Trump’s national security shake-up: Mike Waltz and Alex Wong resign following Signal chat leak

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his deputy Alex Wong resigned from their roles in the Trump administration after a classified military discussion on the encrypted messaging app Signal was mistakenly exposed to a journalist. The breach, which included sensitive details about a planned U.S. military operation against Houthi militants in Yemen, triggered immediate concern across defense and intelligence circles and led to what officials are calling the most serious security protocol failure of Donald Trump‘s second term.

What happened in the Signal chat that led to the resignations?

The incident, now referred to as “Signalgate,” unfolded in March 2025 when Mike Waltz inadvertently added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal group chat comprising top U.S. national security officials. The group was discussing an upcoming military strike on Houthi positions in Yemen, including specifics on timing, target zones, and logistics. The messages were not marked as classified but contained operational content that would typically be conveyed over secure government networks.

Goldberg, after realising the nature of the chat, reportedly exited the group and later published a report revealing the breach. The report withheld certain operational details, but the fact that such information had been shared on a third-party app and mistakenly exposed to a journalist ignited bipartisan alarm in Congress and within the Pentagon.

President Trump, speaking shortly after the revelations, characterised the episode as “unfortunate” and defended Waltz as “a good man who made a mistake.” However, pressure from senior military officials and internal advisers quickly led to the resignations of both Waltz and Wong. Their departures were confirmed by the White House just hours before Trump departed for a campaign stop in Ohio.

How did the error occur?

Preliminary investigations revealed that Waltz had saved Goldberg’s contact under the name of a fellow national security staffer. While creating a new Signal chat to discuss final strike preparations, he mistakenly included the journalist instead of the intended official. The chat, which included Vice President J.D. Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth among others, continued for several hours before the error was noticed.

According to officials familiar with the chat contents, the messages discussed target coordinates, regional contingencies, and diplomatic fallback options. More damagingly, several remarks were made about allies and foreign leaders that have since prompted behind-the-scenes diplomatic outreach to repair strained relations.

Why is Signal’s use under scrutiny?

Signal is an end-to-end encrypted platform popular among journalists, activists, and, increasingly, political officials. While its encryption is robust, the platform is not certified for classified use under federal intelligence standards. Secure communications in government are generally conducted over systems such as SIPRNet or JWICS, which have multilayered access restrictions and tracking.

The leak has renewed debate over the use of third-party apps by senior government officials, particularly in high-stakes contexts. Critics argue that the administration has created an informal culture of digital communication that prioritizes speed and discretion over adherence to established protocols. While there is no evidence that Signal itself was compromised, the ease with which a journalist was mistakenly added to the chat reflects deeper weaknesses in operational security awareness.

What was the reaction within the Trump administration?

Senior administration figures responded swiftly to the scandal. Chief of Staff Richard Grenell convened an emergency briefing with Pentagon officials and cybersecurity personnel to reassess communication workflows. National Security Council staff were reportedly instructed to suspend all use of messaging apps for classified planning. President Trump, although initially supportive of Waltz, eventually accepted his resignation along with that of Alex Wong, his deputy.

The White House has not named replacements, but speculation suggests that either retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg or Senator Marco Rubio could be tapped to step into national security leadership roles. Both are seen as politically loyal and have prior experience with intelligence or military affairs.

What are the implications for Pete Hegseth and others?

The fallout has also reached Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who was an active participant in the Signal group. Although there is no indication that Hegseth initiated the leak, officials confirmed that his contributions to the conversation included tactical details. A Pentagon review is underway to determine whether his participation violated internal information handling policies.

Hegseth has denied any wrongdoing, stating in a press briefing that he “followed the chain of command” and was “under the impression the chat was fully secured.” Nonetheless, his involvement has raised concerns within military circles about informal decision-making channels becoming standard practice, bypassing oversight and documentation.

How has Congress and the intelligence community responded?

Lawmakers from both parties expressed alarm following confirmation of the leak. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner called for an immediate audit of digital communication practices across executive agencies. Senator Josh Hawley, a key Trump ally, echoed the call for reforms but defended the administration against what he described as “weaponized political outrage.”

Former CIA and NSA officials publicly noted that while encrypted apps like Signal are useful for certain scenarios, they lack the accountability, access logs, and regulatory compliance required for national defense operations. Several retired generals also pointed out that informal chats have been a persistent issue across administrations but that the current breach underscored a severe lapse in leadership.

What changes might follow within government communications?

In response to the scandal, the National Security Council is preparing new internal guidelines that will restrict usage of all non-governmental messaging platforms during policy discussions. Staff training on operational security protocols is also being updated, including mandatory re-certification for all political appointees with access to sensitive briefings.

A classified review is being conducted to determine whether any part of the leaked chat exposed operational vulnerabilities in the Yemen mission. While no direct military consequences have been confirmed, the episode is seen as a diplomatic embarrassment and a setback for internal cohesion within the administration.

Is this the start of broader reforms?

The resignations of Waltz and Wong mark the first major reshuffling of Trump’s national security team in his second term and signal a potential shift toward tighter communication discipline. While some officials have suggested the leak was an isolated mistake, others argue it reflects a deeper structural issue that must be addressed before future strategic failures occur.

The Signal chat leak may ultimately act as a case study in the dangers of informal governance in a high-risk security environment. Whether the administration moves to enforce stricter protocols—or simply reshuffles personnel—will determine how enduring the lessons of “Signalgate” prove to be.