
In a surprising revelation, a rare break in lockstep between J.D. Vance and his political mentor, Donald Trump, has come to light. A new report from The Atlantic by editor Jeffrey Goldberg uncovers a private Signal chat among top Trump officials, offering a behind-the-scenes look at their decision-making process on U.S. military action in Yemen.
A Secret Chat Group with High-Stakes Decisions
Goldberg reported that earlier this month, he was unexpectedly added to a Signal chat labeled “Houthi PC small group.” Among its members were key political figures, including Tulsi Gabbard, Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, and senior representatives from various government agencies. The chat’s primary purpose? To discuss the pros and cons of launching airstrikes in Yemen. Eventually, the strikes went ahead—confirming for Goldberg that the chat was indeed real.
What stood out, however, was Vance’s dissent within the group. Unlike the typically unwavering Trump loyalists, Vance voiced concern over the timing of the strikes, suggesting that postponing them might be in the administration’s best interest.
Vance Breaks Ranks
A participant identified as Vance cautioned against immediate action, citing potential inconsistencies with Trump’s stance on Europe and the risk of rising oil prices:
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.
The U.S. has been intensifying airstrikes in Yemen for over a week now, aiming to prevent further attacks on vital shipping lanes in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea. While the administration argues that protecting these routes is essential, Vance pointed out a crucial discrepancy:
3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez, while 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary.
Vance’s skepticism reflected a broader reluctance to engage in actions that seemed more beneficial to Europe than to the United States.
A Clash of Perspectives
His concerns sparked a revealing exchange with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Vance bluntly expressed his frustration with U.S. intervention:
I just hate bailing Europe out again.
Hegseth, while agreeing with Vance’s disdain for European reliance on American military power, defended the decision:
I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.
However, he reminded the group that the U.S. remains the only global power capable of effectively executing these operations. Just days later, Hegseth committed a second Navy carrier group to the region, solidifying America’s role in the ongoing conflict. His position was clear: the bombings would continue, not for Europe’s benefit, but to reinforce U.S. dominance.
What This Means for Vance
While Vance ultimately went along with the administration’s course of action, his willingness to challenge Trump’s policies—even in private—raises questions about his political identity. Is he simply another Trump disciple, or does he possess a more independent streak than previously believed?
For now, this rare glimpse behind the curtain suggests that J.D. Vance is more than just a passive supporter—he’s someone willing to question, if not outright challenge, the decisions of those in power. Whether this marks the beginning of a broader ideological shift or a mere moment of internal debate remains to be seen.