Vance argues he ‘wasn’t overruled’ in Houthi attack Signal chat: ‘I thought it reflected well on me’

New York Post - May 2nd, 2025

Vice President JD Vance addressed the controversy surrounding the decision to carry out strikes against the Houthis in Yemen, following leaked Signal chats indicating his skepticism. During an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, Vance clarified that his concerns about the operation's timing and communication strategy did not mean he was overruled by others in the Trump administration. He emphasized that the leaked messages were part of a strategic conversation on how to present the operation to the American public and ensure allied countries contribute fairly to defense efforts. Despite expressing reservations, Vance ultimately supported the administration's consensus, orchestrated by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and national security adviser Mike Waltz, to move forward with the strikes.

The leaked chats, published by Atlantic magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed Vance's apprehensions about the potential economic impact and the alignment with the president's European policy. He cautioned about possible spikes in oil prices and the need for better public messaging before executing the strategy. However, Vance acknowledged the president's directive and viewed the internal deliberations as a testament to the administration's commitment to effectively implementing the president's agenda. He praised the national security team for their thorough deliberations, which, in his opinion, reflected positively on their collaborative efforts to handle national security matters responsibly.

Pete Hegseth Trump Administration Jd Vance Mike Waltz Us Foreign Policy Defense Strategy Signal Chat Leak Yemen Strikes

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of a controversial military decision involving high-profile government officials. It effectively captures the complexity of internal deliberations within the Trump administration but could benefit from a more balanced representation of perspectives and greater transparency regarding its sources. While the story is generally clear and readable, simplifying complex geopolitical references could enhance accessibility. The topic's inherent controversy and public interest potential make it a compelling read, though its impact could be amplified by deeper contextual analysis and engagement strategies. Overall, the article serves as a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions about U.S. foreign policy and government transparency.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims that align with prior reporting, such as Vice President JD Vance's involvement in discussing the Yemen strikes and his expressed concerns over the operation. However, there are discrepancies in how these concerns are portrayed. The article suggests Vance's stance was primarily about messaging, whereas the leaked Signal chats show deeper policy disagreements, such as economic impacts and consistency with U.S. policy towards Europe. The claim that Vance was not 'overruled' is also questionable given the context of the chats. The article would benefit from more precise attribution of these claims to specific sources or direct quotes from the Signal messages.

Balance

The article primarily presents Vance's perspective, with minimal input from other key figures involved in the decision-making process, such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. While it mentions their roles in the discussion, it lacks direct quotes or statements from them, which could provide a more balanced view. The article could improve by including perspectives from other administration officials or external analysts to offer a broader understanding of the strategic considerations behind the Yemen strikes.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information from Vance's initial comments to the broader implications of the Yemen strikes. However, some sections could benefit from clearer explanations, particularly regarding the specific concerns Vance had about the operation and how they were addressed in the decision-making process. Simplifying complex military and geopolitical issues can help ensure that the article is accessible to a wider audience.

Source quality

The story references leaked Signal chats published by reputable sources like The Atlantic, which lends credibility to the information presented. However, it relies heavily on these leaks and Vance's statements without corroborating them with additional sources. Including insights from independent experts or analysts could enhance the article's credibility and provide a more comprehensive view of the situation.

Transparency

The article provides some context around the leaked Signal chats and Vance's public statements, but it lacks transparency regarding the methodology used to verify these claims. It does not specify if the author reviewed the full chat logs or relied solely on excerpts published by other outlets. Greater transparency about the sources and verification process would help readers assess the reliability of the information presented.