Trump allies were divided Tuesday over the fate of Mike Waltz, with some MAGA-aligned insiders calling for the national security adviser’s ouster and others demanding he get another chance, despite bearing public responsibility for including a reporter on an unsecure group chat that discussed war plans.

It’s a split that shows Waltz’s unique position in the administration. Traditional defense hawks — who care most about the breach in security at the center of the controversy — are also more likely to want Waltz to stay. They view him as someone who, given his close personal rapport with President Donald Trump, can sell a more aggressive foreign policy to hardcore MAGA ideologues who are wary of more traditional Republican policies. This could apply to advocating for military strikes against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen or strengthening the U.S. military posture against Russia.

Other conservative commentators who view Waltz’s positions as too neoconservative, however, were eager to use this episode to try and kickstart conversations on forcing him out.

The debate emerging in Washington lays bare the fact that different factions are vying for influence over President Donald Trump’s foreign policy agenda, and ultimately the future of the Republican Party’s platform, according to interviews with five people familiar with the administration’s internal thinking. All were granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics.

Many of Waltz’s sympathizers, conscious of the criticisms against him, are emphasizing his importance to the president’s foreign policy agenda.

“Waltz is integral to Trump’s plans to restore American strength abroad,” said one person close to the administration. “There’s no doubt he screwed up here, but he can own it and move on.”

Waltz’s job appears to be safe. Trump told reporters on Tuesday afternoon in a Cabinet meeting that Waltz is a “very good man” and the attack in Yemen was ultimately “totally successful.”

“You have to learn from every experience. I think it was very unfair the way they attacked Michael,” the president said of Waltz, who was in the room at the time. Trump instead directed his ire at the Atlantic journalist who had access to the Signal group chat, Jeffrey Goldberg, who he called a “sleazebag.”

But Trump has a history of changing his mind as public controversies brew. And even Waltz’s allies feared some members of the MAGA movement would continue to quietly push for his ouster in the future, whether through “Signalgate” or other means.

“They want an excuse to knife Waltz in the back because they think, erroneously, he isn’t in line with Trump’s foreign policy agenda,” the person close to the administration said.

Schisms are growing between various Republican foreign policy circles as Trump settles into the Oval Office. One of those factions is a MAGA-branded version of former President Ronald Reagan’s “peace through strength” approach to the world which values proactive military actions and strengthening U.S. alliances. Another is a total re-alignment of U.S. foreign policy that questions alliance structures and U.S. military actions abroad, advocated by Vice President JD Vance and prominent conservative commentators like Tucker Carlson. Vance, according to the group chat records revealed by the Atlantic, privately opposed launching strikes on Yemen.

“There’s clearly a debate in the party on whether we’ll stick with ‘peace through strength’ or an entirely new brand of America First that upends that,” said a senior Republican Senate staffer. “And surprise surprise: Both sides are using this scandal to advance their agenda and say someone from the other side should be blamed or fired.”

The staffer said there are numerous group chats with other GOP staffers, administration officials, and outside Republican experts debating the fallout of the Signalgate scandal and whether anyone should be fired in response. “We all made sure no reporters are in those chats,” the staffer quipped.

Among Waltz’s defenders are top GOP lawmakers such as House Speaker Mike Johnson, who on Monday night said the national security adviser should “absolutely not” resign and is “exceptionally qualified” for the job.

Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) cast doubt on the veracity of the Atlantic’s reporting and defended Waltz, citing his long standing relationship with the president. “This relationship goes back way before being named the position. I mean, he traveled on the campaign almost non-stop … with candidate Trump,” Banks said, “and he has President Trump’s trust on the big issues of the day.”

Banks also pointed to the strikes in Yemen being successful regardless of the information shared in the Signal chat. “I think the reason he’s standing by Mike Waltz is because it was such a successful strike and it accomplished the mission.”

Waltz coordinated the plans across agencies for the U.S. strikes in Yemen in the group chat, in which Vance voiced opposition to the proposed military operation. After the strike, Waltz texted the group chat emojis of a punch, an American flag and a flame.

Others argue the scrutiny should be on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Waltz, according to the Atlantic, created the group chat to coordinate meetings and erroneously added a journalist to it — but it was Hegseth who ultimately shared the most sensitive information, according to the Atlantic’s account, including targets for the strikes and attack sequencing ahead of the military operation.

“If [Waltz] made a mistake in setting up the group, the rest erred in chiming in on it,” said a second person close to the administration.

One former defense official said that even though the administration spent political capital getting Hegseth through Senate confirmation — given the accusations of sexual assault, heavy drinking and abuse — he remains “disposable” and can be replaced, though not without giving the White House a black eye.

The National Security Council strongly pushed back against assertions that there were competing factions within the administration.

“Anyone trying to drive a wedge between the national security leadership team misses the fact that these are professionals who collaborate and decisively carry out the president’s strong national security agenda,” National security council spokesperson Brian Hughes said. “Secretary Hegseth’s leadership at the Pentagon and the entire national security team’s effectiveness is shown in the success of the ongoing operation against Houthi terrorists.”

Waltz, notably, introduced Hegseth for his Senate hearing amid a hotly contested confirmation battle.

“They are brothers-in-arms who have put their lives on the line in defense of the American people in combat. They are friends, colleagues and work side-by-side to ensure President Trump’s peace through strength agenda is fully implemented,” Hughes added.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the two men “have a close working relationship and have been personal friends for a number of years” and “will continue to work together to implement President Trump’s America First agenda.”

Regardless of how that internal debate plays out, however, Republican lawmakers are fuming over the potential security risks from the group chat — despite top Trump intelligence officials in a fiery congressional hearing today repeatedly asserting that no classified information was shared. The Atlantic article indicated otherwise, including that the attack was discussed before it was launched.

“I think the whole thing is very unfortunate. We cannot allow it to happen again,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.).

“I just want folks to own up to their mistakes and not blame the Atlantic or the reporter. Be honest,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). “The worst part of this was transmitting highly classified information on an unclassified system, and one that Russia and China were clearly monitoring.”

Connor O’Brien, Jordain Carney and Eric Bazail-Eimil contributed to this report.