National Security Advisor Mike Waltz will step down from that position to become President Trump’s nominee as U.N. Ambassador, Trump announced Thursday. “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress, and as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first,” the president posted to social media. “I know he will do the same in his new role.”

Waltz was one of two figures at the center of the Signal controversy in March. Waltz created a Signal chat of top administration officials to discuss the first American airstrikes against the Houthis, but he inadvertently added The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to the chat, along with administration officials. When the story broke in late March, Waltz admitted the “mistake” and took “full responsibility.”

Trump publicly defended Waltz, saying that he “learned a lesson, and he’s a good man.” But some observers predicted that the White House would wait to remove him later. According to an anonymous source close to the National Security Council (another media leak), Trump did not want Waltz’s ousting to create the perception that he bent to outside pressure, but he believed enough time had passed that it could be framed as a reorganization of his administration, CBS News reported.

Consistent with this framing, Vice President J.D. Vance denied that Waltz was ousted over his role in “Signalgate,” which he called a “nothingburger.” Instead, Trump thought Waltz would do a “better job in a different role,” Vance argued. “I think you could make a good argument that it’s a promotion. We brought Mike on to do some serious reforms at the National Security Council. He has done that.”

Not everyone is buying this explanation. “Whatever the White House and its most fervent allies insisted at the time, the Signal chat was a major embarrassment,” wrote the National Review editors.

Yet, in the same paragraph, they lamented the loss of “a good, stabilizing voice in a White House susceptible to isolationist influence.” Waltz held a hawkish view towards Russia and Iran, putting him at odds with other Trump aides who prefer to negotiate with those adversaries. This second group favors a more restrained U.S. military abroad in general and prefers to concentrate our military against China, as the greatest threat, in particular.

Thus, the National Review editors read between the lines of Waltz’s ouster an internal struggle between the foreign policy hawks and the “so-called restrainers.” By isolating and then expelling Waltz from America’s foreign policy discussions, the restrainers now “look to be in the ascendancy,” they wrote, but “President Trump should realize that his goals of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and forging a peace deal in Ukraine (at least one worth having) won’t be achieved without the sort of tough measures that Waltz was vilified for advocating.”

With Waltz’s departure, the duties of National Security Advisor will fall to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a fellow former policy hawk. In addition to heading the State Department, Rubio is also the acting head of USAID and the National Archives.

Yet Waltz will have another shot in the Trump administration as Ambassador to the United Nations. Trump originally nominated Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to this role, but that plan was complicated by the House Republicans’ slender majority. Stefanik initially stayed in the House until after special elections were held to fill the seats of two other Trump nominees, including Waltz. However, on March 27 (coincidentally, the same week as the Signal scandal broke), Trump withdrew Stefanik’s nomination to bolster the House majority.

Waltz will now move laterally to fill the still-vacant position, a post the National Review editors describe as a “consolation prize.”

The Trump administration will now have to steer two nominees through the Senate confirmation process: Waltz’s U.N. ambassadorship, and the appointment of whomever Trump chooses to replace him as National Security Advisor. Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) predicted that a Waltz confirmation hearing “would be pretty brutal.”

However, if confirmed, Waltz would still maintain a platform to speak with clarity and conviction on some of the most pressing foreign policy concerns of the United States.