Trump endorsed Waltz, but backstage turmoil persisted.
The battle surrounding Waltz's survival highlights the administration's greater concern for reporters than for national security protocols.
TroibNews 
President Donald Trump was displeased upon learning that National Security Adviser Mike Waltz inadvertently included a journalist in a group chat about military strike plans. His frustration extended beyond the potential exposure of national security secrets.
Trump's anger was partly fueled by suspicions about why Waltz had the phone number of Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg saved, as reported by three anonymous sources familiar with the situation. A fourth source mentioned that the president was notably disturbed by the embarrassing nature of the incident.
"The president was pissed that Waltz could be so stupid,” a source remarked.
However, by Tuesday afternoon, the two men appeared to have reconciled, with the White House rallying in support of Waltz. Trump participated in brief interviews with NBC News and Fox News, expressing his confidence in his national security adviser. Two senior Trump spokespeople suggested on X that national security hawks were collaborating with the media to amplify the situation unnecessarily. Waltz also attended a meeting with Trump’s ambassadors that afternoon.
“There’s a lot of journalists in this city who have made big names for themselves making up lies… This one in particular I’ve never met, don’t know, never communicated with, and we are looking into and reviewing how the heck he got into this room,” Waltz stated during the meeting.
Trump described Waltz as “a very good man” and indicated he believed he had been unfairly criticized. Nonetheless, the president mentioned he would investigate the use of Signal, the app used for the chat with Goldberg, which might have led to a security breach during discussions about military strikes in Yemen.
Despite the quick show of unity, some of Trump’s allies warned that this incident might not be the end of Waltz’s challenges. One ally, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the matter, noted that the incident had strained Waltz’s standing with Trump’s inner circle.
The Tuesday meeting followed a chaotic 24 hours for the White House, which recently has been characterized by more discipline and structure than during Trump’s first term. The administration grappled with how to handle its first significant leak, one that could threaten national security.
For a long time, Trump and his supporters have been wary of leaks, often scrutinizing staffers who communicate with certain reporters or engage with those outside their coverage areas. Unlike during his first term, Trump’s current administration has managed to keep leaks relatively minimal, owing to chief of staff Susie Wiles’ rigorous approach and preemptive loyalty vetting of staffers.
One Trump ally even examined the phone of someone suspected of leaking, seeking to identify their recent reporter contacts. Additionally, some campaign advisers have expressed concerns about team members engaging with political reporters outside their designated roles, even threatening to disseminate false information to pinpoint leak sources.
This backdrop made the accidental leak from Monday particularly awkward for an administration that has asserted a zero-tolerance policy toward leaks. The sensitive military details delivered by top officials were not only mishandled but also involved a journalist and outlet that the administration views as completely opposed to its objectives.
Earlier this month, Waltz had added Goldberg to a group chat on the encrypted messaging app, which included several other high-ranking officials such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Within the chat, dubbed “Houthi PC small group,” officials discussed the imminent military strike against the Houthis.
The incident became more complicated given Trump's longstanding animosity towards The Atlantic, which has published critical pieces about him in the past. A significant grievance stemmed from an article alleging that he referred to American war dead as “suckers and losers.” Furthermore, the magazine was notably among the first to prominently call for his impeachment.
A third ally, speaking anonymously, characterized the episode as “serious” but aligned with the administration's belief that “the way it has been characterized in the media is exaggerated and histrionic.”
Goldberg noted in his article that he refrained from publishing some messages, fearing they “could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East.”
Although the White House initially scrutinized Waltz's future on Monday, efforts on Tuesday focused on downplaying the seriousness of the information in the group chat. Officials claimed that the national security community was overreacting and suggested that the material shared was not classified, implying that Goldberg may have sensationalized the content.
“The Atlantic story is nothing more than a section of the NatSec establishment community running the same, tired gameplay from years past,” White House communications director Steven Cheung posted on X, adding that anti-Trump factions had consistently attempted to manipulate innocuous actions into exaggerated stories for media consumption.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this sentiment, asserting that the president “has the utmost confidence in Mike Waltz and his entire national security team.”
A source familiar with the situation indicated that Trump was not overly concerned about national security risks due to the success of the operation against the Houthis. Simultaneously, Waltz and his supporters attempted to explain why he had Goldberg’s phone number, amid growing speculation from the isolationist wing of the MAGA base that he had been leaking to the journalist. A senior White House official told Fox News that Waltz had never interacted with Goldberg, asserting that the number was added by another staff member.
However, Waltz told Fox News Tuesday night that he was not absolving others and accepted "full responsibility," clarifying instead that Goldberg’s number had inadvertently been attached to someone else’s contact information.
“I built the group,” Waltz asserted. “My job is to make sure everything’s coordinated.”
A second individual knowledgeable about the incident mentioned that Trump had discussed the Atlantic story with Waltz several times on Monday, while a third indicated that the White House counsel was also involved at one point.
Last week, Trump labeled The Atlantic a “third-rate” outlet lacking credibility in response to a request for an interview, expressing a hope that it would eventually cease operations.
While the situation seemed to resolve immediate tensions regarding Waltz on Tuesday, some close to the White House suggested that the incident may have lasting repercussions. They cautioned against any premature moves to remove Waltz that could disrupt the relative harmony the administration has recently experienced.
“If you let scalps fall off right now — that could set a bad precedent,” another source noted.
Consequently, Waltz finds himself in a precarious position within the “America First” faction of the administration, where there are allies eager to see him removed, given their suspicions of his neoconservative tendencies.
"The president trusts his team a lot more than he did during his first term. But he is still someone who doesn't easily forget about mistakes, so just because he's not getting rid of Waltz or one of the others today doesn’t mean a day won't come when a person will sort of run out of rope,” someone close to the White House said. “If he starts to question someone's judgment or instincts — or even worse, their loyalty — then it can become a situation where it's only a matter of time.”
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
Trump's anger was partly fueled by suspicions about why Waltz had the phone number of Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg saved, as reported by three anonymous sources familiar with the situation. A fourth source mentioned that the president was notably disturbed by the embarrassing nature of the incident.
"The president was pissed that Waltz could be so stupid,” a source remarked.
However, by Tuesday afternoon, the two men appeared to have reconciled, with the White House rallying in support of Waltz. Trump participated in brief interviews with NBC News and Fox News, expressing his confidence in his national security adviser. Two senior Trump spokespeople suggested on X that national security hawks were collaborating with the media to amplify the situation unnecessarily. Waltz also attended a meeting with Trump’s ambassadors that afternoon.
“There’s a lot of journalists in this city who have made big names for themselves making up lies… This one in particular I’ve never met, don’t know, never communicated with, and we are looking into and reviewing how the heck he got into this room,” Waltz stated during the meeting.
Trump described Waltz as “a very good man” and indicated he believed he had been unfairly criticized. Nonetheless, the president mentioned he would investigate the use of Signal, the app used for the chat with Goldberg, which might have led to a security breach during discussions about military strikes in Yemen.
Despite the quick show of unity, some of Trump’s allies warned that this incident might not be the end of Waltz’s challenges. One ally, speaking anonymously due to the sensitivity of the matter, noted that the incident had strained Waltz’s standing with Trump’s inner circle.
The Tuesday meeting followed a chaotic 24 hours for the White House, which recently has been characterized by more discipline and structure than during Trump’s first term. The administration grappled with how to handle its first significant leak, one that could threaten national security.
For a long time, Trump and his supporters have been wary of leaks, often scrutinizing staffers who communicate with certain reporters or engage with those outside their coverage areas. Unlike during his first term, Trump’s current administration has managed to keep leaks relatively minimal, owing to chief of staff Susie Wiles’ rigorous approach and preemptive loyalty vetting of staffers.
One Trump ally even examined the phone of someone suspected of leaking, seeking to identify their recent reporter contacts. Additionally, some campaign advisers have expressed concerns about team members engaging with political reporters outside their designated roles, even threatening to disseminate false information to pinpoint leak sources.
This backdrop made the accidental leak from Monday particularly awkward for an administration that has asserted a zero-tolerance policy toward leaks. The sensitive military details delivered by top officials were not only mishandled but also involved a journalist and outlet that the administration views as completely opposed to its objectives.
Earlier this month, Waltz had added Goldberg to a group chat on the encrypted messaging app, which included several other high-ranking officials such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Within the chat, dubbed “Houthi PC small group,” officials discussed the imminent military strike against the Houthis.
The incident became more complicated given Trump's longstanding animosity towards The Atlantic, which has published critical pieces about him in the past. A significant grievance stemmed from an article alleging that he referred to American war dead as “suckers and losers.” Furthermore, the magazine was notably among the first to prominently call for his impeachment.
A third ally, speaking anonymously, characterized the episode as “serious” but aligned with the administration's belief that “the way it has been characterized in the media is exaggerated and histrionic.”
Goldberg noted in his article that he refrained from publishing some messages, fearing they “could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East.”
Although the White House initially scrutinized Waltz's future on Monday, efforts on Tuesday focused on downplaying the seriousness of the information in the group chat. Officials claimed that the national security community was overreacting and suggested that the material shared was not classified, implying that Goldberg may have sensationalized the content.
“The Atlantic story is nothing more than a section of the NatSec establishment community running the same, tired gameplay from years past,” White House communications director Steven Cheung posted on X, adding that anti-Trump factions had consistently attempted to manipulate innocuous actions into exaggerated stories for media consumption.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this sentiment, asserting that the president “has the utmost confidence in Mike Waltz and his entire national security team.”
A source familiar with the situation indicated that Trump was not overly concerned about national security risks due to the success of the operation against the Houthis. Simultaneously, Waltz and his supporters attempted to explain why he had Goldberg’s phone number, amid growing speculation from the isolationist wing of the MAGA base that he had been leaking to the journalist. A senior White House official told Fox News that Waltz had never interacted with Goldberg, asserting that the number was added by another staff member.
However, Waltz told Fox News Tuesday night that he was not absolving others and accepted "full responsibility," clarifying instead that Goldberg’s number had inadvertently been attached to someone else’s contact information.
“I built the group,” Waltz asserted. “My job is to make sure everything’s coordinated.”
A second individual knowledgeable about the incident mentioned that Trump had discussed the Atlantic story with Waltz several times on Monday, while a third indicated that the White House counsel was also involved at one point.
Last week, Trump labeled The Atlantic a “third-rate” outlet lacking credibility in response to a request for an interview, expressing a hope that it would eventually cease operations.
While the situation seemed to resolve immediate tensions regarding Waltz on Tuesday, some close to the White House suggested that the incident may have lasting repercussions. They cautioned against any premature moves to remove Waltz that could disrupt the relative harmony the administration has recently experienced.
“If you let scalps fall off right now — that could set a bad precedent,” another source noted.
Consequently, Waltz finds himself in a precarious position within the “America First” faction of the administration, where there are allies eager to see him removed, given their suspicions of his neoconservative tendencies.
"The president trusts his team a lot more than he did during his first term. But he is still someone who doesn't easily forget about mistakes, so just because he's not getting rid of Waltz or one of the others today doesn’t mean a day won't come when a person will sort of run out of rope,” someone close to the White House said. “If he starts to question someone's judgment or instincts — or even worse, their loyalty — then it can become a situation where it's only a matter of time.”
Thomas Evans for TROIB News
