For An America First Movement Beyond Trumpism
by Authenticity
The NeoCon Trump Cult
The United States has escalated its role in the Iran-Israel conflict by launching strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, shifting from a supportive role for Israel to direct involvement. On a recent episode of Tim Pool’s program, conservative commentator Laura Loomer made controversial claims against anti-war figure Tucker Carlson, alleging he is funded by Qatar and has betrayed both the MAGA movement and Donald Trump. She further argued that anti-war sentiment was absent from MAGA and conservative circles before the influence of Carlson, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Loomer also denied U.S. involvement in the conflict under Trump, a claim contradicted days later by Trump’s deployment of military forces to the region, his demand for Iran’s unconditional surrender, and his earlier allocation of $4 billion in military aid to Israel on March 1, 2025, which reversed Biden’s partial arms embargo.
Loomer’s remarks are part of a broader effort to target perceived “disloyal” MAGA members who criticize Trump’s increasingly hawkish stance, his alignment with tech moguls like Peter Thiel, his failure to declassify the Epstein files, his support for a debt-increasing spending bill, and his softened positions on issues like immigration. However, her interview with Pool was poorly received, alienating parts of her audience. This internal MAGA and conservative divide is less about loyalty versus betrayal and more about a clash between those who backed Trump for his anti-establishment, non-interventionist, and anti-deep state rhetoric and those who remain steadfastly loyal despite his policy shifts.
Let’s address Loomer’s primary accusation that Carlson is a Qatar-funded agent. This claim lacks credibility when examining Carlson’s and Qatar’s stances on Middle Eastern issues. While both oppose U.S. military action against Iran and have expressed criticism of Israel, their positions diverge significantly elsewhere. Carlson has consistently condemned regime-change operations, such as those that toppled Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, citing their destabilizing effects, including threats to Christians, risks to American lives, mass migration to the West, and increased U.S. debt. Conversely, Qatar has actively supported the Sunni Islamist rebel groups behind these uprisings. By 2023, Qatar remained one of the few Arab states hostile to Syria, unlike Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, and Jordan, which had normalized relations.
Loomer and others often link non-interventionists to Qatar, suggesting it aligns with Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” due to its support for Hamas and Palestinians. However, Qatar and Iran have clashed in regions like Syria, Libya, and Yemen (until 2019), with Qatar’s actions, such as backing anti-Assad rebels, weakening Iran’s regional influence, notably by disrupting arms routes to Hezbollah via Syria. Qatar also benefits from hosting a U.S. military base and has expressed willingness to recognize Israel if a Palestinian state is established — unlike Iran’s stance. Qatar’s documented funding in the U.S. leans toward neoconservative figures and institutions, such as former Senator Bob Menendez and the Brookings Institution, which collaborates with neocons like Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. The notion that Qatar funds anti-war conservatives like Carlson, who advocate for a complete U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East and an end to regional spending, is baseless. If Qatar were to back U.S. commentators, their views would likely mirror those of Al Jazeera — critical of certain U.S. policies but not fundamentally opposed to American presence in the region where it serves Qatar’s interests.
Laura Loomer’s claim that anti-war sentiment was foreign to Trump and the MAGA movement until Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard introduced it, suggesting a left-wing infiltration, is demonstrably false and reveals either deliberate misrepresentation or ignorance of the American right’s history. During his 2015-2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly criticized the Iraq War, U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, and strained relations with Russia. In his first term, he pursued diplomacy with North Korea and initiated the Afghanistan withdrawal. As early as 2013, Trump publicly opposed Obama’s aggressive posture toward Iran, accusing him of posturing to seem tough. In his 2024 campaign, Trump framed himself as the candidate of peace, warning that Kamala Harris risked igniting World War III. His anti-war rhetoric was a key factor in securing both election victories, as evidenced by the backlash from his base when he recently adopted a more hawkish stance.
Non-interventionism has deep roots in the American right, predating Trump’s political career. The phrase “America First,” which Trump embraced, originates with the 1930s-1940s America First Committee, a conservative-led anti-war group that included figures like General Robert E. Wood. The Founding Fathers, frequently invoked by Trump, also championed non-intervention. George Washington warned against entangling alliances, a view echoed by the Federalist party — considered the conservative faction of the era by Russell Kirk. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams opposed U.S. involvement in the French Revolution, favored by some Democratic-Republicans like Thomas Jefferson, and resisted the War of 1812, with some even contemplating secession at the Hartford Convention.
In the 20th century, anti-war conservatism persisted. Post-World War II figures like Congressmen H.R. Gross and Steven D. Symms criticized the Eisenhower Doctrine’s expansion of U.S. Middle East involvement and Israel’s displacement of nearly a million Palestinians in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, arguing that U.S. support fueled prolonged conflicts, cost lives, and diverted billions from domestic priorities. Conservative intellectuals such as Russell Kirk, Robert Nisbet, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Jeffrey Hart, and Claes G. Ryn consistently opposed interventionism and globalism. Patrick Buchanan’s paleoconservative movement, which ran against George H.W. Bush in the 1990s, centered on anti-war principles and later birthed outlets like The American Conservative, Chronicles Magazine, and LewRockwell.com. These platforms were vocal critics of the War on Terror in the 2000s, drawing ire from neoconservatives like David Frum. Many paleoconservatives backed Trump for his anti-war stance, alongside his positions on protectionism, immigration, anti-globalization, and reducing federal bureaucracy. Thus, Loomer’s assertion that anti-war or non-interventionist ideas are alien to conservative thought is entirely unfounded.
Despite Laura Loomer’s vocal opposition to mass migration in the U.S. and Western nations, she overlooks the root causes of past refugee crises, namely U.S.-backed interventions in Libya and Syria that destabilized those countries. A war with Iran would likely trigger similar consequences, with mass displacement and regional chaos. Continuing to fund Israel’s conflict or deploying additional U.S. troops to the region only heightens this risk. Like much of the liberal and neoconservative media, Loomer depends on her audience’s lack of historical context to maintain support for these policies. This aligns with a neo-liberal agenda of global expansion, perpetuating the illusion of a rigid two-party divide in the U.S. Whether intentionally or not, Loomer and those endorsing Trump’s strikes on Iran are complicit in this cycle, advancing the same neo-conservatism they claim to oppose.
Beyond Trump
Fortunately, the war between America, Israel, and Iran appears to be over, at least for now, as both Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire, which, as of the writing this, has been maintained. Many of Trump’s support base who were on the verge of revolt due to American support for Israel and strikes on Iran have now gotten back in line, including Tucker Carlson, who released a video praising Trump’s handling of the situation even after being attacked by Trump and Warhawks like Laura Loomer and Mark Levin. Other major commentators like Mark Dice, while critical of the strikes on Iran, maintained that people were overreacting and that it would not lead to major war, and that everyone should get back on board the Trump train. However, Trump’s false negotiations with Iran, which gave time for Israel to launch a surprise attack, and his strikes on Iran have damaged America’s reputation even further, showing that America does not negotiate in good faith and put countless American lives at risk. Not to mention could have descended us into another regional war if not a world war, if Iran had not shown restraint. Trump on the home front has now launched a campaign against Kentucky senator Thomas Massie because he was the only Republican official to break with Trump over his support for Israel and regime change in Iran. Not only that before this, Trump had also broken with his Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, ignoring her report on how Iran was not building a nuclear bomb like he and the Israelis were claiming. It would not be surprising if Trump launched further tirades and campaigns against Republicans and conservatives who did support his strikes on Iran. Nevertheless, his attacks on Massie show he is not a friend of the anti-war conservatism, despite stealing much of their rhetoric. Nevertheless, Trump keeping a military presence in the Middle East and continued military aid to Israel will guarantee that the US to be dragged into another conflict in the future, wasting billions of dollars and putting countless lives at risk.
The American electorate supported Trump to end U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts and global policing, not to perpetuate it or continue funding foreign nations. Voters expected Trump to fully withdraw from international conflicts and halt foreign aid, moves that could de-escalate many disputes given America’s significant role in sustaining them. Unlike the early 2000s, when anti-war voices on the right were confined to outlets like The American Conservative and Chronicles Magazine, today’s anti-war sentiment is widespread, particularly among younger Americans across racial, economic, religious, and political divides. Recent Pew Research highlights this, noting a parallel rise in anti-Israel sentiment among the youth. A diverse array of influential figures — commentators, intellectuals, comedians, publications, and politicians—such as Tucker Carlson, Mark Dice, Steve Bannon, Tim Dillon, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, Post-Liberal Compact Magazine, Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, Sam Hyde, Pedro Gonzalez, John Mearsheimer, Glenn Greenwald, Marjorie Taylor Greene, David Smith, Jimmy Dore, Joe Rogan, Nick Fuentes, Haz and Jackson Hinkle, among others, align with MAGA and America First values while criticizing foreign intervention. With audiences numbering in the millions, their impact is undeniable, as seen in Trump’s poll surge after appearing on platforms like Joe Rogan’s podcast, fueled by their advocacy for his anti-war stance. The Democratic party’s pro-Israel and pro-war policies fractured its base in the last election, and Republicans risk a similar fate if they ignore this shift.
Rather than unconditionally supporting Trump, as figures like Carlson, Bannon, and Dice have done, these influencers should uphold their principles by pressuring Trump and the GOP. They could urge their audiences to withhold votes from Republican candidates in midterms and future presidential races unless they commit to fully withdrawing from the Middle East and other conflict zones, ending all foreign aid, and exiting NATO. If no GOP candidates align with these goals, they should back independent or third-party contenders. Such a stance could force Republicans to pivot on foreign policy or risk splintering the party for neglecting its base. Americans across the political spectrum are frustrated with both major parties for failing to address critical domestic issues — job losses, rising costs, mass migration, crime, the drug crisis, homelessness, and public and personal debt — while entangling the U.S. in foreign conflicts. This disillusionment, especially among young and working-class voters, is pushing both parties’ bases toward defection. The left’s protests at universities, in cities, and against Democratic leaders over Israel’s war, ongoing for nearly two years, and the near-total revolt of Trump’s base during recent escalations with Iran underscore this growing unrest.
If both the left and right issued an ultimatum to their respective parties, demanding sweeping reforms, and the parties refused to comply, it could spark a profound political upheaval in the United States — ideally nonviolent — that could dismantle the two-party system, the security state, and the framework of neo-liberal capitalism. This anti-establishment movement, uniting diverse factions, could coalesce around nine key principles:
Complete U.S. withdrawal from foreign conflicts, including pulling troops from all countries and exiting NATO.
Termination of free trade policies, prioritizing the return of jobs and industries to the U.S., with a focus on economic independence rather than entanglement in global conflicts or organizations like the UN.
Dissolution or defunding of agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA, and ATF, with prosecution of agents responsible for crimes such as murder or torture against political dissidents, and the release of nonviolent political prisoners.
Abolition of the two-party system, replacing it with a multiparty framework, dismantling the Republican and Democratic parties along with their affiliated media networks.
Breaking up corporate monopolies and eliminating regulations that favor large corporations, enabling small businesses and cooperatives to thrive, fostering a fairer market, and restoring opportunities for ordinary Americans to pursue the Founding Fathers’ vision of the American Dream.
Elimination of government and social media censorship of political speech, including repealing hate speech and anti-BDS laws.
Releasing the Epstein files in its totality and punishing those guilty.
Prohibition of all foreign lobbying, whether by governments, corporations, or individuals.
Mandating congressional approval for war, requiring a two-thirds majority vote before any military action.
As I’ve written previously about the Israel-Gaza conflict, this vision doesn’t fully align with my own ideals, and other ideological groups likely feel similarly. Yet, this transformation would benefit all anti-establishment factions by dismantling the corporate and governmental structures that have long stifled dissent and manipulated public discourse. The collapse of the two-party monopoly and its media allies would create space for diverse perspectives to gain traction, free from the current duopoly’s control. This shift could also de-escalate the culture war, which has been inflamed by the ruling elite, fostering dialogue and collaboration between the left and right. Such a revolution would break the post-World War II paradigm, steering the U.S. away from the brink of another major war and slowing its decline. At minimum, it would buy time to explore better governance models, setting the nation on a path toward renewal rather than collapse.
There remains a possibility that the major parties could reform before a full-scale political upheaval takes place, as evidenced by the rise of anti-war and Israel-critical figures like the Squad, Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Rand Paul. Even Donald Trump has publicly condemned Israel for breaching ceasefire agreements. Regardless, backing anti-war candidates in the upcoming election is crucial for driving meaningful change in the U.S. The time has come to fulfill the next phase of the MAGA movement….. where he was the disruptor, we must now be the catalyst for revolutionary change.