Republican senators are privately expressing frustrations over Vice President JD Vance’s suggestion in a leaked group chat that the Houthis are more of a problem for Europe than the United States and his voicing of doubt that it was in the U.S.’ interest to strike the Iran-backed group in Yemen.

Lawmakers have been publicly defending Vance for having reservations about the strikes and conveying those concerns to what he assumed was solely a group of senior Cabinet officials — but which actually included Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic. 

“JD is consistent on this. He does not like to see the deployment or the projection of American power outside of a direct threat to the United States. He’s at least consistent on that. I disagree with him, but he is consistent,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told Jewish Insider.

Still, some have felt that Vance’s claim that the endeavor was largely about “bailing Europe out again” was an admission that he does not see the Houthis as a significant threat to U.S. national security despite the militant group having exploded a drone meters from the U.S. Embassy Branch Office in Tel Aviv in July and it being responsible for ongoing attacks on U.S. military vessels and allies. 

“A number of Republican senators are very concerned about [his foreign policy views],” one GOP senator told JI. “They think it’s quite revealing. It reveals a mindset that I’m sure is perplexing to our European allies.”

The vice president expressed deep reservations in the chat about the U.S. conducting strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, suggesting the president hold off for a month to assess “where the economy is” and to give them time to do “the messaging work on why this matters.” Vance told the group that he’d back the strikes publicly to “support the consensus of the team,” but noted that, “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” The comments highlight the growing divide between the neo-isolationist and neo-conservative wings of the Republican Party. 

One Republican senator told JI that they found it “very disappointing” that Vance did not share their threat assessment with regard to the Houthis. 

“It was shocking to me that he didn’t see the need to strike back when they struck our naval vessels. That’s not a British problem or a European problem. Frankly, them striking our friends in Israel is more than enough justification. It’s the Tucker Carlson view of how to use military power,” the GOP senator said. 

Another senator said that they found Vance’s comments to be the most notable part of the Atlantic’s reporting.

“I’ve gotta wonder if Trump’s looking at this and going, ‘What have I done?’” the senator continued, musing that President Donald Trump might come to regret anointing Vance as his heir apparent by tapping him as his running mate last year. 

Not all Republicans were as taken aback by Vance’s concerns, given the vice president’s longstanding opposition to U.S. involvement in Ukraine and other foreign conflicts. Still, senators said that they felt apprehensive about the party potentially embracing Vance’s isolationist-minded foreign policy strategy down the line. 

“It surprised me, but you know, he has been against helping Ukraine, so it’s probably consistent. But yes, it does worry me about the party’s direction [on foreign policy]. I think he has a very narrow view of when the United States should be involved in the world,” a GOP senator told JI of the vice president. 

“There’s obviously a real conversation among Republicans about what is America’s role in the world, and a lot of it is related to the national debt. To say we don’t have that money to engage in the world, they’re not wrong about that,” another Republican senator explained. “It’s a weird balance, but I think we’re trying to get both perspectives out there right now. That is a pretty common conversation, but I’m pretty confident there’s not a Republican in the Senate who was surprised by JD making that comment,” they added. 

One GOP senator told JI that Vance’s view of the Houthi threat was not the position of most Senate Republicans, noting that the vice president was not successful in convincing the conference of his position on Ukraine when he was a senator. They acknowledged, however, that this wouldn’t matter if Vance’s wing of the party continues expanding its influence.

“If that was his analysis, I don’t think there are a lot of people here that share that analysis, just as very few agreed with him that it wasn’t in the U.S. interest to resource the Ukrainian freedom fighters. When he began talking, we were never persuaded by his arguments,” the senator said. “There may have been one or two that were actually persuaded, but that in the end doesn’t matter much if this is the direction we’re headed in.”

Despite their concern over the direction of the party’s foreign policy platform, the senator said the fact that Vance’s position was heard before being dismissed was a good thing.

“I think the president’s instincts in this case were right. I’m glad [Vance] lost the argument. I mean, it actually shows a healthy administration. They heard his argument,” they said. “I have a tough time figuring out what leads you to entirely different positions. He’s a very smart guy. How people make decisions comes down to biases, comes down to premises, comes down to guided reasoning, comes down to groupthink, comes down to self-interest.”

JI reached out to Vance for comment on this story. In response, Donald Trump Jr. sent a statement that the vice president’s office then referred JI to. 

“These seven cowardly neocons attacking JD anonymously are genuine pussies. If they really feel this way, then they should at least be man enough to put their names to these quotes,” Trump Jr. told JI in a statement. “The fact that they are too cowardly to do that is exactly why I’m so happy that these RINOs are a dying breed in our party – whether they realize it or not.”

While private concerns remain, senators are publicly defending the vice president’s right to share his views and have dissenting opinions.

“I understand there was a discussion. They were trying to come up with a policy and they were encouraging different points of view before the president was able to make his decision,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told JI. “That’s part of the problem: When things aren’t confidential, then people don’t feel free to express themselves, which I think is important to giving the president the range of options that he needs and the different points of view to make the best decisions.” 

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said he had no issue with Vance weighing in with his concerns, telling JI that as vice president he’s “supposed to ask questions.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) did not weigh in on Vance’s views specifically, but instead praised Trump for going through with the strikes. 

“I’ll just say that President Trump made the decision to bomb them, and I think he’s right. Now, the Houthis have a lot of political support in Yemen. It’s not just a military exercise, they have political support.” Kennedy said. “… I think Trump’s right to knock them into a new zip code and hold Iran responsible,” Kennedy continued, adding that he believes “the American people support” Trump’s decision.

Jewish Insider’s Marc Rod contributed to this report.

Correction: A previous version of this article stated that the Houthis were responsible for an attack that killed three American service members. That attack was conducted by Kataib Hezbollah, another Iranian proxy group.