A rift is deepening in the MAGA movement as Marjorie Taylor Greene sides with Tucker Carlson over Donald Trump on Middle East policy. The unexpected break has shaken Trump loyalists and revealed competing visions of “America First” that pit Trump’s firm stance on Iran against Carlson’s anti-interventionist position.
The growing divide between three of MAGA’s most influential voices centers on fundamental questions about America’s role in global conflicts. Trump maintains that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remains a non-negotiable priority requiring potential military force, while Carlson and Greene advocate for a strict focus on domestic issues. This rare public disagreement exposes conflicting interpretations of “America First” within the conservative movement, forcing supporters to choose between Trump’s strong defense posture and the non-interventionist stance championed by Carlson. Many MAGA supporters are now grappling with mixed loyalties as these figures they’ve consistently backed find themselves at odds over a critical foreign policy question. The fallout continues to ripple through conservative circles, raising questions about unity heading into a critical election cycle.
The Trump-Carlson Rift Erupts
The tension between Trump and Carlson escalated after the former president criticized the commentator for his stance on the Israel-Iran conflict. Trump took to social media to blast Carlson as “kooky” following Carlson’s suggestion that Trump was “complicit” in Israel’s actions against Iran, specifically writing: “Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that, ‘IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!'”
Carlson, who has built his post-Fox News platform largely around criticism of U.S. military intervention abroad, framed the debate in stark terms. “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians,” Carlson stated, “The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it — between warmongers and peacemakers.”
The public spat highlights a fundamental disagreement about how “America First” principles should apply to foreign affairs. Trump, despite campaigning on ending “forever wars,” has consistently maintained that preventing Iran from developing nuclear capabilities remains a critical national security priority that could justify military action. Carlson, meanwhile, has increasingly positioned himself as an absolutist on non-intervention, suggesting that any U.S. military involvement in the Middle East betrays the America First agenda.
The disagreement comes at a sensitive time for the conservative movement, with Iran continuing its nuclear enrichment program amid rising tensions with Israel. Some foreign policy experts within Republican circles worry that the public fight between two influential voices could complicate efforts to present a unified position on Iran, potentially emboldening the regime in Tehran. Others see the debate as a necessary reckoning within the movement about the proper limits of U.S. power projection abroad.
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Surprising Stand
In a move that shocked many MAGA supporters, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly defended Carlson after Trump’s criticism. Greene, previously one of Trump’s most loyal congressional allies, praised Carlson on social media, writing: “Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country. Since being fired by the neocon network Fox News, he has more popularity and viewers than ever before.”
Greene’s defense went beyond personal praise, as she aligned herself with Carlson’s policy positions on international conflicts. “We both believe that America and Americans come first, and we both vehemently oppose our country spending billions in endless foreign wars and engaging in another world war that will result in countless lives lost,” she stated, implicitly challenging Trump’s more hawkish position on Iran. Her decision to publicly side with Carlson over Trump represents one of the few times a prominent MAGA figure has broken ranks with the former president on a significant policy matter.
— P a u l â—‰ (@SkylineReport) June 17, 2025
The congresswoman’s unexpected stance has provoked strong reactions from fellow conservatives, with some accusing her of betrayal while others praise her independent thinking. Pro-Trump social media accounts have questioned Greene’s loyalty to the movement, with some suggesting she’s undermining Trump at a critical moment. Other conservative voices have defended Greene, arguing that healthy debate within the movement strengthens rather than weakens it.
Greene’s position is particularly notable given her history of unflinching support for Trump and her prominent role in promoting his agenda in Congress. Some political analysts suggest her willingness to break with Trump on this issue indicates the depth of concern among some conservatives about potential military entanglements in the Middle East. Others speculate that Greene’s stance might reflect calculations about her own political future and the enduring appeal of Carlson’s non-interventionist message with the Republican base.
Deeper Divisions in the MAGA Movement
The disagreement between Trump, Carlson, and Greene represents more than just a personality clash—it reflects fundamental tensions within the conservative movement about America’s role in the world. The original “America First” platform that helped propel Trump to the presidency in 2016 contained elements that appealed to both traditional hawks concerned about national security threats and non-interventionists weary of endless foreign commitments. These competing interpretations could coexist when not directly challenged, but the Iran issue has forced them into open conflict.
Many grassroots MAGA supporters are now caught between their loyalty to Trump and their agreement with Carlson’s skepticism of foreign military action. Online forums and social media discussions show conservatives wrestling with these competing impulses, with some arguing that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons justifies potential military force while others contend that any new Middle Eastern conflict betrays the promise to focus on domestic priorities. The debate has grown increasingly heated, with accusations of “neocon” thinking on one side and naïveté about national security threats on the other.
“The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it — between warmongers and peacemakers.”
Foreign policy experts note that this division isn’t entirely new but rather represents the culmination of tensions that have simmered within the conservative movement for years. The Trump administration itself contained both traditional hawks like former National Security Advisor John Bolton and relative non-interventionists, creating periodic policy conflicts. What makes the current situation unique is that the debate is playing out publicly between figures who rarely break with each other, forcing rank-and-file supporters to choose sides.
Some Republican strategists worry that the public disagreement could harm conservative unity heading into future elections, while others believe the debate strengthens the movement by clarifying its principles. Multiple polls suggest the Republican base has grown increasingly skeptical of foreign military interventions over the past decade, potentially giving Carlson and Greene’s position stronger grassroots support. However, concerns about nuclear proliferation and terrorism continue to resonate strongly with conservative voters, providing substantial backing for Trump’s harder line on Iran.
Implications for Conservative Foreign Policy
The current debate may signal a broader realignment in conservative foreign policy thinking that extends beyond the immediate disagreement. For decades, Republican foreign policy was dominated by the neoconservative approach that favored aggressive promotion of democracy abroad and willingness to use military force to advance American interests and values. Trump’s “America First” platform challenged this orthodoxy, but contained ambiguities that are now coming to the surface.
The Carlson-Greene position represents a more consistent non-interventionist approach that prioritizes domestic concerns almost exclusively, viewing most foreign engagements as costly distractions. Trump’s position, while still rejecting nation-building and emphasizing American interests, maintains that certain threats—particularly nuclear proliferation by hostile regimes—justify potential military action. These competing visions reflect genuine disagreements about America’s proper role in the world and the nature of national security in the 21st century.
— The American Conservative (@amconmag) June 11, 2025
Some foreign policy experts see the debate as an opportunity for conservatives to develop a more coherent alternative to both neoconservative interventionism and complete isolationism. Conservative think tanks and publications have increasingly explored what a principled but limited international engagement might look like—one that secures core American interests without overextending military commitments. The current disagreement, while painful for movement unity, could ultimately produce a more sustainable consensus about when military force is justified and when restraint better serves American interests.
As the debate continues, both sides are working to frame their positions as the true embodiment of “America First” principles. Trump supporters argue that preventing nuclear proliferation by adversaries is essential to American security and therefore consistent with putting America’s interests first. Carlson and his allies contend that avoiding new military commitments and focusing on domestic priorities represents the authentic meaning of the slogan. How this fundamental disagreement resolves itself will likely shape conservative foreign policy thinking for years to come.