Mike Waltz and Alex Wong have resigned from their respective positions as national security advisor and deputy national security advisor. Their departures, a little over 100 days into Donald Trump’s second term, serve as punishment for the “Signalgate” incident in March, which involved discussions of upcoming strikes on Yemen via the Signal messaging app. Waltz received heavy criticism for establishing the Signal group and inadvertently inviting journalist Jeffrey Goldberg into it. There was a sense in Washington afterwards that someone had to fall on their sword over the incident.

In that sense, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s supporters will hope that Waltz’s sacrifice will put the Signalgate story to bed. If so, Hegseth will owe Waltz a very good bottle of whisky. After all, it was Hegseth, not Waltz, who sent prima facie classified information in the Signal chat. Hegseth has also established another Signal chat in which he included classified information to a group including his wife. There are reports that Trump has become frustrated with Hegseth’s inability to successfully defray growing media scrutiny of his position. Waltz’s departure notwithstanding, the Defense Secretary will remain on thin ice in the administration for the foreseeable future.

Still, there is likely also a broader foreign policy component to Waltz’s departure. That’s because he and Trump are not exactly ideological kinsmen when it comes to national security issues. Waltz is far more ideologically rooted in the traditional vein of Republican foreign policy, favouring the use of force against American enemies and holding scepticism for diplomatic compromises. This had earned him opprobrium from far-Right Trump whisperer Laura Loomer. In contrast, Trump views national security policy through the prism of transactional gains and losses in any one moment. Crucially, he is also willing to make significant policy compromises in order to secure much-desired diplomatic “deals”.

This is especially notable in relation to US negotiations with Iran towards agreeing a new nuclear agreement. Waltz has been sceptical of these efforts, preferring to escalate sanctions pressure on Iran in service of maximalist demands backed up by the threat of military force. His departure should be seen as an indication that Trump will continue to push for diplomatic accords in relation to Iran, North Korea, and the war in Ukraine.

Perhaps reflecting Trump’s desire for a more ideologically simpatico national security advisor, journalist Mark Halperin reports that the President’s chief diplomatic negotiator Steve Witkoff is a frontrunner to replace Waltz. But while Trump has a close personal relationship with Witkoff, the real estate developer is manifestly not a national security expert. His appointment would risk bringing about even more embarrassing incidents than those which occurred under Waltz.

Other possibilities for a successor include Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Elbridge Colby, who is viewed as the brain behind the Trump administration’s push to reorient its focus abroad on China. He shares the President’s desire for avoiding distracting conflicts, as well as his push for allies to do more in their own defence. Another factor in Colby’s favour is that he is viewed as highly competent by the national security community and on Capitol Hill. Underlining that point, three Democratic senators voted to confirm Colby to his current position.

Waltz’s exit, and the White House’s choice of replacement, may have interesting consequences for American security policy. If nothing else, however, Trump has spared little time in reminding everyone that embarrassing the boss carries heavy consequences.