Embarrassment and dismay squarely hit the Trump administration after it was revealed that a high-level foreign policy discussion had taken place on an unsecured server. Michael Waltz, the National Security Council Director, further aggravated the situation by inviting Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, to the meeting.

Despite the denials, Goldberg correctly gave a good accounting of the conference and the subsequent discussion regarding the bombing of Yemen. Waltz naturally tried to discredit Goldberg, only to have the editor produce the actual words and then a copy of the text. Then, Waltz denied that the information was not classified even though Secretary of State Marco Rubio quickly contradicted him and vouched for the sensitivity of the mission plans. And, of course, Pete Hegseth seemed not to have a clue, even though he is the Secretary of Defense.

Although he did less damage than Waltz, Democrats immediately requested that Hegseth, not the NSC Director, resign. Why the distinction? Simply, Waltz is pro-Ukraine and is suspected of using a back-channel, e.g., Goldberg, to undermine Steve Witkoff, who is Trump’s chief negotiator regarding Ukraine. But Witkoff and Tulsi Gabbard did not help themselves by attending an unsecured meeting on foreign soil. Witcoff made it more difficult to explain because he was in Moscow.

Outside of the obvious fiasco, the incident exposed rivalries within Trump’s foreign policy team that could hurt his government. Waltz is a throwback to the neo-conservative advisers such as John Bolton and H. R. McMasters, who regularly tried to alter their boss’s decisions. Witkoff and Waltz are at loggerheads over Ukraine. One is more balanced, and the other is pro-Kyiv. Although the discussion that sparked the news originated in the Middle East, its roots lay in Ukraine.

Democrats favor Waltz, and they focus on Hegseth. They seized on the Defense Secretary including a detailed plan of attack in Yemen insurgents. But the old battle between neo-Conservatives and MAGA is clearly present, with Democrats clearly supporting traditional GOP hardliners. Garnering Democratic support is not going to help Waltz. Indeed, it probably undercuts the President’s faith in his loyalty. Hegseth is clumsy, but he does not dispute Trump.

Vice President J.D. Vance also adds a third faction questioning whether his superior should be involved in Yemen. He was gently rebuked by Stephen Miller, Trump’s closest advisor, and Vance stood down. It was a fascinating look at how decisions are made and the factionalism that abounds in the White House.

This potentially could become a threat to Trump’s nascent Presidency. Remember, it was internecine disputes and “leaks” that planted the seeds of Watergate. An obsession with security and press access led to an unhealthy environment. Trump would be well-advised to quietly rebuke his team for their carelessness. His problem is not “The Deep State” but the all-too-visible games being played by his closest associates.