It was inevitable that someone in US President Donald Trump’s administration would pay the price for the scandal surrounding leaked information about American military strikes against the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
On Thursday, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz became the first high-profile official in the Trump administration to resign almost two months after he added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, to a Signal chat group of senior officials discussing national security matters.
US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth appears to be on borrowed time, too, having committed one blunder after another, beginning with discussing military affairs through an unsecured app, even with his wife and brother. Others in the administration are also bracing for surprise dismissals.
The US President has struggled to secure a “victory”, whether on the economic front or in the foreign policy domain, during the first 100 days of his second term. He might, therefore, feel compelled to launch the next 100 days with a dramatic announcement, once again plunging the world into suspense.
Many expected a cabinet reshuffle to eventually take place. Mr Trump, after all, had no qualms about cutting loose even close confidants during his first term. But this is no passing episode, and it will come hand-in-hand with shifts in the domestic and foreign policy trends seen during the first 100 days.
The Trump team isn’t cohesive. It includes officials, with often-conflicting agendas, engaging in internal battles. This is largely due to the President’s belief in personalising policy, convinced as he is that he has been chosen to “fix” America and the rest of the world. A televised meeting of Mr Trump’s senior officials from a few days ago was astonishing. It’s unclear if it is the norm for cabinet members to heap deifying praise on their president in closed-door meetings, nonetheless the spectacle was surreal.
The challenge for Mr Trump in his second term is that he has armed himself with an agenda that has been shaped by ideological think tanks – and the manner in which he is implementing it has created discomfort within the governing apparatus.
There are concerns within the bureaucracy about Mr Trump’s “shock and awe” strategy, which has involved rebuking allies and jolting other governments out of their complacency, while creating new crises for his own country. Political and military elites are wary of Mr Trump’s reliance on outsiders, like Mr Hegseth and special envoy Steve Witkoff, and the expansive powers he has granted them. The spotlight is on Elon Musk, too, for the manner in which he and the controversial Department of Government Efficiency he helped create has gone about downsizing the administrative state.
Mr Trump and the establishment agree that China is America’s primary strategic rival and that its rise must be contained. But the disagreement lies in the details. Cutting off the nose to spite the face – which some view the President to have done by imposing high tariffs against China and other countries – is not a strategy. Who “blinks first” isn’t a suitable doctrine for great powers in times of great rivalry. The ensuing trade war is hurting the US economy.
Moreover, the establishment isn’t happy with the presidency encroaching on the powers of the legislative and judicial branches.
And yet, a large segment of the public supports Mr Trump because they believe in his promise to restore American greatness and stop other countries from exploiting the US. Indeed, many Americans agree that Europe should shoulder greater responsibility and costs for its defence, rather than passively benefiting from the transatlantic alliance. Many support his crackdown on illegal immigration, which they see as exploiting tax loopholes. Many back stronger border controls, even if they oppose the idea of annexing Canada. Many also dislike the leftward drift of American universities.
When it comes to foreign affairs, most Americans only care about what directly affects them. Israel, for instance, is viewed as a domestic issue, hence the majority of them continue to support it – even if many are uneasy about its brutal war in Gaza. Most Americans may not care that Iran imposes its expansionist ideology on the sovereignty of its neighbours through armed proxies. What matters to them is that it does not acquire a nuclear bomb and that the US doesn’t get dragged into a war with it. Mr Trump understands this, which explains why he has entered talks with Tehran.
The President now realises that his bid for a ceasefire in Ukraine has hit the wall. He understands that he cannot broker a deal between Kyiv and Moscow that excludes Europe. He has adjusted and revised his policies on Ukraine because he realises that his initial ideas are not viable. Now, he wants to shift focus to Iran and the Middle East, especially as he prepares for a consequential visit to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar this month.
Mr Trump’s message to Iran’s leadership contains both carrots and sticks. But the changes in key positions within the administration will affect their approach to the talks, particularly as there is already a split over the nature and foundation of those negotiations.
The postponement of the fourth round of talks suggests negotiations are faltering, even if they haven’t collapsed. Mr Hegseth’s message to Tehran this week – that Iran should stop supporting the Houthis – is a serious warning. This is a war the US is waging against the Houthis, and the Trump administration won’t accept sitting at the table with Iran while simultaneously being confronted by it in the battlefield, whether through the Houthis or other Iranian proxies.
There is a faction within the administration that opposes giving in to Iran’s agenda, namely, allowing the talks to serve as a shield protecting Tehran from accountability over its nuclear weapons programme, while dragging out the timeline, making the process elastic, and refusing to address ballistic missiles or armed proxies. Tehran wants only a broad “framework”, while the Trump administration insists on detailed agreements in writing. The talks are ongoing, nonetheless stumbling.
For Mr Trump, the priority is not only to promote the importance of “Made in America” and the restoration of American greatness. Another headline objective, perhaps just as important as promoting investment in the US, is this: trust in Mr Trump. That is the challenge.
This is no ordinary man, and never before has someone like him occupied the White House. No matter how unserious his approach to various issues might sometimes seem, he has fulfilled his dream of being taken seriously. Now, it is left to be seen as to what he does with his global status as the next 100 days get under way.
