Wither MAGA? It should, in every sense, be ascendant. Donald Trump is only in the first year of his second term. He entered office with a respectable approval rating and, if not a true mandate in a bitterly divided country, at least a bit of political capital.
He had also consolidated full control of the Republican Party, imposing his own brand of nationalism and isolationism on the rank-and-file — or at least changing how they talk about policy. His long-running obsession with tariffs and protectionism was, over time, embraced by enough Republican elites, regardless of his subsequent rolling back of economy-destabilising global tariffs. And his promise to end foreign conflicts — both in Ukraine and the Middle East — resonated with broad swathes of the public, showing, at least temporarily, that the old neoconservative wing of the Republican Party was in retreat.
But Trump’s decision to enlist the United States in Israel’s war with Iran has exposed genuine fault lines within the MAGA movement. It has shown too that, within the Republican establishment, hunger for war has not abated. Neoconservatives aren’t quite beat.
True America First— the isolationism that shares some characteristics with the American anti-war Left — can be hard to find in Congress. The vast majority of Republicans backed the recent Iran strikes and only one, a libertarian in the House of Representatives, joined Democrats in trying to constrain Trump’s war powers.
Even if younger Republicans, as well as a number of MAGA politicians and pundits such as Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Tucker Carlson, do not want war with Iran, the older senators and congressmen do. Caught in the middle are those like Vice President J.D. Vance who maintain close ties to war sceptical MAGA leaders but are also resolutely pro-Israel. Vance has stood behind Trump and offered no criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu. A devout Catholic, he has often framed his support of Israel in religious terms, appealing to the Republican Party’s evangelical wing.
If Trump is able to be swayed by traditional foreign policy voices within the Republican Party, like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, then what is MAGA? The same can be asked on domestic policy, with Republicans in Congress struggling to pass omnibus legislation that would accomplish prototypical GOP goals, like slashing Medicaid (the healthcare program for poor Americans) and cutting taxes on the rich.
This is not to say Trump or MAGA didn’t alter the Republican Party — it’s more that most revolutions aren’t total, and there’s a great deal of traditional Republican muscle memory that won’t be neatly eradicated. With Iran, one can see the Trumpists twisting themselves into knots to justify a bombing campaign within an America First, pro-peace framework. “We’re not at war with Iran,” Vance said on Sunday to NBC’s “Meet the Press”. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth mirrored him at a news conference in the bombing’s aftermath: “We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program… this mission was not, has not been about regime change.”
Rhetorically, at least, this is still not the 2003 Republican Party. The George W. Bush administration gladly talked up regime change. They believed it would be easy. These days, there is more caution, relatively speaking, from the Trump White House. But it’s important to remember there is a reason that media celebrities like Carlson are so anti-Iran War now: they know the pulse of the Republican base. They know, generally, where voters are. They hear from viewers and commenters.
“If the average Republican politician is gleeful that Trump bombed Iran, the average Republican voter is not.”
Of course, Trump himself is truly a wild card. On 22 June, he posted on social media that “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”
If the average Republican politician is gleeful that Trump bombed Iran, the average Republican voter is not. This is the problem for MAGA: a promise really was broken. This is a new war. Foreign policy conflicts have a way of damaging presidencies quickly. Joe Biden has ever really recovered from the well-intentioned but chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Any protracted conflict with Iran will not help Trump, who has already seen his approval ratings slide from January. Politically, there is virtually no upside. A segment of foreign policy hawks, Orthodox Jews, and evangelical Christians might be heartened, but collectively they represent a very small slice of America.
This is the challenge for MAGA. Trump, as long as he is President, can maintain order, but infighting is inevitable and the course to be charted after Trump is not obvious. It’s hard to know, even, where someone like Carlson will land. How genuine are his commitments to the anti-war position? Easy enough to flay someone like Cruz in a clip that goes viral — Cruz could not say, with any certainty, how many people live in Iran — but far harder to challenge Trump directly. All factions of the Republican Party, from neoconservative to isolationist, are kept in line. Even vocal anti-war voices like Greene are resolutely pro-Trump.
The greater question is what comes next, especially in the later years of the Trump presidency. Trump will be a lame duck, barred from running for a third term. He has flirted openly with defying the US Constitution and that threat should not be taken lightly. But the logistics of a president who would turn 82 in 2028 successfully seizing the nomination and beating a standard Democrat— unlike 2024, Democrats will conduct an open primary, and the best candidate will win it — are far more difficult than they may seem right now. Or, if Trump doesn’t win and claims the election was stolen (again), he’d have to illegally seize power while subduing the armed forces, FBI, and CIA and forcibly lock out the new Democratic president duly sworn in on January 20th, 2029. The reality of Trump is that, given his age and lack of competency, he probably doesn’t have such a coup in him.
MAGA, then, will have to fight it out with Trump fading from view. They will have to decide what they are really about. It’s still a movement that’s more wrapped up in Trump’s whims than anything else, with some intellectualism and high politics grafted on to it. Think tanks have sprung up to try to lend MAGA a more cerebral sheen, but the reality of it all is that Trump has no obvious heir. Yes, Vance is the anointed one as Vice President, but he lacks the raw talent and native charisma to corral such an unruly movement. He is not a star. He is an underperforming one-term senator who got the chance of a lifetime to run on Trump’s ticket. His luck, great so far, could easily run out.
What this all means, ultimately, is that life for the chest-thumping MAGA devotee will only get less peachy from here. Storm clouds are building. The war with Iran is going to go over poorly with the American public, even as Republicans are in lockstep behind it.
It should be remembered that the aforementioned Bush, the President who launched two Middle Eastern wars, was once enormously popular. He won a re-election with a popular vote victory and seemed poised for four years of dominance. Democrats appeared moribund. Instead, he struggled mightily through his second term, voters soured on his wars, and Barack Obama shot to the presidency as a direct rebuke of all that came before. Patience with MAGA is wearing thin. Housing and food still costs too much, the economy isn’t roaring, and now American lives might be at risk overseas. America certainly isn’t being made great again.
