Trump's taking Maga fire over ‘forever wars', but the real battle awaits

'I'm the one that decides,' declared President Trump last week when asked by a reporter who gets to say what 'America First' really means. Faced with a backlash from parts of his base over the prospect of the US supporting Israel in military action in Iran, the president said his word is final — 'after all, I'm the one that developed America First' — adding that 'the term wasn't used until I came along'.
In fact, the phrase dates back to the First World War when Woodrow Wilson used the slogan to appeal to voters who wanted America to stay out of the conflict. (They didn't get their wish.) The America First Committee was founded in 1940 to protest against US involvement in the Second World War, but gained notoriety after high-profile members such as the aviator Charles Lindbergh and the automotive tycoon Henry Ford led to a perception that it had antisemitic and pro-fascist sympathies.
However, since Trump launched his first bid for president ten years ago, it has taken on a new meaning. 'He has driven the term back into usage,' says Julian Zelizer, the Princeton University historian and author of The Presidency of Donald J Trump: A First Historical Assessment. 'He has the most power to shape what it actually includes.'
Now it represents a whole movement, extending from foreign policy to trade to immigration. No more forever wars. No more favours for other countries out of the goodness of Uncle Sam's heart. But in a week where parts of Trump's base came out and criticised the president directly, the question is being asked in Washington: is Trump still in control of the agenda — or is it the base that decides?
There are certainly plenty of figures in Washington who have distinct views on what America First ought to mean in practice. Last week, the row over Iran has seen a US version of blue on blue: Maga on Maga. As the alt-right influencer Jack Posobiec put it: 'I'm just thankful the neocons are here to tell us who is REAL MAGA.'
Trump has distanced himself from certain members of his cabinet, saying that his head of intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is 'wrong' on her intelligence assessment of Iran.
But in his second term, Trump has had ultimate authority over his cabinet. Learning from the first term, he picked them for loyalty and deference. As a figure with close ties to the administration says: 'It's a football team. He's the manager, they're the players, they listen to the manager and that's all there is to it.'
It is why the voices he needs to worry more about may be the ones on the outside. Enter the Maga-verse — the network of former advisers, informal advisers and influencers free to speak, exerting varying degrees of influence on the president.
One figure close to the White House says: 'There are a bunch of people that we look to to see how things are landing.' Indeed, the administration last week reached out to key figures as they tried to control the narrative.
There are different spheres of influence. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser, is widely regarded as the godfather of Maga. While he no longer has a place in the White House, he is seen as a temperature check on the movement by keeping the government in touch with the grassroots through his media and bringing up the next generation of Maga — several of whom have gone on to take jobs in the administration.
'Everybody just folds to whatever big corporate interest there is and this administration is only slightly different to that,' explains an insider. 'Steve keeps a check on it.'
Bannon's War Room podcast regularly ranks among the top ten in the US, and has more than 200,000 followers on X. The former executive chairman of the alt-right news website Breitbart had lunch with the president last week — just before Trump's spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt announced a two-week window to make a decision on his next steps in Iran.
Next, Tucker Carlson — the former Fox News host — who last week accused Trump of taking America on the wrong path. This led to Trump saying: 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.'
'He's definitely relevant,' says one Maga figure. 'But it's a much younger, less-likely-to-vote demographic that he now appeals to. It's a much lower propensity voter. I don't think he would take that as an insult. He lives in a cabin in the woods in Maine.'
After the barrage of words, Trump later said he shared a phone call with Carlson who apologised for going too far.
Then there's Laura Loomer — the right-wing conspiracy theorist — who regularly leads the news in DC with her social media and investigations.
A Republican insider says: 'She's probably the best opposition researcher in Republican politics nationwide and she's devastatingly destructive to people. Some people might walk around with their chest puffed out and go, 'Oh, I'm not scared of Laura Loomer.' They're all scared of Laura Loomer.'
Last week, Loomer and Carlson have clashed on Iran, while Bannon warned against the US getting too embroiled in any conflict.
The changing media landscape is giving these figures greater prominence. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief at Breitbart, says: 'We live in impassioned times, especially in the podcast era and new media.'
It's not gone unnoticed in Maga world that last week streaming overtook cable and broadcast as the most-watched form of TV in the US.
Yet the base is insistent there is no civil war. 'We're not a monolith, we're not the left, they don't tolerate dissent, right?' says one Maga figure. 'One part of the coalition is holding the other part of the coalition accountable.'
Boyle, who was recently spotted dining with both Bannon and the Democrat senator John Fetterman, says: 'I do think that when the president makes his decision that the movement is gonna fall in line very quickly. He is the leader of the America First movement. He built this movement.'
Yet Trump has never been a perfect fit for some of the views within it. In 2016, he said of America First that he wanted to make decision-making more 'unpredictable'.
'We won't be isolationists — I don't want to go there because I don't believe in that,' Trump said. 'But we're not going to be ripped off any more by all of these countries.'
The historian Victor Davis Hanson, of the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University, says: 'Trump is neither an isolationist nor an interventionist, but rather transactional. The media fails to grasp that, so it is confused why tough-guy Trump is hesitant to jump into Iran, or contrarily why a noninterventionist Trump would even consider using bunker busters against Iran.
'The common thread again is his perception of what benefits the US middle class — economically, militarily, politically and culturally.'
But internal debates go beyond foreign affairs. The other main Maga priorities are bringing jobs back to the US — through tariffs — and cracking down on immigration. Tensions have bubbled on all of these: last week Trump exempted the farm and hospitality industries from the immigration raids, only for Maga activists to raise alarm. The president then changed it back.
Raheem Kassam, who is a close ally of Bannon, a co-owner of the Butterworths restaurant in Washington — a Maga hotspot — and a former adviser to Nigel Farage, says: 'It's definitely become more complex and thoughtful and flexible.
'There's now a depth where you can't necessarily fit all of Maga policy on a banner held up at a rally. You used to be able to say it was 'build the wall', 'drain the swamp'. It's developed more, it's deeper, it's denser and that's kind of what the establishment is really upset about this time. It's like, 'Oh, these guys have actually developed an element of political sophistication.''
For now, most agree — at least publicly — that Trump is king. Yet privately what is making the base so jumpy is this idea that Trump is being forced by the deep state into the default establishment policy position. If it happens to Trump, what chance does his successor have?
Hanson says: 'Trump decides — in the sense of le Maga état, c'est moi. Almost everyone who tried to redefine Maga or take on Trump has mostly lost rather than gained influence.
'The key question is whether Maga continues after 2029, given Trump's unique willingness to take on the left rhetorically and concretely in a way that far exceeds the Reagan revolution, and in truth, any prior Republican. Trump's bellicosity, volatility, and resilience — his willingness to win ugly rather than lose nobly — ensure him credibility and goodwill among the base that in turn allows him greater latitude and patience.'
Or as a recent visitor to the White House puts it: 'A lot of them want a Maga ideology whereas Trump is happy with it just being about him.'
Kassam adds: 'Trump does largely get to decide what America First means. But the point is, there's a whole movement behind it that will want to keep the America First agenda even after Trump.'
The real fight to define America First is likely to come when Trump exits the stage.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Sun

32 minutes ago

• The Sun

Explosions heard in Qatar as Iranian missiles shot towards US airbase after Tehran vowed revenge for Trump nuke strikes

IRAN launched a salvo of ballistic missiles at Qatar targeting the biggest US military base in the Middle East. Loud explosions were heard in central Doha as air defence systems worked to intercept the missiles launched at Al Udeid air base - home to some 10,000 US army personnel. 3 3 All the Iranian missiles were shot down, it is understood. Footage shared by OSINT accounts appeared to show interceptions by air defence systems. It comes after the US said it expects that Iran could carry out retaliatory attacks targeting American forces in the next 24 to 48 hours. The Qataris have now closed their airspace. They said they reserve the right to respond directly and in accordance with international law. It has also been said that there are no casualties at the US Al Udeid military base in Doha, following Iran's attack on the facility. Tehran repeatedly threatened to strike US military bases in the Middle East following Donald Trump's bombing of its nuclear sites. Qatar is home to the largest US military base in the Middle East – Al Udeid Air Base. The base in the desert outside of Doha serves as the forward HQ for US Central Command. It houses about 10,000 troops and hosts some 40 military aircraft. In total, the US has about 50,000 troops stationed in the Middle East. British military personnel also serve there on rotation. Earlier today, The Sun reported that US and UK embassies in Qatar warned American and British citizens to 'shelter in place until further notice'. Meanwhile, the Israelis carried out their most intense bombing raids in Iran - pounding the Islamic Republic's intelligence HQ, a prison full of dissidents and the Fordow nuke plant for the second time. The IDF blew the gates off the notorious Evin Prison - a pit of torture and executions - hoping to bust out the regime's fierce critics languishing behind the walls. Also targeted were the Basij Headquarters of the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's "Destruction of Israel" countdown clock and various other security hubs, the IDF said. The Fordow mountain-fortress nuclear site was bombed - barely a day after the Americans pulverised it - with IDF rockets going after the "access routes". Significant damage has likely been caused to the plant and the sensitive machinery it houses by the US's bombing, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said. Stay up to date with the latest on Israel vs Iran with The Sun's live blog below...

The Guardian

36 minutes ago

• The Guardian

header

Fifa is facing new questions over the increasingly fraught World Cup next year, with the issue of how to treat Iran while the country is involved in a conflict with the co-host the US. There are no provisions within Fifa's regulations to prevent Iran from playing their group matches in the US, despite the country being subject to military action by the Trump administration and Iranian citizens being under a travel ban that prevents them from entering the country. The ban contains an exemption that could apply to players, staff or associated families with teams at the 2026 Fifa World Cup. Iran, who faced USA in the group stage of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, qualified in March for their fourth consecutive World Cup. Although 2026 is also being hosted by Canada and Mexico, only by being given a specific slot in group A could Iran avoid playing in the US, with their matches then taking place in Mexico. If Iran won that group they would stay in Mexico for their last-32 game and any last-16 match. Should they go further – and they have never reached a World Cup knockout game – they would then play in the US. Fifa did not respond on Monday to a request for comment from the Guardian and will likely be considering its options before the World Cup draw, which is due to take place in December. The decision will be a difficult one for its president, Gianni Infantino, who has associated himself closely with President Donald Trump, who authorised the use of US bombs on Iranian nuclear sites last weekend. Infantino and the Fifa Council will have the final say on inclusion in the competition and the makeup of the draw, but the organising committee for Fifa competitions will be expected to have input. The committee has members from Canada, Mexico and Iran, and its chair is Uefa's president, Aleksander Ceferin. In 2022, his organisation announced that Ukraine and Belarus would be kept apart in Uefa competition draws, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and his action may provide an example for Fifa to follow. Before the World Cup draw in Qatar, the agreed draw constraints included limitations on where teams could be selected but this related only to a 'general principle' that no more than one team from each confederation (excluding Europe) should appear in a given group.

Reuters

37 minutes ago

• Reuters

Senate parliamentarian faults Republicans' plan to limit judges' power

June 23 (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate official has concluded that a Republican-drafted provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that would restrict the ability of judges to block government policies violates budgetary rules. The Senate's parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, advised over the weekend that the provision ran afoul of a Senate rule governing what can be included in budget reconciliation legislation that can be passed with a simple-majority vote and would instead need to be subject to a 60-vote threshold if it remained in the bill. Republicans, who control the Senate 53-47, intend to use complex budget rules to pass the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" with a simple majority vote. The parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee. Her decision could spell doom for the provision's inclusion in the ultimate legislation Congress passes because it would allow Democrats to challenge the vote on the floor and require Republicans to muster 60 votes to pass it. Congressional leaders hope to enact the overall bill in the coming days so Trump can sign it into law before July 4. The courts-related provision in the Senate version of the bill would limit the ability of judges to issue preliminary injunctions blocking federal policies unless the party suing posts a bond to cover the government's costs if the ruling is later overturned. The bond requirement differs from one tucked into the version of the bill the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed in May that would curb courts' power by curtailing the ability of judges to hold officials in contempt if they violate injunctions. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday hailed the parliamentarian's assessment, saying Republicans had tried to "write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution, and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy." The provision was drafted by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is led by Senator Chuck Grassley. He had argued the provision would ensure judges enforce an existing requirement that parties seeking a preliminary injunction provide a security bond to cover costs incurred by a defendant if a judge's ruling is later overturned. Judges rarely require such bonds when a lawsuit is not pitting two private parties against each other but instead challenging an alleged unlawful or unconstitutional government action. Several judges have denied the Trump administration's requests for bonds or issued nominal ones. Grassley in a statement on Sunday said Republicans are committed to using all available avenues to "ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards." Congressional Republicans have called for banning or curtailing nationwide injunctions blocking government policies after key parts of Trump's agenda have been stymied by such court rulings. The House in April voted 219-213 largely along party lines in favor of the No Rogue Rulings Act to do so, but the Senate has not yet taken up the measure. A White House memo in March directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post bonds if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. Such bonds can make obtaining an injunction a cost-prohibitive option in cases concerning multi-billion-dollar agenda items. Read more: US Senate Republicans seek to limit judges' power via Trump's tax-cut bill