![US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz departs the White House, in Washington, DC, USA, 0 3 April 2025. [EPA-EFE/FRANCIS CHUNG / POOL]](https://eualive.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/12943999-1280x720.jpg)
EditDoes Waltz’s ousting signal the first crisis in Trump’s second administration, and what does it mean for Ukraine?
Trump’s pro-Russia leanings leave Ukraine’s fate tied to navigating his unpredictable foreign policy
The abrupt replacement of National Security Adviser Mike Waltz with Senator Marco Rubio on 1 May has sparked intense debate about whether this marks the first major crisis in President Donald Trump’s second administration. The move, prompted by a series of security blunders culminating in the “Signalgate” scandal, raises questions about the administration’s cohesion and its implications for U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine.
Trump, in a social media post, said he would nominate Waltz to be the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, adding that “he has worked hard to put our nation’s interests first.” The move clearly suggests that Waltz was sent to “a parking spot”. Trump’s relationship with the U.N. has consistently been sceptical, often framing it as inefficient, biased, or misaligned with U.S. interests.
Waltz, a former congressman and military veteran, was appointed National Security Adviser in January 2025, tasked with executing Trump’s “America First” foreign policy. His tenure was marred by controversy, most notably the Signalgate scandal, where he inadvertently added Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, to a Signal group chat discussing sensitive national security issues, including military strikes in Yemen.
The chat, one of over 20 created by Walz’s team for crisis situations like Ukraine and Gaza, exposed internal discussions and raised alarms about security protocols. Additional criticisms included Waltz’s use of personal Gmail accounts for government communications and his perceived lack of influence compared to predecessors like Jake Sullivan. On 1 May Trump replaced Waltz with Rubio, a seasoned senator with a more professional grip on foreign policy issues, amid public and congressional pressure for accountability.
The Signalgate leak, detailed by The Guardian on 27 March, exposed a lack of discipline in handling classified communications, undermining confidence in the administration’s national security apparatus. Politico’s 3 April report noted that the chats discussed confidential issues, prompting bipartisan calls for Walz’s dismissal. This incident, occurring within the first 100 days, suggests early instability in Trump’s team, as highlighted by Foreign Policy’s 17 April analysis of the administration’s “chaotic” start.
Reuters’ 10 March report points to broader incoherence in Trump’s foreign policy, with “combustible personalities and shifting politics” driving decisions. Walz’s ousting reflects tensions between Trump’s loyalists and more traditional Republican figures like Rubio, who may push for a stronger anti-Russia stance. The Atlantic Council’s 6 March analysis suggests splits between “peace through strength” advocates and those favoring appeasement of Russia, with Waltz caught in the crossfire.
Not really a crisis?
Trump’s rapid appointment of Rubio mitigates perceptions of a crisis. Reuters notes Rubio’s interim role could stabilize the National Security Council, signaling adaptability rather than disarray.
Foreign Policy’s 17 April assessment describes Waltz as having “relatively less influence,” suggesting his departure does not disrupt core decision-making. The administration’s focus on high-profile figures like Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who has driven Ukraine policy, minimizes Waltz’s exit’s impact.
NPR’s 28 March report frames the administration’s response to Signalgate as a classic Trump tactic—denying, downplaying, and attacking the messenger. This strategy may deflect long-term damage, portraying Waltz’s ousting as a calculated move to appease critics rather than a systemic failure.
All in all, Waltz’s ousting does not constitute a full-blown crisis but highlights vulnerabilities in the administration’s early months. However, persistent incoherence, as Reuters underscores, could escalate future missteps into a broader crisis if not addressed.
Good or bad for Ukraine?
Rubio, a vocal critic of Russia, has consistently supported Ukraine’s defence. His Senate record includes advocating for lethal aid since 2014, contrasting with Waltz’s less defined role. Rubio’s interim appointment could push for sustained or increased military support, aligning with the Atlantic Council’s 27 call to “tighten the screws on Russia.”
Reuters’ 10 March analysis highlights Trump’s personal control over Ukraine policy, often overriding advisers. Waltz’s limited influence suggests his departure may not alter Trump’s preference for a Russia-favorable ceasefire. If Rubio prioritizes domestic political battles, as Foreign Policy’s 17 April overview suggests, Ukraine may face prolonged uncertainty.
Thus, Waltz’s departure is likely moderately beneficial for Ukraine. Rubio’s pro-Ukraine stance and the concurrent resumption of weapons shipments signal potential improvements in U.S. support, addressing Ukraine’s urgent need for munitions amid Russian advances.
However, Trump’s dominance and pro-Russia leanings, as highlighted by multiple sources, cap the benefits, leaving Ukraine’s fate tied to navigating Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy. Kyiv’s strategic diplomacy, evident in the minerals deal, will be crucial to leveraging this shift for its survival.
With Reuters, The Guardian, Foreign Policy, NPR, edited by g.g.
Updated: May 2, 2025 - 04:12
