>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Waltz, who made the slip-up that let Goldberg into the loop, bizarrely escaped scrutiny. In fact, the Journal went so far as to praise him. Why? Because Waltz supports escalations in both Ukraine and Iran. Apparently, supporting more war gives you a free pass—even when you cause the leak.
The establishment narrative is clear: anyone who questions the military-industrial complex, even privately, must be silenced or smeared.
In one of the leaked messages, Vance offered a reasoned critique, questioning whether the U.S. was once again footing the bill for Europe’s security.
“Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake,” Vance wrote. “3 percent of US trade runs through the suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary. The strongest reason to do this is, as POTUS said, to send a message.”
Vance then raised a broader concern: Would the move confuse Trump’s America First message and spark economic blowback?
“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc.”
But others in the chat, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, argued for immediate action.
“I believe we should. This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which Biden cratered. But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% OPSEC. I welcome other thoughts,” Hegseth responded.
Ultimately, Vance accepted the majority decision and backed the plan.
“If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” he replied.
Once the operation was greenlit, Vance didn’t hesitate to stand behind the team. “I will say a prayer for victory,” he said, rallying behind Trump’s decision.
Despite the media spin, what the leaked messages actually reveal is that Vance was a thoughtful, loyal vice president—willing to voice his concerns, but ultimately falling in line with President Trump’s direction.
Just Released: Trump White House Collector’s Bobblehead!
Still, the Wall Street Journal chose to spin the debate into a narrative of disloyalty.
“The President’s policy carried the day,” the Journal’s editorial board concluded. “Mr. Trump now knows which of his deputies tried to block it and which tried to carry it out.”
But let’s be clear: J.D. Vance didn’t “try to block” anything. He brought up legitimate strategic and political concerns in private—exactly what any responsible advisor should do. When the team reached a decision, he stood with them.
This leak wasn’t about national security—it was about trying to fracture Trump’s inner circle and punish dissent within the ranks. It was a warning shot from the swamp: challenge the narrative, and you’ll be burned.
But if this leak proves anything, it’s that J.D. Vance has the backbone to question the status quo and the loyalty to stand with the America First agenda when it matters most.
