Neocons love Trump only when he bombs



The day-to-day status of negotiations may be uncertain, but the Trump administration appears to be doing everything it can to reach a deal and end the conflict with Iran.

The war had solid support from Trump’s more Fox News-oriented voters, but it remained unpopular with much of the country. It cost Trump several high-profile supporters. It also earned him the favor of political operators who previously despised him. Several figures who had declared themselves “Never Trump” suddenly discovered a strange new respect for the president once they believed he was willing to launch another regime-change war in the Middle East.

Stop allying with neoconservatives. They will always betray you in the end.

Those fair-weather allies are now melting down over the prospect of peace between America and Iran.

In his farewell address, George Washington warned the fledgling republic that foreign entanglements were dangerous to freedom and independence. He encouraged commerce with all nations but cautioned against permanent alliances and favored nations. Washington understood that favoritism toward a foreign power would invite foreign influence and lead some citizens to mistake loyalty to an ally for loyalty to the United States.

No event has vindicated that warning more clearly than the war with Iran.

Trump immediately stood out in conservative politics by taking three positions that were popular with the base and dangerous to the establishment. He opposed open borders, unfettered trade, and endless regime-change wars.

Republican politicians, conservative pundits, and Washington think tanks loathed him for all three positions, but especially for the third. Endless conflict created job security and enormous income streams for permanent Washington. The war class did not appreciate a reality television star barging in and threatening the gravy train.

Many neoconservatives abandoned the GOP once they realized Trump was not going away. Others stayed because the war-hawk establishment had deep roots in the Republican Party. They realized they could gain more influence by pretending to convert to the MAGA movement and working from within to steer policy.

Several figures who swore they would never support Trump began presenting themselves as his greatest champions, hoping they could define what MAGA should become.

When the war with Iran began, these neoconservative champions viciously attacked anyone who pointed out that the conflict contradicted Trump’s previous foreign policy. They invented slurs to brand opponents as traitors to the president and insisted that total ideological conformity was the only acceptable position.

RELATED: The empire cannot drone-strike its way out of decline

ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

The strategy worked for a time. It drove many anti-interventionists away from their previous support for Trump. That made it even more revealing when Trump moved to end the conflict and his new allies suddenly attacked him in blind rage.

America and Israel entered the conflict with very different goals. For the United States, the only real concern was preventing Iran from gaining the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. It is unlikely an Iranian nuke could threaten the U.S. directly, but keeping hostile regimes from obtaining that capacity is a legitimate goal.

Israel saw Iran differently. For Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran was an existential threat that had to be taken off the table entirely. His goal was always to collapse the current Iranian regime, replace it, or let the country become a failed state.

As Marco Rubio indicated after the war began, Israel insisted on starting the fight knowing it would force the United States to join. The two allies were out of step from the beginning, so it is no surprise that Netanyahu has done everything possible to disrupt the peace process and achieve every military objective he can while still under the protection of American arms.

The reaction in Israel to Trump’s pursuit of peace has not been gratitude. The president’s popularity there has plummeted, and headlines accusing him of betraying Israel have appeared across the country’s newspapers. One Israeli media figure even suggested America deserved another 9/11-style terror attack so the public would be frightened back into fighting Iran.

Hardcore Israel supporters in America have reacted no better. Figures such as Ben Shapiro, who briefly departed the Never Trump camp to push for war, are now turning back against Trump. At times they try to hide their anger by blaming Vice President JD Vance for the peace deal, but no one is fooled.

Neocons pushed relentlessly for a conflict that had little to do with American interests. Once they got their war, they expected military escalation to force Trump into the wider regime-change conflict they desperately desired.

Very few presidents would have had the fortitude to exit the Iran war after realizing it was unwise. Trump did. The neoconservatives will never forgive him for that outrage.

It turns out all the rhetoric about loyalty to Trump was a farce. The neoconservatives always hated Trump and his voters, despite their change in tone after his second election. Many pundits who praised Trump’s decision to bomb Iran had tried to replace him with Ron DeSantis in the primary. The people who believed their rhetoric and followed their lead were foolish. They are notably silent now that the neoconservatives are losing their minds and turning on the president.

RELATED: A real nation knows who is in and who is out

Blaze Media Illustration

What should we learn from this unwise detour into foreign adventurism?

First, Americans have little interest in extended foreign conflicts. They elected Trump to address crises at home, not to fix the Middle East.

Second, Washington was right about entangling alliances. Israel is its own country with its own priorities. It cares about the United States to the extent that America helps advance those priorities. Entering a war with an ally that does not share your interests is foolish.

Third, neoconservatives are not domestic political allies. They have no loyalty to Trump or the MAGA base and will turn on both the moment either stops serving their purposes.

The lesson is not complicated, but it is expensive. Movements that cannot distinguish temporary agreement from real alliance eventually wake up serving someone else’s agenda in wars they never wanted to fight at all.

Stop allying with neoconservatives. They will always betray you in the end.

ROOKE: GOP Voters Dumped Cornyn. He’s Responding Like The World’s Most Toxic Ex-Boyfriend

'unable to accept the reality that the voters are just not that into him'

Nationalism still needs the Declaration of Independence



As we approach our nation’s 250th birthday, Americans will be doing a lot of celebrating. They will honor not only the fact of our independence and nationhood, but also the political thought that shaped America’s founding struggle for freedom. Special attention will be paid, of course, to our Declaration of Independence.

But some may be rather cool to celebrating the Declaration’s doctrine of universal truths, such as the equality of all human beings in their natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration has become a source of controversy among some younger conservatives who came of age during the Trump era.

The New Right’s dissatisfaction with the Declaration’s universalism is an understandable — but mistaken — reaction to various political misuses of America’s founding creed in recent decades.

There is no conflict between the Declaration’s universal principles and the New Right’s America First nationalism.

The older generation of conservatives who grew up admiring Ronald Reagan love to boast about America’s defense of universal truths. The New Right has argued that this rhetorical approach has not served the conservative political movement or the country well.

The Reaganite message, so powerful in the late 20th century, proved unable to keep winning national elections in the 21st. As a result, conservatives ceded political power to a Democratic Party and a left wing increasingly committed to an alarming agenda of social and cultural transformation.

The old-guard conservatives could not beat the Obama coalition. Moreover, their excessive preoccupation with America’s commitment to universal moral principles harmed the nation’s interests — and the interests of many Americans, especially those of the working class — in areas such as immigration, trade, and foreign policy.

In response, the New Right developed its now well-known message of American nationalism in the wake of Trump’s victory in 2016. They have embraced an “America First” agenda that places the social and economic well-being of its citizens at the center of national policy.

This stands in sharp contrast to the older conservatism, which tended to approach immigration, trade, and foreign policy in light of the country’s universal moral commitments as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The New Right’s recalibration proved politically successful: witness President Trump’s electoral victories in 2016 and 2024. But such success breeds criticism, and many on the left and among the older conservative establishment have condemned the new nationalism as a betrayal of the Declaration’s universal principles. Such criticism has, no doubt, deepened the New Right’s skepticism of the Declaration.

What are we to make of all this?

The New Right is correct to reject superficial and politically unhelpful misappropriations of the Declaration. Its members are justified in repudiating suggestions that America is just a political “idea” with no particular and concrete interests. And they are correct to dismiss claims that the Declaration’s universal principles require us to embrace immigration, trade, and foreign policies at odds with the well-being of our own citizens.

RELATED: Polarization may be the cure — and the clarity — America needs

Elen11/Getty Images

It would be a terrible mistake, however, for the New Right to go farther and reject the Declaration itself.

Such rejection is, in the first place, unnecessary. Contrary to the self-serving hectoring from the left and the old-guard conservatives, there is no conflict between the Declaration’s universal principles and the New Right’s America First nationalism. Those principles do not require the open-borders moralism preached by globalists of all stripes.

The Declaration asserts the great and universal truth that all human beings are equal in their natural rights. However, it nowhere asserts that everyone has a natural right to enter a political community of which he is not already a member, much less a natural right to become a citizen of that community.

The founders and subsequent generations of Americans regulated immigration according to the nation’s needs and interests rather than a fanciful moral obligation to accept all who want to come here.

Nor does the Declaration rule out an America First trade policy. Its philosophical framework was influenced by John Locke, in particular his claim that all human beings have a natural right to “life, liberty, and property.” None of these rights, however, entails a right to engage in trade across national borders.

Indeed, Locke’s Second Treatise makes clear that government, once established by the consent of the governed, would regulate foreign trade in the nation’s interests. The founders reflected this understanding in the Constitution by vesting Congress with the power to regulate foreign commerce.

Finally, nothing in the Declaration requires the U.S. government to promote democracy abroad or undermine tyrannies in foreign lands.

The Declaration famously teaches that a people can appeal to the right of revolution when their government is determined to destroy their individual rights and subject them to despotism. That right, however, must be exercised with “prudence” by the people living under a tyrannical government — not by the people of another nation.

Nothing in the Declaration indicates that America or any nation has a right — much less a duty — to liberate other nations from their tyrannical regimes and to impose on such peoples all the costs of a revolution that cannot be certain of success.

RELATED: The timeless truths behind the Declaration of Independence

Art Images/Getty Images

The Declaration teaches that America’s foreign policy needs to be guided by our reasonable and just interests, the star by which founding-era statesmen such as Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison steered the ship of state.

Indeed, the Declaration itself affirms a kind of nationalism. Before turning to the political theory in its famous second paragraph, it teaches that peoples or nations are not mere artificial contrivances but instead exist in contemplation of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

They have a right to a “separate and equal station” among the other “powers of the earth.” In other words, every people has a right to control its own political fate. Read as a whole, the Declaration is as much an affirmation of the sovereignty of nations as of the rights of individuals.

There is, then, no reason for the proponents of America First nationalism to reject the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, to do so would be a grave mistake. However abused or misunderstood, those principles are a foundational and vital element of America’s political identity.

It is no part of the duty or interest of any movement of the political right — or of any movement governed by sobriety and caution, not to mention gratitude for what one has inherited — to reconstruct the identity of one’s own nation.

An America indifferent to the universal principles of the Declaration would no longer be the America we have all been blessed to inherit — and that we all have an obligation to preserve.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published at the American Mind.

The Answer To Demoralizing GOP Failures Is Not Burning The Country Down

A Right that knowingly worsens the conditions of its own recovery is not playing the long game nor accelerating victory. It is forfeiting it.

Trump-endorsed governor candidate carries the day; moves on to face 'Dr. Lockdown' in November



Ohioans went to the polls on Tuesday in what has arguably become one of the highest-profile primaries in the country ahead of the midterm elections later this year.

The closest-watched Republican primary, of course, was for Ohio governor, and the winner will go on to face an unopposed Democratic candidate in November.

With over 98% of the votes counted, Ramaswamy had received 82.5% to Putsch's 17.5%.

Vivek Ramaswamy, the Trump-endorsed GOP candidate, biotech entrepreneur, and former presidential candidate, faced off against "America First" candidate Casey Putsch, who has positioned himself as a "third option" against the two choices provided by the political establishment.

Ramaswamy, the favorite in recent polling, was able to beat Putsch for the GOP nomination. With over 98% of the votes counted, Ramaswamy had received 82.5% to Putsch's 17.5%.

RELATED: 'Dr. Lockdown': Ohio Democrat governor candidate's COVID tyranny comes back to haunt her — but she still may win

Jon Cherry/Getty Images

After the race was called, Ramaswamy pledged not just to make "Ohio great again, but to make Ohio greater than we have ever been before."

Putsch told his voters on Tuesday morning, "Get out there Ohio, and don't let anyone Putsch you around," but did not post on X after the election.

Ramaswamy will go on to face unopposed Democratic candidate Amy Acton in November. Acton has been criticized for her former role as the director of the Ohio Department of Health during the early COVID-19 pandemic response, earning the nickname "Dr. Lockdown."

Another contentious race has been raging as well.

Ohio Republican leadership is attempting to secure a 7-0 court on the state Supreme Court with a four-way challenge against Democrat Justice Jennifer Brunner.

Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Jill Flagg Lanzinger, former Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Colleen O’Donnell, 5th District Court of Appeals Judge Andrew King, and 2nd District Court of Appeals Judge Ronald Lewis were the four Republican rivals competing in this week's primary.

As of Wednesday morning, O'Donnell holds a lead, but the race is still too close to call.

U.S. House GOP candidates in Ohio won more than half of their primary races uncontested, while Democrats had three uncontested primary races.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

AIPAC targets Massie with massive spend as primary hits the homestretch



The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its affiliates throw around tens of millions of dollars in American elections to ensure that hardline supporters of Israel are elected to the U.S. Congress on both sides of the aisle.

While the pro-Israel lobbying firm has long enjoyed success in America, it has encountered a number of setbacks in recent months.

For instance, by recently pouring millions of dollars into the Democratic primary against former New Jersey Rep. Tom Malinowski over his criticism of the Israeli government, AIPAC unwittingly paved the way for a fiercer critic of Israel, Analilia Mejia, to succeed ex-Rep. Mikie Sherrill.

'One Republican is standing in the way.'

In Illinois, AIPAC also made a bad investment in Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who got crushed in the 7th District Democrat primary to replace retiring incumbent Rep. Danny Davis.

Despite its recent missteps and growing unpopularity on the left, AIPAC still appears confident that it can help unseat Rep. Thomas Massie (R) in Kentucky's 4th Congressional District by characterizing him as a turncoat and Republican challenger Ed Gallrein as the optimal choice.

The United Democracy Project, an AIPAC super PAC established in 2022, recently spent $790,000 for a week of broadcast and cable ads in the Cincinnati, Louisville, and Charleston media markets, reported the Jewish Insider.

In the 30-second ad that AIPAC apparently hopes will hurt Massie, a narrator states, "What happened to Thomas Massie? He's flipped. Massie started out as a conservative Republican but now votes with liberal Democrats."

RELATED: IDF soldier caught smashing Jesus statue with sledgehammer — officials and critics react

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The ad does not specify which votes the UDP perceives as blemishes on Massie's record. The congressman did, however, recently vote in favor of resolutions directing Trump to remove the U.S. armed forces from hostilities with Iran, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, and voted last year against Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

In November 2023, he also ruffled feathers when casting the lone "no" vote in Congress against a resolution that: reaffirmed the State of Israel's right to exist, deemed denial of that right a form of anti-Semitism, rejected calls for Israel's destruction, and condemned the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. Massie stated at the time that he agreed with the "title 'Reaffirming the State of Israel's Right to Exist' and much of the language," but voted no "because it equates anti-Zionism with antisemitism."

"On Israel, Massie votes with AOC and Ilhan Omar again and again," says the narrator of the AIPAC ad. "Massie's a flippin' disaster. That's why President Trump supports Ed Gallrein for Congress."

Blaze News reached out to Massie's office for comment.

In October, Trump endorsed Gallrein, a farmer and Navy SEAL combat veteran whose website notes that he's "fighting for President Trump's and the Republican Party's America First Agenda."

Last month, Trump reiterated his support for the GOP challenger, stating that Massie — a lawmaker with an 86.77% lifetime Turning Point Action score and a 91.25% score this Congress — is the "Worst 'Republican' Congressman we have had in many years," and that Gallrein is alternatively "the person that will help us do the job, and do it right."

The UDP previously blew over $328,000 in 2024 on a television campaign attacking Massie, reported McClatchy DC.

"Republicans are trying to help Israel," said the 2024 ad. "But one Republican is standing in the way. It's Kentucky's Tom Massie."

A spokesman for UDP said at the time that the AIPAC group wanted "to make sure every voter in the state knows how bad he is on Israel."

Recent polling suggests that AIPAC might be throwing good money after bad as far as Massie's race goes.

According to a Quantum Insights poll released on April 9, Massie led Gallrein 46.8% to 37.7% among likely Republican voters, with 14% undecided and 1.5% saying they wouldn't vote. The same poll found that 49.9% of respondents preferred a candidate who is independent-minded while 37.4% preferred a strong Trump supporter.

On the prediction market platform Polymarket, Massie presently leads Gallrein 71% to 28.6%.

The primary race will be held on May 19.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Exclusive: Jim Jordan backs 'America First' veteran in key swing state primary



Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio is weighing in on a high-stakes primary in a key swing state, Blaze News has learned.

Jordan has endorsed Captain Michael Bouchard, an Iraq war veteran, for Michigan's 10th congressional district, Blaze News can exclusively report. This high-profile endorsement comes as Republican Rep. John James of Michigan wraps up his term in the 10th district and is now running for governor of the state.

'A strong conservative leader.'

"Captain Michael Bouchard is the America First conservative we need in Congress," Jordan told Blaze News. "Mike served his country in Iraq, and now he is ready to serve the people of Michigan's 10th district in Washington."

"Now, more than ever, we need leaders like Captain Bouchard in Congress."

RELATED: 'Warfighter' son of a popular Michigan sheriff is now gunning for Congress

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc/Getty Images

The third-generation Michigander embraced the endorsement from Jordan, who made a name for himself chairing the prestigious House Judiciary Committee.

"I'm proud to earn the endorsement of Congressman Jim Jordan," Bouchard told Blaze News. "Congressman Jordan is a strong conservative leader that has fought to defend our Constitution and the conservative principles important to Michigan families."

"I will bring that same standard to Washington and stand alongside those putting our people first."

The crowded Republican primary is currently scheduled for August 4, just a few months before the general election on November 3.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

America has a spending problem Congress refuses to fix



Washington Democrats just voted against the one rule every American family already lives by: balancing the budget. Last week, I brought my Balanced Budget Amendment to the House floor. It failed. Meanwhile the national debt has reached $39 trillion and counting.

My amendment would have required Washington to phase in a simple rule: Congress cannot spend more than it takes in.

Democrats would rather keep the autopilot running and the national credit card maxed out than make the tough decisions to bring spending in line with what Americans want and need.

Democrats once claimed to support that principle. Last week, only one voted yes. Let that sink in.

Opposing a balanced budget is not some noble policy disagreement. It is a refusal to confront a crisis. Interest on the national debt already costs more than national defense. By midcentury, interest payments are projected to double our defense spending.

This debate is not about making a spreadsheet look tidy. Revenues are not the problem. Overspending is. American families already understand the difference. They pay the mortgage and buy groceries first. They skip the extras. They live on what they earn.

That is far from radical. It’s common sense.

The debt passed $39 trillion on March 17, up $4.5 trillion in just two years. That works out to $289,000 per household. Interest payments alone are projected to hit $1.04 trillion this year, or about $7,700 per household, just to service Washington’s tab. By the time you finish reading this, the number will be higher.

And that is before you factor in the waste, fraud, and outright abuse.

Since 2003, the federal government has made nearly $3 trillion in improper payments. The states are hardly better. In Minnesota, a federal prosecutor said half or more of the roughly $18 billion in federal funds sent to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been stolen. Half or more. Billions of taxpayer dollars disappeared through fake autism centers, phony housing providers, and shell companies.

The federal government and the states are ripping you off.

We have known for years that government spending was out of control. But at this scale, waste no longer looks like a bug in the system. It looks like a feature.

RELATED: Running out the clock won’t save the majority

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images

Democrats’ refusal even to vote for a Balanced Budget Amendment shows they have no interest in fixing it. They would rather keep the autopilot running and the national credit card maxed out than make the tough decisions to bring spending in line with what American families want and need.

That refusal was on full display last week. Democrats chose more debt, more inflationary pressure, and more fiscal chaos. They are not worried about bankrupting the country.

But their "no" votes were not the only warning sign. Congress has already seen the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility and still refuses to change course.

The Biden-Harris years added trillions in new debt and helped deliver the worst inflation in 40 years. Prices surged while paychecks lagged. Working mothers stretching every grocery dollar felt it. Seniors on fixed incomes felt it. Families living paycheck to paycheck felt it.

That is the real-world price of refusing to balance the books.

I offered a real fix. My Balanced Budget Amendment would force Washington to do what every family already does: live on what comes in, pay the important bills first, cut the extras, and stop borrowing from the next generation to finance today’s spending.

This is not complicated. It is basic math. It is common sense. It is America First.

As we approach America’s 250th birthday, the best gift we can give the next generation is a government that finally lives by the same rule every family does and stops pretending this mountain of debt does not matter.

America’s elites trusted global trade. Japan trusted reality.



“Moshitora,” Japanese shorthand for “what if Trump?,” first emerged in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. election, as policymakers and business leaders in Tokyo tried to make sense of an unpredictable candidate.

The phrase resurfaced in early 2024 as Donald Trump’s campaign regained momentum. This time, it carried more than curiosity. It reflected strategic caution and genuine unease. What would a second Trump presidency mean for Japan’s security, its economic ties, and its role in the Indo-Pacific?

The US-Japan alliance has entered a new phase that looks beyond defense alone.

The question mattered bigly. Since former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s assassination in 2022, Japan has had to manage its alliance with Washington without the personal rapport Abe cultivated over decades. Trump’s first term had already shown how quickly supply chains could become instruments of strategic power and how fast economic policy could merge with national security.

For decades after the Cold War, Western policymakers assumed deep trade ties would soften geopolitical tensions. If nations became economically intertwined, conflict would grow too costly to sustain. That assumption collapsed. Supply chains did not reduce rivalry. They became tools of leverage instead.

Technology, once treated mainly as an engine of economic growth, became a strategic asset. Materials long confined to commodity markets — lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earths — moved to the center of national security planning.

The consequences reached far beyond trade policy. Industries once taken for granted became strategic pressure points. Governments began to see commercial flows not as neutral exchanges, but as levers of power. Control over production, processing, and access could shape the balance of global influence.

Trump’s first administration accelerated that reckoning. Washington had to confront dependencies it had ignored for too long. Over the next several years, policymakers turned instinct into structure. Alliances no longer looked like military arrangements alone. They began to function as economic security networks built around trusted supply chains, resilient manufacturing, and reliable access to critical materials.

The results are now visible. In October 2025, the U.S. and Japan signed a framework to secure supply chains for rare earths and critical minerals, with the stated goal of reducing dependence on China’s dominant processing capacity.

Africa shows the stakes even more clearly. In early 2026, Glencore entered a nonbinding agreement with the U.S.-backed Orion Critical Mineral Consortium to sell 40% of its Mutanda and Kamoto copper and cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

RELATED: China is arming itself with minerals America refuses to mine

Bert van Dijk / Getty Images

These mines rank among the world’s largest producers of metals essential to next-generation technologies. The deal aims to diversify supply beyond China’s orbit.

Across Africa, Washington has deepened partnerships to strengthen supply chains for essential commodities, while Japan has pursued its own ties with resource-rich nations.

These efforts go beyond securing raw materials. They concern industrial resilience, strategic autonomy, and influence over the technologies that will define the next era of power. Countries now face a hard question: Who offers long-term commitment, and who merely shows up to extract what it needs?

Japan’s approach reflects foresight. Its economic security policies — diversifying supply chains, investing in semiconductors, and deepening ties with African and Southeast Asian resource producers — show a clear understanding that industrial capacity underwrites national power. In some respects, Tokyo saw this shift coming before Washington did.

The U.S.-Japan alliance has entered a new phase that looks beyond defense alone. Who will build together, mine together, and secure the industrial base behind technological competition? The choices nations make now will help determine which economies and militaries remain resilient enough to compete in the years ahead.

“Moshitora” began as a phrase about a single American election. Its return in 2024 looks, in hindsight, like a warning Japan had already begun to heed. The question now is whether Washington will answer with the same clarity, persistence, and long-term vision.