Search
AI-powered search, human-powered content.
scroll to top arrow or icon

{{ subpage.title }}

From left, FBI Director Kash Patel, Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, testify during the House Select Intelligence Committee hearing titled “Worldwide Threats Assessment,” in Longworth building on Wednesday, March 26, 2025. The witnesses fielded questions on the Signal chat, about attacks against Houthis in Yemen, that accidentally included a reporter.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA

Will Trump find a fall guy for Signal chat revelations?

The drip, drip, drip of revelations about the Trump administration’s Signal chat continued Wednesday as The Atlantic published screenshots that showed senior officials sharing military plans on the messaging app. “1415: Strike Drones on Target (THIS IS WHEN THE FIRST BOMBS WILL DEFINITELY DROP, pending earlier ‘Trigger Based’ targets),” US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote at 11:44 a.m. on March 15, two hours before the United States bombed the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Read moreShow less
- YouTube

Leaked Signal chat shows Trump team's mindset

Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take on the back of the full transcript of these Signal chat that's going on about the bombing of the Houthis. A few things here. First of all, are we surprised that a journalist is actually publishing what is clearly classified data? And there's no question, it's classified data. I mean, you're talking about the targets, the exact timing in advance of US military strikes, incredibly sensitive information, against people that are described as terrorists in the chat. And clearly, if that information had gotten out in advance when Jeffrey Goldberg had received it in real time, it would have put the operation at risk. It would have prevented it from going on. It would have been denounced as leaking classified information, and he would be facing some legal charges from the administration. So I don't think it's credible to say that this is not classified.

But since Trump and members of administration have now said that it isn't classified, there was nothing classified in it, I guess that provides legal cover since it is ultimately in the charge of the president to be able to determine, as president, whether or not something is classified. That there's nothing illegal in Goldberg and the Atlantic Magazine now taking all of that information and putting it out to the public. So is that embarrassing for the US with its allies in terms of how they're handling such a chat? The answer is of course, yes. And I expect that we're going to see a significant amount of continued focus on this topic. A lot of people are going to be asking questions about how it was that this conversation could have been had on Signal and also how it was that Goldberg could have been brought on board. But say that as it may. I mean if you are the Trump administration here, it is age-old tactic, full denial responsibility is actually of your political adversaries so blame Goldberg. Imply that maybe he tried to get on the call through nefarious ways.

It's all his fault. It's overstated. He's a fake news, no news journalist. No one should pay attention to him. He's a bad guy. I mean all of that stuff. And I was particularly bemused by Elon Musk sharing a post from the Babylon Bee saying that, "If you wanted to ensure that nobody ever saw information you'd put it on page 2 of the Atlantic." And of course, that is true for Elon, and it's true for Trump supporters. And this is why the strategy works, is because the Atlantic and the people that read the Atlantic and support the Atlantic are all considered disinformation by those that are loyal to Trump. And vice versa. Fox, and Newsmax and all of the right-wing podcasts. Those are considered fake news by people that don't support, that dislike Trump. And that allows a strategy of full denial, not engaging with the facts and blaming those that are coming after you to be successful. Now, I still think that there are interesting pieces of information here.

Perhaps the most important is that the actual policy conversation, not the details of the war fighting itself, but rather whether or not it was a good idea to be attacking the Houthis, in a big way that was potentially going to increase energy prices. And that was much less of a fight of the Americans than it would be of those in the region that are engaged in the direct proxy war with Iran or the Europeans who have a lot more directly at stake, in terms of their trade in transit. And that was a very reasonable question, and it was strongly, in other words, Vice President Vance opposed these strikes and he's the most important person. He's the most senior ranking person in this chat. Trump isn't on the chat. And he's not saying the president is wrong. He's saying, "I don't believe the president is fully informed and this clearly is not in his interest, in his policy interest."

Now, the reason this is important is because in Trump's first term, I think you would have had a very similar conversation from people like Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo and others that would have been on this chat, but then they would have brought it to the president. And many, many instances in the first term of policy disagreements that then came up and said, "Mr. President. Respectfully, we think we've got additional information and we can better carry out your will by doing X, Y, and Z." And there were checks. There were internal checks on executive authority. What we see this time around is we see JD Vance, who's obviously a very smart guy saying, "I think this is a really bad idea. We shouldn't be doing it, but I'm prepared not to raise it to the president unless I have everybody around me supporting me because I can't do this by myself. I'm just going to get my head chopped off." And there's a little bit of back and forth.

And Stephen Miller, the deputy chief of staff for policy in the White House and a full-on Trump loyalist, says, "Nope, the president wants this. I'm ending the conversation." And that's the end of the conversation, and it never gets to Trump. And then they go ahead and they bomb. So whatever you think about whether this was a good or a bad decision, the challenge here is that we have a big cabinet, some of whom are very capable, some of whom are absolutely not capable. But first and foremost is not getting the best information to the president because he's extremely confident. He believes that his policies are always the right ones, and he is absolutely punishing anything that feels like disloyalty, inside or outside of his team. That's why Pompeo, for example, John Bolton, have had their security details stripped away. Even though the Iranian government has been trying to assassinate them, right? Why? Because they were disloyal to Trump. That's not why they're trying to assassinate him. That's why Trump took away their security detail and that is a very strong message to everybody that is on this chat.

And I do worry, I worry that the three most powerful men in power today around the world, all in their 70s, Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, are also men that are incredibly confident about the rightness of their views. That loyalty is the key to the most important currency of power that exists inside those systems. And increasingly, they're not getting good information from their own advisers. That's a dangerous place for the world to be. It's a dangerous place for the world to be heading, and that's frankly the most important thing that I took out of this chat. So that's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon, thanks.

Trump in front of a downward trending graph and economic indicators.

Jess Frampton

America is souring on Trumponomics. Trump may not care.

For someone who campaigned on lowering grocery prices on day one and rode widespread economic discontent to the White House, Donald Trump sure seems bent on pursuing policies that will increase that discontent.

If you don’t believe me, take it from the president himself, who refused to rule out a recession last Sunday and acknowledged that his sweeping tariff plans would cause “a little disturbance.” But, he added, “we are okay with that.”

Are we okay with that, though?

Read moreShow less

The White House is seen from a nearby building rooftop.

Bryan Olin Dozier/NurPhoto via Reuters

Judge declares White House in defiance of court order on blocked funds

Federal Judge John J. McConnell Jr. ruled Monday that the Trump administration is defying his Jan. 29 order to release billions in federal grants, marking the first explicit judicial declaration of the White House disobeying a court order. Some legal scholars are raising the alarm that a constitutional crisis could be brewing.
Read moreShow less
Midjourney

What Stargate means for Donald Trump, OpenAI, and Silicon Valley

In his first week back in office, Donald Trump gathered tech leaders Tuesday to announce a half-trillion-dollar project called Stargate.

Flanked by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Oracle chairman Larry Ellison, and SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, Trump announced a $500 billion private investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure that he said is “a resounding declaration of confidence in America’s potential.” SoftBank’s Son called it the “beginning of a golden age” of AI in the United States.

While Trump heralded the announcement from the White House, Stargate is a privately funded joint venture. The new entity is backed by OpenAI, SoftBank, and Oracle, but also MGX, an Abu Dhabi-based investment firm. Microsoft and chipmakers Arm and Nvidia were named “technology partners” for Stargate. The purpose: to build massive data centers across America to spur the increased demand for AI.

Read moreShow less

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One before arriving at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, on Jan. 27, 2025.

REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz

White House pushes pause on all federal funding

The White House budget office, via a two-page memo on Monday, ordered all grants, loans, and federal assistance to be paused. This has raised alarm bells about whether the president can halt funding already allocated by Congress and what the consequence could be for the programs that depend on them.
Read moreShow less
Luisa Vieira

Opinion: The yellow brick road to a Golden Age

A week into the second Trump administration, the conviction held by many that the world was more prepared for Donald Trump in the US presidency has quickly faded. This weekend’s flare-up between Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro over tariff threats for deportation flights further strained any remaining optimism. In its place is a stark reality: Trump is back with a bang.

Read moreShow less

US President Joe Biden looks on after he delivered his farewell address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on Jan. 15, 2025.

MANDEL NGAN/Pool via REUTERS

Biden’s farewell speech sounds alarm

In an ominous farewell address from the Oval Office late Wednesday, President Joe Biden concluded half a century of public service by warning about the emergence of an “oligarchy” in America. His speech focused on concerns about democratic institutions under the incoming Trump administration, particularly regarding the influence of billionaires like Elon Musk. Biden specifically cautioned that a “tech-industrial complex” was grinding away at the idea of truth and pointed to the concentration of power among the ultrawealthy.
Read moreShow less

Subscribe to our free newsletter, GZERO Daily

Latest