REVEALED: Here's the real reason Trump fired Michael Waltz 

President Donald Trump ousted his National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, tow days ago following revelations of unauthorized coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding potential military action against Iran.

The decision, which culminated in Waltz’s nomination as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, was driven by a combination of policy disagreements and a breach of trust. It pointed to tensions within the administration over foreign policy direction, particularly concerning Iran.

The seeds of Waltz’s dismissal were sown during an Oval Office meeting in early February 2025, when Netanyahu visited Trump to discuss regional security issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

According to sources familiar with the matter, Waltz engaged in “intense coordination” with Netanyahu prior to this meeting, advocating for military options to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. This stance aligned with Netanyahu’s long-standing view that the time was ripe to confront Iran militarily, given its weakened regional position following Israeli counterattacks and the collapse of allied regimes like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

However, Waltz’s hawkish approach clashed with Trump’s preference for a diplomatic solution. Trump, who had recently initiated nuclear talks with Tehran, was reportedly furious when he learned of Waltz’s discussions with Netanyahu.

One source stated, “Waltz wanted to take U.S. policy in a direction Trump wasn’t comfortable with because the U.S. hadn’t attempted a diplomatic solution.” The revelation that Waltz was seemingly working “hand in glove with the Israelis” to push for military action further eroded Trump’s trust, with a Trump adviser likening it to a betrayal: “If Jim Baker was doing a side deal with the Saudis to subvert George H.W. Bush, you’d be fired.”

Netanyahu’s office, responding to the allegations, confirmed a meeting with Waltz at Blair House in February but denied any “intensive contact” regarding military options. This denial did little to quell the controversy within the White House, where Waltz’s actions were seen as undermining Trump’s agenda.

The Signal Incident and Waltz’s Vulnerabilities

While the Iran talks were a significant factor, Waltz’s ouster was sealed by a separate incident in March 2025, dubbed “Signalgate.” Waltz inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor, Jeffrey Goldberg, in a sensitive Signal group chat discussing U.S. military plans for airstrikes against Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen.

People were infuriated when the leak of highly classified information was publicized and Waltz’s standing within the administration was significantly affected. Although the White House defended the general use of Signal, noting it is an approved app for government phones, the mishandling of sensitive discussions was a critical blow.

Waltz’s hawkish tendencies had already made him a polarizing figure. Waltz was known for his strong support for Israel and a tough stance on Iran, including calls for military confrontation to dismantle its nuclear program. His public statements, such as asserting in March 2025 that “all options are always on the table” regarding Iran, contrasted with Trump’s more conciliatory approach, which prioritized negotiations led by envoy Steve Witkoff.

Internal Dynamics and Trump’s Decision

Waltz’s troubles were compounded by internal White House dynamics. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and other senior officials increasingly viewed Waltz as a poor fit for Trump’s vision, which emphasized loyalty and alignment with the president’s agenda.

Despite efforts by Vice President J.D. Vance to strenghten Waltz’s position, including a March trip to Greenland to boost his profile, Waltz’s influence continued to wane.

Far-right activist Laura Loomer also played a role, urging Trump to fire National Security Council staffers she deemed disloyal, further weakening Waltz’s position.

The decision to replace Waltz with Secretary of State Marco Rubio as interim National Security Advisor was finalized by Trump himself on May 1, 2025. Rubio, a fellow foreign policy hawk but seen as more adaptable to Trump’s directives, was tasked with overseeing the National Security Council temporarily. This move raised questions about the future of the NSC, with some officials suggesting Trump might diminish its role in favor of a more personalized approach to foreign policy.

The February Oval Office meeting, where Trump announced direct talks with Iran alongside a wary Netanyahu, highlighted this divergence. Netanyahu, who has long campaigned against Iran’s nuclear program, expressed cautious support for diplomacy but emphasized that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons.

Trump has shown a clear preference for loyalists over traditional hawks like Waltz, signaling a move toward a foreign policy driven by his personal vision, with less reliance on established institutions like the NSC. Waltz’s nomination to the U.N. ambassadorship, while keeping him in government, is seen as a demotion, setting the stage for a contentious Senate confirmation process.

This episode exposed fault lines within the White House over Iran policy and highlighted Trump’s insistence on loyalty and control.

As Marco Rubio steps into the interim role, the future of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Iran and Israel, remains uncertain. What is clear though is that Trump definitely has shown a strong preference for diplomacy over military action.

WSJ and Channel 12 contributed to this article.