Timing is everything in politics. On Saturday morning, it was being reported that DUP leader Arlene Foster had told Sky News that her party, albeit with great reluctance, would be helping to implement the Northern Ireland Protocol (an integral part of Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement) because it was now law and, in essence, there was nothing she could do about it.
Cue criticism of her across unionist parties, with many blaming the DUP for the mess unionism now found itself in and the very specific threat to Northern Ireland's constitutional position. Criticism, too, from within the DUP, with some members quietly briefing that Foster had "rolled over and given up the fight".
An embarrassing position for her to be in just a few weeks after an enormous rebellion from her MLAs over a Bill that appeared to make it easier for Sinn Fein to go on "solo runs".
What needs to be noted about Foster's interview was that the line on implementation of the protocol wasn't just off the top of her head.
It will have been discussed with her advisers and senior party officials and there is nothing to suggest that any of them forewarned her about Johnson planning to throw a spanner in the works. So, either they didn't know, or, if they did, they didn't bother telling her.
On Sunday evening, Sammy Wilson issued a statement (although not through the Press office): "The DUP will not accept the withdrawal agreement. We are still arguing that, in these negotiations, the withdrawal agreement must be scrapped, or, at the very least, significantly changed. We have sought to persuade Conservative MPs that it is not only bad for Northern Ireland, but ties the UK as a whole into the influence of EU institutions. That remains our position."
That read - as it was intended to read - as a warning shot over Foster's bows.
She would probably have been prepared to brush it off (Wilson's maverick comments tend to embarrass, rather than damage, the party) had it not been for a breaking story from the Financial Times shortly after his intervention, which suggested Johnson was preparing to make changes to his own withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland Protocol. Indeed, he might even opt for a "no-deal" outcome if he didn't get his way.
This, of course, is hugely embarrassing for Foster, not least because it was clear that Johnson hadn't bothered telling her what he was planning to do; an extraordinary and seemingly deliberate insult by the Prime Minister.
It made her look weak and out of the loop to members of her own party, portraying her as someone willing to give up while the game was still in play.
But it also leaves a bigger problem for the DUP (and all of unionism): given Johnson's track record, does he deserve to be trusted right now? Let's face it, he has undermined the DUP on at least three occasions so far.
Sections of a UK internal market Bill (first outlined in a White Paper in July) will be published tomorrow and we'll have a clearer idea of what changes Johnson is proposing to the withdrawal agreement he agreed with the EU last October and which he trumpeted as a personal triumph during the General Election.
As ever, he's hard to call. He helped to kill off Theresa May's original deal. In exchange for its support, he promised the DUP a "much better deal", but abandoned that - and the party - when he signed off on the Northern Ireland Protocol.
He now seems to be planning to undo his own handiwork, which will probably mean something (or someone) being sacrificed on the altar of the English nationalist vote he relies on for his present majority. Who, or what, that is is not yet clear.
And that, of course, is the problem for unionism generally and the DUP in particular. How far should Johnson be trusted? As far as he can be seen? As far as his voice travels? Until the ink dries on any document he has signed? Until the studio microphone and camera have been switched off? Until he reaches the end of the interview? Until he runs out of daggers and backs into which to plunge them? Until Dominic Cummings programmes him with a new message?
Nobody knows the answer to those questions, because Johnson has no interest higher than himself and no loyalty which can't be changed as easily as his shirt. Any unionist would need to be epically, clinically mad, to trust him with their future.
Another thing worth bearing in mind is that the DUP - with very few exceptions - doesn't and never has wanted a "no-deal" outcome. The Assembly has enough other problems on its plate without the prospect of the multiple uncertainties which would accompany such an outcome and the sure-fire guarantee that Johnson would be making more decisions on the hoof than he already does.
Admitting that she was willing to sell the Northern Ireland Protocol was personally/politically difficult for Foster, so you can only imagine the scale of her difficulty if Johnson lumbered Northern Ireland with a "no-deal".
So, she'll be keeping a close eye on that cabal of DUP representatives - with Wilson the primary advocate - who seem to favour such an outcome.
Her more immediate problem, though, is her grip on the leadership; which, as I noted a couple of weeks ago, is weaker than it should be at this critical moment.
She has to find a way of rowing back from her comments in the Sky interview, particularly if Johnson confirms on Wednesday that the Northern Ireland Protocol is still in play.
She has to ensure a DUP strategy is in place to counter anything which may happen in the next few weeks, not least trying to ensure that Johnson won't blindside her again.
Maybe she could find out if Jeffrey Donaldson (the party's parliamentary leader), or Sammy Wilson (chief whip), had any inkling of Johnson's plans before she gave her recent interview. If not, why not? If yes, then why didn't they tell her? Or was it she who was on the solo run?
Yet even though Johnson now seems willing to change the rules, I'm still pretty sure the DUP will sell whatever he lumbers them with. It doesn't exactly have many (or any) other choices.