Mike Waltz faces personal attacks, called a 'coward' during confirmation hearing



Mike Waltz is in the hot seat as the Senate kicks off his contentious confirmation hearing to serve as ambassador to the United Nations.

Waltz, who previously served as national security adviser to President Donald Trump, was removed from the role following a string of scandals. Most notably, Waltz accidentally added the editor in chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, to a private Signal group chat with other administration officials where they discussed and coordinated an imminent airstrike against the Houthis in Yemen.

'I was hoping to hear you had some sense of regret.'

Although Waltz has taken full responsibility for the "embarrassing" slipup, "Signalgate" was the Democrats' cannon fodder of choice on Tuesday.

Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware pressed the nominee over the use of Signal to communicate about ongoing military operations, saying it is "not an appropriate, secure means of communicating highly sensitive information." Coons also asked Waltz if he had been investigated over the incident.

"The use of Signal, as an encrypted app, is not only authorized, it was recommended by the Biden-era CISA guidance," Waltz said in defense of the chat.

RELATED: Scott Jennings shreds media's narrative around Trump admin Signal group chat

Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"Of course, there was no classified information exchanged," Waltz added.

Coons reiterated his concerns over the "demonstrably sensitive information" that was leaked by the chat, asking Waltz again if he had been investigated for it.

"The White House conducted an investigation, and my understanding is that the Department of Defense is still conducting the investigation," Waltz said.

"At the time, you took responsibility for adding a journalist to the Signal chat," Coons said in response. "But it doesn't seem to me that the administration's taken any action to make sure this doesn't happen again. ... I was hoping to hear you had some sense of regret."

RELATED: Senate Democrats set to grill Mike Waltz over 'Signalgate' during confirmation hearing

Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) also grilled Waltz over the alleged sharing of sensitive information on Signal. Waltz confirmed when pressed that “Signal has not been approved for use by U.S. government officials for the sharing of classified information."

Senator Kaine didn’t stop there. He pressed Waltz on the ongoing investigations surrounding the alleged Signal leak of classified information. Waltz responded: "I shouldn't and can't comment on an ongoing investigation, but what I can do is echo Secretary [Pete] Hegseth's testimony that no names, targets, locations, units, routes, sources, method … no classified information was shared."

Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) accused Waltz of avoiding responsibility, saying that it was not an acceptable excuse to say that Jeffrey Goldberg was "sucked in" to the message group.

Booker continued, "Instead, in a moment when our national security was clearly compromised, you denied, you deflected, then you demeaned and degraded those people who objectively told the truth and criticized your actions."

"It shows profound cowardice. ... Even after weeks, if not months, of reflection, you couldn't sit before this committee and take some responsibility."

Waltz faced pressure from his own party as well. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned Waltz on where his loyalties exactly lie: "I guess it just worries me that you come more from the Liz Cheney wing of the party than the Donald Trump wing of the party."

Waltz, a former U.S. representative from Florida, affirmed his loyalty to President Trump, citing his voting record in Congress: "Senator, I am squarely with the president. I've been with him in every single election I've participated in."

Mike Waltz needs a majority vote in the 53-47 Republican-controlled Senate to be confirmed as the new U.N. ambassador. A vote on his nomination is expected before the U.N. General Assembly opens on September 9.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump to take on infamous 'Signalgate' editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who pushed 'many fictional stories'



President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he will be meeting with Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of the Atlantic who most recently broke the now-infamous "Signalgate" story.

Trump asserted that Goldberg had previously published "fictional stories" about the president and his administration. Despite this, Trump will be interviewed by Goldberg and other journalists from the outlet for a story entitled "The Most Consequential President of this Century."

'I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it's possible for The Atlantic to be "truthful.'''

"Later today I will be meeting with, of all people, Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor of The Atlantic, and the person responsible for many fictional stories about me, including the made-up HOAX on 'Suckers and Losers' and, SignalGate, something he was somewhat more 'successful' with," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

One "hoax" Trump is referring to includes Goldberg's article from September 2020 that claimed the president called Americans who died in combat "suckers" and "losers." The article relies on anonymous sources who alleged that Trump talked down on fallen soldiers during a 2018 trip to France, which was heavily refuted by over a dozen on-the-record sources, including several administration officials.

"Jeffrey is bringing with him Michael Scherer and Ashley Parker, not exactly pro-Trump writers, either, to put it mildly!" Trump added. "The story they are writing, they have told my representatives, will be entitled, 'The Most Consequential President of this Century."

Although Goldberg's journalistic career has not always been flattering to the president, Trump said he was open to the interview for personal reasons.

"I am doing this interview out of curiosity, and as a competition with myself, just to see if it's possible for The Atlantic to be 'truthful.' Are they capable of writing a fair story on 'TRUMP'? The way I look at it, what can be so bad – I WON!"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Hegseth vows to prosecute Pentagon leakers



Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Pentagon staffers "will be prosecuted" if they are found leaking sensitive information within the department.

This push for investigations comes after top Pentagon officials were removed for allegedly leaking information to reporters. One of the officials who was removed, John Ullyot, also penned an op-ed on Sunday depicting behind-the-scenes turmoil within the department. In response, Hegseth said that Ullyot "misrepresented" his leadership and the department in his piece.

'The leakers know who they are, the truth will be told, and we stand behind that.'

"We're going to investigate and take it anywhere it leads," Hegseth said Tuesday.

"It led to unfortunate places for people I have known for a long time," Hegseth added. "It is not my job to protect them; I protect national security."

Hegseth also argued that the leakers are working to curb President Donald Trump's policies and leadership, prompting the investigation and subsequent prosecution of leakers at the Pentagon.

"When evidence is gathered — and this happened quickly — it will be handed over to the DOJ, and the people will be prosecuted," Hegseth said. "The leakers know who they are, the truth will be told, and we stand behind that."

Three other officials who were removed for alleged leaks — Dan Caldwell, Colin Carroll, and Darin Selnick — issued a joint statement on Saturday expressing disappointment in the Department of Defense but also maintained their support for Trump and his administration.

"We are incredibly disappointed by the manner in which our service at the Department of Defense ended. Unnamed Pentagon officials have slandered our character with baseless attacks on our way out the door," the statement reads. "All three of us served our country honorably in uniform — for two of us, this included deployments to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, based on our collective service, we understand the importance of information security and worked every day to protect it."

"At this time, we still have not been told what exactly we were investigated for, if there is still an active investigation, or if there was even a real investigation of 'leaks' to begin with," the statement continued. "While this experience has been unconscionable, we remain supportive of the Trump-Vance Administration’s mission to make the Pentagon great again and achieve peace through strength. We hope in the future to support those efforts in different capacities."

'I'm here to do one job for the president and the American people: secure the country, America first, peace through strength. I don't have time for leakers or hoax media.'

Notably, Caldwell was the senior adviser designated as Hegseth's point of contact in the now-infamous Signal chat leak. Hegseth has maintained that the Signal chat did not include classified or sensitive information.

"It was the result of an ongoing investigation," Hegseth said of Caldwell, Carroll, and Selnick's removal. "We identified sufficient evidence; the evidence will have to keep going. They, or others near them, were party to leaking. I have a statutory responsibility, if I believe that is the case, to ensure they no longer have access, and the investigation commences."

"If we think you are leaking to the press, that's a real problem we take seriously at the Pentagon," Hegseth added. "I'm here to do one job for the president and the American people: secure the country, America first, peace through strength. I don't have time for leakers or hoax media."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Mike Waltz's fate uncertain following supposedly accidental war plan leak: 'Don't give the mob what it wants'



There is a great deal of uncertainty about what fate might befall President Donald Trump's national security adviser Mike Waltz following allegations that he accidentally included an anti-Trump polemicist in a private high-level group chat discussing war plans.

While a handful of top administration officials told Axios they expect the controversy to peter out and for Waltz to remain, unnamed White House officials told Politico that there is presently internal debate over whether to kick him to the curb, claiming the general consensus is that "Mike Waltz is a f**king idiot."

The story

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, claimed in a Monday article that he received a "war plan" concerning American airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen roughly two hours before they took place on March 15.

Goldberg, who previously smeared Trump with anonymous sources and did his best to provide ammunition for Democrat political attacks ahead of Election Day, claimed that on March 11, a user on the encrypted messaging app Signal identified as Michael Waltz sent him a connection request.

"Two days later — Thursday — at 4:28 p.m., I received a notice that I was to be included in a Signal chat group. It was called the 'Houthi PC small group,'" wrote Goldberg.

'I just hate bailing Europe out again.'

This particular group chat, supposedly intended for senior officials in the Trump administration, was reportedly populated with users whose identifiers signaled that they might be Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. According to Goldberg, there were a total of 18 individuals listed as members of this group chat.

Goldberg claimed that the user identified as Waltz kicked off a "fascinating policy discussion" on March 14 about hitting Houthi targets in which the account labeled "JD Vance" allegedly stated, "I think we are making a mistake" and indicated that it might be prudent "delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc."

After other users chimed in, the "Pete Hegseth" account allegedly wrote:

Waiting a few weeks or a month does not fundamentally change the calculus. 2 immediate risks on waiting: 1) this leaks, and we look indecisive; 2) Israel takes an action first – or Gaza cease fire falls apart – and we don't get to start this on our own terms. We can manage both. We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC. ... I welcome other thoughts.

"Michael Waltz" later highlighted the relative toothlessness of European navies, stressing, "Whether it's now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes."

"JD Vance" followed up with, "If you think we should do it let's go. I just hate bailing Europe out again."

"VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It's PATHETIC," said the user identified as Hegseth. "But Mike is correct, we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this. Nobody else even close. Question is timing. I feel like now is as good a time as any, given POTUS directive to reopen shipping lanes. I think we should go; but POTUS still retains 24 hours of decision space."

'We are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.'

This back-and-forth and the sensitive comments that followed apparently left Goldberg "mystified that no one in the group seemed to have noticed my presence."

According to Goldberg, the user identified as "Pete Hegseth" provided an update at 11:44 a.m. on March 15, which allegedly contained "operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."

Sure enough, hours after "JD Vance" responded to the update with, "I will say a prayer for victory," there were reports of explosions in Yemen followed by celebratory messages in the chat, prompting Goldberg to conclude that the group chat was indeed authentic.

The perceived authenticity of the chat led the liberal reporter to suggest further that Waltz "may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act," in part because the Signal app is not government-approved for the dissemination of classified information and also because some of the messages were set to disappear after a period of days or weeks.

The responses

In the immediate wake of Goldberg's report, there was a great deal of speculation about whether the Atlantic editor was once again pushing fake news, had been played — possibly used by the Trump administration to indirectly telegraph its growing frustrations with Europe's "free-loading" and relative military weakness — or both.

However, Brian Hughes, spokesman for the National Security Council, told the Atlantic on Monday, "This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain."

"The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security," added Hughes.

'Nobody was texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about that.'

William Martin, a spokesman for Vance, appeared to indirectly confirm the chat's authenticity. Martin emphasized Vance's alignment with Trump — the "JD Vance" user in the chat had suggested the president's "message on Europe" was inconsistent — and stated, "The vice president’s first priority is always making sure that the president’s advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations."

Hegseth did not deny that there was a group chat but suggested that Goldberg had mischaracterized its nature and contents.

When asked about the Signal chats, the defense secretary told reporters in Hawaii, "So you're talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again — to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the 'fine people on both sides' hoax, or 'suckers and losers' hoax."

"So this is the guy that peddles in the garbage. This is what he does," continued Hegseth. "I've heard how it was characterized. Nobody was texting war plans, and that's all I have to say about that."

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Monday statement, "As President Trump said, the attacks on the Houthis have been highly successful and effective. President Trump continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including national security adviser Mike Waltz."

'We all know that you don't give the mob what it wants.'

Democrats, facing record unpopularity and disarray, seized upon the Atlantic report as an opportunity to attack the Trump administration and unite on messaging.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Goldberg's inclusion in the chat a "stunning breach of military intelligence," adding, "If you were up in arms over unsecure emails years ago, you should be outraged by this amateurish behavior."

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) complained about the chat on CNN and tweeted, "If senior advisors to President Trump in fact used non-secure, non-government systems to discuss and convey detailed war plans, it's a shocking breach of the standards for sharing classified information that could have put American servicemembers at risk."

What to do with Waltz

White House officials told Politico that Trump is expected to make a decision this week regarding Waltz's status in the administration.

One official who spoke to the liberal publication on the condition of anonymity said some administration staffers are "saying he's never going to survive or shouldn't survive."

"It was reckless not to check who was on the thread. It was reckless to be having that conversation on Signal. You can't have recklessness as the national security adviser," said the unnamed official.

"Everyone in the White House can agree on one thing: Mike Waltz is a f**king idiot," another individual reportedly close to the White House stated. "I don't think there are any long-term political consequences for Trump or the administration, outside of this potentially costing Waltz his job."

While Politico's framing might suggest that Walz's days as national security adviser are numbered, top Trump officials' recent comments to Axios alternatively suggest that the administration is circling the wagons.

"We don't care what the media says," said one Trump adviser. "We can easily handle what would kill any other administration. This will blow over."

A senior White House official noted that "Trump certainly wasn't pleased with this," but added "all this talk you see about Waltz not lasting is just way premature. There's a Washington feeding frenzy. And we all know that you don't give the mob what it wants."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!