‘Pathetic’: Reading between the Signal lines, America’s scorn for Europe is clear

For Vance, in particular, the military action against the Houthis was all about Europe’s so-called “free-loading” on American protection.

The idea that a US military strike in Yemen could be part of a broader European interest is laughable to him. Vance’s views are troubling enough, but they were echoed by others in the administration, including Hegseth, who dismissed Europe’s role in international security with a contempt that no amount of “America First” rhetoric can justify.

In further texts released, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said while the US was going ahead with the strikes, it needed to be clear to European allies that it was not for free.

“As I heard it, the president was clear: green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return. We also need to figure out how to enforce such a requirement, e.g. if Europe doesn’t remunerate, then what? If the US successfully restores freedom of navigation at great cost, there needs to be some further economic gain extracted in return.”

Western Europe has looked to America to have its back in terms of security and defence since World War II. After years of President Donald Trump’s accusations that European nations were not pulling their weight, these texts further fuel a growing mistrust.

While the US commits 3.7 per cent of its colossal GDP to defence, it’s taken the majority of European partners in the trans-Atlantic defence alliance NATO until recently to cough up even 2 per cent.

The revelations come after several high-profile public remarks by Vance and Hegseth that had already ruffled European feathers.

In February, Vance’s comments at the Munich Security Conference accusing Germany of censoring far-right supporters and Hegseth’s speech to NATO downplaying European security concerns have only added to the tension.

What stands out in these recent texts is the bluntness with which US officials discuss the costs and logistics of military action.

National security advisor Mike Waltz goes as far as saying that the US would “levy” the costs of their actions on the Europeans, an indication of how transactional these relations have become. In essence, the US is seeing Europe’s involvement as an obligation, not an alliance.

However, beneath the heated rhetoric and disdain, there are larger implications for the US’s global security strategy.

The airstrikes, which had wide Western support, highlight a critical gap in both military and diplomatic co-ordination between allies. The Houthis’ attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes – vital for global trade and security – prompted the US to initiate joint operations with the UK, France and Italy, with logistical support from Australia, under “Operation Prosperity Guardian”.

But despite that collaboration, the apparent disregard for European input in the US’s internal deliberations raises the question of how much trust remains in these partnerships.

For European leaders, the leaked texts are not just embarrassing – they’re a warning. The US has long been the key player in global intelligence sharing, and the Europeans rely heavily on Washington’s leadership. However, the texts suggest the US may not view these relationships as mutually beneficial. Rather, they are increasingly seen as a strategic burden.

The question is no longer just about freeloading – it’s about whether European nations can afford to remain in a relationship in which their contributions are seen as so dispensable.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.