Why the right turned anti-war — and should stay that way



After the COVID lockdowns, the Western global leadership class had little credibility left. So it seemed insane when they immediately pivoted to a new crisis — but that’s exactly what they did.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered demands from elites in Europe and America for NATO-aligned nations to involve themselves in the conflict. Many Republicans were initially on board, with Fox News and CNN marching in lockstep behind intervention. But the Republican base quickly soured on the war once it became clear that U.S. involvement didn’t serve American interests.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

In a strange inversion, the right became anti-war while the left championed military escalation.

That reversal matters now, as some in the GOP look to drag the country into another long conflict. We should remember what Ukraine taught us.

When Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded, many conservatives instinctively aligned with Ukraine. The Soviet Union had been an evil empire and a clear enemy of the United States. It was easy to paint Russia as an extension of that threat. President Biden assured Americans that there would be no boots on the ground and that economic sanctions would cripple Russia quickly.

But the war dragged on. Hundreds of billions of dollars flowed to Ukraine while America entered a painful economic downturn. Conservatives began asking whether this was worth it.

Putin was no friend of the U.S., and conservatives had valid reasons to distrust him. But suddenly, anyone questioning the war effort was smeared as a Russian asset. Opposition to the war became an extension of the left’s deranged Russiagate conspiracy, which painted Donald Trump as a blackmailed Kremlin agent.

Some Republican politicians kept pushing the war. Fox News stayed hawkish. But much of the conservative commentariat broke ranks. They knew that the boys from Appalachia and Texas — exactly the kind of red-state Americans progressives despise — would again be asked to die for a war that served no clear national purpose.

From that disillusionment, conservatives drew hard-earned lessons.

They saw that U.S. leaders lie to sustain foreign conflicts. That politicians in both parties keep wars going because donors profit. That Fox News can become a mouthpiece for military escalation. That you can oppose a war without betraying your country. And that American troops and taxpayer dollars are not playthings for globalist fantasies.

America First” began to mean something real: Peace through strength didn’t require constant intervention.

Unfortunately, many of those lessons evaporated after the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7.

That attack was horrific. No serious person denies the brutality of Hamas or questions Israel’s right to defend itself. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has treated the attack as a green light to target longtime adversaries, including Iran. As a sovereign nation, Israel can pursue its own foreign policy. But it cannot dictate foreign policy for the United States.

In 2002, Netanyahu testified before Congress that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. He said toppling both the Iraqi and Iranian regimes would bring peace and stability. He was wrong.

He wasn’t alone, of course. Many were wrong about weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War. But Netanyahu’s track record is highly relevant now. While conservatives once fervently supported the Iraq invasion after 9/11, many — including Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D’Souza — have since apologized. They admit they got it wrong.

RELATED: The culture war isn’t a distraction — it’s the main front

Blaze Media Illustration

Afghanistan, while flawed, had clearer justification. The Taliban had harbored Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But the lies about weapons of mass destruction and failed nation-building in Iraq turned that war into a conservative regret.

In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that Iran had not resumed efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Gabbard, like Trump allies Robert Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, was chosen precisely for her skepticism of the intelligence bureaucracy. Trump remembers how his first term was sabotaged by insiders loyal to the status quo. This time, he selected appointees loyal to the voters.

Gabbard’s assessment contradicts Netanyahu, who claims Iran is months away from having a bomb. That’s a massive discrepancy. Either Iran hasn’t restarted its program, or it’s on the brink of building a nuke.

So which is it?

Did U.S. intelligence fail again? Did Gabbard lie to Congress and the public? Or did she simply say something the ruling class didn’t want to hear?

Trump, Gabbard, and Vice President JD Vance understand how Iraq went wrong. They know Americans deserve evidence before another war — especially one that risks dragging us into a region we’ve already failed to remake at great cost.

Yet the war hawks keep repeating the same lie: This time, it’ll be quick. The United States is too powerful, too advanced, too economically dominant. The enemy will fold by Christmas.

Biden said the same about Ukraine. And hundreds of billions later, we remain in a grinding proxy war with Russia.

Now, while still financing that war, Americans are told they must back a new war — this one initiated unilaterally by Israel. The U.S. faces domestic strife, crippling debt, and an ongoing open-border crisis. Involvement in yet another conflict makes no sense.

Israel may be right about Iran. Tehran may indeed have developed a nuclear program behind the world’s back. But if Israel wants to wage a war, it must do so on its own.

The Trump administration has made clear that it wasn’t involved in Israel’s pre-emptive strikes and didn’t approve them. If Israel starts a war, it should fight and win that war on its own. America should not be expected to absorb retaliation or commit troops to another Middle Eastern project.

These wars are never short, and they are always expensive.

Even if Iran’s regime collapses quickly, the aftermath would require a long, brutal occupation to prevent it from descending into chaos. Israel doesn’t have the capacity — let alone the political will — for that task. That burden would fall, again, to America.

So before conservatives fall for another round of WMD hysteria, they should recall what the last two wars taught them.

If the situation really is dire, let the Trump administration make its case to the people. Present the evidence. Debate it in Congress. Vote.

But don’t sleepwalk into another forever war.

Democrats Reportedly Turn To Deep State To Win Back Men

'Enter a woman who I believe is the establishment choice for the presidency'

Trump doesn’t threaten democracy — he threatens its ruling class



For years, I’ve heard the same complaint from friends, family, and the nightly news: Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The real problem, they say, is the man’s personality. If only he weren’t so obnoxious, if only he didn’t speak off the cuff or insult his critics, then maybe his enemies would stop calling him a Nazi. Maybe the protests would stop. Maybe the country could calm down.

It’s true that Trump’s tactlessness and unreflective speech can grate, even on those who support him. But let’s not pretend his critics hold anyone else to the same standard. Where was their outrage when Joe Biden declared that Trump supporters were “the only garbage I see,” smeared the GOP as “semi-fascists" and "terrorists,” or cursed at reporters who dared ask unscripted questions?

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly.

The same people clutching pearls over Trump’s tone cheered on mouthy scolds like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. They ignored threats by former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who warned Supreme Court justices against overturning Roe v. Wade outside their own courthouse. When it comes to rhetoric, Democrats don’t offend them — only Republicans do.

And the hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Anti-white racism is commonplace among Democrats. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) mocked Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) as a purveyor of “white tears” for disagreeing with her. Crockett also derided “mediocre white boys” who oppose race-based preferences and once referred to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott as “Governor Hot Wheels” without consequence. No apology. No media outcry. Just applause.

At some point, the conclusion becomes obvious: The outrage over Trump’s rhetoric has little to do with his words. It has everything to do with the groups he opposes. His critics don’t hate how he speaks. They hate what he threatens.

If rhetoric really mattered, then Democrats would call out their own side for the endless stream of vile speech and political violence. But they don’t. They won’t. Because they know it’s not about tone. It’s about power.

Would the Trump-haters change their tune if a more well-mannered Republican — House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), or even Dr. Oz — pushed Trump’s policies? Don’t bet on it. Democrats didn’t tone down their vitriol even after two assassination attempts against Trump, the second by a man, Ryan Routh, who explicitly cited Democratic rhetoric and media hysteria as his motivation.

Legacy media rage against Trump not because he speaks crudely, but because he disrupts their agenda. He guts bloated agencies, cuts funding to woke nonprofits, and works to dismantle bureaucracies like the Department of Education — which caters to teachers’ unions but has done zilch to improve American learning.

Trump also dares to enforce immigration law. After Democrats spent years encouraging waves of illegal immigration, he tried to reverse the damage — and they called him a “tyrant.” He asserts that men are men and women are women, even as the ruling class invents new genders and demands compliance.

RELATED: Progressives’ ‘democracy’ is just a cover for unaccountable power

Blaze News Illustration

The ruling class can get away with its double standard because its multiple armies close ranks to defend any lie or exaggeration from its government placeholders. When Biden labeled Trump’s voters as terrorists, the foreign policy blob, the think-tank class, and the media all fell in line. Groups like the Council on Foreign Relations echoed the claim, amplifying a fantasy of right-wing extremism while excusing left-wing bigotry.

Search engines bury criticism of Democrats while promoting glowing defenses of their nastiest remarks. The same media that spent years covering for Biden’s obvious cognitive decline and told you it’s a conspiracy theory to question his mental fitness to serve now say they had no idea anything was wrong. Trust them.

And don’t forget the cultural cleanup crews. During Pride Month, every major corporation, institution, and media outlet falls in lockstep. No dissent. No nuance. Just forced applause for whatever new orthodoxy the cultural left pushes. (Though that might be changing.)

The rage over Trump’s language comes from anxiety. The ruling class members fear that his return to power could disrupt their ideological monopoly. Even modest success in weakening their grip on government, culture, or education terrifies them. Because once that monopoly breaks, their entire edifice could fall.

That’s why Trump provokes such hysteria. Not because he insults people. But because he threatens the system that protects their power.

And maybe, just maybe, that’s a good thing.

When bureaucrats rule, even red states go woke



If it’s happening in Georgia, you can bet it’s happening all over the country. Embedded bureaucrats are quietly rewriting the policies voters put in place.

Georgia’s Medicaid program exists to serve the state’s most vulnerable — low-income children and foster youth, pregnant women, and disabled adults. It was never meant to be a vehicle for radical politics. But recent revelations about how the state awarded multibillion-dollar Medicaid contracts show exactly how far left-wing ideologues inside government agencies will go to push their agenda.

When the bureaucracy pushes a progressive agenda behind closed doors, the public has no choice but to push back. Loudly. Clearly. Immediately.

Internal documents reveal that senior staff at Georgia’s Department of Community Health inserted ideological land mines into the bidding process for companies seeking to serve more than 1 million Medicaid recipients — most of them children. This included a scenario question focused on how insurers would treat a hypothetical “fourteen (14) year-old, transgender White female (assigned male sex at birth but identifies as a female).”

Responses that didn’t align with leftist orthodoxy were penalized. In other words, companies lost points unless they promised to steer kids toward hormone therapy — despite state laws banning gender reassignment procedures for minors. That isn’t just dishonest. It’s a direct subversion of the law.

Just this year, Georgia’s legislature passed bills barring men from girls’ sports and locker rooms. But inside the state’s Medicaid agency, officials rewarded insurers for endorsing gender transitions for minors. One winning bidder justified its position by claiming such treatments “could come up in the future.” Never mind that they’re illegal in Georgia.

One losing insurer offered to connect the hypothetical child with a range of community resources, including faith-based organizations. That response was met with scorn. A state official actually complained that faith-based groups shouldn’t have been included — because they weren’t mentioned in the scenario.

Never mind that faith-based organizations have served Medicaid populations for decades. They often provide the only consistent care in struggling communities. But for these bureaucrats, churches and people of faith pose a bigger danger to kids than radical gender ideology.

This is no small issue. Georgia expects to spend $4.5 billion next year on Medicaid and PeachCare, the program for uninsured kids. That makes this one of the largest contracts in state history — and leftist staffers nearly hijacked the entire process.

RELATED: Why is deep-red Oklahoma paving the way for the Green New Deal?

Photographer: Angus Mordant/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Lawmakers have a duty to step in now. During the last session, they considered a bill that would have barred ideologically charged questions from state procurements. It didn’t pass. That needs to change.

There’s still time. The Medicaid contracts haven’t been finalized. Legislators must act. They should demand a full rebid, remove these radical questions, and ensure that reviewers score responses based on biology, patient welfare, and fiscal responsibility — not on whether companies genuflect to left-wing doctrine.

Georgia’s leadership has worked hard to uphold conservative values and protect taxpayer dollars. But as we’ve seen in Washington, unelected bureaucrats can — and will — undermine that progress if no one stops them.

When the bureaucracy pushes a progressive agenda behind closed doors, the public has no choice but to push back. Loudly. Clearly. Immediately. We must call it out, correct course, and pass the kind of reforms that ensure this never happens again.

Patel’s plan to dismantle the deep state starts with a moving van



The time has come to dismantle the FBI as we’ve known it — and rebuild it into the law enforcement agency it was always supposed to be.

Under former Director Christopher Wray, the FBI became a political weapon. It targeted thousands of Americans, including former President Donald Trump, whose Mar-a-Lago estate was raided in 2022 over “key classified documents.” At the same time, Joe Biden had his own stash of classified material at his Delaware home, which he allegedly took as Barack Obama’s vice president, but the FBI dragged its feet before lifting a finger.

This isn’t just a logistical shift — it’s a symbolic one. A once-centralized, politicized agency now has a chance to rebuild credibility, brick by brick, city by city.

The bureau’s double standards didn’t stop there. Agents monitored citizens for their social media posts and even flagged Christians based solely on their religious beliefs. This isn’t law enforcement — it’s ideological policing.

Now, with Wray gone and Kash Patel stepping in, the FBI has reached a crossroads. And Patel has already announced a major shift. Change can’t come fast enough.

Moving out

Patel recently announced on Fox News that the FBI plans to vacate its longtime home at the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington, D.C., and disperse more than 1,500 active employees to field offices nationwide.

This is welcome news — for several reasons.

First, keeping the FBI’s nerve center in D.C. creates obvious political risks. It placed the bureau within easy reach of powerful politicians eager to influence investigations — something President Biden has reportedly taken advantage of more than once. Centralizing the agency in one building also posed a glaring security risk. A single well-coordinated attack could have crippled the FBI’s operations.

Second, the Hoover Building itself has deteriorated significantly. The Biden administration showed no interest in restoring it. Patel’s plan doesn’t just address a structural issue — it signals a cultural shift.

RELATED: Inside Trump’s plan to make the FBI great again

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

“We want the American men and women to know if you’re going to come work at the premier law enforcement agency in the world, we’re going to give you a building that’s commensurate with that, and that’s not this place,” Patel said.

The goal is clear: decentralize power, reduce vulnerability, and rebuild the bureau’s credibility from the ground up.

Time to rebuild

This move offers real benefits.

Dispersing FBI agents across the country allows them to respond more quickly to cases without relying on costly, time-consuming travel. Imagine a homicide investigation that requires FBI involvement. Instead of waiting days for special agents to arrive from Washington, a local team can jump in immediately. That keeps cases from stalling and gets justice moving faster.

It also improves coordination with local law enforcement. For years, under Wray, cooperation often felt strained or disjointed. Decentralization gives agents a better chance to build working relationships with police departments on the ground. That alone marks a major improvement.

But the real win? Breaking from the old image of what the FBI had become.

This isn’t just a logistical shift — it’s a symbolic one. A once-centralized, politicized agency now has a chance to rebuild credibility, brick by brick, city by city.

As I’ve said, keeping the FBI in the J. Edgar Hoover Building only reinforces the agency’s worst associations. That building still bears the scars of Director Wray’s missteps — and before him, James Comey, whose antagonism toward President Trump in 2017 got him fired.

(And judging from recent headlines, Comey still hasn’t taken the firing well.)

This move offers the FBI a much-needed reset. It gives the agency a chance to move past its baggage and build something more effective, transparent, and accountable. Credit to Patel — and likely Trump — for making the call. FBI agents deserve the opportunity to leave behind the cloud of corruption and step into something better.

I’m eager to see how this changes the bureau — not just for agents but for law enforcement as a whole.

Joe Biden was a puppet, not a president. So who signed the pardons?



Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s new book confirms what we suspected all along: Joe Biden’s health was rapidly declining, and the Democratic Party establishment knew it. Rather than be honest with the American people, they chose to cover it up, to prop up Biden just long enough to survive the election cycle. And the media helped them do it.

For years, any mention of Biden’s cognitive decline was framed as a “right-wing smear,” a baseless conspiracy theory. But now, Tapper and Thompson reveal that Biden’s top aides privately discussed the need for a wheelchair after the election — because the man can hardly walk.

We had no functioning president for much of the past administration.

And while Biden’s closest aides were planning that, they and their allies in the press were publicly spinning the fantasy that Joe Biden’s halting gait was due to a heroic foot fracture from a dog-related incident four years ago. They said his frailty was due to his “vigor.” That’s not a joke. That’s a quote.

And while they said this, they were having special shoes made for him with custom-made soles to help him stand. They weren’t planning for a second term. They were planning how to prop him up — literally — just long enough to survive the election. That is a cover-up.

It doesn’t bother me that Biden might need a wheelchair. What bothers me — what should bother every American — is that his aides talked about hiding it until after the election.

Biden wasn’t leading

Needing a wheelchair in your 80s is not a moral failing. It’s human. I own President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wheelchair — it sits in my museum. That chair represents the strength and resilience of a man who, despite paralysis, led this nation through World War II against a dictator who was gassing the disabled and infirm. He hid his disability out of fear the public wouldn’t accept a leader who couldn’t walk. But he led.

RELATED: The Great Biden Book War has finally begun

Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images

But Joe Biden wasn’t leading. He was a puppet played by faceless swamp creatures whose only concern was maintaining their iron grip on power.

Whatever you think of Tapper, the book reveals the chilling reality that we had no functioning president for much of Biden’s administration. Our commander-in-chief wasn’t just aging — he was declining. And the people around him — government employees, funded by your tax dollars — weren’t honest with you. They lied to you repeatedly and willfully because the truth would have guaranteed a second Trump term. That’s what this was all about.

Who signed the pardons?

Consider the implications of this revelation. We had a president signing documents he didn’t read — or even know about. We had an autopen affixing his name to executive actions. Who operated that autopen? Who decided what got signed or who got pardoned? Who was in charge while the president didn’t even know what he was doing?

Those are not minor questions. That is the stuff of a constitutional crisis.

The problem isn’t Biden’s age. The problem is that the people you elected didn’t run the country. You were governed by unelected aides covering up your elected president’s rapid cognitive decline. You were fed a lie — over and over again. And if anyone tried to blow the whistle, they got buried.

Don’t get distracted by the wheelchair. The chair itself is not the scandal. The scandal is that people inside your government didn’t want you to know about it.

They made a bet: Lie until November, and deal with the fallout later. That is an insult to the American people — and a threat to the republic itself. Because if your government can lie about who’s running the country, what else are they lying about?

We need further investigation and to hold these crooks accountable. If we don’t, it will happen over and over again.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

John Roberts doesn’t deserve your deference



The first 100 days of Trump’s presidency marked a well-earned honeymoon. But the next 100 days will test whether the marriage can survive — especially with unruly offspring like judicial overreach and intra-MAGA infighting threatening the union.

Take Chief Justice John Roberts, for example. In a recent interview, he claimed the judiciary is “independent” from the other branches, yet also insisted it has the authority to “strike down” both laws and executive actions. So which is it? Are judges independent arbiters — or unaccountable gods?

Every movement walks a fine line between selling its soul and learning to take ‘yes’ for an answer.

Roberts may not understand what “independent” actually means. How can the judiciary call itself independent when it relies entirely on the other two branches for its power? Judges don’t appoint or confirm themselves. They don’t fund their own operations. They can’t enforce their own rulings or impose new policies. They act only through the political structures that created them.

‘Neither force nor will’

The judiciary is, by design, the most dependent of the three branches. The Constitution’s framers structured it that way to protect the rights they believed came from God, not government. Want proof? Run a full-text search of the Constitution for “strike down” or “struck down.” Those words don’t appear — because that power was never explicitly granted or even implied. Read Federalist 78 and 81. Hamilton makes it plain.

He also made clear that courts have no authority to tax, spend, or raise armies. Why did he highlight those powers? Because they are the most sweeping and dangerous. Governments that can conscript citizens and debase the currency can do real harm. But the political branches exercise those powers — and voters can hold them accountable. The judiciary, with its lifetime appointments, cannot be removed when it abuses its role. That’s why, as Hamilton wrote, courts were designed to possess “neither force nor will.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier shows exactly what’s at stake. He’s openly defying a federal judge’s order on immigration. So why hasn’t anyone arrested him for contempt? Who would enforce the order? The U.S. Marshals? Not without Trump’s OK. Local sheriffs? Only if Gov. Ron DeSantis agrees.

The chief justice is betting you won’t notice. He’s counting on your silence while the courts expand their own power unchecked. But a republic cannot survive if one branch decides its own jurisdiction. Power flows where it’s permitted to go. And the so-called moral majority — the people John Adams believed would hold the republic together — have surrendered too many battles to keep “We the People” alive in more than name. We’ve never truly been a nation of laws. We’ve always been a nation of political will.

Maligning MAHA?

That political will must now be exercised — boldly — against both the judiciary and the emerging fractures inside the “Make America Healthy Again” movement. While it’s true that MAGA 2.0 wouldn’t exist without MAHA, the movement faces internal risks just as dangerous as external enemies. If MAHA lets infighting fester, it will rot from the inside — just as Anthony Fauci’s unchecked power eroded trust during COVID.

I first heard of Casey Means through Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson. Now, I’m being asked to believe — by MAHA stalwarts I deeply respect — that Trump’s nominee for surgeon general is some kind of psyop designed to block real accountability. Seriously? If Rogan and Carlson are now launch platforms for deep-state mind control, then it might be time to pack it in and let the judges run wild. Eat, drink, and brace for booster number 666.

When you’ve lived on the margins as long as the MAHA crowd has, it’s natural to view new arrivals — alleged “bandwagon jumpers” like Means and her brother Callie — with suspicion. But every successful team needs bandwagon fans. Have you ever noticed how stadiums only fill when a team wins? That’s no coincidence. MAHA has gained traction and credibility, and now people want in. That’s a good thing. But if MAHA wants to become the new status quo, it must learn to govern.

Every movement walks a fine line between selling its soul and learning to take “yes” for an answer.

At some point, you have to move past the constant sense of betrayal and start making real compromises. That’s how things get done. Whether in marriage, business, or politics — risk always comes with meaning. It’s just math.

Pulling the COVID shot off the market would take guts. So will getting a Republican Congress to accept its mandate from the people, rather than punting to unelected judges while cashing in on K Street.

The next 100 days must restore order. The path forward looks clear. What’s uncertain is whether we have the courage and conviction to walk it. Were we made to be ruled by John Roberts and Anthony Fauci? Or will we step up and govern like citizens? Yes, governing is hard. But letting medical and judicial “experts” run our lives is far worse.

Right?

Why voters are done compromising with the ‘America Last’ elite



One of the main forces driving the populist revolt against Washington stems from a simple truth: The ruling class openly prioritizes foreign interests over the needs of American citizens.

When millions of Americans — spanning political and economic divides — called on their leaders to put America first, the response was rejection.

Blue-collar factory workers, once loyal to the economic left, and Tea Party conservatives, committed to limited government, found rare common ground. Together, they asked their government to put the interests of the United States and its people above globalist agendas. That request was denied.

The political class chose to outsource American manufacturing, ship jobs overseas, and flood the domestic labor market with cheap foreign replacements. When they couldn’t export your job, they imported someone to take it.

At the same time, both parties prioritized foreign wars and border security — for other nations. While American communities faced rising crime and chaos from a deliberately open southern border, lawmakers sent troops, dollars, and attention to foreign front lines.

Washington refused to secure the United States. It focused instead on securing everyone else.

I welcome the growing ‘America Only’ movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am.

To be fair, the two parties expressed their abandonment of American interests differently. The Democrats embraced a fervent anti-patriotism that made clear their hostility and disloyalty to the United States. Democrats swooned over Colin Kaepernick, whose public disdain for the U.S. symbolized their broader worldview. In other words, Democrats embraced “America Never.”

The Republican establishment, despite the party’s base being vocally America First, sought out a compromise position with the Democrats, settling on “America Last” as the middle ground.

America Last is an unacceptable compromise to those of us clamoring for America First. The only rational countermeasure is “America Only” — a position that aims to shift the Overton window back toward the rightful prioritization of American sovereignty, industry, and citizenship. While I don’t believe the United States can completely decouple from the global economy, nor do I consider myself America Only, I welcome the shift in that direction to move the compromise position from America Last to America First.

Too many people in Washington on both sides of the aisle are passionate about defending Ukraine’s border, but they consider it vulgar and racist for Americans to secure our own border. Elites weep over the deportation of violent criminal aliens, yet are silent about their crimes and the victims affected by them. To this day, open-border ideologues claim that the man who murdered Laken Riley is the real victim — and they’ll never forgive her for being killed by one of their prized illegal aliens.

The ‘America Only’ compromise

The genesis of the MAGA movement is often summarized this way: “The Tea Party was the polite request. Donald Trump is the less polite request. It doesn’t get any more polite from here.” That same sequence applies to the uniparty, having rejected America First, which was the polite request. America Only is the less polite follow-up request.

We demanded that our own border be secured before weapons and tax money were sent to defend Ukraine’s border. The establishment responded by draining our country’s stock of munitions and sending them to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, along with $175 billion. Congress’ bipartisan “compromise” was to keep the border wide open and effectively legalize the ongoing invasion. The government hired thousands of border agents, not to protect the border but to process those crossing it.

Moreover, we demanded fair, reciprocal trade, and in response, we got unilateral surrender to foreign mercantilism — our industrial exports widely blocked by tariffs and trade barriers from the same countries granted unlimited access to our markets.

These betrayals have pushed many conservatives who were once pro-trade, pro-legal immigration, and pro-Ukraine into an isolationist mindset that embraces protectionist tariffs, rejects all immigration, and doesn’t care any longer about Ukraine’s fate. This response is not only rational — it might be necessary to tell our government that prioritizing the United States and its citizens must henceforth be its top priority.

A wake-up call

For what it’s worth, I am not an isolationist. I stand solidly with Israel as a cultural and religious outpost that is a linchpin in Western civilization, and I support its current war effort — so long as U.S. troops are not involved. If Israel falls, it wouldn’t just reshape the map; it would embolden those who dream of a global caliphate, including in North America.

I can also be persuaded that a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear program is justifiable so long as the “we broke it, we bought it” policy is no longer operational. If we have to break it, we can break it and leave it until it needs breaking again.

At the same time, I also welcome the growing “America Only” movement, even if it is more isolationist than I am. A coalition of America Only and America First voters has the power to compel the Republican establishment and swing-district Democrats to understand that America First is the compromise position, and if they refuse, then they get nothing on their global wish list.