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!