**The White House Shifts from Shock to Aggression Over Yemen Group Chat Scandal**  

 The White House initially reacted with stunned inertia to the Yemen group chat scandal but quickly reverted to its usual playbook—dismissing inconvenient truths, launching harsh attacks on critics, and framing President Donald Trump as the victim of yet another "witch hunt."  

 The controversy, exposed by *The Atlantic* journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, dominated Washington’s attention on Tuesday.  Yet, the administration’s response—marked by escalating defensiveness and a lack of resignations among top national security officials—suggests a strategy of defiance rather than concession.  This presidency's willingness to disregard traditional political constraints is further demonstrated by the fact that Trump's team appears determined to weather the storm. In a deeply divided country, where public focus is not fixed on U.S. airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthi militants, and with conservative media and Republican lawmakers running interference, the political fallout may be limited.  However, beyond the scandal itself, the episode offers valuable insights into the administration’s worldview, its approach to wielding American power, and the reputational damage suffered by Trump’s top national security officials.  

 A Foreign Policy Team in Crisis  

 Trump is simultaneously straining the Atlantic alliance, pushing for an end to the Ukraine war, seeking to reshape Middle East geopolitics, escalating tensions with China, and making aggressive territorial threats in the Western Hemisphere.  Yet, his national security team appears shockingly careless—discussing sensitive military operations on unsecured mobile devices, leaving them vulnerable to foreign intelligence agencies.  

 Trump’s preference for loyalty and television-ready personalities over experience has left the administration ill-equipped to handle global crises.  In the leaked conversations, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former TV anchor with few qualifications in national security, exemplified this problem. His assertion that "we are currently clean on OPSEC (operational security)" is now a mockery of his lack of expertise. Meanwhile, the celebratory use of clenched fist emojis and self-congratulatory messages after the airstrikes made the group chat resemble a high school texting thread more than a serious discussion among top U.S. defense officials.  

 While the immediate political consequences remain uncertain, the scandal has exposed deeper vulnerabilities within Trump’s foreign policy apparatus—raising concerns about its ability to navigate an increasingly volatile world.


"This administration holds deep disdain for Europe."






 **Transatlantic Rift Deepens as Trump Administration Scorns Europe**  

 From the first two months of Trump's second term, European leaders quickly understood that the transatlantic alliance, which had been the foundation of U.S. foreign policy for 80 years, is no longer relevant. The private disdain for U.S. allies revealed in the leaked Signal chats suggests the rupture is even deeper than previously thought.  

 “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vice President J.D.  Vance wrote bluntly.  His hostility toward America’s closest allies was also evident in his scathing speech at last month’s Munich Security Conference, where he derided European political culture.  Now, he’s set to antagonize them further, joining his wife Usha on a trip to Greenland—territory Trump is once again vowing to annex.  

 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared eager to curry favor with Vance during the conversation, describing Europeans as "freeloaders" and "pathetic." * Meanwhile, a participant believed to be Trump’s senior adviser Stephen Miller argued that Europe should *“remunerate”* the U.S. for military strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen—a stark reflection of the administration’s transactional foreign policy.  The White House’s reasoning?  Clearing Red Sea shipping lanes benefits Europe’s economy more than America’s.  

 While there may be truth to that, demanding payment for military operations conducted without consultation is an unconventional—if not outright bizarre—approach to diplomacy.  And Washington’s strikes in Yemen aren’t acts of goodwill toward Europe; they are primarily aimed at countering Iran and protecting Israel.  

 For European leaders, the key takeaway from the leaked messages is that anti-Europe sentiment in Trump’s inner circle goes far beyond his usual complaints about NATO spending and trade imbalances.  Many of his top officials appear even more antagonistic toward the continent than he is.  

 ### Russia impedes Trump's effort to negotiate a deal with Ukraine. While Washington was consumed by the group chat scandal, little progress was made in Trump’s effort to broker a swift end to the Ukraine war.  The administration touted an alleged agreement between Russia and Ukraine to *“eliminate”* the use of force in the Black Sea, but Moscow’s conditions—such as lifting restrictions on its agricultural exports and banking sector—were seen as unacceptable by Kyiv and European allies.  

 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of manipulating U.S. mediators and distorting the agreements.  Meanwhile, European leaders signaled they would not lift key sanctions on the Kremlin without a comprehensive ceasefire.  

 Trump, eager to end the war on his terms, has leaned into his constitutional authority over foreign policy, emboldened by his re-election victory.  However, there are concerns about his administration's approach, particularly regarding Steve Witkoff, his representative in the negotiations. Witkoff, one of the officials implicated in the Signal chat scandal, has been echoing Moscow’s rhetoric on Ukraine’s occupied territories ever since his meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow.  

 The drawn-out nature of the talks reinforces a reality that contradicts Trump’s campaign promises: Moscow is in no hurry to end a war where its forces continue making slow but steady gains.  

 “The Russians are extremely skilled at using negotiation processes as a smokescreen for carrying on with their military ambitions,” said Samir Puri, a former ceasefire monitor in Ukraine, in an interview with CNN.  * "They talk and fight at the same time." *  

 **Escalating Rhetoric on Mexican Cartels**  

 The leaked chats coincided with a major shift in U.S. intelligence assessments.  On Tuesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, facing sharp criticism over the administration’s mishandling of classified information.  But Gabbard’s testimony made headlines for another reason—her stark warning that transnational criminal organizations, particularly Mexican drug cartels, represent a top national security threat.  

 The intelligence community’s annual threat assessment now aligns with Trump’s political messaging, emphasizing cartel-driven drug trafficking and human smuggling as major dangers to the U.S.  Gabbard singled out Mexican cartels as the primary suppliers of illicit fentanyl, fueling speculation about potential U.S. military action against them.  

 Since Trump’s return to office, the U.S. military has already intensified surveillance of cartel activities.  CNN has reported at least 18 spy plane missions over the southwestern U.S. and international airspace near Mexico’s Baja Peninsula.  Gabbard’s remarks suggest the administration is laying the groundwork for a more aggressive approach, possibly including military strikes.  

**Trump’s False Claims on Canada Weakened**  

 Gabbard’s testimony also undermined one of Trump’s key justifications for his trade war with Canada.  He has repeatedly claimed that fentanyl from Canada poses a major threat to the U.S.—a talking point he has used to justify tariff threats against America’s northern neighbor.  

 But when pressed by Sen.  Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Gabbard admitted that the annual threat assessment contained *no mention* of fentanyl coming from Canada.  Instead, she confirmed that the overwhelming majority of the drug enters the U.S. through Mexico.  

 This revelation raises an uncomfortable question: Why has Trump so aggressively strained relations with one of America’s closest allies over a problem that barely exists?