- We The 66
- Posts
- 🌊 Has MAGA Lost Trump?
🌊 Has MAGA Lost Trump?
MAGA is livid about Trump’s apparent willingness to strike Iran. How did this happen?
Did someone forward you this? Subscribe here free!
By Max Frost
“If we get dragged into this, we could be witnessing the end of the American empire” – Tucker Carlson
“What the f*** is going on in [DC]?” – Steve Bannon
“Trump is the most impotent b**ch of a leader imaginable…Trump has betrayed MAGA and every principle of America First. He is no longer worthy of any of our support. He probably never was” – Dave Smith
“AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” – Donald Trump
“Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that,’ IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!’” – Donald Trump
“Today it’s Tel Aviv, tomorrow it’s New York. I understand America First but I don't understand America dead. That's what these people want. They chant ‘death to America’” – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Sunday marked ten years since Trump rode down the escalator at Trump Tower and launched the MAGA movement. One day later, it entered its most divisive phase yet.
On the one side are some of the president’s and MAGA’s staunchest defenders: People like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson, who make the president’s populist-nationalist case daily to audiences of millions. On the other is Washington’s foreign policy establishment, which is almost constantly criticizing Trump’s rhetoric, treatment of allies, and disregard for “norms.”
So how did friends become opponents, and vice versa? Who stands where in MAGA world? That’s the subject of today’s deep-dive.
MAGA movement leaders have spent years positioning the group in opposition to the “Neo Cons,” the Republican Party’s interventionist branch. People like Tucker Carlson have devoted countless hours to highlighting the Neo Cons’ failures, and alleging that they and their interventionist mentality are the product of a rotten system where war lobbyists and arms companies, not the average American, determine American foreign policy.
Tucker’s group has seemed ascendant since last summer, when Trump picked arguably the Senate’s leading critic of Ukraine – JD Vance – as his running mate. During his campaign, Trump promised to focus on winning battles at home – over immigration, fentanyl, and poverty – instead of abroad.
The movement’s momentum accelerated after Trump took office: He appointed Tulsi Gabbard, one of the most influential non-interventionist politicians, as his National Security Adviser, and Bridge Colby, an international relations expert known for his non-interventionist views, as the head of Pentagon strategy.
In 2012, Colby said, “The only thing worse than the prospect of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would be the consequence of using force to try to stop them.” After October 7, he reiterated, “For those advocating a major expansion of the war in Israel by launching a US strike campaign against Iran…How would you handle the major vulnerability this would open up by using weapons, platforms, etc. required to deter China from invading Taiwan?”
Trump also purged his national security staff of alleged Neo Cons, including National Security Adviser Mike Waltz. In May, the New York Times reported that Trump, at his advisers’ urging, vetoed Israeli strikes on Iran and would pursue diplomacy instead.
Last week, the MAGA crew had reason to be more confident than ever: As news circulated that Israel was considering strikes on Iran, leaks indicated that Trump fiercely opposed them. Per one widely-shared report, Trump scolded Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on a phone call, accusing him of trying to ruin his negotiations with Iran.
So MAGA’s influence was obvious – until it wasn’t.
The rest of this report is for paid subscribers, who fund our journalism. If you start a two-week free trial today, you’ll be automatically entered to win a free year. Once you sign up, you can access all of our articles here!
Editor’s Note
What do you think the US should do here? Do you support or oppose intervention? We are very keen to hear your thoughts. Let us know by replying to this email.
TONS of replies to yesterday’s story on how the vaccine panel was packed. A selection of those are featured below:
Sam wrote:
I don’t know for sure whether this is a great move or not, only time will tell. I do know one thing though, whatever we are doing now is not working. We spend the most on healthcare yet have the lowest life expectancy of any developed country. I’m sure it’s a wide range of things that result in this, but any change is welcomed at this point. From my point of view there are a few things that need to be addressed. The poison in our food, the inefficiency of our healthcare system and insurance companies (my friend who is a nurse says they charge hundreds of dollars to patients for Ibuprofen!!), and lastly the vaccines. I’m not calling for the elimination of vaccines, I know they save lives, but I want them to be put under the microscope. I want to know which ones are truly necessary and which ones are just extra dollars in the pockets of Pfizer. I would like to see each one scrutinized like never before by a new fresh set of eyes and then be allowed to make my own decision on whether I give them to my kid or not.
Noelle wrote:
I am a Gen Xer not affiliated with a political party. I believe vaccines work to improve global health populations. I also believe too many vaccines are given at once to young children and babies. Levels of preservatives in current vaccines are a valid concern.
Equally concerning is the number of anti-vax parents not vaccinating their children at all. Maybe I have not noticed them do so, but I have not heard outcries to overhaul the quality of vaccines and modifying the schedules.
This void of discourse is what I find most concerning. If it takes a complete overhaul of the ACIP to spur this conversation on improving vaccinations, and establishing new schedules to ease the minds of parents, let it be.
And Ben replied:
Isn't science all about asking questions? Don't we want people in charge of big science asking questions? I'd rather a skeptic find it safe after investigating than an expert taking another expert's word for it to be safe. Isn't that what peer-review is? And it doesn't sound like RFK is taking indeed applications for the positions....
That’s all for today. If you still want to read, find our last five articles below:
Thank you all for reading, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow.
–Max and Max