Fortunately, no lives were lost, and while there is speculation about the future of national security adviser Michael Waltz, the fallout remains unclear. A spokesperson for the National Security Council defended the Signal chat as representing “deep and thoughtful policy coordination.”
VoteVets, a progressive veterans group, disseminated a memo to allies on Capitol Hill emphasizing that the incident was “the opposite of 100% OPSEC," referencing "operational security," which entails reducing risks associated with disclosing classified information. The memo, which PMG obtained, stressed that “this is not a trivial matter,” cautioning that the use of unclassified messaging for sensitive discussions “puts U.S. forces at great risk.”
Clinton herself weighed in on the situation with a simple post on X: “You have got to be kidding me.”
Some Democrats viewed the matter as transcending politics, expressing reluctance to weaponize it. Freshman Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, who previously served on President Barack Obama’s White House National Security Council, labeled it a “deeply scary breach of confidentiality that puts service members at risk.” He emphasized the need for transparency on whether unclassified phones were frequently employed to discuss sensitive national security matters, referencing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's inexperience with such roles.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, stated that the issue “isn’t about Republican or Democrat.” He warned that “there's possibly criminality involved here, and it needs to be fully investigated. And I think there are people that should be stepping down and resigning over this level of a crisis.”
It remains uncertain if this episode will resonate beyond Washington and its immediate digital landscape, given the involvement of a prominent magazine and its editor. Democratic strategist Jason Bresler suggested that this situation could trigger a “waterfall effect” of media cycles that could erode voter patience, while digital strategist Mike Nellis recommended that Democrats focus on two or three key narratives about how the Trump administration has been detrimental to Americans, emphasizing the dangers of “these idiots texting war plans to unknown phone numbers.”
However, for the time being, this storyline does not directly impact voters’ economic concerns, a crucial factor in determining the outcome of the 2024 election. Instead, it revolves around foreign policy—an area that typically does not engage midterm voters’ attention.
“Let's see how it plays out and how people understand it,” Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, a member of the Intelligence Committee, concluded. “How they learn why it's important to them that intelligence is kept secret, and why that keeps them safe.” He added, “Eisenhower didn't go on the telegraph and say we're taking off on the sixth of June.”
Anna Muller for TROIB News
They have pointed out what they consider to be hypocrisy on the part of Republicans, who previously focused heavily on Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information during the 2016 campaign. Several Democratic elected and appointed officials, strategists, and staffers who spoke to PMG expressed hesitance to politicize what they viewed as a significant national security issue.
“Incompetence incarnate,” Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, who previously commanded a Marine infantry platoon in Afghanistan, remarked to PMG. “What national security and foreign policy does is it influences the trust of the electorate in the competence and strength of the governing party.”
Auchincloss compared the political implications of this event to President Joe Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. He noted, “His approval ratings took a 10-point hit and never recovered. I don’t think people went to the polls three years later and said, ‘I’m going to vote for Trump because of Afghanistan. But there’s no question that ended his honeymoon.’” However, he believes “Democrats have an opportunity to be the party of national security.”
Chris Meagher, a former aide to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, characterized the actions as “sloppy with America’s national security.” Doug Wilson, a former Pentagon public affairs official who has advised various Democratic presidential candidates, described it as “amateur hour with the safety and security of our troops.”
Democrats have witnessed Donald Trump navigate numerous controversies and political difficulties over the years, from the Access Hollywood tape to his refusal to concede in 2020 and the Capitol riot in 2021. They have often struggled to resonate with voters who identify as patriotic, and some warned that the group chat episode is unlikely to have a lasting impact beyond Washington.
Nonetheless, many Democrats, especially those with military connections, framed the incident within a larger narrative of dysfunction and hypocrisy from Trump. “He called for the most severe punishment of Hillary Clinton for inappropriate email practices. You know what Hillary Clinton didn't do? Post war plans on her email,” stated Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
According to Himes, the Signal chat is part of a broader context showing “the American people learning what happens when you anarchically upset the apple cart.” He cited examples, stating, “The people who look after our nuclear weapons get fired. Stupidity around tariffs takes 10 percent off of your 401.”
He further noted, “Government is a deadly serious thing, and what we saw on these Signal threads were what you would expect if the brothers of Sigma Chi were running our national security.”
An early report from the Atlantic revealed that top Trump officials included Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in a private chat concerning a military strike against Houthis. Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin described the officials involved as “incompetent people,” while former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has a Navy intelligence background, told CNN's Kaitlin Collins that this incident reflects “a bigger pattern, right? The sloppiness and the incompetence.”
“Nobody in Donald Trump's family is on a ship in the Mediterranean,” Buttigieg asserted. “Nobody in Elon Musk's family is at risk from the kinds of economic or security arms that are going on here. They think all of this is a joke or a game, because these are incredibly rich, powerful men who, frankly, don't have to worry about the kinds of things most Americans do.”
Fortunately, no lives were lost, and while there is speculation about the future of national security adviser Michael Waltz, the fallout remains unclear. A spokesperson for the National Security Council defended the Signal chat as representing “deep and thoughtful policy coordination.”
VoteVets, a progressive veterans group, disseminated a memo to allies on Capitol Hill emphasizing that the incident was “the opposite of 100% OPSEC," referencing "operational security," which entails reducing risks associated with disclosing classified information. The memo, which PMG obtained, stressed that “this is not a trivial matter,” cautioning that the use of unclassified messaging for sensitive discussions “puts U.S. forces at great risk.”
Clinton herself weighed in on the situation with a simple post on X: “You have got to be kidding me.”
Some Democrats viewed the matter as transcending politics, expressing reluctance to weaponize it. Freshman Senator Andy Kim of New Jersey, who previously served on President Barack Obama’s White House National Security Council, labeled it a “deeply scary breach of confidentiality that puts service members at risk.” He emphasized the need for transparency on whether unclassified phones were frequently employed to discuss sensitive national security matters, referencing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's inexperience with such roles.
Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member, stated that the issue “isn’t about Republican or Democrat.” He warned that “there's possibly criminality involved here, and it needs to be fully investigated. And I think there are people that should be stepping down and resigning over this level of a crisis.”
It remains uncertain if this episode will resonate beyond Washington and its immediate digital landscape, given the involvement of a prominent magazine and its editor. Democratic strategist Jason Bresler suggested that this situation could trigger a “waterfall effect” of media cycles that could erode voter patience, while digital strategist Mike Nellis recommended that Democrats focus on two or three key narratives about how the Trump administration has been detrimental to Americans, emphasizing the dangers of “these idiots texting war plans to unknown phone numbers.”
However, for the time being, this storyline does not directly impact voters’ economic concerns, a crucial factor in determining the outcome of the 2024 election. Instead, it revolves around foreign policy—an area that typically does not engage midterm voters’ attention.
“Let's see how it plays out and how people understand it,” Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, a member of the Intelligence Committee, concluded. “How they learn why it's important to them that intelligence is kept secret, and why that keeps them safe.” He added, “Eisenhower didn't go on the telegraph and say we're taking off on the sixth of June.”
Anna Muller for TROIB News
