US President Donald Trump has shaken the high spheres of his administration by dismissing his national security advisor, Michael Waltz, in what is the first major upheaval of his second term. This decision, announced on Thursday, May 1, is not the fruit of a whim, but the result of an accumulation of tensions, revealing deep differences within the management team on the conduct of foreign policy of the United States, in particular vis-à-vis Iran.
Growing frustration
Michael Waltz, former special forces officer (Green Beret) and fervent defender of a hard line in matters of foreign policy, found himself with a door notoriously reluctant to engage the United States in new military conflicts. According to sources close to the administration reported by the Washington Postthe friction between Waltz and Trump intensified from the first months of the mandate, while the advisor pushed for muscular military options, especially against Iran. This approach contrasts with Trump’s displayed will to favor diplomacy, or at least avoid expensive commitments abroad. The break point occurred following a visit to the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, at the White House in February 2025.
During this meeting, Waltz would have shown excessive zeal by supporting Netanyahu’s position, who considered that the moment was appropriate to strike Iran. Anonymous sources report that Waltz had orchestrated intense coordination with the Israeli leader upstream of the meeting, exploring military options against Tehran. This initiative was perceived as an attempt to redirect American policy in an direction that Trump deemed premature, in the absence of prior diplomatic efforts. “Waltz wanted to take American policy in a path that Trump did not support,” said a source close to the case. “It went back to the president, and he was not happy. »»
The signal incident: the drop of water
-If strategic differences have undermined the relationship between Trump and his advisor, it is a more prosaic incident that sealed the fate of Waltz. In March 2025, he made a resounding error by adding Jeffrey Goldberg, editor -in -chief of The Atlantic magazine, to a sensitive discussion on the signal messaging application. This group, which included senior administration officials, discussed confidential military plans concerning strikes against Houthis in Yemen. This blunder, nicknamed “signalgate” by the media, not only embarrassed the administration, but also highlighted Waltz’s shortcomings in terms of communication security management. Despite Waltz’s attempts to explain this incident – he mentioned a technical error or confusion in his contacts – his justifications convinced neither Trump nor his colleagues. The case exacerbated criticism against him, some members of the administration accusing him of having acted too independent, even arrogant. “He behaved like a decision maker, not as an advisor,” said a source close to the White House.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio was appointed to temporarily assume the functions of national security advisor, a unprecedented double cap since the time of Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Rubio, perceived as more aligned on Trump’s vision and less inclined to bellicose postures, could stabilize a team prey to intestine struggles. However, some observers believe that this concentration of power in the hands of Rubio reflects the structural weakness of foreign policy positions under Trump, the president preferring to keep a direct control over major decisions.
An administration under tension
Waltz’s eviction intervenes at a critical moment for the Trump administration, which juggles delicate negotiations on Iran, Ukraine and Gaza. Steve Witkoff, special envoy responsible for these files, must navigate in a context of internal disarray, amplified by the departure of Waltz and his assistant, Alex Wong.
Foreign diplomats have expressed their perplexity in the face of this steep change, Waltz being perceived as a figure of stability in an often unpredictable administration. Beyond the questions of foreign policy, this dismissal highlights power struggles within the Trump team. Three factions seem to compete: Maga Loyalists, skeptical of international alliances; traditionalist Republicans, such as Waltz and Rubio; And more opportunistic figures, like Witkoff. The fall of Waltz, perceived as a representative of the interventionist wing, could indicate a consolidation of Trump’s control over his foreign policy, to the detriment of a more classic institutional approach.
Related news :