Always happy to cover internecine battles among the White House staff, the media was gleeful to report the firing of National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. But was it a firing, or did the press pen his political obituary too soon? And what were the real issues bubbling under the surface that led to Waltz's departure as the chief advisor to the president on national security issues? There’s always a backstory.
Mike Waltz: A Lazarus of DC
Mike Waltz was one of the very first choices Donald Trump made to fill out his national security team. Waltz, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth were announced as national security advisor, secretary of State, and secretary of Defense within days of the November 5 election. After President Trump took office, Waltz was a key influencer in security policymaking regarding the US, China, Iran, and Russia. Therein may lie the rub.
"Waltz originally came under fire after The Atlantic published a story revealing that its editor-in-chief and longtime Trump rival had been accidentally added into a text group chat dedicated to discussing pending strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen," The Daily Caller explained. However, Waltz took responsibility for the mistake, and the administration has since taken precautions so that such a security misstep will not be repeated.
Furthermore, as Vice President JD Vance told Fox News’ Bret Baier, what has been referred to in the media as "Signalgate" was a “nothing burger.” When Baier asked why Waltz was "let go," Vance answered: "So, he wasn't let go. He's being made ambassador to the United Nations, which is a Senate-confirmed position. I think you can make an argument that it is a promotion … The media wants to frame this as a firing. Donald Trump has fired a lot of people. He doesn't give them Senate-confirmed appointments afterward."
So, what was the reason for moving Mike Waltz? The more likely explanation is that those in and on the periphery of the administration believe they control the MAGA orthodoxy on foreign policy. The Wall Street Journal got the clash of world views correct in its analysis, writing:
"Mr. Waltz has been vilified for demanding that Iran dismantle its nuclear program or risk military means to do so. But does the online MAGA brigade realize that's the same policy that Messrs. Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio have elaborated many times? Yes, they do. They want Messrs. Hegseth's and Rubio's scalps as well, but really, they want to overturn Mr. Trump's policy toward Iran, and they oppose a tougher line against Russia."
Who is this "online MAGA brigade?" The WSJ identified them as conservative media personalities and social media influencers who saw Waltz and members of his staff as "'hawks,' a term for anyone who would continue the successful Iran, Russia, and China policies of Mr. Trump's first term rather than default to Obama-style appeasement." These folks appear to have a fundamentally skewed view of America’s global role.
President Trump must deal with a dangerous world of real threats, and his hallmark theme, America First, is consistent with a tough stance based on using America's power to keep its citizens safe. It is also an identity with what most have come to know as the MAGA mantra – not some isolationist claptrap rattling around in the national security-vacant heads of policy wannabes with social media accounts. We already had four years of demonstrated geopolitical weakness. Do we need more?
Trump National Security Team Must Project US Strength
America First and Make America Great Again cannot be realized unless the Trump administration, through its national security team, exerts its presence to achieve its foreign policy and national security objectives. Engaging with Russia and Iran in negotiations to end the brutal carnage in Ukraine and stopping Iran from realizing its ambitions of becoming a nuclear power are what the US requires. What about North Korea? Does the "MAGA brigade" think for one second that Kim Jong Un would be impressed with a "no forever wars" foreign policy to the exclusion of protecting US national interest? Dealing with China demands a strong hand in preventing Beijing from further aggression against its neighbors and from continuing as a real threat against the US.
Those who thought influencing the removal of Mike Waltz as a White House national security confidante was a success may find that they misunderstood President Trump and how things really work inside the administration. As UN ambassador, Waltz could be in a position to exert far more pressure on US enemies in a very public way. The fact that UN ambassadors in the past have not been particularly noteworthy does not diminish the potential for Waltz to be a superstar in pushing Trump's foreign policy in ways that could be historic.
For example, Jeane Kirkpatrick, as UN ambassador in President Reagan's administration, was lauded for her confrontational style and blunt, principled speeches calling the Soviet Union to account, restoring US credibility in the organization. As well, many also considered Nikki Haley a powerful and effective UN ambassador during Trump's first administration, despite her serving only two years in the position. However, by contrast, Biden's choice to lead the US delegation at the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, had an unremarkable tenure.
In the category of being careful about what you wish for, the MAGA brigade may have provided Mike Waltz with the exact forum for championing a US foreign policy that President Trump embraces. It is precisely the MAGA policy interpretation they wish President Trump would avoid.
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.
-2.png&w=1920&q=75)
