Latest
Donald Trump’s legacy: Will Republicans embrace his political vision, or has he left conservatism in the dust?
We call it “Trumpism” for short, the collection of positions, policies and preferences embraced by the president of the United States.
But does all this amount to a coherent philosophy that can be carried out by future Republicans once Donald Trump is no longer in office?
And where does that leave conservatism? Trump never pretended to be a classic conservative, which deeply divided the movement.
There are those who quietly abandoned their previous views and have backed virtually everything Trump does, from tariffs to deportations to the war in Iran.
CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST SAYS DONALD TRUMP HAS LOST THE COUNTRY. IT’S COMPLICATED.
And there are those who renounced Trump from the start, who believe he betrayed conservatives – and who tend to have prime spots in cable commentary, so shows can boast they have Republican pundits (who happen to hate Trump).
Some on the right bring a fierceness that eclipses the attacks by liberal critics. Former Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Gerard Baker, a Fox News contributor, said yesterday after the Iranians denied having talks with the White House that the “unsettling reality” is Americans have to “suspect that the enemy’s version of events is more likely to be true than our own. We have become Baghdad Bob.”
Talking to reporters before leaving Palm Beach yesterday, Trump said: “My life is a deal. That’s all I do is deals.”
The context was what he insisted were the negotiations with Iran, but the declaration certainly applies to his business pursuits and political career.
I’ve known Trump since 1987, and I can tell you that he basically does whatever works in the moment. If that is inconsistent with his position the previous day or week or month, so be it. Let the pontificators argue about that.
Trump is immune to corrosive criticism about flip-flops because he views every day as a clean slate, in which his allies may be those he once furiously criticized and his enemies may be former loyalists.
For instance, the president’s first-term position, backed by Congress, was that TikTok was a threat to national security because of its Chinese ownership, and should be banned unless it was sold to an American company.
When I asked him about this before the election, Trump, whose campaign greatly benefited from its use of TikTok, said he was no longer in favor of a ban. This, he said, was because removing TikTok would help Facebook, and he deemed Mark Zuckerberg’s empire more of a threat.
Not a terribly convincing explanation, but with the president, that was then, this is now.
AS AMERICA TURNS 250, TRUMP SHOULD RESTORE WASHINGTON, DC’S ORIGINAL BORDERS
For what it’s worth, a deal was finally reached this year to sell the hugely popular app to a joint venture in which American investors have majority control.
The hot media debate right now is what comes after Trump, and whether future Republicans – JD Vance, Marco Rubio, whoever – must follow his blueprint. This is especially resonant because the America First candidate who crusaded against foreign wars radically changed his approach by attacking Iran.
Atlantic contributor Pete Wehner, whose specialty is Christian ethics, says that in 2016 he was a lifelong Republican who had served under Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.
He said in a New York Times op-ed that Trump “would threaten the future of the Republican Party,” that he “sought to cultivate and encourage the ugliest passions within the GOP, dousing the embers of hate with kerosene.”
Among Republicans, including evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, the president “rewired their moral circuitry… And in the process, he killed American conservatism. MAGA is not just antithetical to conservatism; it is at war with it.”
But look at Trump’s record. He sealed the southern border which was utterly porous under Joe Biden. He launched a mass deportation program aimed at illegal immigrants, a major target on the right. He cut taxes, and if most benefits went to the affluent, that’s what Republicans have always done. He slashed regulations at such places as the EPA. He reduced the size of the federal government by at least 300,000 jobs, or 10 percent, despite the mixed record of DOGE. And he was responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade.
Aren’t all these things, from easing tax burdens to restricting abortion to shrinking government, in line with conservative principles?
That’s not to say all these initiatives were handled well – look at the excesses of ICE and the killing of two Americans – or that they were wise decisions. But they’re not exactly at war with the conservative agenda of yore.
TOP TSA WATCHDOG BACKS TRUMP’S ICE AIRPORT MOVE AS SHUTDOWN SNARLS TRAVEL
And then there’s all the other stuff, some of it breaking with fiscal orthodoxy, including the vow to protect Social Security and Medicare.
Wehner concedes that many Republicans voted for Trump because they were struggling economically (and, I would add, felt marginalized by the mainstream culture). He twists the knife by saying “at the core of the MAGA project and Trumpism is disruption and destruction, the delegitimization and razing of institutions, and the brutalization of opponents… The MAGA movement represents the betrayal of the temperamental tradition of conservatism” and “the disfigurement of the Republican Party.”
Jonah Goldberg, co-founder of the Dispatch, which has had success as a conservative, anti-Trump site, scoffs at such pointy-headed analysis.
“Trump has no ‘ideology,’” Goldberg writes. “He does have a few ideas. Off the top of my head: take the oil, tariffs are economic Viagra, strength good, never apologize, women won’t resist celebrities when they grab them by their privates, ‘good genes’ matter a lot, allies are whiny b—-es, a bunch of romantic convictions about the supremacy of his instincts…”
He says these “gut impulses” and “sentiments” could be turned into an ideology. “But constructing an actual ideology requires thinking about how your various commitments might conflict, where the trade-offs are, what the edge cases might be, etc.”
To Jonah, it’s a matter of psychology. “But Trumpism is not just about Trump’s psychology, it’s the psychology of many of his supporters. If Trump is for it, it must be right.”
JOHN FETTERMAN SAYS TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME IS THE ‘LEADER’ OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
I’d just note that our politics is so polarized that many liberals engage in similar behavior, demonizing opponents, spouting the party line and never giving the other side a scintilla of credit.
Iran has been the world’s leading terror state since 1979, but while raising questions about congressional approval, nearly all Democrats won’t say anything positive about the attack on Iran.
Chuck Schumer, on “Morning Joe” yesterday, repeatedly refused to acknowledge to Joe Scarborough that the U.S. decimating Iran’s military was a good thing. He just kept deflecting.
One notable dissenter, John Fetterman, told CBS that what the president has accomplished in Iran is “remarkable.” And the senator said on a podcast that “our party is governed by TDS,” Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Of course, Democrats don’t seem as wedded to one ideology because of undeniable splits over Israel, over pronouns, over transgender issues, over the old defund-the-police rhetoric, running the gamut from more moderate lawmakers to the Squad. What’s more, they don’t have a leader ready to denounce them and endorse primary opponents, so there’s little penalty for going off the reservation.
Gavin Newsom, a man of the left, has problems with progressives in his party because he has fought labor initiatives, backed housing deregulation, vetoed a bill allowing colleges to favor descendants of slaves, and opposes trans women playing in men’s sports.
SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE’S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF ON THE DAY’S HOTTEST STORIES
There’s no single answer to the future legacy of Trumpism. That depends on the president’s popularity, and the economic picture, and how Iran is viewed, in 2028. Trump the dealmaker is a singular figure, impossible to imitate.
But one thing is certain: the Republican Party will never return to the green-eyeshade stinginess of Paul Ryan, the compassionate conservatism of Bush 43, the NATO embrace of Bush 41, or the bipartisan chumminess of Ronald Reagan with Tip O’Neill.
The next era may be unclear, but Donald Trump has transformed the GOP forever.
Latest
Tucker Carlson Officially Makes Shock Announcement — He’s Out
A growing divide within the conservative movement is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore, as longtime commentator Tucker Carlson declared that he no longer considers himself a Republican, citing frustration with what he sees as the party’s abandonment of its America First roots.
Carlson made the remarks during a podcast appearance with hosts Travis Dhanraj and Karman Wong, where the discussion turned to the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections and whether voters remain satisfied with the direction of the Republican Party.
While Carlson made clear that he remains aligned with many conservative principles, he argued that some Republican leaders have drifted away from the priorities that helped fuel President Donald Trump’s rise and transformed the GOP into the dominant force it is today.
“I’m out,” Carlson said during the interview.
“And if I’m out, then I think a lot of other people are out.”
Carlson’s comments came as he discussed polling data and voter sentiment ahead of the next election cycle.
“I would not support the Republican party. There’s no chance I would support the Republican party,” he said.
The former Fox News host argued that certain Republican lawmakers had betrayed their voters by supporting policies he believes put foreign interests ahead of American priorities.
“How could I or any American voter support a political party that’s not loyal to the United States? That puts the interests of a foreign country above those of its own citizens?
“It’s not possible to vote for people like that, and I’m not going to.”
Carlson’s remarks highlight a growing debate inside conservative circles over the future direction of the Republican Party.
At the center of the disagreement is not President Trump himself, but rather how some Republicans have approached foreign policy, military intervention, and America’s role overseas.
Trump built his political movement on the promise of putting American interests first, securing the border, rebuilding the economy, restoring energy independence, and avoiding the endless foreign conflicts that frustrated many voters for decades.
Many of Trump’s supporters continue to view the America First agenda as one of the defining achievements of his political movement.
Carlson suggested that some Republicans have lost sight of those principles.
“I think I’ve voted Republican my entire life,” Carlson said.
“I’ve been a consistent defender for 35 years, of the Republican party. I mean, a very consistent defender.”
“But there’s no defending this because it’s immoral and it’s exactly the opposite of what a political party in a democracy is charged with doing — which is representing its own voters, its own citizens, its own nation.”
“And they’re not doing that,” Carlson concluded.
The comments come amid an ongoing debate among conservatives regarding foreign policy, particularly following recent tensions involving Iran and the broader Middle East.
Carlson has been one of the most vocal advocates of a non-interventionist approach that emphasizes American interests above foreign entanglements. Other conservatives, including commentators and lawmakers aligned with a more traditional hawkish worldview, have argued that a strong American presence abroad remains necessary to protect national security.
The disagreement intensified after military operations involving Iran earlier this year, with Carlson and several other prominent voices warning against policies they believe could lead to deeper involvement in overseas conflicts.
Despite those disagreements, Carlson has generally continued to support many of Trump’s domestic policies, including border security, immigration enforcement, energy production, and efforts to prioritize American workers and taxpayers.
The broader divide illustrates the ongoing evolution of the Republican Party under Trump’s influence.
For decades, the GOP was largely defined by traditional establishment conservatives who favored aggressive foreign policy and intervention abroad. Trump’s rise fundamentally reshaped that coalition, bringing millions of working-class voters, independents, and populist conservatives into the party.
Today, debates like the one Carlson has raised reflect a larger question facing Republicans: how closely the party will adhere to the America First principles that helped fuel Trump’s political success.
Whether Carlson ultimately returns to the Republican fold remains to be seen. But his comments underscore a reality that many political observers have noted in recent years: the future of the conservative movement is increasingly being shaped by debates over foreign policy, national sovereignty, and what it truly means to put America first.
As those discussions continue, one thing remains clear: the America First movement that transformed Republican politics is still driving much of the conversation inside the conservative movement today.
Latest
Top Fox News Host Suffers Deranged Meltdown On LIVE TV — Doesn’t End Well…
A growing divide within the conservative movement spilled into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing the administration of pressuring Israel while pursuing a diplomatic agreement designed to permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues negotiations with Tehran following a series of devastating military strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, eliminated key regime leaders, and left the Islamic Republic in one of the weakest positions it has faced in decades.
President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have argued that the administration is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength after demonstrating a willingness to use military force when necessary. Their goal, they say, is simple: ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon while avoiding another endless war in the Middle East.
Levin, however, remains deeply skeptical.
During a fiery monologue that lasted more than 17 minutes on Saturday, the longtime conservative commentator accused members of the administration of unfairly targeting Israel while becoming too optimistic about Iran’s intentions.
“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”
Levin also rejected any suggestion that Israel should allow outside governments to dictate its security decisions.
“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin continued. “I think it’s outrageous.”
The criticism did not stop there.
Levin also used social media to question several administration policies, including reports surrounding a Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar and modified for use supporting presidential airlift operations.
“If it’s legal and other countries do it so be it. Do you think wealthy countries should be able to lavish gifts on our government?” Levin wrote.
His sharpest criticism, however, focused on the administration’s efforts to secure a broader peace agreement with Iran and its proxies.
“Item #1 in the MOU provides there’s an immediate and permanent end to the war and that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”
In another post, Levin argued that current ceasefire efforts were coming at Israel’s expense.
“Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding,” Levin claimed.
The administration has strongly rejected suggestions that it is abandoning Israel or weakening its support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East.
President Trump responded directly Sunday with a warning aimed squarely at Iran and its regional proxies.
“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
For supporters of the administration, that message demonstrates exactly why they remain confident in Trump’s approach. They argue that no modern president has shown a greater willingness to confront Iran militarily while simultaneously seeking a diplomatic resolution that serves American interests.
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both emphasized that any final agreement would require Iran to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions, submit to extensive inspections, and comply with strict verification requirements before receiving any economic benefits.
Administration officials also note that no sanctions have been lifted, no frozen assets have been released, and no direct payments have been authorized.
Instead, they argue that Trump has successfully put Iran in a position where the regime must choose between compliance and continued isolation.
The disagreement highlights a broader debate that has been developing inside the Republican Party for years.
Traditional foreign-policy hawks often favor maintaining maximum military pressure and remain deeply skeptical of negotiations with hostile regimes.
Trump’s America First coalition generally supports overwhelming military strength but prefers leveraging that strength into favorable deals that avoid long-term military entanglements.
Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s strategy reflects the same formula that has defined much of his foreign policy: peace through strength.
Strike hard when necessary. Demonstrate unquestionable resolve. Negotiate from a position of power. And avoid the costly nation-building efforts and endless conflicts that frustrated many Americans for decades.
As negotiations continue, the debate between Levin and the Trump administration reflects a larger question facing conservatives: how best to secure American interests abroad while staying true to the America First principles that have reshaped the Republican Party.
For now, President Trump appears committed to proving that military strength and diplomacy are not opposing strategies—but complementary tools for achieving lasting peace and protecting America’s national security.
Latest
It’s Over! The House Votes 396-13 — Trump Just Won!
In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act this week, advancing a package of reforms designed to tackle America’s housing affordability crisis while delivering on several key priorities championed by President Donald Trump.
The legislation passed by a decisive 396-13 vote, reflecting broad agreement that soaring housing costs, rising rents, and limited inventory have pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.
Supporters say the bill addresses one of the country’s most pressing economic challenges by cutting red tape, increasing housing supply, strengthening lending opportunities, and helping ensure that American families—not large corporations—have a fair shot at buying homes.
The legislation combines elements of previous House and Senate proposals and seeks to address housing shortages that have contributed to record-high home prices in many parts of the country.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill praised the measure as a practical, results-oriented solution focused on expanding opportunities for working Americans.
“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Chairman Hill stated.
“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” Hill added.
The legislation includes a variety of reforms aimed at accelerating housing construction and reducing barriers that have slowed development for years.
Among its key provisions, the bill streamlines federal permitting requirements, reduces lengthy environmental review processes for certain redevelopment and infill housing projects, and encourages innovative housing solutions such as modular and manufactured homes.
The measure also provides grants to local governments willing to modernize zoning laws and remove restrictions that limit new construction.
Supporters argue that restrictive zoning policies, excessive permitting delays, and government bureaucracy have significantly contributed to America’s housing shortage.
Rather than relying on massive new federal spending programs, the legislation focuses on empowering local communities, encouraging private-sector investment, and removing obstacles that make housing more expensive.
The bill also raises loan limits for multifamily housing developments, creating incentives for apartment construction and expanding options for renters and first-time buyers alike.
Additional provisions strengthen rural housing initiatives, expand support for veterans seeking housing, modernize financing for smaller mortgage loans, and increase the role community banks can play in local lending markets.
Community banks have long argued that excessive regulations have made it more difficult for them to serve homebuyers and construction projects in their local communities.
Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters acknowledged the seriousness of the housing crisis despite broader political disagreements.
“America is in the middle of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis, and working families are burdened by skyrocketing rents and a housing market that is pushing homeownership further out of reach,” Waters said.
One of the most notable aspects of the legislation is its effort to curb the growing influence of large institutional investors in the housing market.
For years, investment firms and corporate landlords have purchased thousands of single-family homes, often outbidding families and first-time homebuyers. Critics argue that this trend has driven up prices while transforming communities into rental markets dominated by large corporations.
The legislation includes targeted restrictions designed to discourage large institutional investors from acquiring additional single-family homes.
That approach aligns closely with President Trump’s housing agenda.
Throughout his second administration, Trump has repeatedly argued that homeownership should remain a cornerstone of the American Dream and that government policies should prioritize families over Wall Street investors.
In his National Homeownership Month proclamation earlier this month, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring affordability and expanding opportunities for future homeowners.
“During National Homeownership Month, my Administration recommits to making housing more affordable so that young Americans and hardworking families can raise children, build memories, and create a future in a home of their own,” Trump said.
The president has frequently blamed the housing crisis on “reckless spending, burdensome regulations, and failed housing policies” implemented under previous administrations, as well as “mass illegal immigration and large institutional investors” that have increased pressure on housing supply.
Trump has also taken executive actions aimed at reducing institutional ownership of single-family homes, lowering mortgage costs, and strengthening federal housing programs.
“Under my leadership, America will be a Nation where homes belong to families — not corporations,” Trump said.
At the same time, Trump has emphasized the importance of protecting the value of homes already owned by millions of Americans.
“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. Existing housing, people who own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy. We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year.
He has also repeatedly summarized his housing philosophy with a simple message:
“Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters.”
With overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and growing concern over affordability nationwide, supporters hope the legislation will mark a significant step toward restoring homeownership opportunities and ensuring that the American Dream remains within reach for future generations.
-
Economy4 months agoVance Leaves Meeting, Looks Straight Into Camera, Announces Stunning Arrest
-
Economy4 months agoAdam Schiff Facing 30 Years In Prison After Bank Records Leak
-
Economy4 months agoSupreme Curt Sides With Trump — He Can Remove The All
-
Economy4 months agoAll Hell Breaks Loose On Fox When Jesse Watters Asks Fetterman One Question
-
Economy2 months agoPrayers Pour In After Fox Host Dies: ‘Senseless Murder’
-
Economy4 months agoNBC Stops LIVE Broadcast — Breaks Big Trump News
-
Economy4 months agoTrump Pulls Off Miracle Of A Lifetime — It’s Permanently Open
-
Economy4 months agoSwalwell Facing Jail Time After Sickening New Video Leaks




