Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasts Pete Hegseth After U.S. Troops Killed in Iranian Attack

WASHINGTON — Former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene launched a blistering attack on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth following the deaths of two American service members in an Iranian attack in Jordan, exposing the widening divide within the political movement that once united behind President Donald Trump.

After U.S. Central Command announced that two American service members had been killed while defending against Iranian drone and missile attacks in Jordan and a third remained missing, Hegseth paid tribute to the fallen.

"Their sacrifice only stiffens our resolve," Hegseth wrote.

The statement prompted an immediate and profane response from Greene, who retired from Congress earlier in 2026 and has become one of the Trump administration's most vocal critics over its handling of the Iran conflict.

"Sacrifice?? What the f*ck are you talking about??" Greene wrote on X. "They did not willingly sacrifice themselves. They were killed because of the war you, Trump, and the admin, are waging on behalf of a FOREIGN COUNTRY, Israel."

Greene went even further, accusing the administration of leading the United States into what she described as an unnecessary war.

"Their deaths fuel your bloodlust for a senseless war," she wrote.

The exchange represents one of Greene's strongest public condemnations of the Trump administration since breaking with the president over U.S. policy toward Iran and the broader Middle East. Once one of Trump's closest political allies and most visible defenders, Greene has increasingly argued that the administration abandoned its "America First" foreign policy by becoming more deeply involved in military operations against Iran.

President Trump, responding to the deaths of the American service members, called the loss "a very sad thing" while defending the ongoing military mission as necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to protect American interests and allies in the region.

Greene has rejected that justification, arguing that American troops are paying the price for a conflict that she believes does not primarily serve U.S. national interests. Her criticism reflects a growing split among voters and commentators who identify with the "America First" movement, with some supporting the administration's military response while others warn that continued escalation risks drawing the United States into another prolonged Middle East war.

Supporters of the administration argue that responding decisively to Iranian attacks is necessary to deter future aggression, defend American forces stationed throughout the region, and prevent Iran from expanding its military capabilities. Critics counter that each escalation increases the danger to U.S. personnel while raising difficult questions about the mission's long-term objectives and potential costs.

As military operations continue and American forces remain deployed throughout the Middle East, the debate over U.S. involvement shows no signs of slowing. Greene's sharp criticism of Hegseth illustrates just how fractured the coalition that once stood firmly behind Trump has become, particularly on questions of war, foreign policy, and America's role in the region.

GOP Rift Over Israel Widens After JD Vance's Rogan Interview Sparks Sharp Rebuke From Loud Mouth Mark Levin

 

A growing divide within the Republican coalition over U.S. policy toward Israel and Iran burst into public view this week after Vice President JD Vance discussed the Trump administration's approach to Israel and Iran during an interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, prompting a sharp public rebuke from radio host Mark Levin.

During the lengthy podcast interview, Vance argued that elements within the Israeli government preferred continued conflict with Iran over a negotiated settlement. He also alleged that some Israeli interests sought to influence American public opinion against a U.S.-brokered peace effort. Vance emphasized that while allies naturally attempt to influence one another, American foreign policy should ultimately be guided by U.S. national interests.

Those comments immediately drew criticism from some of Israel's strongest advocates in American media.

Levin responded on social media by demanding that Vance apologize not only to Israel but also to "millions of its American supporters." Levin rejected Vance's suggestion that Israel had undermined diplomacy, arguing instead that Iran—not Israel—was responsible for the collapse of negotiations.

Republican Coalition Divided

The exchange highlights one of the most visible foreign policy disagreements within the Republican Party since President Donald Trump's return to the White House.

For decades, strong support for Israel largely united Republicans. But the rise of the America First movement has reshaped that debate, with many Republicans arguing that U.S. foreign policy should be driven primarily by America's own interests rather than the priorities of allies.

Vance has emerged as one of the leading voices of that approach. During the Rogan interview, he argued that allies, including Israel, naturally seek to influence U.S. policy but that American leaders have an obligation to make decisions based on what best serves the United States.

Levin's Response Draws Criticism

Levin's response has itself become a focal point of the debate.

Long known for his unwavering support of Israel and a more interventionist foreign policy, Levin has repeatedly criticized Republicans who question the scope of U.S. involvement overseas. His demand that the vice president apologize to Israel and its American supporters was viewed by many America First supporters as an attempt to pressure an elected U.S. official for publicly disagreeing with the policies of a foreign government.

Critics argue Levin has become one of the loudest media voices advocating near-unconditional U.S. support for Israel, frequently dismissing or attacking Republicans who question whether every Israeli policy aligns with American strategic interests. They contend that questioning the policies of an allied government is not anti-Israel but a legitimate part of American foreign policy debate, and that elected U.S. officials should be free to prioritize American interests without being expected to apologize for policy disagreements.

Supporters of Levin counter that Israel remains one of America's closest allies and that public criticism from senior U.S. officials risks weakening that relationship during a period of heightened regional instability.

America First vs. Traditional Foreign Policy

The dispute reflects a broader ideological struggle within today's Republican Party.

One faction argues that unwavering support for Israel remains essential to U.S. national security and stability in the Middle East.

Another faction, represented by Vance and other America First Republicans, believes every foreign policy decision—including those involving close allies—should first be evaluated through the lens of American interests, even if doing so creates disagreements with longstanding partners.

That divide has become increasingly visible as Republicans debate military intervention, foreign aid, and America's role in conflicts abroad.

Social Media Amplifies the Divide

The disagreement quickly spread across social media and political commentary.

Supporters of Vance praised him for openly acknowledging that allies sometimes have different objectives than the United States and for reinforcing an America First foreign policy that places U.S. interests above those of any foreign nation.

Levin's supporters argued that his criticism reflected a commitment to defending one of America's closest allies during a period of heightened tensions with Iran.

The controversy has reignited broader discussions about foreign lobbying, U.S. military commitments in the Middle East, and how closely American policy should align with Israeli strategic objectives.

A Debate That Is Unlikely to End Soon

The public clash between Vice President JD Vance and radio host Mark Levin underscores an ongoing realignment within the Republican Party.

While the Trump administration continues to publicly affirm its support for Israel, Vance's comments—and Levin's forceful response—demonstrate that the nature and limits of that support are now being debated more openly than at any point in recent years.

Whether this disagreement proves temporary or signals a lasting shift in Republican foreign policy may depend on future developments in the Middle East and whether more Republican leaders embrace Vance's America First approach or continue to support the more traditional pro-Israel position championed by Levin.

Randy Fine's Outrage Wasn't About America — It Was About Defending Israel

 

Florida Congressman Randy Fine's furious attack on Vice President JD Vance should alarm every voter who believes elected officials are supposed to put the interests of the United States above the interests of any foreign country.

When Vance dared to suggest that Israel should not undermine President Donald Trump's diplomatic efforts and criticized actions that resulted in civilian deaths in Beirut, Fine erupted. He called the vice president's comments "inappropriate and frankly disgusting."

Disgusting?

What should be truly disgusting is the sight of an American congressman directing his anger at the vice president of the United States instead of at the chaos and instability threatening to drag America deeper into another Middle Eastern conflict.

JD Vance did not attack Israel's right to defend itself. He simply stated a principle that should be obvious: allies do not get a blank check, and no foreign government should expect unconditional support while disregarding American efforts to prevent a wider war.

Apparently, that principle was too much for Randy Fine.

His response revealed something troubling. Fine seemed less interested in defending American interests than in acting as an enforcer against anyone who questions the decisions of a foreign government. His remarks sounded less like those of an American congressman and more like those of a man personally offended that Israel had been criticized at all.

That's not America First.

That's Israel First.

And millions of Americans are tired of watching politicians demand unquestioning loyalty to foreign governments while dismissing concerns about endless wars, exploding debt, and the enormous financial and strategic costs borne by the United States.

Fine lectured Americans about Israel being built through "blood and sweat and tears." Fine is right about one thing: Israel has a remarkable history.

But America was built with blood, sweat, and tears too.

And Randy Fine was not elected to Congress to represent Israel's interests. He was elected to represent the interests of the American people.

Somewhere along the way, he appears to have forgotten that.

The vice president's comments reflected a simple reality: when American diplomacy is being undermined, when civilians are dying, and when the risk of a broader war grows, the United States has every right to speak out—even against allies.

That is what sovereign nations do.

But Randy Fine's reaction suggested that criticism itself is forbidden, that Israel should be beyond reproach, and that American leaders should remain silent no matter the consequences.

That isn't an alliance.

That's a double standard.

Fine's anger also raises another question: Why is he so quick to condemn JD Vance while showing comparatively little outrage toward the forces and events that threaten to ignite another regional war? Why is his instinct to attack fellow Americans rather than engage with legitimate concerns over U.S. foreign policy?

Perhaps because criticism of Israel has become, in the minds of some politicians, the one topic that must never be allowed.

JD Vance broke that unwritten rule.

And Randy Fine couldn't handle it.

For years, Americans have been told that questioning foreign aid, military commitments, or the behavior of allies is somehow unacceptable. They have watched politicians pledge loyalty to "America First" while reacting with outrage the moment an ally is held accountable.

Randy Fine's attack on JD Vance exposed that contradiction in plain sight.

Vance defended American interests.

Fine defended a foreign government.

Vance spoke like an American vice president.

Fine spoke like a man whose priorities lie elsewhere.

And if Randy Fine is more outraged by criticism of Israel than by the possibility of Americans being dragged into another war, then perhaps voters should ask themselves a simple question:

Whose interests is Randy Fine really putting first?

Because based on his own words, it certainly didn't look like America.

Thomas Massie’s Defeat Exposes a Republican Civil War Over Conservatism, Spending, and Foreign Influence

 

The defeat of Thomas Massie is being celebrated across establishment Republican circles as a victory for party discipline. But beneath the celebration lies a deeper question many grassroots conservatives are now asking: If a legislator with some of the highest constitutional and fiscal conservative ratings in Congress can be politically destroyed, what exactly does the Republican Party still stand for?

For years, Massie built a reputation as one of the few Republicans willing to vote against massive spending bills regardless of which party controlled Washington. He frequently opposed omnibus packages, foreign aid expansions, warrantless surveillance renewals, and debt ceiling increases. Supporters viewed him as one of the last legislators operating from a strict constitutional framework rather than partisan convenience.

His allies now argue that his defeat was not simply a rejection by voters, but the culmination of an unprecedented financial and political campaign led by establishment interests, Super PACs, foreign policy hawks, and donor networks determined to eliminate one of Congress’ most consistent dissenters.

The numbers fueling that argument are difficult to ignore.

According to conservative scorecards cited by Massie supporters — including , , and — Massie routinely ranked near the very top of the Republican conference on issues involving limited government, spending restraint, civil liberties, and constitutional adherence.

The composite rankings circulated after the election paint a devastating picture for establishment Republicans.

Out of more than 200 House Republicans, only a tiny fraction allegedly scored above 90 percent on combined liberty-oriented metrics. The overwhelming majority reportedly fell into middling or failing ranges according to the same conservative organizations many grassroots activists have relied upon for years.

That has triggered accusations of hypocrisy from conservatives who say the term “RINO” is now being weaponized against lawmakers who actually vote conservatively, while Republicans who routinely support trillion-dollar spending packages escape scrutiny because they align with party leadership and donor interests.

The criticism intensified because many of the same Republicans who helped isolate Massie have simultaneously backed:

• multi-trillion-dollar continuing resolutions,
• repeated debt ceiling increases,
• record federal deficits,
• expanding military expenditures,
• and ongoing foreign aid authorizations.

Critics argue that the modern Republican establishment campaigns on fiscal conservatism while governing as managers of permanent federal expansion.

The frustration extends beyond spending.

Massie frequently clashed with Republican leadership on foreign policy, surveillance powers, COVID-era policies, and federal authority. He often voted alone or among a tiny minority willing to oppose bipartisan consensus measures.

To supporters, that independence made him one of the last authentic constitutional conservatives in Washington.

To opponents, it made him unreliable and politically dangerous.

The result, many activists argue, is a Republican Party increasingly hostile toward ideological consistency and increasingly loyal to donor infrastructure, lobbying interests, and political machinery centered in Washington rather than grassroots voters.

The backlash against Donald Trump from some former Massie supporters reflects that growing divide.

For years, many constitutional conservatives viewed Trump as an outsider capable of dismantling the Republican establishment. But Massie’s defeat has led some activists to accuse Trump of becoming aligned with the same donor networks and power structures he once campaigned against.

Those critics point specifically to escalating federal debt, expanding deficits, massive spending agreements, and interventionist foreign policy positions that they argue conflict with traditional limited-government conservatism.

The anger has now evolved into broader calls for a political realignment.

Across conservative grassroots circles, discussions about creating a new “America Party” or liberty-focused coalition have intensified. Supporters argue the existing two-party system no longer represents voters concerned about constitutional limits, federal spending, civil liberties, and national debt.

Whether those efforts materialize into an organized movement remains uncertain.

What is certain is that Massie’s defeat has become symbolic far beyond a single congressional race.

To establishment Republicans, it was a demonstration of political power and party enforcement.

To many liberty conservatives, it was a warning.

A lawmaker celebrated for opposing debt expansion, challenging party orthodoxy, and defending constitutional limits was defeated not despite those positions, but — in the eyes of supporters — because of them.

And in a nation now carrying a debt exceeding $38 trillion, that reality is fueling an uncomfortable question many Republicans would rather avoid:

If legislators with near-perfect conservative scorecards are no longer welcome in the Republican Party, what definition of conservatism remains?

Trump’s Republican Purge Is Destroying the Conservative Movement

 

Donald Trump is no longer behaving like the leader of a constitutional conservative movement. He is behaving like the head of a political machine that demands absolute obedience and punishes independent thought.

Instead of focusing his fire on Democrats, Trump has turned the Republican Party into a battlefield where conservatives themselves are targeted, humiliated and politically destroyed if they dare question him.

The latest example is Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie, one of the most constitutionally minded Republicans in Congress. Massie has spent years warning about reckless spending, unconstitutional wars, exploding debt, surveillance overreach and federal abuse of power. Those positions once defined conservatism.

Today, under Trump, they are treated as acts of treason.

Trump has unleashed millions of dollars against Massie in an attempt to remove him from office, not because Massie became a liberal, but because he refused to blindly obey. Massie opposed massive spending bills that added trillions to the national debt. He questioned military involvement overseas. He pushed for transparency involving the Epstein files. He consistently voted based on constitutional principle rather than political fear.

In a healthy Republican Party, that would be respected.

In Trump’s Republican Party, it becomes grounds for political execution.

And Massie is not alone.

Sen. Rand Paul has repeatedly been attacked for challenging surveillance powers, endless spending and foreign intervention. Marjorie Taylor Greene faced backlash after questioning foreign wars and establishment priorities. Lauren Boebert was attacked simply for supporting Massie.

That should terrify conservatives.

Because it proves the issue is no longer ideology. The issue is loyalty to one man.

Trump’s defenders claim these Republicans are “disloyal.” But disloyal to what? The Constitution? Or to Trump personally?

The conservative movement was supposed to stand for limited government, checks and balances, individual liberty and fiscal responsibility. Trump now attacks Republicans who still believe in those things. Meanwhile, he embraces massive spending packages, demands personal loyalty from lawmakers and pressures Republicans to fall in line regardless of constitutional concerns.

That is not constitutional conservatism.

It is political authoritarianism wrapped in Republican branding.

The Founders never intended for elected officials to serve one leader. They intended Congress to challenge presidents, question power and defend the Constitution regardless of party. Yet Trump openly treats any disagreement as betrayal. Republicans who refuse to rubber-stamp his agenda are labeled enemies, losers or traitors.

That behavior is fundamentally anti-constitutional.

A constitutional republic depends on independent lawmakers, not political servants terrified of retaliation.

And the damage to the Republican Party is becoming severe.

Young conservatives are increasingly watching a party that claims to support freedom while demanding ideological conformity. Fiscal conservatives see trillions added to the debt while dissenters are punished. America First voters who oppose endless wars watch constitutional conservatives get targeted for questioning foreign intervention.

The Republican Party is being transformed from a coalition of ideas into a movement centered on one personality.

That may win loyalty contests. It may win primaries fueled by fear and outside money. But it destroys the long-term credibility of conservatism itself.

Because once a political movement abandons principle for obedience, it ceases to be a movement of ideas. It becomes a cult of power.

And if Republicans continue purging constitutional conservatives like Massie, Rand Paul and others simply for thinking independently, they may soon discover they did not save the Republican Party.

They hollowed it out.

Marjorie Taylor Greene Criticizes U.S. Foreign Policy on Venezuela and Iran, Calls for America First Approach

WASHINGTON — Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia has emerged as a vocal critic of recent U.S. foreign interventions, particularly in Venezuela, while warning against escalating tensions with Iran. Greene argues that these operations prioritize foreign interests over the well-being of everyday Americans and undermine the “America First” principles that she says voters overwhelmingly support.

Greene sharply criticized the U.S. military campaign to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, describing the operation as a distraction from pressing domestic issues. “Americans are tired of being ignored while Washington repeats the same playbook,” she said. “We are told these wars are about freedom and safety, but they rarely benefit the people they claim to protect.”

She questioned the rationale for targeting Maduro, highlighting the ongoing crisis of drug trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico border. “If the goal was really to stop drugs from entering our country,” Greene said, “then why has there been no serious action against the Mexican cartels, which are responsible for the majority of fentanyl deaths?”

Greene also addressed concerns about Venezuela’s oil resources, suggesting that the intervention may be motivated by economic interests rather than the stated goal of protecting Americans. “Removing Maduro looks like a move to secure Venezuelan oil and prepare for the next obvious war in Iran,” she said. Greene argued that such strategies repeat patterns from past interventions that ultimately benefit big corporations and Washington insiders, not ordinary citizens.

On the issue of Iran, Greene has consistently emphasized caution and restraint. She has warned that escalating conflict risks entangling the United States in prolonged wars that divert resources from domestic priorities. “Many in MAGA thought they voted to end endless military aggression,” Greene wrote on social media. “Boy were we wrong. Our focus should be on protecting Americans and strengthening our country at home, not engaging in foreign battles that do not serve our interests.”

Supporters of Greene see her stance as a principled call to reorient U.S. policy toward domestic needs. They argue that her approach emphasizes security, economic stability, and public safety over costly foreign interventions. Greene’s message resonates with constituents who are frustrated by decades of U.S. involvement abroad while domestic challenges remain unresolved.

As discussions continue in Congress about America’s role overseas, Greene remains a prominent voice advocating for restraint and prioritizing the needs of the American people. Her comments underline a growing debate over whether the United States should continue its pattern of foreign interventions or adopt a more cautious, America-first approach.