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

In a Quiet Corner of America, Greyhound Racing Hangs On. For Now.

Published

on

In a Quiet Corner of America, Greyhound Racing Hangs On. For Now.

The announcer’s voice broke the silence that had fallen over the racetrack: “Here comes Spunky!”

As a white, fluffy object, supposed to look like a hare, shot past the starting box, a line of eight greyhounds burst out, a blur of canine energy rocketing down the straightaway.

Such races were once a familiar sight across the country, as bettors flocked to tracks in 19 states, from Florida to Massachusetts to California. At its height, in the 1980s and early 1990s, dog racing drew tens of millions of spectators, routinely posting higher yearly attendance figures than hockey or tennis. Spectator bets totaled roughly $3.5 billion every year.

But today only two dog tracks remain, down from more than 60. Both are in West Virginia, the only state where commercial races still take place. Attendance has waned as pressure from animal rights groups led many states to ban dog tracks and as the legalization of sports betting nationwide gave people a bounty of new gambling options.

Now a bill is making its way through Congress that would ban dog racing altogether. Fans and critics agree that the sport is on its final lap.

Advertisement

“I know at some point, it’s going to end,” said Ronald Welch, who was sitting at a picnic table last month at the track in Wheeling, W.Va. “But still I’d be heartbroken if it did.”

Public sentiment about greyhound racing had already started shifting by the early 2000s, due in part to the efforts of Carey Theil and Christine Dorchak.

Through their Boston-based nonprofit, GREY2K USA Worldwide, the couple has led lobbying to end dog racing over concerns about animal welfare.

The industry has faced criticism for killing dogs that could no longer race, though many of the documented cases took place before adoption programs became common in the 2000s. Critics also draw attention to confined living spaces in the kennels where most of the dogs live, along with reports of performance enhancing drugs, and diets of low-quality meat.

The New York Times reached out to five kennels associated with the Wheeling racetrack. They did not respond or declined to comment.

Advertisement

The efforts by GREY2K and other organizations have yielded changes, with 44 states banning greyhound racing. When voters in Florida, once a stronghold, approved a ban in 2018, it was a gut punch to the industry.

“We’ve been in the endgame phase since,” Mr. Theil said.

But in West Virginia, a law passed nearly two decades ago has made it harder to land the final blow. In an effort to keep gamblers from taking their betting dollars to neighboring Pennsylvania, which had just legalized slot machines, West Virginia in 2007 said casinos could sweeten the pot by offering table games — so long as they also were operating a track with live racing.

It also diverts a percentage of slot machine and table game revenue to a fund that pays race purses. This provision comes out to roughly $15 million to $22 million a year, accounting for about 95 percent of payouts.

“Without the subsidy, this industry wouldn’t exist,” Mr. Theil said.

Advertisement

A 2017 state bill would have allowed the casinos to operate without a live track, and done away with the subsidy. In a sign that support was fading even in West Virginia, it passed in both the state House and Senate. But then-Gov. Jim Justice vetoed it, saying “eliminating support for the greyhounds is a job killer.”

Mr. Theil has focused on rebutting assertions that the industry benefits the local economy. This year, a study by Ball State University commissioned by GREY2K found that apart from providing minimal low-paying jobs, the industry was buoyed almost entirely by the subsidy and provided nearly nonexistent economic benefit.

The concerns have made their way to Capitol Hill, where a bill being considered by Congress could spell the end of greyhound racing. The Greyhound Protection Act would make it illegal to train or possess greyhounds for racing and to bet on the races in-person or via simulcast.

The legislation was incorporated into the Farm Bill, a huge legislative package, which reauthorizes major food and agriculture programs roughly once every five years. The Farm Bill, which totals $390 billion in proposed spending, passed the House in April and is awaiting a Senate vote.

The act now looks like GREY2K’s best bet.

Advertisement

“Greyhound racing is going to end in the United States,” Mr. Theil said. “The real question is how.”

One hour southwest of Pittsburgh, the Wheeling Island Hotel, Casino & Racetrack sits at the southern tip of the most populated isle in the Ohio River. “The Island,” as locals called it, was once the home of wealthy industrialist families. Now, it is lined with dilapidated Victorian houses and beset by flooding and opioids.

But it is still home to the racetrack, which has welcomed locals and out-of-staters from Ohio, Pennsylvania and even Canada, since 1937.

In the 1940s, when horses raced there, the track was nicknamed “Little Churchill Downs,” after the storied Kentucky venue. The track transitioned to greyhounds in the 1970s.

Nearly 40 years ago, Delaware North, a food service and hospitality company based in Buffalo, purchased the track and added a full casino. Now, the course stages around 500 races a year.

Advertisement

In-person attendance is down about 60 percent over the last decade, according to Delaware North. But many of those who still come are fiercely loyal.

With the third race of the day about to begin, Donna and Dennis Kennedy lounged at a table in the betting area overlooking the track.

The couple, both former teachers from Bridgeport, Ohio, often hit the track together. It wasn’t always that way; for years, she refused to join her husband because of concerns about the dogs’ welfare.

“I’m an animal person,” she said.

But when the track was raffling off a free car, Ms. Kennedy couldn’t resist. “The first thing I did was march up to the adoption center,” she said, referring to a spot at the track where people can take in retired racing dogs. She ended up volunteering for a decade and adopting four dogs of her own.

Advertisement

Mr. Kennedy, 84, had the likeness of one of them, Fancy, inked on his forearm two years ago. It was his first and only tattoo. “If those were my dogs, I’m not going to allow anyone to abuse it because that’s an investment — and we love them,” he said.

Chuck Galloway has been betting at the track since greyhounds started racing there in 1976. On the small screen in front of him, race lineups showed dogs with names like Gonz Megatron, Loyal Duck, Bulldozer Mozer and Venus.

The races are simulcast so patrons in other states and countries can bet remotely — about 95 percent of bets placed on Wheeling races are made this way.

But even with lots of the bets coming from elsewhere, there’s a certain camaraderie at the track, Mr. Galloway said. He likened it to his time campaigning for Barack Obama. “I got to know people that I never would have crossed paths with,” he said.

Several track patrons pointed to what they said was a double standard — horse racing, a sport with a blue-blood pedigree, can still capture a mass audience, while dog racing is on the verge of extinction.

Advertisement

Mr. Welch, 60, the man who was sitting at the picnic table, had a theory.

“Horse racing is like apple pie. Like baseball, the Wild West,” he said. “But the dogs, they aren’t part of that American mystique.”

Mr. Welch grew up attending races in Iowa before the state banned the sport. In need of an anchor in his life after his mother passed away, he moved to Wheeling to live near the track.

“When I see them run,” he said, “it’s a spiritual experience.”

In downtown Wheeling, many people seemed to have at least a tangential connection to the racetrack — an uncle who trained dogs, a friend who worked there one summer. But not everyone knew that greyhound racing’s days could be coming to an end. Some said they were ready to see it go.

Advertisement

Outside Coleman’s Fish Market, Mitchell Visnic, 40, was adamant about his distaste for any animal-related sport. “I don’t even like the zoo,” he said.

Others were disappointed but not surprised. Michael Mudrak, 42, who was sitting nearby on his lunch break, said it was emblematic.

“Take another thing away from West Virginia,” he said.

Alain Delaquérière contributed research.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Pride celebrations struggle as corporate sponsorships dry up

Published

on

Pride celebrations struggle as corporate sponsorships dry up

Lyndsey Sickler, one of Pittsburgh Pride organizers.

Hannah Frances Johansson


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Hannah Frances Johansson

PITTSBURGH, Pa. — Pride celebrations across the country continue to lose out on large sponsorships as corporations, a key source of funding, shrink their affiliation with diversity causes and LGBTQ+ events.

Corporate sponsorships of celebrations in several cities, including New York City, Salt Lake City, Louisville, St. Louis, Orlando, and Pittsburgh are down from previous years, organizers said.

Jordan Braxton, co-president of the United States Association of Prides, which supports Pride celebrations nationwide, said that while some smaller Prides have seen a growth in sponsorships, a majority have seen a reduction.

Advertisement

She said the Trump administration’s dismantling of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives, has scared corporations away from sponsoring Pride celebrations. “I think that’s why some of the corporations have pulled back, because they don’t want that government scrutiny,” she said.

In his first days in office in 2025, Trump issued presidential actions targeting DEI within the federal government and encouraging the private sector to end what the administration considers “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”

In Pittsburgh, Pride organizers are trying to make up for lost sponsorships in time for their festival and parade in early June.

“It takes a lot of money to do this,” said Dena Stanley, director of Pittsburgh Pride. “Permittings costs, security costs, headliners costs, staging costs, cleaning crew costs, insurance costs, all of these are expenses.”

Pittsburgh Pride organizers think it will secure 30-40% of the sponsorship dollars they were able to fundraise a few years ago.

Advertisement

To narrow the gap, the group said they received a state grant and solicited individual donations.

Dena Stanley, director of Pittsburgh Pride.

Dena Stanley, director of Pittsburgh Pride.

Hannah Frances Johansson.


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Hannah Frances Johansson.

E Ciszek, who researches advertising and public relations at The University of Texas at Austin, said the downturn in corporate sponsorships is happening amid a movement against Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and the “attack on trans rights, in particular.”

“I think this is not just a matter of budget cuts, right?” Ciszek said. “It’s important to take a step back and see this more as a moment of risk, a moment of political pressure, and looking really at the limits of corporate allyship, particularly when LGBTQ visibility has become really politically costly.”

Corporations, she said, are calculating the risk of public support for Pride, which could expose them to litigation, political retaliation or consumer boycotts.

Advertisement

“What once was [an] organizational asset, has now become an organizational risk,” Ciszek said.

Lyndsey Sickler, another Pittsburgh Pride organizer, described Pride celebrations as empowering for LGBTQ+ people who live in communities where they feel scrutinized for their identity.

For some people, it’s their first time being in, “a space that is actively, loudly celebrating everything that is us,” Sickler said. “Nothing else matters at that point.”

Less sponsorship money can also impact year-round events and resources for the LGBTQ+ community.

“People sometimes look at Pride festivals just as a big party, which they are, but they’re also resource fairs, job fairs, and we also use it as a fundraising event,” said Braxton of the United States Association of Prides.

Advertisement

In Florida, Tampa Pride announced a one-year hiatus after a slew of corporations dropped their sponsorships, said Carrie West, who ran the organization.

“All of a sudden, bingo. Here you have no money, no grant money, no supporting money, to make operations, to plan, to get any kind of anything,” he said. “Oh my gosh, it was, it’s devastating.”

Continue Reading

News

Video: Judge Orders Removal of Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center

Published

on

Video: Judge Orders Removal of Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center

new video loaded: Judge Orders Removal of Trump’s Name From Kennedy Center

A federal judge in Washington on Friday ordered that President Trump’s name be removed from the facade of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

By Jackeline Luna

May 29, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending