The two women at the centre of Mike Waltz's demise
To experts in White House Kremlinology the writing was on the wall for Mike Waltz, Donald Trump's national security adviser.
On Tuesday, he was spotted flying with the president aboard Marine One from the White House to Joint Base Andrews, just outside Washington, but did not make it up the stairs to Air Force One for the flight to Michigan and a landmark speech celebrating 100 days in power.
Less than 48 hours later a slew of administration officials quietly confirmed that Mr Waltz, a former special forces Green Beret, had lost the confidence of the president making him the first major scalp of Mr Trump's second administration.
Officially, the White House kept up a wall of obfuscation all morning. 'There is no comment at this moment,' said Steven Cheung, director of communications, in a reminder that nothing is final until confirmed by Mr Trump.
And then it came in the form of a Truth Social post. The president announced he was sending Mr Waltz to New York to be his permanent representative to the United Nations.
Along the way, Mr Waltz appeared to have fallen foul of two of the key women in Trump world, making his position unsustainable weeks after it was revealed he added a journalist to a Signal chat being used to discuss highly sensitive military plans.
Laura Loomer, a tireless hardline Maga voice, has made it her mission to root out anyone she deemed disloyal to the president. She claimed the scalp on Mr Waltz on Thursday, declaring he had been 'Loomered'.
But other reports suggested that Mr Waltz had lost the confidence of Susie Wiles, Mr Trump's chief of staff, and the second most powerful figure in the White House.
A former White House official said three things had undone Mr Waltz.
He had always been on the Russia-sceptic, hawkish wing of the Republican Party, and his hiring of like-minded allies had only further raised suspicions in Mr Trump's Maga world that his America First credentials were unreliable.
Insiders had also questioned his knowledge of key foreign policy areas. Was his experience as a special forces colonel on multiple deployments to Africa and the Middle East enough to make him an expert on the niceties of diplomacy and international affairs?
And then there was Signal-gate. Mr Trump's national security apparatus became a global laughing stock when it emerged that Mr Waltz had accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of the Atlantic magazine, to an encrypted chat about bombing Yemen, apparently after storing his number under the wrong name.
'That made him look JV,' said the former official, using an abbreviation for 'junior varsity,' a term of abuse for amateurish behaviour. 'Usually it is the national security adviser who is the most protective of information and the most cautious about these things.'
Mr Waltz was already short of allies.
The president likes to fill his team with conflicting views so he can step back and let them duke it out before he makes the final decision.
Mr Waltz was one of the few Russia hawks in the administration, arguing internally for sanctions on Moscow if it failed to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine.
That put him in conflict with other Cabinet figures, as well as influential outsiders such as Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, and Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist.
He had come from a more traditional wing of the Republican party. And in 2016 he had even been part of the party establishment trying to block Mr Trump from winning the Republican nomination. In a campaign video, he essentially accused Mr Trump of being a draft dodger.
Mr Waltz worked his way into Trump world only after the president's 2020 election defeat. Mr Waltz became a familiar face on TV speaking up for the former president and, with his political base in Florida, he became a regular at Mar-a-Lago and its campaign headquarters.
Some of Mr Trump's most loyal supporters had kept the receipts, however, and were waiting for their moment.
Mr Waltz lost four key staffers at the start of the month after Miss Loomer, whose passion for conspiracy theories saw her barred from Mr Trump's plane at the end of last year's campaign, urged the president to fire National Security Council officials for disloyalty.
She reportedly presented Mr Trump with a list of a dozen names and examples of why they should not be trusted.
The president later said Miss Loomer, who once claimed 9/11 was an inside job, had not been involved with the dismissals, but called her 'a very good patriot.'
Since then she has described how Mr Waltz was her eventual target, and told Tara Palmeri, a journalist, that she had kept video of the then Florida Congressman attacking Mr Trump.
'Donald Trump hasn't served this country a day in his life,' Mr Waltz says in the 2016 clip. 'Don't let Trump fool you.'
But the bigger problem for Mr Waltz may have been inside the White House where his judgement was being questioned.
Ms Wiles, as a big beast of Florida politics, had helped bring the congressman into the fold. But within weeks they clashed when he tried to keep her out of top-level national security meetings, according to a source.
It triggered a round of briefing that Mr Waltz had become too big-headed for his own good.
The pressure from the Maga base coupled with the internal unhappiness simply 'made for a perfect storm,' said the former White House staffer.
After the turmoil of the first administration, which lost a national security adviser within 22 days, this White House managed 101 days before its first big departure. And even then. Mr Trump has managed to maintain an aura of stability by finding a high-profile job for Mr Waltz at the UN.
But for a president who relies on key players having access to the Oval Office it is a clear demotion.
And allies in Europe will worry that Mr Trump is now without one of the grown-ups in the room, someone who could be relied on to temper the president's most isolationist impulses.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
37 minutes ago
- New York Post
NY reps warn Senate version of ‘big, beautiful' bill will be ‘dead on arrival' if SALT cap lowered to $10K
They're getting SALT-y. Blue state Republican reps railed against rumored Senate plans to lower the state and local tax deduction (SALT) cap back down from the House-negotiated level of $40,000 to its current $10,000 threshold — vowing that it will be 'dead on arrival.' Ahead of the Senate Finance Committee's release of its text for its modifications to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, reporting from Punchbowl News indicated that the panel planned to chop down the SALT increase as a placeholder while negotiations play out. The official text is slated to drop Monday evening, but multiple New York reps preemptively dubbed SALT pareback a dealbreaker. 'I have been clear since Day One: sufficiently lifting the SALT Cap to deliver tax fairness to New Yorkers has been my top priority in Congress,' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said in a statement. 4 Rep. Mike Lawler had emerged as one of the top hardliners in the SALT negotiations. Getty Images 'After engaging in good faith negotiations, we were able to increase the cap on SALT from $10,000 to $40,000. That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less. If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Lawler doubled down on X, writing, 'Consider this the response to the Senate's 'negotiating mark': DEAD ON ARRIVAL' with a meme of Steve Carell as Michael Scott from 'The Office' shaking his head. The House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last month, but the megabill next needs to clear the Senate and then survive the House again before it can get to President Trump's desk. Unlike the House, the Senate does not have any Republicans elected from high-taxed blue states where SALT is a pressing issue. Many Senate Republicans have openly grumbled over the inclusion of a SALT hike. 4 President Trump has been prodding congressional Republicans to send him the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to sign. Getty Images 'I think at the end of the day, we'll find a landing spot. Hopefully that will get the votes we need in the House, a compromise position on the SALT issue,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told 'Fox News Sunday,' indicating that there isn't an appetite in the upper chamber for a large SALT cap hike. The House is home to the SALT Caucus, which includes blue state Republicans who have conditioned their support of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on a SALT cap hike. 'The $40,000 SALT deduction was carefully negotiated,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) said in a statement. 'For the Senate to leave the SALT deduction capped at $10,000 is not only insulting but a slap in the face to the Republican districts that delivered our majority and trifecta,' she added. 'We have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country.' 4 Rep. Nicole Malliotakis is the sole Republican congresswoman who represents part of New York City. Getty Images Republican SALT Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Young Kim (Calif.) and Andrew Garbarino (NY) also warned that the leaked draft is 'putting the entire bill at risk.' 'We have been crystal clear that the SALT deal we negotiated in good faith with the Speaker and the White House must remain in the final bill,' they said in a joint statement. 'The Senate should work with us.' Given the narrow 220 to 212 House GOP majority, leadership in the lower chamber cannot afford SALT-related defections. At most, House leadership can only afford three defections if there's full attendance. Meanwhile, passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate has been complicated by fiscal hawks who have demanded that the megabill have less of an impact on the deficit. 4 Senate committees are starting to roll out their revisions to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. AP The megabill is projected to increase the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, according to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Senate Republicans are also keen on exploring ways of making certain temporary business tax cuts in the package permanent. SALT emerged as a problem for blue state lawmakers after Republicans imposed a $10,000 cap on it in 2017 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The cap was intended to help pay for other provisions of the bill. A spokesperson for the Senate Finance Committee declined to confirm whether or not the lowered SALT cap is in the panel's draft of the megabill. 'Everyone will get accurate info when bill text is released,' the spokesperson said.
Newsweek
41 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Axios
41 minutes ago
- Axios
Most Americans view Supreme Court as partisan: Poll
While Americans have conflicting opinions on the Supreme Court, a majority agree that the Trump administration must comply with federal court orders, two recent polls found. The big picture: The high court is slated to make a slew of rulings in coming weeks on issues Americans remained deeply divided on, including on judicial power, birthright citizenship and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Zoom in: Americans are divided on their views of the Supreme Court: 55% have a strongly or somewhat favorable view of the high court, while 45% have a somewhat or strongly unfavorable view, an NBC News Decision Desk Poll poll found. There's a partisan divide in how Americans view the judicial body, per a separate Reuters-Ipsos poll: 67% of Republicans viewing the high court favorably, compared to only 26% of Democrats. Something that both sides agree on: Neither Republicans nor Democrats see the court as politically neutral, according to the Reuters poll. Between the lines: The Supreme Court in recent months has been clearing away many of the hurdles lower courts have put in President Trump's path. The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has three justices appointed by Trump during his first term. Still, legal battles over many aspects of his second-term agenda remain. Zoom out: The Trump administration has defied a number of court orders, particularly related to immigration policies. Americans are not on board, a NBC News Decision Desk Poll found. 81% of respondents believe the administration must follow federal court rulings and stop actions deemed illegal. Meanwhile, 19% believe the administration can ignore court rulings. Details: The Reuters-Ipsos poll, conducted June 11-12, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The NBC News Decision Desk Poll was conducted from May 30-June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults aged 18 and over. The error estimate is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
