Who’s In Charge?

Let’s look at the substance of the Signal conversation.

One would like to think that there was a previous face-to-face principals’ meeting in which an attack on the Houthis was discussed: The purpose of the strike; the likely reaction, international and domestic; military advice; available intelligence to support the military advice; and likely other issues, but these at a minimum. The parties (in a principals’ meeting they would be the Cabinet members or their designees, usually deputy secretaries) might disagree. Working out those disagreements would be part of the meeting.

Jeffrey Goldberg’s account of the meeting implies that something preceded the small group chat:

At 8:05 a.m. on Friday, March 14, “Michael Waltz” texted the group: “Team, you should have a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance this morning in your high side inboxes.” (High side, in government parlance, refers to classified computer and communications systems.) “State and DOD, we developed suggested notification lists for regional Allies and partners. Joint Staff is sending this am a more specific sequence of events in the coming days and we will work w DOD to ensure COS, OVP and POTUS are briefed.”

But then a policy discussion breaks out. I’ll reformat Goldberg’s account into more of a dialog.

The account labeled “JD Vance” (8:16): “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake. 3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message. I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”

A couple of things. “[A]s POTUS said” implies that earlier meeting. But then Vance brings up a number of objections, including that Trump may be undercutting his own message, that oil prices may rise (moderate to severe!). These are the kind of thing that should have been brought up in the face to face meeting.

A person identified in Signal as “Joe Kent” (Trump’s nominee to run the National Counterterrorism Center is named Joe Kent) (8:22): “There is nothing time sensitive driving the time line. We’ll have the exact same options in a month.”

“John Ratcliffe”(8:26): The message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations.

“Pete Hegseth” (8:27): “VP: I understand your concerns – and fully support you raising w/ POTUS. Important considerations, most of which are tough to know how they play out (economy, Ukraine peace, Gaza, etc). I think messaging is going to be tough no matter what – nobody knows who the Houthis are – which is why we would need to stay focused on: 1) Biden failed & 2) Iran funded. 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”—operations security. “I welcome other thoughts.”

“Michael Waltz” (a few minutes later):  Posts a lengthy note about trade figures, and the limited capabilities of European navies. “Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes. Per the president’s request we are working with DOD and State to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans.”

“JD Vance” to @Pete Hegseth (8:45): “if you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” (The administration has argued that America’s European allies benefit economically from the U.S. Navy’s protection of international shipping lanes.)

The user identified as Hegseth (8:48): “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC. 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.”

At this point, the previously silent “S M” [perhaps Stephen Miller] joined the conversation. “As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement. EG, if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

All of this should have been hashed out in the face-to-face meeting. Waltz started this thread by saying that the participants should have received “a statement of conclusions with taskings per the Presidents guidance.” But Vance opens issues of timing up in this conversation and others join him. No military people are on the chat, and their input would be essential to discussing timing. Additionally, Vance is skeptical of Trump’s thinking, although consistency has never been a part of Trump’s actions.

Why wasn’t this discussed during the face-to-face meeting? Or why is Vance re-opening it? There’s not enough information here to do more than guess. Perhaps principals’ meetings that include Trump are carried out at a high level of generality. Trump seems to have told them to hit the Houthis to send a message, perhaps no more than that. But that is a very broad decision point, from which targets and timing must be deduced.

Stephen Miller (S M) who has the last word and apparently Trump’s blessing to speak for him. The others defer. It appears to be what was decided in the face-to-face meeting, but that is up to Miller. A very sloppy way to decide on actions of war.