WSJ pinpoints disturbing takeaway from Trump teams intel leak that everyone is missing

During a Tuesday, March 25 hearing held by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia) and other Democrats grilled President Donald Trump’s allies over national security matters. The hearing came a day after The Atlantic published a bombshell article by editor Jeffrey Goldberg, who revealed that he had been wrongly invited to a group chat in which Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others discussed plans for a military strike against Houthis in Yemen.CIA Director John Ratclife, FBI Director Kash Patel and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard were questioned during the Senate Intelligence hearing. And many Democrats are saying that “Signalgate” — so named because the group chat took place via the messaging app Signal — shows how lax the Trump Administration is when it comes to national security.In an editorial published on March 25, the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board offers some takeaways on Signalgate, including Vance’s reservations about the Yemen strike and the likely reactions of the United States’ allies in other countries.READ MORE: ‘Unqualified’: Warnings flash red as Republicans advance ‘snake oil Oz’ for Medicare chief”The security breach will fade as a story,” the board argues, “but we can’t say the same about what the chat said about the views that Trump officials hold about our allies in Europe….Vice President JD Vance second-guessed the president’s strikes on the chat because he said only ‘3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the suez’ canal, while ’40 percent of European trade does.’ That understates the U.S. interest in freedom of navigation. Mr. Vance even suggested his boss didn’t understand that striking the Houthis was at odds with Mr. Trump’s ‘message on Europe right now.’ He added that ‘I just hate bailing Europe out again.'”The WSJ board continues, “So the vice president is willing to let the Houthis shut down shipping to spite the Europeans? The lesson Europeans — and many friends elsewhere — will take from this episode is that officials at the top of the Trump Administration think the U.S. relationship isn’t based on common interests or values. It’s closer to a protection racket (see nearby). It’s another reason many of America’s allies may conclude they can no longer trust the U.S. in a crisis. The board is also critical of Hegseth, saying that his “behavior looks less defensible a day later, as he may have been cavalier about the details of incoming military strikes.”But the WSJ writers defend Trump’s decision to proceed with the Yemen strike against Houthis.READ MORE: ‘Huge implications’: Experts warn Trump ‘trying to rig’ midterms with new ‘illegal’ order”That was a good decision by the commander in chief,” the board contends. “The Houthis are terrorizing global shipping and taking shots at U.S. military ships and planes, which nobody should be allowed to do without paying a price. Mr. Trump understands that element of deterrence.” READ MORE: ‘Assault on the 1st Amendment’: Expert buries Trump’s ‘censorship’ argument in 60 secondsRead the full Wall Street Journal editorial at this link (subscription required).

Read Full Article