logo
Waltz was in danger before Signalgate

Waltz was in danger before Signalgate

Yahoo01-05-2025

Signalgate may have been the tipping point for national security adviser Mike Waltz, but his downfall began before he accidentally added a journalist to a private chat about a U.S. attack on Yemen.
From the early days, senior administration officials were irked by his approach – seeing him as too cocky. 'He's a staff, but he was acting like a principal,' one person close to the White House who was granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics said. National security advisers, while powerful, support presidents but do not run an agency like Cabinet secretaries.
In the wake of the Signal chat scandal in late March, outsiders called for his immediate firing over the apparent security breach, but some White House insiders speculated that the bad headlines would paradoxically buy Waltz time.
Trump views the media, including Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg, as the enemy, and did not want to look like he was reacting to coverage of Goldberg's inclusion in the Signal chat by firing someone involved in the scandal.
'Waltz has been on thin ice for a while. This made the ice thinner but at the same time…may actually save him for now because they don't want to give Goldberg a scalp,' one White House ally said at the time.
But he had lost enough allies that his eventual departure was all but certain — the only question was when he'd go.
Trump announced on Truth Social Thursday that he is tapping Waltz to be his ambassador to the United Nations.
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R -NY) was nominated for the role, but was asked to withdraw because of Republicans' thin margins in the House.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was also taking heat for his role in disclosing attack plans on Signal. But he had more White House support than Waltz, and was harder to fire because replacing him would require Senate confirmation. National security advisers do not require confirmation, making them more expendable to Trump.
'I know that Pete has a lot more friends in the West Wing than Mike has, ' said another person familiar with the dynamics.
Waltz' relationship with fellow Floridian Susie Wiles had eroded, at least in part due to his 'too big for his britches' attitude, one of the allies said. He did have backers on Capitol Hill, with some GOP lawmakers relieved by Waltz's presence in the room. He was seen as a serious person with real credentials for the role, and more sympathetic to traditional defense hawks. But even as many old-school Republicans supported him, MAGA warriors were skeptical. Many viewed him as an outsider to their movement.
Even from his first days in office, Waltz struggled to fill key NSC roles with Republican foreign policy experts viewed as more traditional defense hawks. Waltz's choices for the person to be NSC senior director for African Affairs, for example, were blocked three times in a row by other White House officials want wanted more full-throated MAGA acolytes to staff the NSC.
"The view was 'Wait why is he picking secret neocons for these jobs, that's not how this administration is going to work,'' said one person close to both Waltz and Wong, Waltz's deputy. 'Which is bullshit, but that was the view and that set the stage for vibes of distrust and tension," This person was granted anonymity to discuss internal White House matters candidly.
Right wing activist Laura Loomer took relish in suggesting that she helped oust some of his staffers. The New York Times reported Loomer brought a list of names to Trump, deeming members of the NSC staff insufficiently loyal. A number of them were fired shortly after that meeting.
On Thursday, minutes after Waltz's removal was disclosed by POLITICO and other outlets, she sent POLITICO a one-word text: 'Loomered.'
After three months of relative restraint, Trump may be ready to fire others.
A planned wave of White House firings may come as early as late next week, two administration officials familiar with the matter granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said.
Inside the West Wing, aides have started referring to the potential shakeup as 'The Purge,' one administration official said. The plan, according to the official, is to carry out the firings in a single, decisive wave rather than to do it piecemeal.
'The president is surrounded by highly talented and qualified patriots working to execute his agenda,' a White House official said, responding to a request for comment. 'Mike Waltz will continue these efforts, and Secretary Rubio will excel in this new role.
While Trump's second term has so far avoided the backstabbing and high churn that defined his first term, the planned shakeup – likely beginning with mid-level White House staffers – would signal a dramatic shift shortly after the 100-day mark.
'A lot' of firings are about to happen, the second official said.
Jake Traylor contributed reporting.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges
Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges

Politico

time22 minutes ago

  • Politico

Bondi says violent LA protesters will face federal charges

At least nine people are facing federal charges for their involvement in protests against immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Monday. Demonstrators face charges for attacking police with Molotov cocktails, looting and spitting on law enforcement, Bondi said in a TV interview. 'We are going to prosecute them federally,' she said in an interview on Fox News. 'If California won't protect their law enforcement, we will protect the LAPD and the sheriff's office out there.' Sporadic but at times raucous protests broke out in several parts of the Los Angeles area in recent days, prompting President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard troops and Marines despite the fact that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said the additional forces were not needed. Bondi said the Trump administration planned to take a hard line against demonstrators. 'You spit on a federal law enforcement officer no more,' she said. 'As President Trump said, you spit. we hit. Get ready. If you spit on a federal law enforcement officer, we are going to charge you with a crime federally. You are looking at up to five years maximum in prison.' Those charged already include David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union California, who was injured and arrested while protesting the arrest of workers in downtown Los Angeles. He was released Monday from federal custody on a $50,000 bond. The Trump administration's decisive treatment of demonstrators — and the president's focus on punishing those who assault police officers — stands in contrast to his sweeping pardons for roughly 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn the election. Trump has deployed up to 4,000 soldiers from the California National Guard to help quell the demonstrations over the protests of Newsom and Bass — who say the moves are worsening tensions. The state has sued to reverse the deployments. The White House also ordered 700 Marines to join the National Guard, though it's unclear exactly what role they will play. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Monday evening that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to direct military forces to arrest 'lawbreakers.' DHS did not immediately respond to request for comment from POLITICO, and the Department of Defense declined to comment on the story. 'You can run, you can't hide,' Bondi told Fox. 'We are coming after you federally. If you assault a police officer, if you rob a store, if you loot, if you spit on a police officer, we are coming after you.'

Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more

Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.

Pam Bondi's ‘Pro-Trump' Brother Loses Election by Landslide
Pam Bondi's ‘Pro-Trump' Brother Loses Election by Landslide

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Pam Bondi's ‘Pro-Trump' Brother Loses Election by Landslide

Lawyers in the nation's capital handed a stunning loss to Attorney General Pam Bondi's brother in a heated election to lead the Washington, D.C., Bar. Ninety percent of more than 38,000 members of the lawyers' association voted to elect employment law attorney Diane Seltzer as their president, the organization announced Monday. The Seltzer Law Firm principal beat Brad Bondi, a litigation partner at the firm Paul Hastings, who garnered a measly 3,490 votes. D.C. Bar CEO Bob Spagnoletti told reporters that the 'extraordinary' 43-percent turnout was more than five times the norm in a typical election. Bondi's landslide loss appeared to be a resounding rebuke of the Trump administration's war on the legal profession, which has divided the industry. 'Right now we are in a time of governmental chaos, and our members don't feel safe to practice law,' Seltzer said in a virtual showdown against Bondi last month, adding that she planned to 'make sure that we maintain and uphold the rule of law, and that people feel they can practice law safely without worrying about executive orders, or without being targeted in any possible way by the government.' President Donald Trump waged a retribution campaign against several prominent law firms in March by issuing a flurry of executive orders that revoked the security clearances and canceled government contracts with firms he perceived as political enemies. A month later, voting began at the D.C. Bar and ended June 4th. Trump's moves drove a wedge between top firms, with some caving in to the Trump administration by agreeing to do pro bono work and others filing lawsuits challenging the executive orders against them. 'I had hoped this race would be a contest of ideas to enhance services for our widely varied members,' Bondi said in a Monday LinkedIn post. 'Instead, I am disgusted by how rabid partisans lurched this election into the political gutter, turning a professional campaign into baseless attacks, identity politics, and partisan recrimination.' Bondi accused his opponent of 'smearing' him over his ties to the Attorney General and 'peddling conspiracies' about his intentions. Alicia Long, a prosecutor who was an adviser to the failed U.S. Attorney nominee Ed Martin and is now working with Jeanine Pirro, also lost her bid to become the D.C. Bar's treasurer. Long and Bondi's candidacies sparked alarm among Washington lawyers in March, when a 'high alert' obtained by NBC News and blasted on social media described the duo as 'Trump/Pam Bondi loyalists' who were 'making a bid to take over the D.C. Bar.' In April, conservative lawyer and anti-MAGA activist George Conway weighed in on the D.C. Bar election and accused Pam Bondi of helping Trump punish law firms in an 'extraordinarily perilous moment' for the legal system. 'I'm not admitted in D.C. but I have a request of those of you who are... Vote against Brad Bondi,' he said in an Instagram post. 'Ordinarily, I wouldn't hold the views or conduct of someone's relative against them... But these are not ordinary times. The Department of Justice under Pam Bondi has engaged in a full-scale assault on our Constitution and on the rule of law.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store