Imagine this: you’re gearing up for a major military operation—lives are on the line, national security is at stake—and somehow you decide to share your war plans on an encrypted messaging app. Oh, and just for good measure, you accidentally include a journalist in the group chat. Yep, that just happened. Welcome to amateur hour at the White House.

A National Security Debacle Unfolds

According to reports, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—alongside a lineup of top Trump administration officials like Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and others—found themselves discussing operational details about U.S. strikes against Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis on Signal. You heard that right: Signal. The same app teenagers use to plan their next hangout.

And it wasn’t just broad-strokes strategy or vague concepts. No, Hegseth posted specific information about targets, weapon systems, and attack sequencing—the kind of highly classified details that should never see the light of day outside of a secure government facility. To make matters worse, they didn’t just leak it to some random intern—they accidentally invited Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to the chat. Apparently, the bar for entry was recognizing the initials “JG” without actually verifying who was on the other end. If that doesn’t scream “amateur hour,” I don’t know what does.

It’s almost too absurd to be real. But here we are, living in a timeline where national security is compromised because someone can’t manage a group chat properly. You know your administration is in trouble when your biggest national security leak comes from the same app where people are sharing cat memes and planning coffee dates.

The Hypocrisy Olympics

And here’s where it gets really rich—watching the predictable political tap dance from both sides of the aisle. Republicans who were practically salivating to see Hillary Clinton behind bars for her private email server are suddenly fumbling for excuses. Back when Jake Sullivan sent classified info to Clinton’s private email, Waltz declared that it was a criminal act and that Clinton should face charges. Hegseth himself piled on, too, branding Clinton’s actions as reckless and unforgivable.

Now that it’s their guys doing the leaking? Silence. Or worse yet, the good old “it’s not as bad as what Hillary did” routine. I’m sorry, but if your stance on national security hinges on party loyalty instead of principle, then you’re not fighting for truth—you’re fighting for your team. That’s not conservatism—that’s hypocrisy.

But let’s not let the Democrats off the hook, either. The same folks who defended Clinton and Sullivan with every ounce of their breath are now screaming about treason and national security breaches. Funny how their moral outrage only seems to activate when Republicans are at fault. I guess hypocrisy is the one bipartisan tradition Washington can’t seem to quit.

Loyalty Over Competence: A Fatal Flaw

The sad truth is, this entire mess stems from the administration’s obsession with loyalty over competence. You can trace this blunder right back to the personnel choices made by President Trump. Sure, he wanted to surround himself with loyalists rather than career bureaucrats, but there’s a fine line between being a team player and being wholly unqualified for your position.

Take Pete Hegseth, for example. Great guy. A solid conservative voice. An Army veteran and a strong advocate for veterans’ issues. But just because you’re good on TV and can fire up the base doesn’t mean you’re qualified to run the Pentagon. Critics warned from the start that Hegseth was too young, too inexperienced, and too prone to rash decision-making to handle the complexities of running the Department of Defense. And, as Jim Geraghty from National Review pointed out, those critics look downright prophetic now.

The fact that no one in that chat—none of these supposed national security experts—stood up and said, “Wait a minute, maybe Signal isn’t the right place to be sharing classified information” is mind-boggling. That’s not just a lapse in judgment—it’s a complete breakdown in basic operational security. If your first instinct when planning a covert military strike is to fire up a group chat, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood how to safeguard America’s secrets.

Legal Ramifications: Did They Just Break the Law?

There’s a reason classified information is supposed to stay within secure systems. The Espionage Act makes it a crime to share such information in an unauthorized way. Did Hegseth and company just break the law? Quite possibly. If we’re going to be consistent—if we believe in the rule of law and holding our leaders accountable—then we can’t ignore the serious legal questions this incident raises.

Imagine if this had happened under a Democrat administration. Republicans would be frothing at the mouth, demanding congressional hearings and criminal charges. Why should the standard change just because the offenders belong to your own party? The law doesn’t care about party loyalty, and neither should we.

A Moment of Wisdom from JD Vance

Now, I’m no fan of JD Vance’s Euroskeptic rhetoric—he’s way too quick to dismiss the importance of maintaining strong ties with Europe. But he wasn’t wrong to push for a broader conversation before launching strikes on the Houthis. For too long, America has rushed into conflicts without thoroughly examining the geopolitical fallout. Vance’s insistence on debating the merits of intervention shows a rare willingness to question the status quo, and I respect that.

Unfortunately, that little glimmer of wisdom is completely buried under the mountain of incompetence surrounding this debacle. We’ve got a Pentagon run by a guy who thinks encrypted messaging apps are good enough for planning warfare, and an administration that seems to lack even a basic grasp of operational security.

An Administration Out of Its Depth

This isn’t just a mistake—it’s a symptom of a much larger problem. When you prioritize loyalty and charisma over qualifications and competence, you end up with unforced errors like this one. America deserves leaders who understand the gravity of their roles—who know that protecting our national security isn’t a game and isn’t about looking good on cable news.

And to my fellow conservatives: If we truly value the Constitution and the rule of law, we can’t just look the other way when our side messes up. If we attacked Hillary Clinton for her recklessness with classified information, we must hold Hegseth and his colleagues to the same standard. Otherwise, we’re no better than the Democrats who twist themselves into knots to defend their own scandals.

We’ve got to demand better. We need leaders who put competence and integrity above blind loyalty. If we don’t, we’ll keep seeing mistakes like this one—costly, foolish errors that make our nation look weak and divided.

Let’s pray that our leaders find wisdom and humility before the next crisis comes knocking. Because as it stands, our enemies are watching—and they see a nation led by amateurs fumbling the most basic responsibilities.