PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Primavera 2025

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1905314330507170288

Saludos.

[Derby]

Los chinos tienen otra forma de hacer "deals". No dicen que no de buenas a primeras, pero luego hacen de más y de menos...

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/28/blackrocks-panama-canal-ports-delayed

BlackRock's deal for Panama ports gets delayed, source says


Ship moving through the Panama Canal. Photo: Tarina Rodriguez/Bloomberg via Getty Images

BlackRock will not sign an agreement next week to buy two Panama ports from Hong Kong's CK Hutchison, as originally planned, a source tells Axios.

Why it matters: President Trump touted this deal in his recent address to Congress, and it seemed like an offramp for U.S. threats to retake control of the Panama Canal.

Zoom in: BlackRock and CK Hutchison remain in active discussions and due diligence, but the signing date could slip by weeks or even months, according to a source familiar with the situation.

At issue is growing political opposition from Beijing, which recently called the deal a "betrayal."

The South China Morning Post first reported the delay, which was confirmed by Axios.

There don't seem to be any similar problems with a larger deal between BlackRock and CK Hutchison, which covers 43 ports in 23 countries, although the intention is to close both that and the Panama deal together.

The bottom line: Don't be surprised if this becomes a negotiating chip in tariff talks between the U.S. and China.

[Cadavre Exquis]

La amenaza fantasma

Antonio Turiel · 2025.03.28

Queridos lectores:

Un fantasma recorre Europa. Después de décadas de placidez (o al menos así la han descrito los medios), hemos entrado en un estado de pánico, espantados (según nos cuentan) por una inminente invasión desde Rusia - importando a estas tierras aquella máxima atribuida apócrifamente a Kissinger, "El pueblo americano tiene solo dos estados: autocomplacencia y pánico". Desde Bruselas se exhorta a los ciudadanos de la UE a preparar un "kit de emergencia" para sobrevivir 72 horas delante de riesgos de lo más variado, pero entre los que se enumera el de la guerra. Entretanto, Europa lanza su nuevo programa de defensa, denominado "ReARM Europe" (siguiendo con esa práctica, cara a las instancias europeas, de enumerar sus planes en imperativo porque, supongo, lo ven más interpelativo - una colega siempre hace comentarios jocosos sobre esta práctica: "levántate", "dúchate", "desayuna"..., como una madre en día de colegio). En España, el presidente Pedro Sánchez anuncia que el presupuesto de defensa subirá hasta el 2% del PIB (lo cual, teniendo en cuenta que los Presupuestos Generales del Estado (PGE) español son aproximadamente la cuarta parte del PIB, quiere decir que supondrá el 8% de los PGE), y eso lo hará, según él dice, sin afectar a las otras partidas presupuestarias (cosa que todos sabemos que es mentira, pero es igual, seguimos como si tal cosa). Europa quiere avanzar rápidamente al rearmamento porque, según parece, las tropas rusas ya asoman por Helsinki, Praga, Budapest y Varsovia. Hay prisa, prisa, prisa... ¿No ven el riesgo existencial para Europa?

Obviamente, no existe tal cosa como la amenaza rusa. Rusia no se va a lanzar a conquista de Europa y arriesgarse a desencadenar una respuesta de los Estados Unidos. Además, dos países europeos poseen armas nucleares (Francia y el Reino Unido), lo cual es un riesgo excesivo. Y para acabar, hay un problema meramente de aritmética poblacional: aunque el territorio ruso es enorme, Rusia posee solo 140 millones de habitantes, mientras la UE son 450 millones. De hecho, para Rusia ya sería un reto logístico intentar ocupar permanentemente Ucrania, con sus casi 40 millones de habitantes - y es que es muy diferente defenderte en tu territorio que ocupar uno ajeno.

Eso no quiere decir que Rusia sea un corderito, pero obviamente el escenario que se nos plantea no tiene ningún viso, en absoluto, de realidad. Un enfrentamiento con Rusia sería para los eslavos agotador y costosísimo, incluso si no contemplara la ocupación del territorio. Y, total, ¿para qué querría hacer eso Rusia? Europa es, aún hoy tras las quiméricas sanciones europeas, su principal comprador de materias primas. Y hay no pocas personas, no solo en Moscú sino en Frankfurt y en París, que están deseando que las conversaciones entre Putin y Trump sobre Ucrania lleguen a buen puerto (sin contar con la opinión de los ucranianos, por cierto) para reestrablecer el flujo de materias primas a buen precio a los que Rusia nos tenía acostumbrados.

No. El movimiento rearmamentísitico y militarista europeo tiene otro objetivo y otra razón, y hay que entenderlo en el contexto del resto de decretos y directivas que están firmándose en Bruselas en las últimas semanas, como una desesperada respuesta a los cambios geopolíticos telúricos que ha supuesto el Segundo Advenimiento de Trump. Ya comentamos en el post anterior sobre la legislación Ómnibus y sus consecuencias en el plano ambiental. Pero la máquina legislativa europea no se detiene, y así hace unos días nos enteramos de que la UE ha calificado como estratégicos, y por tanto subvencionables, 47 proyectos para la extracción de materiales críticos, 7 de ellos en España (liderados por grandes empresas, muchas con pleitos en materia medioambiental). Estamos hablando, en la mayoría de los casos, de depósitos de escaso tamaño y por tanto de potencial producción, o bien muy dañinos ambientalmente. Si Europa se lanza a acelerar estos proyectos es porque percibe una necesidad desesperada de acelerar. Y es que la crisis energética y de recursos avanza inexorablemente. Mientras algunos necios se entretienen en discutir sobre los galgos y podencos de cuándo será el peak oil, dando entender que "nunca", los CEOs de las principales compañías que explotan el fracking en los EE.UU. (lo único que mantiene la producción mínimamente estable, aunque por debajo de los niveles de 2018) tienen claro que el peak oil es "ahora". En este momento, en Colombia y en Bolivia la situación es bastante complicada (por decirlo de manera suave) por la falta de diésel, un problema que se va extendiendo a toda Latinoamérica y a África (con Nigeria, principal proveedor de petróleo de España) a la cabeza. Lo único que mantiene a Europa protegida de la escasez de diésel es la fuerte recesión industrial alemana, pero eso no durará para siempre - ni tampoco es deseable para nadie. Al tiempo, los problemas que su escasez están originando en zonas críticas para el suministro de ciertos materiales auguran que los problemas de la cadena de suministros de hace unos años podrían ser una broma por comparación con lo que se viene ahora

Europa necesita energía, necesita materiales, y los necesita ya. La tan cacareada transición renovable, el REI, ha fracasado y se está hundiendo, y Europa no dispone de grandes recursos naturales. ¿De dónde sacaremos la energía que necesitamos? La respuesta la podemos encontrar en la primera de las tres preguntas que formulamos hace 9 años.

Europa va a invadir el Norte de África.

O, al menos, ésta es la intención no confesada de nuestros líderes (y aplaudida por empresas como Volkswagen, que ve no solo materia prima barata sino la posibilidad de reconvertirse a la industria militar). Es para eso que quieren las armas, es para eso que quieren militarizar las conciencias, es para eso que necesitan acallar los discursos críticos hasta que ya sea demasiado tarde.

Hablamos de defensa y de rearmamento, pero es un ejemplo claro de doble lenguaje al estilo de 1984, la novela  (en su momento de crítica contemporánea pero cada vez más anticipatoria) de George Orwell. En realidad hablamos de agresión y de preparación para la guerra.

Ni que decir tiene que la propuesta es profundamente inmoral. Europa, en vez de seguir por una vez en su Historia un camino de evolución y trascendencia, quiere volver a escoger lo peor de su pasado - del cual nunca se desentendió, como demuestran tantos episodios vergonzantes en África en las últimas décadas. Pero esta vez las cosas van a ser probablemente muy diferentes.

Europa no puede conseguir la sociedad guerrera que nuestros líderes quieren, al menos no en unas cuantas décadas - pero no tienen décadas para esperar. No tenemos capacidad técnica ni experiencia, ni nuestros jóvenes tienen ese patrioterismo chovinista propio de otros lares que les hacen prácticamente desear morir por la patria. Peor aún, los pocos sentimientos colectivos que podrían ir en una dirección parecida son de corte nacionalista, y para nada paneuropeo: yo no veo a un español, un italiano, un griego o un húngaro yendo a morir "por Europa". De hecho, creo que tampoco encontraríamos en esa trinchera alemanes ni franceses...

Pero es que Europa es un continente, hoy en día, avejentado y sin recursos, y con una juventud desencantada y profundamente enfadada porque la gente de mi generación les ha robado el futuro. ¿Qué alternativas de vida se les está dando a la gente que tiene ahora menos de 30 años - o quizá 40 años?

Por otro lado, los procedimientos profundamente burocráticos que son moneda común en el hacer de la Unión Europea implican que se gastarán muchísimos recursos en informes, evaluaciones, reuniones, etc completamente inútiles pero de los que en modo alguno van a prescindir porque son los que la casta gerencial europea usa para enriquecerse, aparte de para justificar su existencia. Es decir, la manera de funcionar de Europa garantiza la ineficacia absoluta de este esfuerzo bélico.

En realidad, el esfuerzo de guerra, con los 800.000 millones de euros comprometidos para ello, pueden suponer tal sobreesfuerzo y tales pérdidas en el ya relativamente tenue estado del bienestar que Europa podría llegar a implosionar, a colapsar socialmente, como aquellas personas ya de cierta edad que se empeñan en hacer esfuerzos que décadas atrás podían hacer con sencillez y que hoy en día les podrían matar. Es algo repetido en la Historia de la Humanidad: grandes imperios que, en una época de profunda crisis, deciden intentar recuperar la gloria militar del pasado y sucumben ante el peso del gasto militar y la acumulación de problemas internos.

En realidad, deberíamos estar pensando en cosas radicalmente diferentes. En la recuperación de tecnologías humildes, en la relocalización de la actividad, en la regeneración y en la renaturalización, y en la consolidación de la comunidad como unidad de base social. Sobre esto último, es significativo el llamamiento para que los ciudadanos dispongan de su "kit de supervivencia individual de 72 horas". ¿Y por qué 3 días y no 7, o dos semanas? En realidad, dada la complejidad de los riesgos que realmente nos amenazan - que son principalmente ambientales y climáticos - seguramente reforzar tu comunidad, tu grupo local, constituye una respuesta más segura, flexible, adaptable y resiliente.

Acabo ya. Estamos en una línea roja. Una que no debemos cruzar por un imperativo ético, pero también lógico: la guerra tiene muy mala TRE.

Queridos lectores: éste es uno de esos momentos en los que uno no se puede permitir el lujo de mirar al otro lado. Es el momento de plantar el pie a tierra y decir clara y firmemente: No.

Yo no quiero que maten a mis hijos en una sucia trinchera en medio del desierto para intentar mantener la rueda de esta sociedad insostenible rodando tres o cuatro años más. ¿Y Vd.?

NO A LA GUERRA.

Salu2.

AMT

Saludos.

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/068d640d-358f-4b9a-95c4-49335ffd0c07

China to review BlackRock’s deal to buy Panama Canal ports

First official response by Beijing adds to uncertainty over geopolitically sensitive transaction


Cargo vessels at Balboa Port on the Panama Canal. CK Hutchison plans to sell its two Panama ports © REUTERS

China’s antitrust regulator has said it will review the sale of two ports on the Panama Canal by Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison to a consortium led by BlackRock, adding to uncertainty around the geopolitically sensitive deal. 

The planned sale is part of a $22.8bn deal for 43 ports around the world, which has sparked criticism from China, with CK Hutchison having already been warned to “think twice” about selling to a group that includes US investors BlackRock and Global Infrastructure Partners.

China’s State Administration for Market Regulation published comments on its website on Friday saying it was aware of the deal and would “review it in accordance with the law to protect fair competition in the market and safeguard the public interest”.

It said the comments were in response to questions about the Panama ports deal from Beijing-backed newspaper Ta Kung Pao in Hong Kong. The comments came from an official in SAMR’s anti-monopoly division.

The move by Beijing follows earlier commentary in Ta Kung Pao this month that called the sale a “spineless, grovelling” move that “sells out all Chinese people”.

It is not clear whether Chinese regulators intend to review the entire deal or will limit their focus to the ports in Panama.

The two Panama ports account for only a small proportion of the deal value, which includes ports in Europe, south-east Asia and the Middle East, said two people familiar with the matter.

However, SAMR has been collecting information and preparing to launch the probe since last week, said another person familiar with the regulator’s work. The regulator was assessing whether the sale would breach regulations or restrict competition in China’s domestic shipping and international cargo trade markets, the person added. 

At least one industry expert has been consulted by SAMR to work on the case, according to two people familiar with the matter. The expert had suggested the regulator impose conditions on the purchase by the BlackRock-led consortium to ensure the deal would not weaken the competitiveness of Chinese shipping companies and cargo owners, the people added. 

The agreement “in principle” was announced in early March, with a formal signing of the Panama ports transaction expected by April 2. However, this is now set to be delayed, according to two people familiar with the matter. 

Talks between the BlackRock-led group and CK Hutchison to get the deal over the line were continuing, people familiar with the matter told the FT earlier this week. Both sides were preparing for a potential SAMR review, one of the people added.

CK Hutchison, controlled by Hong Kong’s richest man Li Ka-shing and his family, has increasingly been caught between Beijing and Washington over the Panama ports since US President Donald Trump complained of Chinese influence over the canal and said the US would be “taking it back”.

It is unusual for a Chinese state agency to review a deal involving a Hong Kong-based company. CK Hutchison’s holding company is incorporated in the Cayman Islands and the conglomerate’s ports in China are excluded from the sale. 

“Is this a warning shot to others or a look to scuttle this deal?” one person familiar with the deal said.

“On paper, the SAMR reviewing how this deal affects the Chinese shipping industry under its anti-monopoly mandate makes a lot of sense. But does anyone really believe that or is this . . . the Chinese scuttling a deal which will then have ramifications on Hong Kong as a financial centre?”

“Torpedoing the deal . . . would send shockwaves all around the financial world,” said Josh Lipsky, senior director at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center and a former adviser at the IMF. “The risks are so high for all involved.”

CK Hutchison is also under scrutiny from Panama’s auditor-general Anel Flores, who said this week his office was working “arduously” to complete an audit into the group’s two Panama port concessions in the coming days.

The audit is examining whether CK Hutchison has complied with the terms of the 25-year port concession, which was originally signed in 1997 and then extended for another 25 years in 2021. The concession is under scrutiny in Panama because of the relatively low returns it has generated for the state.

BlackRock declined to comment. CK Hutchison and SAMR did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 

[Derby]

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/28/trump-taxes-wealthy

Scoop: Trump might let taxes rise for the rich to cover breaks on tips

The Trump administration is discussing a surprising option to help fulfill his campaign-trail promises: Allowing the richest Americans' tax rates to rise in return for cutting taxes on tips, a senior White House official tells Axios.

The big picture: Some White House officials believe letting income taxes on the very highest earners rise would buy breathing room on other priorities, and help blunt Democrats' attacks as they seek to extend President Trump's 2017 tax cuts.

Officials say all discussions are preliminary and nothing is set in stone.

By the numbers: Currently the top income tax rate is 37%, charged on income above $609,351 for an individual or $731,201 for a married couple.

If the 2017 law were allowed to expire, that would jump to the pre-2018 rate of 39.6%, and lower the threshold above which the top rate applies.

Around 1% of taxpayers are in that top bracket, though they pay a disproportionate share of income taxes.

Under the budget reconciliation rules that Republicans seek to use to extend the tax cuts, that would free up more revenue that could be used to fulfill some of Trump's populist promises, such as eliminating taxes on tips.

Zoom out: It would aim to flip the script on Democrats, whose messaging focuses on Republicans potentially slashing Medicaid and enlarging the deficit in order to fund tax cuts for the super-rich.

"If we renew tax cuts for the rich paid for by throwing people off Medicaid, we're gonna get f--king slaughtered," the White House official said.

As the GOP under Trump becomes more of the party of working-class voters, the political risks of raising rich people's taxes are relatively small, compared to the payoff of cutting taxes on tips in the growing service-sector economy.

A majority of Americans, including a plurality of Republicans, support raising taxes on wealthier individuals, polls have shown.

Yes, but: Many Republicans would be reluctant to go along. A bedrock idea of conservative economic philosophy is idea that low taxes fuel economic growth.

Raising rates on top earners, even if only by 2.6 percentage points, would be anathema to many Republican donors and elected officials who have made tax cuts core to their party's brand.

Treasury secretary Scott Bessent has warned of "economic calamity" if the 2017 tax cuts are not extended.

Flashback: Among Ronald Reagan's signature achievements was lowering the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 28% by the time he left office.

A signature George W. Bush achievement was reducing the top marginal rate to 35%, from the Clinton-era 39.6%.

If Trump were to sign legislation that allowed the top rate to move upward, it would be a reversal of that pattern.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.eleconomista.es/opinion/noticias/13292250/03/25/el-alto-coste-de-desmontar-muface.html

https://www.eleconomista.es/salud-bienestar/noticias/13292110/03/25/acabar-con-las-mutuas-costaria-mas-de-1000-millones-a-la-sanidad-autonomica.html

https://www.eleconomista.es/salud-bienestar/noticias/13292125/03/25/mayor-gasto-en-profesionales-y-hospitales-para-paliar-las-esperas.html

https://www.pressreader.com/spain/el-economista/20250329/page/7/textview

Un modelo eficiente de colaboración en el disparadero

https://www.eleconomista.es/banca-finanzas/noticias/13292330/03/25/las-listas-de-espera-abren-una-oportunidad-a-las-aseguradoras-de-captar-mutualistas.html

https://www.pressreader.com/spain/el-economista/20250329/page/9/textview

CSIF: “Exigimos a la mutualidad que incluya a los especialistas médicos de DKV”

La sanidad privada reclama una remuneración justa para los centros

https://www.eleconomista.es/opinion/noticias/13292462/03/25/el-calvario-a-paso-lento-de-muface-y-su-condena-a-muerte-sin-juicio-previo.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.eleconomista.es/retail-consumo/noticias/13292437/03/25/la-patronal-de-el-corte-ingles-carrefour-e-ikea-alerta-al-gobierno-tendra-que-congelar-los-sueldos-si-se-reduce-la-jornada-laboral.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.eleconomista.es/energia/noticias/13291037/03/25/iberdrola-y-masdar-se-alian-para-coinvertir-5000-millones-en-el-parque-eolico-marino-east-anglia-3.html

https://www.eleconomista.es/energia/noticias/13292419/03/25/el-gobierno-pide-una-propuesta-comun-a-las-electricas-para-prorrogar-las-nucleares.html

https://www.eleconomista.es/energia/noticias/13292422/03/25/la-ue-libera-a-espana-de-indemnizaciones-por-las-renovables-de-mas-de-2698-millones.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.pressreader.com/spain/el-economista/20250329/page/45/textview

Golpe a los fondos: la subida impositiva en Cataluña frena la venta de pisos en alquiler

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.eleconomista.es/vivienda-inmobiliario/noticias/13291391/03/25/la-medida-sin-impacto-de-sanchez-la-golden-visa-se-despide-representando-un-025-de-las-compras-de-vivienda.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.pressreader.com/spain/el-economista/20250329/page/47/textview

La industrialización: el necesario cambio de modelo de la edificación

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.eleconomista.es/economia/noticias/13290859/03/25/la-inflacion-avanzo-un-23-en-marzo-y-recorta-en-siete-decimas-su-ultimo-dato-por-luz-y-gasolinas.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.eleconomista.es/economia/noticias/13292203/03/25/berlin-y-londres-haran-recortes-en-empleo-publico-para-costear-el-mayor-gasto-militar.html

Saludos.

[Cadavre Exquis]

https://www.pressreader.com/spain/el-economista/20250329/page/51/textview

Denuncian a España en la UE por discriminar a los extranjeros que alquilan en nuestro país

Saludos.

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/d2b37f08-2ca4-4a80-9a68-0821cbccbb6a

‘Almost comical’: the Trump team’s first national security crisis

The use of a group chat to discuss military attacks has called into question the competency of senior officials, despite their brazen defiance


JD Vance, Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz used a Signal chat to discuss plans for a military attack on Houthis in Yemen © FT montage/Bloomberg/Getty

When Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, found himself included in a Trump administration group chat to discuss attacking Yemen, his first reaction was to assume it was a hoax.

It was inconceivable, he imagined, for senior US officials to be using a messaging app on their phones to discuss military plans — let alone to invite a journalist into the conversation.

“[I was] 100 per cent convinced it’s a fake,” Goldberg told the Bulwark podcast about his initial response. “100 per cent. Because that doesn’t happen, somebody’s setting me up.”

On Saturday March 15, while Goldberg was in the parking lot at a Safeway, he saw on his phone that defence secretary Pete Hegseth had sent detailed plans of an upcoming US attack. (“We are a GO for mission launch,” he wrote.) It was at that moment the journalist realised the Signal messaging group might be real after all — and constituted a breathtaking breach of national security. After all, this was the sort of information “really four or five humans should know”.

“Signalgate”, as the scandal has become known, has turned into the first big crisis of Donald Trump’s second presidential term — just over two months in.

It has been revealing for two reasons. The episode has called into question the competence of some of his most senior officials, not just Hegseth, a former weekend Fox News host, but also Mike Waltz, the national security adviser who appears to have been the person who included Goldberg in the group chat.


Excerpts from the Signal chat involving senior US officials

Critics say such scandals were inevitable given the thin resumes of many of Trump’s senior officials when they came into the administration.

“The warnings were clear that . . . many . . . were not up to the job, they didn’t have the necessary experience,” says Julian Zelizer, a professor of political history at Princeton University. “And here you just watch and you can see in real time as they did something which was extraordinarily dangerous and, on some level, reckless.”

Democrats have been quick to make the same charge. “This is what happens when you have Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials,” says Jon Ossoff, the Democratic senator for Georgia. “Honestly it would be funny, except that it is deadly serious. They’re talking about the execution of lethal military operations.”

Just as striking as the massive security breach has been the Trump administration’s reaction — brazen defiance and a refusal to apologise or even acknowledge the vulnerabilities highlighted by the fiasco.

Indeed, the affair has revealed in the starkest terms possible how different this presidency is from Trump’s first term. During his initial stint in the White House the former reality TV star relied on experienced national security hands like former generals Jim Mattis, John Kelly and HR McMaster — the so-called adults in the room who pushed back against his more outlandish ideas.

This time, the guardrails are gone and even Trump’s most eccentric proposals — turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”, taking over the Panama Canal, incorporating Canada and Greenland — have all been supported uncritically by the rest of the cabinet.


Military veterans and family members of active troops call for the resignation of Pete Hegseth this week. But the defence secretary and others on the Signal group have refused to apologise © Scott Olson/Getty Images

The result is an administration stacked with people who critics say were chosen less for their qualifications or suitability for the role and more for their loyalty to the commander-in-chief, their commitment to his nationalist agenda — and how they come across on TV.

“This administration is Trumpier,” says Kyle Kondik, a non-partisan analyst at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “The people in the key jobs around Trump are more like him and closer to him than . . . the first time around.”

Faced with such a humiliating story as Signalgate, the Trump administration’s communications strategy has been clear — attack.

Hegseth called Goldberg a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes, time and time again”. Fighting to save his job, Waltz took the same approach, describing the Atlantic editor as “the bottom scum of journalists”.

Officials initially downplayed the incident, denying flat out that the texts contained any classified information, or that the officials were even discussing plans for an attack on Houthi targets in Yemen.

That approach barely changed after The Atlantic published an edited transcript of the group chat, in which Hegseth divulged the timing of the strikes before they were launched and even listed the weapons to be deployed — F-18 fighter jets, strike drones and Tomahawk missiles.


Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic editor, initially assumed it was a fake Signal chat when he was added, then realised that it was a breach of national security © Skip Bolen/Getty Images

Some of the texts were “almost comical”, Mark Kelly, a Democratic senator from Arizona, told NPR. “At the end of this text message, the secretary of defence puts ‘we are currently clean on OPSEC’, that is operational security,” he said. “That’s what he said. On an unsecured message app, where this information could have got into the hands of the Russians, or the Iranians, or the Houthis.”

Even after the second Atlantic article, which this time printed the chats near-verbatim, officials continued to play down the affair, a strategy that even some Republican lawmakers found objectionable. “I’m not buying it,” Kevin Cramer, a Republican senator from North Dakota, told reporters. A better approach would, he said, have been to “own it, it happened, and say it will never happen again”.

In a further sign of GOP concern, it emerged on Thursday that the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate armed services committee had asked the Pentagon for an inquiry into the potential “use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know”.

Mark Warner, vice-chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said that if a military or intelligence officer had exhibited “this kind of behaviour, they would be fired”.

"They’ve learnt from Trump. They’re imitating his tactics; they’re imitating his language as well

Trump administration officials argued that The Atlantic had changed the way it referred to the messages, speaking of “attack plans” instead of the “war plans” in its initial reporting — a distinction Goldberg dismissed as a “semantic game”.

But the hairsplitting appeared to backfire, with even diehard Republicans expressing their annoyance. “Trying to wordsmith the hell outta this Signal debacle is making it worse,” Tomi Lahren, the Fox Nation host wrote on X. “It was bad. And I’m honestly getting sick of the whataboutisms from my own side.”

Trump simply dismissed the scandal as a “witch-hunt” — typical of his tendency to hit back at the media, deny any wrongdoing and question his critics’ motivation.

“One of his defining features is that he never apologises and he never gives an inch on anything,” says Kondik. “And it’s hard to argue that strategy has been bad for him over the years.”

The difference is that he is now surrounded by officials who take the same approach. “They’ve learnt from him,” says Doug Heye, a veteran Republican strategist. “They’re imitating his tactics; they’re imitating his language as well.”

This mimicry was most conspicuous in a press briefing by Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, on Wednesday, when she angrily swatted away repeated questions about Signalgate and denounced a “co-ordinated campaign to try and sow chaos in this White House”.

“This has been the most successful first two months of any administration ever, which is exactly why they’re doing this,” she said.


Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, has dismissed questions about Signalgate, which she says is a campaign to sow chaos in Trump’s successful administration © Francis Chung/Pool/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Later she told Fox News the American people should be “grateful” to people like Hegseth and Waltz and “especially to President Trump for putting together such a competent and highly qualified team . . . who are getting things done, moving at Trump-speed to make this world a safer place”.

There’s nothing unusual, of course, about White House officials praising the president — that is their job, after all.

But experts say the Trump team goes much further. “Beyond just the policy line, they almost mimic the affect of President Trump,” says Zelizer at Princeton. “It’s like the Republicans in Congress — they speak the way he speaks, they act with a certain tough demeanour, the way he likes to present himself.”

One of the most striking examples of an official in tune with both Trump’s worldview and language is Steve Witkoff, a New York real estate developer who has known the president since the 1980s and who is now special envoy for the Middle East, while also playing a central role in talks with Russia over Ukraine.

In an interview with the rightwing media personality Tucker Carlson, Witkoff exhibited an almost Trump-like respect and admiration for Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, whom he has met in person twice — calling him “super smart”, “straight up” and “enormously gracious”.

Witkoff, who has no previous experience in diplomacy, said Putin had given him a “beautiful portrait” of Trump, which he then delivered to the president. The Russian leader also told him he had gone to church and prayed for Trump after the attempt on the then Republican presidential candidate’s life last July.


Mike Waltz at a meeting in the White House this week. The national security adviser, who appears to have been the one to add Goldberg to the Signal chat, described The Atlantic editor as ‘the bottom scum of journalists’ © Win McNamee/Getty Images

Repeating what many analysts believe to be Kremlin talking points, Witkoff claimed the “overwhelming majority” of people in the four eastern regions of Ukraine — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — that were illegally annexed by Russia in 2022 “want to be under Russian rule”. He cited the results of Kremlin-managed referendums that were denounced as shams at the time by the US and EU.

Witkoff also dismissed European plans to send peacekeeping forces to Ukraine as “a posture and a pose” and an attempt “to be like Winston Churchill”.

For some observers, the interview had parallels with the infamous shouting match in the White House last month, when vice-president JD Vance joined Trump in publicly berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for allegedly standing in the way of a peace agreement with Russia.

“They’re playing to an audience of one,” says Zelizer of the Trump officials. “It’s a way to protect their jobs and positions of influence. Because he [Trump] has made it very clear that if you don’t do that, there’ll be a cost.”