The most terrifying thing about the now-infamous Signal group chat isn’t the casual contempt for European allies that it reveals — that, sadly, is not new — but the picture it paints of unserious people at the helm of the U.S. national security apparatus. For weeks now, U.S. allies have wondered whether Americans would defend them in a war. Now many are wondering whether this made-for-Fox-News national security team is even capable of doing so without exposing military plans to the enemy.
“JD Vance and his mates clearly aren’t fit to run a group chat, let alone the world’s strongest military force,” Sir Ed Davey, a member of the British Parliament and the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said on X. “It has to make our security services nervous about the intelligence we’re sharing with them.”
Although many foreign leaders kept mum about the scandal — why attract President Trump’s wrath? — signs of deep anxiety weren’t hard to find. Peter Boehm, a member of the Senate in Canada — a country that is reeling from Trump’s tariffs and his threats to make it the 51st state — told me that countries might begin to quietly limit the intelligence that they share with the United States, depending on the subject matter. And Richard Fadden, Canada’s former spy chief, told The Guardian that “Canada needs to think about what this means in practical terms: Is the United States prepared to protect our secrets, as we are bound to protect theirs?”
Even in Israel, a close ally, a former senior official with the Mossad, the country’s spy agency, said the Signal episode “should serve as a major warning sign about how much we can trust U.S. intelligence during President Donald Trump’s second term,” according to an essay in the publication Haaretz. Still, he said, “our dependence on them is absolute,” so Israelis have little choice but to continue sharing intelligence. “The whole situation is insane,” he said.
What feels revelatory about the Signal chat is just how unserious this national security team is. It’s not just the emojis or the accidental inclusion of a journalist or the decision to communicate on that app. It’s how focused members of the chat group were on how the attack would be perceived by Trump’s base, rather than on the potential geopolitical repercussions of their actions. Although this text thread was surely just a snippet of an ongoing conversation, it was disturbing that they spent more time discussing “messaging” than say, protecting an ally like Saudi Arabia from retaliation.
“There’s a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,” the vice president wrote. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth replied, “I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what,” adding that “nobody knows who the Houthis are — which is why we need to stay focused on 1.) Biden failed & 2.) Iran funded.”
Hilariously, Hegseth goes on to say that delaying the operation risks that “this leaks, and we look indecisive” — unaware that the entire world would soon read about it.
Hegseth is a former Fox News host, chosen for loyalty and good looks rather than experience. His comments in the chat showcased not only the arrogance and disdain, but the carelessness and cluelessness, of the people in charge of what is supposed to be the world’s most powerful military. These people seem to care more about how things look than how they actually are. That, more than anything, should terrify America’s allies, and Americans themselves.
The post The Substance of the Group Chat Was Unserious, Too appeared first on New York Times.
