Chaos at the heart of the White House

By: Jon Sopel / The Independent
Translation: Telegrafi.com

Oh, my God. What was your reaction when you heard that the U.S. government was discussing classified military information in a chat on an app? It's probably not the most dignified reaction, but I laughed; I laughed an incredible, confused laugh. I mean, of all the people in the world you could accidentally add to a group on Signal, for the attacks in Yemen, you choose the editor-in-chief of the magazine The Atlantic, a publication highly critical of the Trump administration. And, not only that – Jeffrey Goldberg is an excellent expert on national security issues.

So many questions arise. If you have any knowledge of how classified information is handled in the US, you know that this should never happen. Of course, there are times when information leaks out, and below I will write about an incident when information about a military attack was passed to me during Trump's first term. But to add a journalist to such a chain of communication? Unthinkable.

Talk to American politicians and they will tell you that they have entered a SCIF (Sensitively Separated Information Facility) to brief on sensitive matters. It is an office within an office, where no mobile devices are allowed and where no telephone or wiretap signal can penetrate. This is where the most confidential information should be communicated.

But here we are: on a commercial messaging platform, the vice president, the national security adviser, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the White House chief of staff, and the treasury secretary were all freely sharing highly classified information about attacks in Yemen – with a journalist.

When Goldberg’s story came out, the reaction was predictable. Donald Trump said he knew nothing about the matter when confronted by reporters. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exploded – calling the journalist in question an unbelievable liar. Had it been a less credible journalist, this story could have had much more serious consequences for the administration. Goldberg himself removed the most sensitive operational parts from his article, out of respect for the importance of national security.

By reading the full article at The Atlantic, some other impressions remain. It is the ease, not to mention the irresponsibility of these exchanges. The extensive use of symbols [emoji] to discuss the attacks on Hutus that left over 50 dead – you know what it is: the biceps symbol, fire, praying hands, the stars and stripes of the American flag, etc.

But what is most striking – and I am sure this is the impression in Paris, Berlin, Rome and London – is the open contempt for Europe that flows from these messages in SignalJD Vance asks why the US is committed to protecting merchant ships in the Red Sea, when American trade through the Suez Canal is minimal – just three percent, compared to 40 percent for Europeans.

When Hegseth replies that this action is sending an important message to the Hutts and to the world, Vance says: "If you think we should do it, let's do it. I just hate the fact that we're dragging Europe out of the mud again."

And it's a view that Hegseth fully embraces. "I completely share your disgust for European parasites. They're pathetic."

Need I remind you that the only country to have invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty (where an attack on one is an attack on all) was the US after 11/XNUMX – and then European countries mobilised to help the Americans in Afghanistan. Then, within a narrow group of leaders, there was a discussion about whether to send a bill for this military intervention to Europe.

Looking at the public statements, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this hostility. But when JD Vance gives a speech in Munich – as he did at the security conference – we shouldn't be surprised. It's a performance; a way to send a message. But when you see what they say in private conversations, you understand the great contempt they have for us Europeans.

Also, the most important part of the “special relationship” between the US and the UK is the sharing of intelligence information. I’m sure there are people at MI6 or GCHQ who are wondering if it’s time to review how trustworthy the US side is in these matters.

But it looks like nothing will happen. Trump says he has confidence in his national security team. However, that hasn't always been the case.

During the first Trump administration, I received a tip that the US was going to launch military strikes on Syria, due to its use of chemical weapons. It was a Friday afternoon. I was told that France and Britain would also participate in the airstrikes. They would take place that evening, and at 21:00 p.m. the president would address the nation from the White House.

I published this information in what was then Twitter, citing a reliable source. The White House immediately denied my post and told reporters to go and enjoy their Friday night. But, as it happened, the attacks took place and the president delivered his televised address at 21 p.m. — and I have to say, with great relief on my part; it would have been too bad news to be wrong.

Three days later, I saw in iPhoneI had a message from my source. But, although I could see it on the screen, I couldn't open it when I went to my messages. I called my informant, and he told me that the same thing had happened to him: he had a message from me that he couldn't open. The advice from those who knew was that our phones had been hacked and that they needed to be dismantled and rebuilt.

The conclusion was that someone from the American administration was interested in finding out who my source was. And it was done by someone who knew how to do it.

But, this was during the first Trump administration. You know, the one that was said to be chaotic, where everything was a daily mess. Not like this current administration, where there is said to be a meticulous focus, professionalism, and organization that has never been seen before.

You could have easily fooled me!