Haley’s remarks should not have been surprising. The U.S., Britain, and France had just struck Syrian regime targets in retaliation for the regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons. And Trump had publicly singled out Assad’s allies for culpability as well, declaring that Russia and Iran would pay a “big price” for supporting him. Sanctions would be another tool aimed at constraining Assad’s chemical-weapons program, in addition to the limited strikes in Syria that, the Pentagon acknowledged, did not destroy those capabilities entirely.

The incident fits a pattern of reports that members of the Trump administration differed on how strongly to respond to Assad’s alleged chemical-weapons attack, especially given the presence of Russian and Iranian assets on the battlefield and the risk of sparking a broader conflict. The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that Haley had wanted a more forceful response than the limited strikes ultimately chosen, while Defense Secretary James Mattis “warned about the risks that a more expansive strike could trigger a dangerous response from Moscow and Tehran,” according to the paper.

Indeed, Haley has been one of the most vocal Russia hawks in the Trump administration. She has challenged her Russian counterpart at the UN on Moscow’s actions in Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere. But she is also known to be close to Trump, and not prone to public missteps. As the Post reported, “Haley is one of the most disciplined and cautious members of the Cabinet, especially when it comes to her public appearances. She regularly checks in with Trump personally to go over her planned statements before she sits for television interviews.” In other words, she is not in the habit of making policy without authorization.

Although the public turnaround is unusual, the manner of the internal battles over policy is not. The fighting during the Bush years in the lead-up to the Iraq war was often vicious. The Obama team agonized over what to do in Syria, with many of the president’s advisers—and the president himself at one point—supporting military intervention against Assad, though the president ultimately demurred. But rarely are internal debates played out so frequently in public, and with as many leaks, as they are in the current White House. Policy disagreements among advisers have spilled into public view on issues like North Korea, Qatar, international commitments, U.S. military commitments, trade, and, of course, Russia.

Yet the administration has been tough on Russia in other contexts, and relations between Russia and the U.S. are now at their worst point since the end of the Cold War. The U.S. and Russia have clashed over Russia’s actions in Ukraine, especially the annexation of Crimea in December 2014; its support of the Assad regime in Syria; its interference in the U.S. presidential elections, as well as elections elsewhere; and, most recently, the accusation, which Russia denies, that Russian operatives used a nerve agent to poison a former Russian spy and his daughter in the U.K.