Trump’s ad hoc foreign policy sparks confusion among allies and aides amid chat leak and shifting agendas

US President Donald Trump’s unorthodox and impulsive approach to foreign policy has again come under scrutiny after a Signal group chat used by top national security officials to discuss a strike on Houthi militants in Yemen was inadvertently leaked — exposing internal disagreements, policy contradictions, and the administration’s increasingly improvised decision-making structure, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The incident revealed how key decisions, including military action, are now often debated informally via nongovernment messaging apps, bypassing traditional channels like the National Security Council or the State Department. The group chat, dubbed the “Houthi PC small group,” became public after Atlantic Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly added to it.

Trump defends Waltz, downplays breach
President Trump downplayed the security breach, insisting the strike was “totally successful” and standing by National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, who created the group. “Mike Waltz does not need to apologise,” Trump said.

While previous administrations relied on careful interagency deliberation, Trump has centralised decisions around a small circle of loyalists, many of whom lack senior government experience. The result has been a foreign policy driven by personal instinct and transactional thinking, often without regard for complexity or long-term consequences.

Discord and contradictions emerge
The leaked messages showed Vice President JD Vance questioning the wisdom of striking the Houthis immediately, pointing out the inconsistency with Trump’s public messaging on burden-sharing in Europe. “I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance wrote, though he added he would back the team’s final decision.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Waltz argued the US could charge European allies for the operation. There was no indication that a formal meeting had been held to weigh the attack’s implications, and the National Security Council did not respond to inquiries about internal disagreements.

Competing visions on Iran and Ukraine
The administration’s fragmented communication extends beyond Yemen. While Trump envoy Steve Witkoff told Tucker Carlson that Trump wants Iran’s nuclear program “verified,” Waltz said on Face the Nation that Trump demands “full dismantlement,” including Iran’s missile program.

Similarly, Trump’s top aides have issued conflicting statements on Ukraine. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said peace talks were “on the 10th yard line,” while Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “We’re not close to peace,” though he acknowledged some progress.

From Oval Office clashes to territorial ambitions
Trump’s off-script diplomacy has been marked by personal interventions, including a dramatic Oval Office shouting match with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump reportedly dismissed Zelensky as being in a “weak negotiating position,” insisting Ukraine show more openness to a peace deal — further straining ties with Kyiv and unsettling US allies.

Among Trump’s more radical proposals are plans to acquire foreign territory — including Canada, Greenland, and even the Panama Canal — and an idea to transform Gaza into a tourist hub by removing its Palestinian population and developing it into a “Riviera of the Middle East.”

A distrust of government institutions
Distrustful of the “deep state,” Trump has sidelined career public servants and government agencies, hiring private-sector envoys and limiting FBI involvement in vetting senior officials. His administration has repeatedly issued contradictory or incomplete policy messages that leave allies confused about Washington’s positions.

Trump’s April 2 plan for “reciprocal tariffs” also remains unsettled. While initially declared as a sweeping, retaliatory trade action, Trump signalled this week he may scale back the scope of the measure.

Is dealmaking enough?
Trump continues to emphasise his personal negotiation skills over formal diplomacy. While he has secured the release of several hostages from countries like Russia and Afghanistan, critics say his reliance on improvisation and loyalty over expertise has hollowed out critical decision-making structures and weakened America’s strategic coherence.

As the administration barrels forward with an improvisational style that blurs the lines between strategy and spontaneity, allies and adversaries alike are left navigating a US foreign policy increasingly shaped by late-night messages and ad hoc deals.