Trump's MAGA Base Defies Conservative Pro-Israel Doctrine
Images of starvation and suffering in Gaza have given new impetus to a debate that has been simmering in Trump's "MAGA" movement over whether US involvement in the Middle East is consistent with the president's "America First" platform.
Trump's first significant break with Israel came on Monday, when he acknowledged that "real starvation" is happening in Gaza and vowed to set up food centers in the besieged enclave, which has been devastated by Israel's war with Hamas.
Asked if he agreed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's denials of the Gaza hunger crisis, Trump said: "Based on television, I would say not particularly, because those children look very hungry."
It was a notable retort and prompted commentators to speculate that unwavering US support for Israel might end up as just another conservative sacred cow slayed by MAGA.
Vice President JD Vance went further at an event in Ohio, discussing "heartbreaking" images of "little kids who are clearly starving to death" and demanding that Israel let in more aid.
Political scientist and former US diplomat Michael Montgomery thinks the tonal shift might in part be emotional -- with TV images of starving children resonating more profoundly than the aftermath of air strikes.
"Perhaps it is because no civilized people see starvation as a legitimate weapon of war," the University of Michigan-Dearborn professor told AFP.
Israel has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress but the rise of the isolationist MAGA movement under Trump has challenged the ideological foundations of the "special relationship."
MAGA realpolitik seeks to limit US involvement in foreign wars to those that directly impact its interests, and in particular the "left behind" working class that makes up Trump's base.
Pro-Trump think tank The Heritage Foundation in March called on Washington to "re-orient its relationship with Israel" from a special relationship "to an equal strategic partnership."
Stronger expressions of disapproval have been subdued by a sense that they are a betrayal of Republican thinking, according to some analysts -- especially after the October 7 Hamas attacks.
But there is a new urgency in the debate in MAGA circles following dire warnings from leading NGOs and the UN World Food Program's finding that a third of Gaza's population -- of about two million -- go for days without eating.
One sign of the new thinking came in an X post from far-right firebrand congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has pushed to cancel $500 million in funding for Israel's rocket defense system.
Greene this week went further than any Republican lawmaker has previously in using the word "genocide" to describe Israel's conduct and slamming the "starvation of innocent people and children in Gaza."
While Greene's credibility has been undermined by an extensive record of conspiratorial social media posts, there is no denying that she knows what makes the MAGA crowd tick.
A new CNN poll found the share of Republicans who believe Israel's actions have been fully justified has dropped from 68 percent in 2023 to 52 percent.
Youth seems to be the driver, according to a Pew Research poll from April, when food shortages had yet to become a humanitarian catastrophe.
While Republicans over age 50 haven't changed much in their pro-Israel outlook since 2022, the survey showed that the US ally's unfavorability among younger adults has climbed from 35 percent to 50 percent.
"It seems that for the under-30-year-old MAGA base, Israel has almost no support," former White House strategist Steve Bannon told Politico, adding that Trump's rebuke would solidify his supporters' enmity.
Democratic strategist Mike Nellis described the Gaza food emergency as "one of those rare moments where the crisis has broken through the usual partisan gridlock."
"You're seeing people across the political spectrum who just can't stomach it anymore," he told AFP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
an hour ago
- DW
NATO ex-employees accuse the alliance of going DOGE – DW – 07/30/2025
In unusually direct criticism, former NATO insiders say the alliance is being shaped to reflect Donald Trump's priorities. Officials, however, insist the restructuring is independent and overdue. Since NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte forged a consensus on massive spending hikes and flattered the United States president, Donald Trump has developed a newfound appreciation of the alliance. And, as a result, many people at NATO breathed a sigh of relief. But not everyone gave Rutte a hero's welcome. The secretary-general is facing a barrage of criticism, some of it public, over what his team calls an "optimization" of NATO resources. What might in normal times be described as a bureaucratic reshuffle, has created a different impression in the current trans-Atlantic climate. Some observers say Rutte is reconfiguring NATO to please the White House — and are doing so in ways that don't serve the alliance's broader or longer-term interests. Dr. Gerlinde Niehus, who held many positions at NATO over 26 years, has taken the lead in lambasting the changes. She went so far as to say that Rutte is following the controversial Elon Musk-driven downsizing under the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE). "Taking inspiration from the ill-conceived US 'DOGE' exercise, [the reorganization] is largely a sleek ingratiation aligned to US MAGA politics," Niehus wrote in a LinkedIn post, opinions which she later confirmed to DW directly. "Under the disguise of 'efficiency,' NATO HQ functions which could become the target of Donald Trump's ire for their presumed 'wokeness' or 'irrelevance' are either downgraded, tucked away or dissolved." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Niehus refers to two changes she finds particularly disturbing: The transfer of the office of NATO's Special Representative for Women, Peace and Security (WPS) out of the secretary-general's office and the merger of the Climate and Energy Security Section with Defence Policy and Planning. She says these actions have been taken to "ensure lower visibility" of these issues. In Washington, DC, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has all but eliminated WPS programs at the Pentagon, and Trump is famously dismissive of efforts to combat climate change. Is it a coincidence that some of NATO's changes seem to mirror White House priorities? A senior NATO official who spoke on condition of anonymity insists the more dangerous security environment, not any single ally, has compelled the reorganization of staff structures. "The secretary-general, like his predecessors, wants to ensure that the NATO Headquarters is organized so that it can function efficiently and effectively," the official told DW, "That is the impetus behind this structural reform, which is not aimed at cutting costs or numbers of staff but at better aligning areas of work." Perhaps the most visible difference will be the shuttering of NATO's Public Diplomacy Division (PDD). This has traditionally housed NATO's press operations; co-sponsorship of projects on issues such as societal resilience, interaction with students and other visiting groups; and general outreach to citizens. Many people in PDD will need to find other positions, while some will see their functions move to other units. The press office will be put directly under the secretary-general and the spokesperson's office. The other division being cut is Executive Management, which covers a range of tasks from recruitment to the internship program to archives. NATO sources say the number of posts being cut is not huge, perhaps 40 overall, because others are being created at the same time. Meanwhile, they say, there are some 300 vacancies. But Niehus, who spent many years in NATO public diplomacy and engagement efforts, still finds the elimination of PDD and reassignment of remaining communications staff hard to fathom at a time when she believes the alliance should be working overtime to "foster informed discussions on NATO and wider defense matters in our societies." She also fears the co-sponsorship grants program, which works with think tanks, universities and other civil society initiatives, "will come to a grinding halt." This takes on added significance with the U.S. government having disbanded its USAID global humanitarian assistance agency, which also helped fund some of these activities and services. But the senior NATO official told DW that the alliance's outreach efforts will not diminish; rather, PDD is "being reshaped into a more focused office of strategic communications." Other changes likewise "all drive toward the same principle — better alignment so that we can deliver on the crucial work of the alliance." NATO sources say the grants program will not be ended, although there may be a temporary pause to allow the bureaucratic changes to take effect. One former US State Department diplomat, given anonymity to discuss their views, agrees with the critics that there are risks to this shake-up if funding or staffing for public outreach is downgraded. Having served in both NATO and European Union public diplomacy posts in Brussels and around the world, this retired official fears the changes seen at both NATO and in the US could further fuel alienation and apathy among the public, both in alliance territory and other parts of the world. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The former official sees that happening in practice, for example, through long-distance conversations held at 5:30 a.m. once a week, as they continue mentoring a colleague posted in Asia. "My mentee told me that in her last conversation with her ambassador, she was considered 'failing' because the newspapers carried more about Australian assistance and Chinese assistance than American assistance," the retired official recounted, referring to the elimination of the USAID presence in this country. "She was 100% blamed for that. How are you supposed to win against the Chinese when we have nothing?" Back at NATO headquarters, regardless of whether it was an official order or not, some employees working in areas such as Women, Peace and Security and Climate have been encouraged not to make these parts of their job particularly visible. Several people have shared their experiences first-hand with this reporter. One prominent advocate on these issues, Hannah Neumann, a German Green member of the European Parliament, said she has similar stories from her NATO contacts. Neumann says she considers this "super frustrating because it doesn't make any sense from a purely scientific, security, political perspective.' However, she also emphasizes that it's essential to ensure that work on these topics keeps going. At present, she said she's been assured that this is happening — even if people have to change offices and keep their heads down to do it.
Int'l Business Times
3 hours ago
- Int'l Business Times
Trump Hits India With 25% Tariff And 'Penalty' Over Russia Ties
US President Donald Trump said Wednesday that imports from India will face 25 percent tariffs, while also announcing an unspecified "penalty" over New Delhi's purchases of Russian weapons and energy. The measures will kick in on Friday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, adding to a bevy of other tariff hikes set to take effect the same day. In a separate post, Trump said the August 1 deadline "stands strong, and will not be extended." Trump has issued multiple delays to his so-called "reciprocal" tariffs since first announcing them in early April, while instituting an interim 10 percent baseline. The 25 percent tariff on India would be marginally lower than the rate announced in April, but is higher than those of other Asian countries that have struck preliminary trade agreements with Washington. India, the world's most populous country, was one of the first few major economies to engage the Trump administration in broader trade talks. But six months later, Trump's sweeping demands and India's reluctance to fully open its agricultural and dairy sectors have so far prevented New Delhi from sealing a deal. "Remember, while India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country," Trump said Wednesday morning. He added that India has "always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE." In addition to the 25 percent tariff, India will face "a penalty for the above," Trump said, without any specification. The measure comes as the 79-year-old Republican has signaled he intends to tighten US pressure on Moscow to halt fighting in Ukraine and negotiate a peace deal. On Tuesday, Trump said he was giving Russian President Vladimir Putin 10 days -- which would mean the end of next week -- to change course in Ukraine or face new tariffs. He had previously threatened to impose "secondary tariffs" that would target Russia's remaining trade partners -- such as China and India -- seeking to impede Moscow's ability to survive already sweeping Western sanctions. Trump has set out to upend the global economy by trying to leverage US economic power to squeeze trading partners with tariffs and force foreign companies to move to the United States. He has already announced deal outlines with five countries -- Britain, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines -- as well as the one with the 27-nation EU. US and Chinese officials held talks this week in Stockholm on extending a trade truce that has temporarily lowered tariffs from soaring triple-digits. While no deal was announced at the meetings, both sides are eying an extension ahead of the August 12 deadline. Meanwhile Trump has threatened Brazil with 50 percent tariffs beginning Friday -- in part to pressure the South American ally to shut down the trial of far-right former president Jair Bolsonaro on coup charges. Trump has imposed many of his sweeping tariffs citing emergency authorities, which are being challenged in US court.
DW
4 hours ago
- DW
What next for US, China after talks end with no trade deal? – DW – 07/30/2025
Although no trade agreement has been reached, the US and China did agree to continue working towards extending the 90-day tariff truce, which is due to expire on August 12. Will the two rival superpowers strike a deal? The latest round of trade talks between the United States and China in Stockholm ended on July 29, with no deal in place. The 90-day truce announced in May after talks in Geneva paused an escalating trade war between the world's two largest economies, who had threatened to impose tariffs of over 100% on each other. After the Geneva meetings, US tariffs on Chinese goods were reduced from 145% to 30%, while China's retaliatory tariffs dropped from 125% to 10%. While the two rival powers have signaled that they are open to extending the negotiations beyond the August 12 deadline and avoid tariffs surging to pre-Geneva levels, key differences remain unresolved after the talks in the Swedish capital. This latest round of negotiations "showed no material difference from the previous two" and still reflected "a case of waiting things out in hopes of a shift," Claus Soong, an analyst at the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) in Berlin, told DW. Whether the pause will be extended now depends on US President Donald Trump, who is expected to decide after a full briefing. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who led the US delegation in Stockholm, called the meetings "constructive," but he stressed that "nothing is agreed until we speak with President Trump." US officials warned that failure to reach a deal could see tariffs on Chinese goods surge back to triple-digit levels. China confirmed efforts to prolong the 90-day pause on most reciprocal tariffs. The US-China trade dispute as well as the US leader's trade policies with most of his country's partners has caused global uncertainty and impacted economic growth. And while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the recent easing of some tariffs has helped raise its global growth forecast to 3%, it warned that higher tariffs would create more uncertainty that could lead to slower economic activity. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Dr. Patricia M. Kim, a fellow at the Brookings Institution's John L. Thornton China Center, told DW that recent weeks have seen both sides look to moderate their rhetoric, "signaling a mutual interest in creating the conditions for a leader-level meeting." While no agreement was announced, both sides seem to have "achieved their immediate objective from this meeting — to extend the trade truce, buying time to work toward a broader deal that Presidents Trump and Xi [Jinping] could endorse when they meet later this year," she added. There have been reports that the two leaders could meet on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea being held from October 30 to November 1. Trump this week denied that he was "seeking a summit," although did not rule out traveling to China to meet with Xi Jinping. The US delegation went into the talks in Stockholm just days after Trump secured a deal with the EU, which many in the bloc say favors the US. The US has also recently signed deals with Japan, the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, giving the trade delegation in Stockholm a boost as it renewed talks with China. But after a string of wins, Washington is finding out that striking a favorable deal with China might not be so easy. A core element of the standoff revolves around China's dominance over rare earth materials and US restrictions on AI chip exports. At trade talks in London in June, export controls were formally included in trade discussions, an unprecedented move that blurred the lines between trade and national security. After London, both countries signaled a potential easing of restrictions on rare earth and semiconductor exports. According to MERICS expert Soong, China has the upper hand in this area, as the "chip card" is less effective than rare earths. "China can leverage its control over the global market for rare earth materials and magnets," he said, which are crucial for the world's car, semiconductor and aerospace industries. "Rare earth control is the real pain point," Soong added. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video In February Trump imposed a 20% tariff, claiming China had failed to curb fentanyl precursor exports. While most of the Geneva-era tariffs were later scaled down, the 20% fentanyl-related tariffs remain in place. In what was widely seen as a gesture of goodwill and a bid to de-escalate trade tensions, in late June Beijing added two fentanyl precursors to its list of controlled substances. While that move raised hopes that the related duties might be lifted, Soong cautioned that "the fentanyl-related tariffs appear to serve primarily as a pretext." "Given that their removal would lower the overall tariff rate to just 10% — potentially below the levels applied to Japan and the EU — such a move seems improbable," he said. Soong added that even if the 20% fentanyl tariff is scrapped, "equivalent measures would likely be reintroduced under a different justification." To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video In an interview with Fox Business ahead of the Stockholm talks, Bessent pointed out that China accounts for 30% of global manufacturing exports. "It should not get any larger," Bessent said, adding that China's "is an unsustainable, historically the most imbalanced economy, thus a shift towards a domestic consumption-centered economy is necessary." Dr. Kim said that given Beijing's own recognition of those economic imbalances, US concerns about Chinese overcapacity or the need for consumer-driven growth may be manageable. She highlighted how some of their interests are aligned — namely Chinese purchases of non-strategic US goods, Chinese investment in non-sensitive US sectors, and cooperation on fentanyl. But when the negotiations go beyond trade and enter "the strategic realm, they will get more challenging," Kim said. "It's hard to imagine Beijing agreeing to side with the US against its strategic partners," she said, referring to the Trump administration pressing China on their purchases of Russian and Iranian oil. China, Dr Kim explained, will "certainly have demands" of their own, including pushing the Trump administration to adopt their preferred language and stance on Taiwan, and to commit to exempt export restrictions on high-tech goods. "Such issues that cut against the core strategic interests of both sides will prove more difficult to resolve," Kim said.
