Connect with us

News

‘Should I Fire Him?’ Inside Trump’s Deliberations Over the Fate of Michael Waltz

Published

on

‘Should I Fire Him?’ Inside Trump’s Deliberations Over the Fate of Michael Waltz

For much of this week, President Trump was consumed by a single question. What should he do about his national security adviser, Michael Waltz?

“Should I fire him?” he asked aides and allies as the fallout continued over the stunning leak of a Signal group chat set up by Mr. Waltz, who had inadvertently added a journalist to the thread about an upcoming military strike in Yemen.

In public, Mr. Trump’s default position has been to defend Mr. Waltz and attack the media. On Tuesday, the day after Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic broke the story about being included in the chat, the president said Mr. Waltz was a “good man” who had nothing to apologize for.

But behind the scenes, Mr. Trump has been asking people inside and outside the administration what they thought he should do.

He told allies that he was unhappy with the press coverage but that he did not want to be seen as caving to a media swarm, according to several people briefed on his comments. And he said he was reluctant to fire people in the senior ranks so early in his second term.

Advertisement

But for Mr. Trump, the real problem did not appear to be his national security adviser’s carelessness about discussing military plans on a commercial app, the people said. It was that Mr. Waltz may have had some kind of connection to Mr. Goldberg, a Washington journalist whom Mr. Trump loathes. The president expressed displeasure about how Mr. Waltz had Mr. Goldberg’s number in his phone.

On Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump met with Vice President JD Vance; the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; the White House personnel chief, Sergio Gor; his Mideast envoy, Steve Witkoff, and others about whether to stick with Mr. Waltz.

Late Thursday, as the controversy swirled, Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Waltz to the Oval Office. By the next morning, the president signaled to people around him that he was willing to stick with Mr. Waltz, three people with knowledge of the president’s thinking said.

People close to Mr. Trump say Mr. Waltz has been able to hang on in part because some in the administration still support him, and because Mr. Trump has wanted to avoid comparisons to the chaotic staffing of his first term, which had the highest turnover of top aides of any presidential administration in modern history.

And while Mr. Trump can always change his mind, the episode shows Mr. Trump’s willingness to disregard external pressures in his second term, while also grappling with the limits of the loyalty tests he imposed for staff across the administration.

Advertisement

Even before the Signal leak, Mr. Waltz was on shaky footing, viewed as too hawkish by some of the president’s advisers and too eager to advocate for military action against Iran when the president himself has made clear he prefers to make a deal.

An association with Mr. Goldberg, however hazy, gave Mr. Waltz’s opponents more fuel to feed the skepticism.

Some of Mr. Trump closest allies have questioned whether Mr. Waltz, a former George W. Bush administration official, was compatible with the president’s foreign policy. Mr. Waltz had gotten crosswise with Mr. Vance and Ms. Wiles in policy discussions, particularly regarding Iran, according to several people briefed on the matter.

In a statement, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said Mr. Trump has a team whose members debate each other but know that he is the “ultimate decision maker.” “When he makes a decision, everyone rows in the same direction to execute,” she added.

Weeks ago, a discussion arose among some aides about whether Mr. Waltz was ideologically aligned with the president. Mr. Trump, who has at times been effusive in private about Mr. Waltz, made clear he did not want to start the cycle of dismissals so early in his second administration, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Mr. Trump, who regretted pushing out his first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, after less than a month in 2017, believed it would feed a narrative that he engenders chaos.

Advertisement

After the Signal thread leaked, someone shared on X a snippet of a 2016 video of Mr. Waltz, produced by a group primarily funded by the billionaire Koch brothers. Speaking as a military veteran, Mr. Waltz looked directly into the camera as he condemned Mr. Trump as a draft-dodger and said, “Stop Trump now.” That snippet drew attention from Mr. Waltz’s critics.

By contrast, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s job appears to be safe, even though he shared detailed information about strike times for the attack on Houthi militants in Yemen in the Signal thread. MAGA stalwarts like Charlie Kirk have defended him online.

Mr. Hegseth “had nothing to do with this,” the president said on Wednesday.

Mr. Hegseth survived a bruising confirmation process in the Senate after being pushed through with help from Mr. Vance, and he has a solid relationship with Mr. Trump.

While Mr. Waltz may keep his job, the controversy has reminded Mr. Trump’s aides that the president’s strategy of crisis management — doubling down and denying, no matter how problematic the facts are — does not seem to work as well for them as it has over the years for Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

When the Atlantic story broke, Mr. Waltz denied meeting, knowing or communicating with Mr. Goldberg. But that claim was quickly called into question by photos that surfaced from a 2021 event at the French Embassy in Washington, where Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Waltz were pictured standing next to one another. Mr. Waltz’s allies dismissed the idea that the photo suggested the two men knew each other.

But the reality is that while Mr. Trump has demanded loyalty from his staff, some top officials are longtime Washington hands who have relationships, past experiences and contacts with people whom Mr. Trump despises.

“I would say the principle of getting a bunch of yes men and yes women around him is the guiding principle, a foundation of which is not having, or renouncing, any past that may be proof to the contrary,” said John R. Bolton, who worked as Mr. Trump’s third of four national security advisers and then wrote a revealing book about his time in the White House.

“Anybody who’s been around Washington 10 years, 15 years, has all kinds of backgrounds,” Mr. Bolton said.

In Greenland on Friday, Mr. Vance, who was traveling with Mr. Waltz on a visit to try to apply pressure for the United States to take over the territory, made clear that Mr. Waltz was at fault for adding Mr. Goldberg to the Signal thread.

Advertisement

But Mr. Vance, who was also in the group chat and has defended Mr. Waltz internally in the past, made a point of doing so again. It was a sign that Mr. Trump was ready to move on, for now.

“If you think you’re going to force the president of the United States to fire anybody, you’ve got another think coming,” he said. “President Trump has said it on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, and I’m the vice president saying it here on Friday, we are standing behind our entire national security team.”

News

Why men should really be reading more fiction

Published

on

Why men should really be reading more fiction

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A friend sent a meme to a group chat last week that, like many internet memes before it, managed to implant itself deep into my brain and capture an idea in a way that more sophisticated, expansive prose does not always manage. Somewhat ironically, the meme was about the ills of the internet. 

“People in 1999 using the internet as an escape from reality,” the text read, over an often-used image from a TV series of a face looking out of a car window. Below it was another face looking out of a different car window overlaid with the text: “People in 2026 using reality as an escape from the internet.” 

Oof. So simple, yet so spot on. With AI-generated slop — sorry, content — now having overtaken human-generated words and images online, with social media use appearing to have peaked and with “dumb phones” being touted as this year’s status symbol, it does feel as if the tide is beginning to turn towards the general de-enshittification of life. 

Advertisement

And what could be a better way to resist the ever-swelling stream of mediocrity and nonsense on the internet, and to stick it to the avaricious behemoths of the “attention economy”, than to pick up a work of fiction (ideally not purchased on one of these behemoths’ platforms), with no goal other than sheer pleasure and the enrichment of our lives? But while the tide might have started to turn, we don’t seem to have quite got there yet on the reading front, if we are on our way there at all.

Two-fifths of Britons said last year that they had not read a single book in the previous 12 months, according to YouGov. And, as has been noted many times before on both sides of the Atlantic, it is men who are reading the least — just 53 per cent had read any book over the previous year, compared with 66 per cent of women — both in overall numbers and specifically when it comes to fiction.

Yet pointing this out, and lamenting the “disappearance of literary men”, has become somewhat contentious. A much-discussed Vox article last year asked: “Are men’s reading habits truly a national crisis?” suggesting that they were not and pointing out that women only read an average of seven minutes more fiction per day than men (while failing to note that this itself represents almost 60 per cent more reading time).

Meanwhile an UnHerd op-ed last year argued that “the literary man is not dead”, positing that there exists a subculture of male literature enthusiasts keeping the archetype alive and claiming that “podcasts are the new salons”. 

That’s all well and good, but the truth is that there is a gender gap between men and women when it comes to reading and engaging specifically with fiction, and it’s growing.

Advertisement

According to a 2022 survey by the US National Endowment for the Arts, 27.7 per cent of men had read a short story or novel over the previous year, down from 35.1 per cent a decade earlier. Women’s fiction-reading habits declined too, but more slowly and from a higher base: 54.6 per cent to 46.9 per cent, meaning that while women out-read men by 55 per cent in 2012 when it came to fiction, they did so by almost 70 per cent in 2022.

The divide is already apparent in young adulthood, and it has widened too: data from 2025 showed girls in England took an A-Level in English literature at an almost four-times-higher rate than boys, with that gap having grown from a rate of about three times higher just eight years earlier.

So the next question is: should we care and, if so, why? Those who argue that yes, we should, tend to give a few reasons. They point out that reading fiction fosters critical thinking, empathy and improves “emotional vocabulary”. They argue that novels often contain heroic figures and strong, virtuous representations of masculinity that can inspire and motivate modern men. They cite Andrew Tate, the titan of male toxicity, who once said that “reading books is for losers who are afraid to learn from life”, and that “books are a total waste of time”, as an example of whose advice not to follow. 

I agree with all of this — wholeheartedly, I might add. But I’m not sure how many of us, women or men, are picking up books in order to become more virtuous people. Perhaps the more compelling, or at least motivating, reason for reading fiction is simply that it offers a form of pleasure and attention that the modern world is steadily eroding. In a hyper-capitalist culture optimised for skimming and distraction, the ability to sit still with a novel is both subversive and truly gratifying. The real question, then, is why so many men are not picking one up.

jemima.kelly@ft.com

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

Slow-moving prisoner releases in Venezuela enter 3rd day after government announces goodwill effort

Published

on

Slow-moving prisoner releases in Venezuela enter 3rd day after government announces goodwill effort

SAN FRANCISCO DE YARE, Venezuela — As Diógenes Angulo was freed Saturday from a Venezuelan prison after a year and five months, he, his mother and his aunt trembled and struggled for words. Nearby, at least a dozen other families hoped for similar reunions.

Angulo’s release came on the third day that families had gathered outside prisons in the capital, Caracas, and other communities hoping to see loved ones walk out after Venezuela ’s government pledged to free what it described as a significant number of prisoners. Members of Venezuela’s political opposition, activists, journalists and soldiers were among the detainees that families hoped would be released.

Angulo was detained two days before the 2024 presidential election after he posted a video of an opposition demonstration in Barinas, the home state of the late President Hugo Chávez. He was 17 at the time.

“Thank God, I’m going to enjoy my family again,” he told The Associated Press, adding that others still detained “are well” and have high hopes of being released soon. His faith, he said, gave him the strength to keep going during his detention.

Minutes after he was freed, the now 19-year-old learned that former President Nicolás Maduro had been captured by U.S. forces Jan. 3 in a nighttime raid in Caracas.

Advertisement

The government has not identified or offered a count of the prisoners being considered for release, leaving rights groups scouring for hints of information and families to watch the hours tick by with no word.

President Donald Trump has hailed the release and said it came at Washington’s request.

On Thursday, Venezuela ’s government pledged to free what it said would be a significant number of prisoners. But as of Saturday, fewer than 20 people had been released, according to Foro Penal, an advocacy group for prisoners based in Caracas. Eight hundred and nine remained imprisoned, the group said.

A relative of activist Rocío San Miguel, one of the first to be released and who relocated to Spain, said in a statement that her release “is not full freedom, but rather a precautionary measure substituting deprivation of liberty.”

Among the prominent members of the country’s political opposition who were detained after the 2024 presidential elections and remain in prison are former lawmaker Freddy Superlano, former governor Juan Pablo Guanipa, and Perkins Rocha, lawyer for opposition leader María Corina Machado. The son-in-law of opposition presidential candidate Edmundo González also remains imprisoned.

Advertisement

One week after the U.S. military intervention in Caracas, Venezuelans aligned with the government marched in several cities across the country demanding the return of Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. The pair were captured and transferred to the United States, where they face charges including conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism.

Hundreds demonstrated in cities including Caracas, Trujillo, Nueva Esparta and Miranda, many waving Venezuelan flags. In Caracas, crowds chanted: “Maduro, keep on going, the people are rising.”

Acting president Delcy Rodríguez, speaking at a public social-sector event in Caracas, again condemned the U.S. military action on Saturday.

“There is a government, that of President Nicolás Maduro, and I have the responsibility to take charge while his kidnapping lasts … . We will not stop condemning the criminal aggression,” she said, referring to Maduro’s ousting.

On Saturday, Trump said on social media: “I love the Venezuelan people and I am already making Venezuela prosperous and safe again.”

Advertisement

After the shocking military action that overthrew Maduro, Trump stated that the United States would govern the South American country and requested access to oil resources, which he promised to use “to benefit the people” of both countries.

Venezuela and the United States announced Friday that they are evaluating the restoration of diplomatic relations, broken since 2019, and the reopening of their respective diplomatic missions. A mission from Trump’s administration arrived in the South American country on Friday, the State Department said.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil responded to Pope Leo XIV, who on Friday called for maintaining peace and “respecting the will of the Venezuelan people.”

“With respect for the Holy Father and his spiritual authority, Venezuela reaffirms that it is a country that builds, works, and defends its sovereignty with peace and dignity,” Gil said on his Telegram account, inviting the pontiff “to get to know this reality more closely.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Raising a Baby in Altadena’s Ashes

Published

on

Video: Raising a Baby in Altadena’s Ashes

“So, my daughter, Robin, was born Jan. 5, 2025.” “Hi, baby. That’s you.” “When I first saw her, I was like, ‘Oh my God, she’s here.’” “She was crying and immediately when she was up on my face, she stopped crying.” “I got the room with the view.” “But it wasn’t until way later, I saw a fire near the Pasadena Mountains.” “We’re watching the news on the TV, hoping that it’s just not going to reach our house.” “The Eaton fire has scorched over 13,000 acres.” “Sixteen people confirmed dead.” “More than 1,000 structures have been destroyed.” “And then that’s when we got the call. Liz’s mom crying, saying the house is on fire.” “Oh, please. No, Dios mio. Go back. Don’t go that way. It’s closed. Go, turn. Turn back.” “Our house is burning, Veli.” “Oh my God.” “It was just surreal. Like, I couldn’t believe it.” “There’s nothing left.” “Not only our house is gone, the neighbors’ houses are gone, her grandma’s house is gone. All you could see was ash.” “My family has lived in Altadena for about 40 years. It was so quiet. There’s no freeways. My grandmother was across the street from us. All our family would have Christmas there, Thanksgivings. She had her nopales in the back. She would always just go out and cut them down and make salads out of them. My grandmother is definitely the matriarch of our family. My parents, our house was across the street. And then me and Javi got married right after high school.” “My husband’s getting me a cookie.” “Me and Javi had talked a lot about having kids in the future. Finally, after 15 years of being married, we were in a good place. It was so exciting to find out that we were pregnant. We remodeled our whole house. We were really preparing. My grandmother and my mom, they were like, crying, and they were like, so excited.” “Liz!” “I had this vision for her, of how she would grow up, the experiences maybe she would have experiencing my grandmother’s house as it was. We wanted her to have her childhood here. But all of our preparation went out the window in the matter of a few hours.” “And we’re like, ‘What do we do?’ And then we get a phone call. And it was Liz’s uncle. He was like, ‘Hey, come to my house. We have a room ready for you.’” “In my more immediate family, nine people lost their homes, so it was about 13 people in the house at any given point for the first three months of the fire. It was a really hard time. We had to figure out insurance claim forms, finding a new place to live, the cost of rebuilding — will we be able to afford it? Oh my gosh, we must have looked at 10 rentals. The experience of motherhood that I was hoping to have was completely different. Survival mode is not how I wanted to start. “Hi, Robin.” “Robin — she was really stressed out. “She’s over it.” “Our stress was radiating towards Robin. I feel like she could feel that.” “There was just no place to lay her safely, where she could be free and not stepped over by a dog or something. So she was having issues gaining strength. So she did have to go to physical therapy for a few months to be able to lift her head.” “One more, one more — you can do it.” “All the stress and the pain, it was just too much.” “Then Liz got really sick.” “I didn’t stop throwing up for five hours. Javi immediately took me to the E.R. They did a bunch of tests and figured out it was vertigo, likely stress-induced. It felt like, OK, something has to slow down. I can’t just handle all of it myself all the time. My mom is so amazing and my grandmother, they really took care of us in a really wonderful way. So — yeah.” “We’ve been able to get back on our feet. “Good high-five.” “I think it has changed how I parent. I’m trying to shed what I thought it would be like, and be open to what’s new. Robin is doing much better. She’s like standing now and trying to talk. She says like five words already. Even if it’s not exactly home for Robin, I wanted to have those smells around. You walk in and it smells like home. For us, it’s definitely tamales. My grandmother’s house is not being rebuilt. I can tell she’s so sad. “Let me just grab a piece of this.” “So right now, where Javi’s standing is the front. One bedroom there, here in the middle, and Robin’s bedroom in the corner. My grandma will live with us versus across the street, which is silver linings. Yeah, and we did make space for a garden for her.” “What are you seeing? What do you think? What do you think, Robin?” “The roots of Altadena — even though they’re charred — they’re going to be stronger than before.” “How strong you can be when something like this happens, I think is something that’s really important for her to take on. And that I hope Altadena also takes on.”

Continue Reading

Trending