On May 1, 2025, Mike Waltz was removed as President Donald Trump’s National Security Adviser, alongside his deputy Alex Wong, in a dramatic shakeup that exposed deep fissures in the administration’s inner circle.
The ouster, officially labeled a resignation but widely reported as a firing, stemmed from a March Signal chat leak revealing sensitive military plans and pressure from far-right allies like Laura Loomer demanding loyalty.
With Trump’s team scrambling to fill the void, the move raises urgent questions about executive competence, national security, and constitutional accountability.
A Abrupt Exit Amid Scandal
Waltz’s departure, just 101 days into Trump’s second term, marked the administration’s first major staff purge. The former Florida congressman and Green Beret, who gave up his House seat for the role, was ousted after inadvertently adding The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg to a Signal chat discussing a U.S. military operation against Houthi militants in Yemen.
Hours before his exit, Waltz appeared on Fox News, lauding Trump as “the greatest leader ever,” unaware of his imminent dismissal. His deputy, Alex Wong, an Asia expert, was also removed, leaving the National Security Council (NSC) temporarily leaderless.
Fired, Not Quit? Unpacking the Narrative
Despite the White House’s claim that Waltz resigned for “personal reasons,” multiple reports confirm Trump fired him, driven by the Signal leak’s embarrassment and demands for loyalty from figures like Loomer. Insiders describe a rushed ouster, with Waltz’s resignation letter serving as a face-saving formality, a tactic reminiscent of Trump’s 2017 firing of FBI Director James Comey.
The lack of transparency fuels speculation, with some arguing Waltz’s hawkish stance clashed with Trump’s war-averse policies. This ambiguity raises constitutional concerns about accountability in executive decision-making.
[IMAGE: donald trump looking aggressive]
Catalysts of the Crisis
The “Signalgate” scandal, where Waltz’s March error exposed military plans, eroded Trump’s trust, especially after Goldberg published the chat’s details. Loomer’s April 30 Oval Office meeting with Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and others, where she vilified Waltz’s loyalty, sealed his fate. Waltz’s broader use of Signal and Gmail for NSC work, including 20 chats on global issues, further damaged his credibility, prompting bipartisan calls for his removal. The administration’s claim that no classified data was leaked has done little to quell criticism of its security protocols.
Constitutional Stakes: Loyalty Over Law?
Waltz’s removal tests constitutional principles, particularly the Appointments Clause, executive authority, and public welfare. The loyalty-driven purge, influenced by unelected figures, raises alarms about the republic’s governance structure. The administration’s handling of the crisis questions its commitment to national security and constitutional accountability.
Appointments Clause in Question
The Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2) governs principal officer appointments, but the national security adviser role, often advisory, typically bypasses Senate confirmation. Waltz’s unconfirmed status allowed Trump to fire him without oversight, as seen in Lucia v. SEC (2018), which clarified confirmation requirements for significant roles. However, the sway of external actors like Loomer, who lacks any constitutional role, undermines the structured appointment process, raising questions about informal power in executive decisions. If interim replacement Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer with no security experience, assumes a broader role, courts could face challenges over qualifications, testing Article II’s limits.
Executive Authority and Public Welfare
Article II grants the president authority to manage the executive branch, including removing advisers, per Myers v. United States (1926). Trump’s firing aligns with this power, but the Signal leak’s exposure of military plans violates his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) precedent limits actions harming public welfare, and Waltz’s exit during Houthi operations—10 attacks on U.S. bases since March—signals vulnerability to adversaries. The First Amendment protects Loomer’s advocacy, but her influence over national security policy threatens Article II’s chain of command.
Due Process and Transparency
The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause indirectly applies, as Waltz’s public ouster without clear justification raises fairness concerns. The administration’s framing of a firing as a resignation obscures accountability, potentially violating public trust in executive actions. Article I’s oversight role could prompt congressional probes if instability escalates, especially with 56% of independents opposing Trump’s security approach, per recent polls.
Insights: Why Waltz Fell
Waltz’s removal stems from a confluence of factors. Signalgate’s Fallout: His March error, exposing plans to a journalist, humiliated Trump, who initially backed Waltz but grew frustrated by persistent criticism. Loyalty Demands: Far-right allies, particularly Loomer, capitalized on the scandal to demand a “MAGA” purge, reflecting Trump’s preference for allegiance over expertise. Policy Clashes: Waltz’s hawkish stance, advocating stronger Ukraine support and Middle East engagement, clashed with Trump’s isolationist leanings, making him expendable. Operational Failures: His use of Signal and Gmail for NSC work, including 20 global chats, revealed systemic security lapses, undermining his credibility.
These insights highlight a broader pattern: Trump’s prioritization of loyalty over competence risks destabilizing critical roles. The administration’s failure to address security protocols, despite a White House IT review, amplifies concerns about governance.
Critical Questions
- Who Wields Real Power? If unelected figures like Loomer can dictate high-level firings, does this erode Article II’s structured authority, inviting constitutional challenges?
- Can Trump Stabilize Security? With no permanent replacement named, how will the NSC navigate ongoing crises like Houthi attacks and Ukraine talks without risking public welfare?
- What Are the Security Risks? Do Signal and Gmail lapses indicate broader vulnerabilities, and could adversaries exploit the NSC’s leadership gap?
- Will Congress Intervene? Given Article I’s oversight role, will lawmakers probe the administration’s security failures, especially with public disapproval at 58%?
- Is Loyalty Sustainable? Can Trump govern effectively by prioritizing allegiance over expertise, or will this trigger more purges, testing the republic’s resilience?
These questions underscore the constitutional and practical stakes, probing the balance between executive discretion and accountability.
Reactions: A Nation Divided
Reactions to Waltz’s ouster reflect deep polarization. Trump’s base cheers the move, with X posts like “Best decision ever!” hailing it as a victory for “MAGA purity.” Supporters argue Waltz’s blunder justified his firing, with 62% of Republicans backing loyalty purges, per a recent poll. Critics, including Senator Chuck Schumer, contend Trump fired “the wrong guy,” pointing to Hegseth’s role in Signalgate, while 58% of Americans disapprove of Trump’s security leadership.
Democrats warn of a “constitutional crisis,” with commentators like Dean Obeidallah mocking Waltz’s fall after his congressional sacrifice. Moderates express alarm, with X users citing “terrifying” instability, and 56% of independents opposing Trump’s approach. Internationally, allies like NATO’s Mark Rutte, who worked with Waltz, may question U.S. reliability, straining treaty commitments