OpSec (March 28, 2025)
Welcome to Home & Away. It was a week that included Opening Day of the 2025 baseball season, more tariffs (this time on imported automobiles and auto parts), presidential envoy Steve Witkoff’s Tucker Carlson interview that revealed a decided pro-Russia tilt, growing anti-Hamas protests in Gaza, and much more.
I will focus on the much more, namely, Signal-gate, the decision of a venerable law firm and an Ivy League university to acquiesce to rather than resist pressures emanating from the Trump administration, and the U.S. intelligence community’s Annual Threat Assessment, which merits more attention than it received during this news-filled week.
The Signal and the Noise
We will start with the story that rightly continues to dominate headlines, namely the decision of senior Trump administration officials to hold a high-level national security meeting and share classified information over an unsecured chat platform and to include a journalist who obviously holds no security clearances and has no reason to be a part of that conversation. It was unintentional, not a deliberate leak, although how it came about remains a mystery. Maybe someone at the White House confused Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg with the Atlantic fleet commander, which seems unlikely, but you never know. If, however, it turns out that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz had Goldberg’s contact information and accidentally added it to the group message because they had a prior relationship in which Waltz was a source, then he could well be toast.
As for Signal, it is an end-to-end encrypted but publicly available app that reportedly has been targeted by several intelligence agencies belonging to governments that mean us no good. For this reason, the Pentagon under both the Biden and Trump administrations has not approved Signal to process or store nonpublic unclassified information. To use it for transmitting sensitive classified material is inconsistent with any definition of opsec, i.e., operational security, which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ironically touted in this very group chat. Making it worse was the fact that several officials involved had no business being in a chat involving sensitive operational details of planned U.S. military action. “Need to know” is an important criterion for inclusion, one that seems to have been ignored here.
What else is there to say? Lots, it turns out. Let’s start with the fact that such a conversation was taking place outside the Situation Room. The issue is not just security but seriousness. An app—even a secure one—is no place to work through significant policy choices. You want such exchanges to be deliberate and rigorous, not emoji-filled texts. A carefully prepared and run meeting is the right way to consider intelligence, weigh the options, and consider likely results and responses. I know my memory isn’t what it once was, but I do not recall Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell, Jim Baker, Bob Gates, and Dick Cheney discussing Gulf War plans in such a cavalier, casual manner.
Then there is the content of what was said. There was a lack of any mention of what the strikes might actually achieve or provoke in response from either the Houthis or Iran. In fact, CIA officials in the chat stressed that these bombings were not time sensitive. It is unlikely the airstrikes will deter the Houthis from further interference with shipping in the Red Sea or meaningfully diminish their capacity to do so. The best way to reduce the Houthi threat might be to alter Iran’s calculus. This seems not to have been raised.
Evident throughout though was the disdain for Europe that permeates this administration’s foreign policy. Arguing that restoring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea stood to benefit Europe more than the United States given trade flows, the Vice President complained, “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” to which Hegseth replied, “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” There is no appreciation whatsoever that we won the Cold War and that it stayed cold in part because of European efforts. Or that the only time Article 5 of the NATO treaty has been triggered was after 9/11, when Europeans rallied to our defense. Or that over one thousand Europeans lost their lives fighting alongside Americans in Afghanistan.
And here, as elsewhere, foreign policy is viewed transactionally with officials going back and forth on how to “compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans” and the need for “some further economic gain extracted in return.” Acting on behalf of freedom of navigation serves U.S. interests, but the discussion centered on what others owe us for our taking an action that also happens to be in their interest.
Two final points. One of the few good things about Twitter and now X is that much is preserved. So, we can see all the sanctimonious tweets about Hillary Clinton’s use of a home server as secretary of state coming from the very individuals involved here. Finally, Pete Hegseth, Mike Waltz, and many others in the administration owe Jeffrey Goldberg an apology. I know the belief is widespread in the Roy Cohn-inspired Trump administration that offense makes for the best defense, but to smear a journalist who handled classified information more responsibly than all of the national security leaders in the group chat is beneath contempt. And make no mistake: this was highly classified information that could have endangered U.S. troops and intelligence assets while enabling the enemy to take evasive action.
As I expect everyone now knows, Goldberg and the Atlantic did subsequently release the detailed operational plans. What apparently motivated them to do so were the repeated public comments by many in the chat and other White House officials that the group chat contained no classified material when it clearly did. It is unfortunate that it came to this.
One of the many takeaways from Watergate is that the coverup can be worse than the crime. Again, we have an administration that is not leveling with the American people about what obviously transpired. Several Cabinet-level officials may well have committed perjury in what they told Congress. Beyond the legality, this all adds up to a questionable political strategy. Nobody seems familiar with the adage that when you are in a hole, it is best to stop digging. It would have been so much better if the White House simply admitted the mistake and implemented reforms to ensure such things could never happen again. It is quite possible that these continued misrepresentations and the overall defiant tone will increase the political price paid by the administration and those involved, one or more of whom may—and arguably should—lose their job. Accountability could prove to be a tonic.
Capitulation
It was a week chock-a-block with capitulations. The two getting the most attention were the white-shoe, establishment law firm Paul Weiss and Columbia University. The former was in reaction to an executive order that threatened to chase away business by barring the firm’s lawyers from dealing with the government or even entering federal buildings. The latter raised a white flag after a cut of $400 million in government funding.
Two thoughts. It is one thing to make changes under duress that arguably should be made, quite another to do so to appease when there is no good reason to back down and pushing back is an available option. Appeasement will only encourage more attacks on law firms and universities, something we are already witnessing. It will be interesting to see if Paul Weiss, which claims to have chosen the course it did to preserve the firm, actually ends up weakening itself on the business side given its now diminished reputation.
That said, the two institutions are not alone in caving. There is Congress, where Republicans who privately question the administration are staying mostly mute lest they be primaried by opponents backed by Elon Musk. There are newspaper barons pulling back endorsements or op-eds for fear their businesses will suffer from political retaliation. Some other corporate leaders are acting similarly. And, of course, there are those in the executive branch who know better but are scared to speak up lest they lose access or their jobs entirely.
What worries me as much or even more than capitulation is weaponization. We are seeing the government use its weight to effect changes in the legal, media, and educational worlds. Where will it end? Could business, which is already feeling the ripple effects of the administration’s recent moves, be the next target? Will anti-trust and regulatory decisions be similarly influenced? A democracy rests not simply on checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government (as well as between the federal government and the states and localities), but also between government and the rest of society.
An uplifting coda to this conversation. New York Times columnist and author David Brooks recently delivered a talk to something called Joint Venture in Silicon Valley. It is the most thoughtful take on what is going on in this country that I have encountered. And it is both intellectually and emotionally filling. Do yourself a favor and watch or listen to it here.
It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
I will end this week’s newsletter with the annual unclassified threat assessment released (intentionally I might add) by the U.S. intelligence community. After beginning with a surprising emphasis on threats posed by non-state actors (cartels, terrorist and criminal groups trafficking in drugs, people, and more) the assessment focuses, as you might expect, on China, Russia, the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, Iran, and North Korea. It makes for interesting reading. So, I thought I’d take a few minutes of your time to highlight some highlights.
China stands out as the actor most capable of threatening U.S. interests globally, though it is also more cautious than Russia, Iran, and North Korea about risking its economic and diplomatic image in the world by being too aggressive and disruptive. Growing cooperation among these actors expands the threat, increasing the risk that should hostilities with one occur, it may draw in others.
The PRC remains the most active and persistent cyber threat to U.S. government, private-sector, and critical infrastructure networks.
The PRC seeks to compete with the United States as the leading economic power in the world. To do so, the strategy calls for a centralized, state-directed, and nationally resourced approach to dominating global markets and strategic supply chains, limiting foreign competitors, and making other nations dependent on China…China’s weak domestic demand, coupled with its industrial policies, such as manufacturing subsidies, have enabled a surge in cheap Chinese exports in sectors such as steel, harming U.S. competitors and fueling a record PRC trade surplus.
China almost certainly has a multifaceted, national-level strategy designed to displace the United States as the world’s most influential AI power by 2030.
Note: The assessment predicts mounting Chinese coercive pressure against Taiwan in the coming year but does not predict Chinese military action in the form of a blockade or attack.
Moscow’s massive investments in its defense sector will render the Russian military a continued threat to U.S. national security, despite Russia’s significant personnel and equipment losses—primarily in the ground forces—during the war with Ukraine.
Even though Russian President Putin will be unable to achieve the total victory he envisioned when initiating the large-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia retains momentum as a grinding war of attrition plays to Russia’s military advantages. This grinding war of attrition will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempts to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.
Russia has paid a heavy price in blood, treasure, and loss of international reputation and foreign policy options because of its large-scale invasion of Ukraine. President Putin upended two decades of Russia’s geopolitical resurgence, created new threats to its external and internal security, and strained its economic and military potential, making it more reliant on China and other like-minded partners like North Korea.
Iran’s conventional and unconventional capabilities will pose a threat to U.S. forces and partners in the region for the foreseeable future, despite the degradation to its proxies and air defenses during the Gaza conflict. The economic, political, and societal seeds of popular discontent could threaten further domestic strife akin to the widescale and prolonged protests inside Iran during late 2022 and early 2023. The economy is beset by low growth, exchange rate volatility, and high inflation. Absent sanctions relief, these trends probably will continue for the foreseeable future.
Even in degraded form, HAMAS continues to pose a threat to Israeli security. The group retains thousands of fighters and much of its underground infrastructure, and probably has used the ceasefire to reinforce and resupply its military and munitions stock so that it can fight again…The long-term Israeli-Palestinian relationship also hinges on the trajectory of an increasingly unstable West Bank.
Kim has no intention of negotiating away his strategic weapons programs, which he perceives as a guarantor of regime security and national pride, because they threaten the Homeland, U.S. forces in the region, and U.S. allies like South Korea and Japan…Kim seeks to intimidate the United States and its allies into abandoning opposition to North Korea’s nuclear weapons and its aggression toward South Korea.
A final thought. Much of the assessment is quite sober and more mainstream than the Trump administration’s foreign policy to date. It will be interesting to see if this analysis (largely prepared before the Trump administration settled in) has any impact on policy—and if, over time, the intelligence community continues to say things that the administration may not appreciate hearing.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Sunday, March 23: Fareed Zakaria, GPS (on whether Putin is ready for peace)
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens
Can’t heart you so I’ll just say it: I 🩷you, diplomat extraordinaire. Thank you.