In the first major shake-up of Trump’s second term, Michael Waltz has been removed as national security adviser. The White House gave no explanation, but sources say Waltz drew fire for adding Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic, to a Signal chat with other national security officials about a recent U.S. strike on Houthi targets in Yemen.

But Waltz’s ouster likely runs deeper. It reflects a growing internal struggle over the direction of national security policy — a familiar pattern in American politics. From Hamilton’s Federalists to Jefferson’s Old Republicans, the fight over foreign policy priorities has shaped administrations since the founding.

Good strategy requires focus and discipline. The United States must prioritize its goals, not squander its power on open-ended crusades.

In a recent American Enterprise Institute essay, Hal Brands identified five competing foreign policy factions jockeying for influence under Trump. The two most influential camps are the “global hawks” and the “come home, America” bloc.

The Global Hawks — often dismissed as neocons — include Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They insist on maintaining U.S. primacy to preserve global security and stability. This faction champions aggressive containment of adversaries like Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. It also defends long-standing U.S. alliances, though now under pressure to renegotiate the terms.

The other faction, often called the “disengagers,” frames U.S. strategy through the lens of “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their primary goal is to avoid further entanglements in the Middle East by scaling back U.S. military involvement. They also oppose military aid to Ukraine, citing the risk of escalation with Russia. Vice President JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard stand out as leading figures in this camp.

Brands identifies three additional factions: the “Asia firsters,” the “economic nationalists,” and the “MAGA hardliners.” The most consequential alliance may be the one forming between the “come home, America” bloc and the “MAGA hardliners.” That coalition threatens to upend decades of Republican foreign policy — to the country’s detriment.

Force without strategy

Since the Vietnam War, the GOP has generally stood for national security: strong defense, reliable alliances, and a forward-leaning military posture. President Trump largely embraced that tradition during his first term. His national security strategy took a clear stance, particularly on South Asia, replacing President Obama’s unfocused approach to Afghanistan with a more coherent plan.

Yet, as H.R. McMaster notes in his memoir “At War with Ourselves,” Trump often strayed from those principles. While many of his instincts were sound, he frequently abandoned them when challenged — or simply deferred to whoever had his ear last.

Some observers see Waltz’s ouster as a sign that the “come home, America” faction is gaining influence within the White House. That remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Abandoning the traditional Republican defense posture would be a mistake.

The core issue isn’t military force itself — it’s the use of force without a coherent strategy rooted in defending U.S. interests. Too many in Washington treat national security as a tool for serving some imagined “international community.” That’s how the Obama-Biden team, and even George W. Bush, stumbled: They lacked prudence.

Prudence, as Aristotle defined it, is the political virtue essential to statesmanship. It’s the ability to match means to ends — to pursue what’s right with what works. In foreign policy, that means setting clear objectives and taking deliberate action to apply power, influence, and, when needed, force.

Return to what works

Since the 1990s, U.S. foreign policy has often shown hubris rather than prudence. Clinton, Obama, and now Biden have placed their faith in global institutions, believing U.S. power exists to uphold abstract international norms. Their goal has been to build a “global good” — a corporatist globalism detached from national interest and patriotism.

These Democratic administrations have repeatedly failed to distinguish allies from adversaries. Nowhere was this clearer than in Obama’s tilt toward Iran, which came at the expense of both Israel and Sunni Arab states. Biden has doubled down with his disgraceful treatment of Israel, undermining one of our closest allies while appeasing their enemies.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush pursued his own misguided vision — an effort to remake the Middle East in America’s liberal image through force. That project collapsed under the weight of religious conflict and tribalism in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while Washington obsessed over exporting democracy, China quietly rose — unfazed, unchecked, and happy to let us believe it would someday play by our rules.

The best way to secure America’s liberty, safety, and prosperity is to return to a strategy that resembles the one that won the Cold War — one that brought the Soviet Union to collapse and elevated the United States to unmatched global power.

Ronald Reagan summed it up in three words: peace through strength.

I call it prudent American realism. This approach blends principle with power. It recognizes that the internal nature of regimes matters. Thucydides understood this over 2,000 years ago. In “The Peloponnesian War,” he noted that both Athens and Sparta sought to promote regimes that mirrored their own values — democracies for Athens, oligarchies for Sparta.

The lesson? A nation is safer and more stable when it is surrounded by allies that share its principles and interests.

Two sides of the same coin

Prudence also demands restraint. While regime type matters, trying to spread democracy everywhere is a fool’s errand — one the Bush administration disastrously pursued after 9/11.

Resources are limited. Good strategy requires focus and discipline. The United States must prioritize its goals, not squander its power on open-ended crusades abroad.

Reagan’s foreign policy understood a timeless truth: Diplomacy and force go hand in hand. Too often, American policymakers — steeped in the fantasies of liberal internationalism — act as if diplomacy alone can achieve strategic goals. But as Frederick the Great put it, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.”

A sound U.S. strategy treats diplomacy and force as two sides of the same coin.

President Trump should follow Reagan’s lead. That means maintaining a forward defense posture with the support of reliable allies, projecting strength through presence, and defending freedom of navigation around the globe.

Strategically, the goal must be clear: Preserve the U.S. maritime alliance that defends the “rimlands” of Eurasia — a term coined by Nicholas Spykman. This system exists to contain any aspiring hegemon, whether it’s Russia or China.

This approach has served the nation well before. Trump should carry its lessons forward.