In writing this up I'm coming to realize that I think this is basically the same thing as what @BadZen already answered, but it took me a couple of readings of that answer to realize exactly what it was saying, so I'll add this additional answer in here in case it helps clarify things for anyone else
There is actually some ambiguity here, because the phrase "realign with somebody" can be interpreted in two (similar but not quite the same) ways.
The verb to align can mean either:
- To set something's alignment / orientation to a particular value / position
- To cause something's alignment / orientation to match some specific other thing
The ambiguity comes in because the "particular value / position" could in fact also simultaneously "match some other thing", and in fact does in the case we're talking about, so it's a question of whether you interpret "align with somebody" to mean:
- "align" (Change one's alignment) to be "with somebody" (so that the new position is with somebody)
- "align with" (Change one's alignment to match) "somebody" (the alignment of "somebody" is thing you're matching)
Now, in the simple case of "align", the ambiguity isn't a big deal, because both of these mean the same thing, but when you add the "re-" prefix (meaning you are doing an action again that has been done before), the two don't actually have the same implications anymore:
- "realign" (Change one's alignment again) to be "with somebody" (so that the new position is with somebody)
A started out aligned with B, but they realigned it with C later.
- "realign with" (Change one's alignment to match again) "somebody" (the alignment of "somebody" is thing you're matching)
A was aligned with B, then it lost that alignment, but then later it was realigned with B.
In the first interpretation, it doesn't say anything about whether the alignment was ever "with somebody" before, it just says that it was previously aligned in some way, and you are realigning it in a different way, and that different way happens to now be "with somebody". In the second interpretation, the implication is that it was previously "aligned with" somebody, and then somehow became different, and you are (again) changing the thing it's "aligned with" to be "somebody", like before.
To be clear: Both of these are perfectly valid ways to interpret the statement. There is no one always right or wrong answer here. I think, in general, the only real way to know which meaning is intended is by the context it is used in.