Despite the turmoil created by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, Washington, DC, remains a city of blinkered bureaucrats and myopic lawyers, people who easily get easily excited when they notice relatively minor infractions of the rules even as they also ignore major violations of the Constitution and of the principles of basic human decency. The American political elite is strategically persnickety: The focus on punishing the violation of technicalities is a way of avoiding fights about core issues of principle. This was evident in Donald Trump’s first term, when gross and massive corruption (notably Trump’s ties with Arab autocrats) was ignored even as the Mueller investigation and the first impeachment of Trump zeroed in on relatively minor violations of norms.

The current brouhaha over the inclusion of Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg in a group chat planning an attack on Yemen has the same flavor. Planning a war on Signal is a serious security breach—and including the editor of a monthly magazine in the conversation is comically inept.

But all that pales beside the fact that bombing Yemen in order to keep the Suez Canal open is ineffective, illegal, and immoral. Ineffective because the United States has been, off-and-on, unleashing its military might (often with the aid of regional allies such as Saudi Arabia) on the governing Houthi movement of Yemen since 2015 and repeatedly failing to have any effect on its behavior. Illegal, because the war is backed by no congressional authorization (a common although deplorable practice in recent decades of imperial decadence) nor by the United Nations (there is a 2024 Security Council resolution calling on the Houthis to desist from hostilities, but it authorizes no military attack). Immoral, because there is a way to reopen the Suez canal that is nonlethal and in fact would save many civilian lives: force America’s ally Israel to end its onslaught in Gaza.

Representative Rashida Tlaib rightly rebuked her fellow lawmakers for their misplaced focus, observing, “More heat for using a group chat than for the bombing itself.”

Unfortunately, few in Washington, either among Republicans or Democrats, shared Tlaib’s position. Support for bombing Yemen has wide bipartisan appeal, despite the fact that it will not work and is an affront to common sense, law, and morality.

Yet, amid the bipartisan belligerence, there was one small note of dissent from a significant source, made not on the basis of anti-war principle but of nationalism. During the group chat on Signal, Vice President JD Vance raised the point that launching a war to keep the Suez Canal open—a move that mainly benefited American allies in Europe as well as Egypt—violated the spirit of America First that supposedly underwrites Donald Trump’s foreign policy.

In the group chat, Vance wrote:

I think we are making a mistake.

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.

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.

Hold the powerful to account by supporting The Nation

The chaos and cruelty of the Trump administration reaches new lows each week.

Trump’s catastrophic “Liberation Day” has wreaked havoc on the world economy and set up yet another constitutional crisis at home. Plainclothes officers continue to abduct university students off the streets. So-called “enemy aliens” are flown abroad to a mega prison against the orders of the courts. And Signalgate promises to be the first of many incompetence scandals that expose the brutal violence at the core of the American empire.

At a time when elite universities, powerful law firms, and influential media outlets are capitulating to Trump’s intimidation, The Nation is more determined than ever before to hold the powerful to account.

In just the last month, we’ve published reporting on how Trump outsources his mass deportation agenda to other countries, exposed the administration’s appeal to obscure laws to carry out its repressive agenda, and amplified the voices of brave student activists targeted by universities.

We also continue to tell the stories of those who fight back against Trump and Musk, whether on the streets in growing protest movements, in town halls across the country, or in critical state elections—like Wisconsin’s recent state Supreme Court race—that provide a model for resisting Trumpism and prove that Musk can’t buy our democracy.

This is the journalism that matters in 2025. But we can’t do this without you. As a reader-supported publication, we rely on the support of generous donors. Please, help make our essential independent journalism possible with a donation today.

In solidarity,

The Editors

The Nation

Donate

It should be clear that, in contrast to an anti-imperialist such as Tlaib, Vance opposes the attack on Yemen as a matter of narrow pragmatism. Vance is unconcerned with effectiveness, legality, or morality. In fact, later in the group chat, when it was announced that an apartment building where a Houthi official went to meet his girlfriend had been bombed—a war crime that obviously led to civilian deaths—Vance responded, “excellent.” Nor is Vance alone in his moral callousness. Jeffrey Goldberg, although a fierce critic of Trump, cavalierly dismissed the killing of civilian Yemenis as a minor part of the story, which he wanted to keep focused on the security breach.

Despite the narrowness of Vance’s demurrals about the Yemen war, they’ve contributed to his growing reputation as an anti-interventionist rebel against the foreign policy consensus. As The Washington Post reports:

Vance is now at the forefront of Republican leaders who view U.S. power differently. Many, like Vance, are wary of anything that could drag Washington into foreign entanglements, even if U.S. jobs could result from European orders of U.S. weaponry.

Beyond the Yemen war, there’s a divide opening up inside the Republican Party on foreign policy. The three main factions are the neoconservative remnant, the prioritizers, and the restrainers. The neoconservative remnant is personified by national security adviser Michael Waltz (who is apparently responsible for including the hawkish Goldberg in the group chat). This group believes in maintaining USA global hegemony on every front, against every foe. The most prominent of the prioritizers is Elbridge Colby, whom Trump has nominated to be undersecretary of defense for policy. Colby believes the United States needs to draw back from the Middle East and Europe to focus on what he sees as the real threat of a rising China. Colby is facing headwinds in the Senate, since his nomination is fiercely opposed by the neoconservatives. The restrainers share the conviction of prioritizers that the United States needs to draw down in the Middle East and Europe, but they don’t believe in military escalation against China. There are reasons to believe that Vance is at heart a restrainer.