Speaking at the White House, Trump said the withdrawal would proceed regardless of whether an agreement is reached with Tehran, adding that U.S. objectives in the conflict were nearing completion.

“We’re finishing the job, and I think within maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer,” Trump said, indicating that the decision to leave would not hinge on negotiations.

“Whether we have a deal or not, it’s irrelevant.”The conflict, which began on Feb. 28, has disrupted global energy markets, with Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic. Trump linked a potential easing of fuel price pressures to a U.S. withdrawal, suggesting that regional dynamics would shift once American forces exit.

He also urged other countries to secure their own energy supplies, signaling a reduced U.S. role in safeguarding maritime routes. “If France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, they’ll go up through the Hormuz Strait and fend for themselves,” Trump said.

In a social media post earlier in the day, Trump reiterated that position, telling countries facing shortages to “go get your own oil,” while asserting that Iran had been significantly weakened.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the coming days would be “decisive” in the conflict, without ruling out the possibility of ground operations. He added that the United States had undertaken extensive efforts to ensure navigational access through the Strait of Hormuz, though he emphasized that future responsibility would not rest solely with Washington.

Hegseth also confirmed an unannounced visit to U.S. forces operating under Central Command, declining to disclose locations for security reasons.Trump said U.S. forces would withdraw once Iran is deemed incapable of developing a nuclear weapon for a prolonged period, framing the campaign as aimed at degrading Tehran’s military and nuclear capabilities.

The remarks come amid strained coordination with allies, many of whom have declined U.S. requests for military support to reopen key shipping lanes.

The administration’s stance suggests a shift toward limiting direct U.S. involvement in securing global energy transit routes despite ongoing instability in the region.

According to a statement released by the Israeli Defense Ministry, Hegseth conveyed strong backing for Israel’s military operations and said the United States stood with the country as the conflict continued to unfold. The remarks were made during a discussion between the two defence officials held overnight, the ministry said.Katz thanked the United States for what the ministry described as extensive assistance in defending Israeli citizens, highlighting the role of American support in Israel’s security response during the current crisis.Washington reiterates security supportThe statement from the defence ministry said Hegseth expressed Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security and reiterated that the United States supported Israel’s efforts to respond to threats facing the country.The ministry said Hegseth told Katz that Israel should “keep going until the end,” a message it said underscored the depth of U.S. backing during the ongoing confrontation. The statement did not provide additional details about the operational context of the conversation or the specific measures discussed between the two sides.The United States has long been Israel’s primary security partner, providing military assistance, intelligence cooperation and advanced defence systems. U.S. officials have repeatedly described Israel’s security as a key component of Washington’s strategic policy in the Middle East.Israeli officials acknowledge U.S. assistanceIn the same conversation, Katz thanked Hegseth for the support the United States has provided to Israel during the conflict, according to the ministry’s statement.The Israeli defence minister said U.S. assistance had been significant in helping protect Israeli civilians, the ministry said, though it did not specify the form of the assistance referenced.The defence ministry’s statement characterised the discussions as part of ongoing coordination between the two countries’ defence establishments as the situation in the region evolves.Security cooperation between the United States and Israel typically includes joint planning, intelligence sharing and operational coordination, particularly during periods of heightened regional tension.Coordination amid escalating regional tensionsThe conversation between Hegseth and Katz took place against the backdrop of widening instability in the Middle East, with military developments drawing increased attention from regional governments and global markets.Israel’s defence ministry said the talks were part of continuing engagement between the two governments as they monitor developments and maintain coordination on security matters.Officials from both countries have maintained close contact since the conflict escalated, reflecting the longstanding strategic partnership between Washington and Israel. The defence ministry statement did not indicate whether additional meetings or consultations were scheduled between the two leaders.The ministry also did not disclose whether the discussions addressed specific military operations or future policy decisions, noting only that Hegseth reiterated U.S. support for Israel and its right to defend its citizens.

The overnight exchange highlighted the ongoing diplomatic and military coordination between the United States and Israel as the conflict continues to shape the regional security environment.

Speaking at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, he stressed that every military action must align with national security priorities and legal standards.

Hegseth said he stood by the original decision to neutralize the vessel due to intelligence indicating a significant drug-trafficking threat.

He emphasized that combating illegal narcotics remains a key priority for safeguarding American communities and strengthening regional stability.

He explained that he viewed the initial strike and then left to attend a scheduled meeting, underscoring that operational command remained in the hands of on-site military leadership.

The defense chief framed the issue as part of ongoing efforts to modernize command structures and strengthen real-time communication during maritime operations.

Officials from the administration later clarified that the additional action taken that day resulted from the field commander’s tactical assessment of potential narcotics remaining on the wreckage.

They noted that rapid decisions in dynamic maritime environments are driven by the need to prevent illicit substances from reaching criminal networks.

Hegseth reaffirmed that the matter is under internal review, including discussions about whether the full video of the operation will be released.

He highlighted the importance of responsible transparency, ensuring that sensitive material is handled in a way that reinforces public trust and protects military personnel.

The September 2 action was the first in a series of maritime counter-narcotics operations conducted across the southern Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

These missions form part of a broader strategic initiative to disrupt transnational criminal organizations that threaten regional security.

Officials cited the campaign as a significant effort to safeguard coastal communities, strengthen international cooperation and reduce the movement of illegal drugs into the United States.

They emphasized that maritime interdiction requires precision, discipline and close adherence to legal and ethical frameworks.

The imagery shown to lawmakers raised questions about the conduct of the second strike, prompting discussion about the standards set out in the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual.

The manual outlines clear protections for individuals who are incapacitated or shipwrecked and not engaged in hostilities.

Hegseth acknowledged the importance of these legal safeguards and said that reviews are an essential part of ensuring military actions remain aligned with U.S. values.

He stressed that the military’s credibility is strengthened when policies prioritize humanitarian principles alongside national defense.

Administration officials framed the broader anti-drug strategy as part of an international effort to curb dangerous cartels and protect civilian populations affected by illicit trafficking routes.

They highlighted ongoing diplomatic, intelligence and enforcement partnerships with regional governments aiming to improve maritime security.

The defense secretary noted that conversations with lawmakers and oversight bodies are a normal part of democratic governance.

He welcomed constructive dialogue as a way to refine operational protocols and support service members who carry out demanding missions.

Hegseth expressed appreciation for the men and women of the armed forces whose work forms a central part of national security.

He emphasized that their commitment to lawful conduct and operational excellence remains a cornerstone of U.S. defense policy.

As reviews continue, officials reaffirmed that the United States remains dedicated to transparency, accountability and strong cooperation with international partners in combating transnational threats.

They added that upcoming evaluations will help shape future operations to ensure they align with both strategic priorities and humanitarian obligations.

Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, disclosed that he had inadvertently been added to a Signal chat involving senior Trump administration officials discussing a planned military strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.

The disclosure raised significant concerns over national security, the handling of classified information, and potential violations of the Espionage Act. Here are five key takeaways from this unfolding controversy:

1. The Group Chat and Its Unintended Guest

Goldberg revealed that he was unexpectedly invited to a Signal chat by someone identified as Michael Waltz, believed to be Trump’s National Security Advisor and former Florida congressman. On March 13, he was added to a conversation about U.S. military operations in Yemen.

The chat reportedly included top Trump administration officials such as Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. Additionally, key Trump allies, including White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and senior adviser Stephen Miller, were also present.

Goldberg did not announce his presence nor attempt to conceal it, appearing as “JG” in the chat, similar to other participants who used initials. He initially suspected a hoax but later confirmed the authenticity of the messages.

2. Security Implications and Legal Concerns

Goldberg stated that he was privy to operational details of the attack, including specific targets, weapons to be deployed, and the sequence of strikes—two hours before they took place on March 15.

He refrained from publishing those details but warned that if adversaries had gained access, American military personnel and intelligence operations could have been put at risk.

The use of Signal for discussing a military strike may have violated the Espionage Act, which regulates the handling of national defense information. Additionally, the setting of messages to auto-delete raises questions about whether official records laws were breached.

3. Internal Divisions and European Policy Debates

The chat messages also revealed Vice President Vance’s concerns about the U.S. intervening in Yemen. Vance reportedly expressed doubts about the necessity of the strike, noting that Europe had more at stake in protecting trade routes like the Suez Canal.

“I am not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now,” Vance reportedly wrote, referencing Trump’s long-standing demand that European nations take greater responsibility for their own security.

Secretary Hegseth responded, agreeing with Vance’s frustration over European “free-loading,” but insisted that the U.S. had no alternative but to act.

4. Political Fallout and Reactions

Democratic leaders swiftly condemned the episode. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz criticized Hegseth for “texting out war plans like invites to a frat party.” Senator Elizabeth Warren labeled the breach “blatantly illegal and dangerous beyond belief.”

Republicans were left scrambling. Senate Majority Leader John Thune called for a review, stating, “We’ve got to run it to ground and figure out what went on there.” Senator John Cornyn described the situation as “a huge screwup.”

5. Trump Defends Waltz Amid Controversy

Despite the scandal, President Trump expressed continued confidence in Waltz. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, “The President has the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.”

However, whether the administration’s response will be sufficient to quell bipartisan concerns remains uncertain as scrutiny intensifies over how national security information was handled in this extraordinary breach.