Some pro-Israel conservative students are voicing concern over the College Republicans of America’s new political director, citing his ties to neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes as evidence of the party’s increasingly “alarming” shift toward extremism. 

Kai Schwemmer was tapped last week as political director of the campus group, which has grown to more than 200 active chapters across U.S. universities since it was established in 2023 as an offshoot of the College Republican National Committee.  

Schwemmer, known on social media as Kai Klips, has a channel on Fuentes’ invitation-only streaming platform Cozy, which he launched with far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Schwemmer appeared in a 2021 video promoting Fuentes’ “White Boy Summer” tour and was featured as a “special guest” at Fuentes’ 2022 APFAC III conference, the progressive advocacy organization People for the American Way reported. 

Schwemmer has also been outspoken about his affiliation with Fuentes’ “America First” political movement. Though Fuentes’ “America First” podcast was initially inspired by the speeches and platform of President Donald Trump, he later adapted the term for his own purposes, after distancing himself from the mainstream GOP, to attract young conservatives. 

Schwemmer, who lamented on X that “the white population is globally declining and … the acceleration of mass immigration is one major part of this,” was also one of several America First activists to be featured in the 2022 pro-Fuentes documentary “The Most Canceled Man In America.” In the film, he credits Fuentes’ rhetoric with bringing him into the America First movement and radicalizing him on the issue of immigration. 

Fuentes refers to his supporters as “Groypers” or the “Groyper Army,” “who see their bigoted views as necessary to preserve white, European American identity and culture,” according to the Anti-Defamation League. 

In a December interview on Reawaken USA, Schwemmer falsely claimed that the top executives of Boeing and Raytheon are Jewish, grouping them among “Zionists in America who no matter what are supportive of — whether it’s just military or monetarily — they’re going to U.S. involvement and U.S. support for Israel.”

College Republicans of America did not respond to a request for comment from Jewish Insider asking about the appointment of Schwemmer or how the selection process works.  

Still, Schwemmer maintains that he is a more moderate voice in the America First movement. 

Schwemmer said he tries to avoid the most extreme rhetoric used by others in his movement because, “I have political aspirations.”

“It’s alarming but not surprising,” College Republicans of America would select a Fuentes ally as its leader, Felipe Avila, a senior studying nursing at Catholic University of America, who identifies as conservative, told JI. 

Avila, who is Catholic and Hispanic, was briefly a member of his campus chapter of College Republicans until about two years ago. Following the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel and ensuing war in Gaza, “I saw them become more isolationist with their approach on campus,” he recalled. “Support for Israel became such a debated issue.”  

Avila, who went on to start a campus chapter of Students Supporting Israel last year, said College Republicans are “always refusing to work or partner with SSI.”

A former intern for Republican Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) and member of Turning Point USA on campus, the conservative student organization founded by Charlie Kirk, Avila said, “[Many] people involved with College Republicans probably share Schwemmer’s views, especially on the Israel or [the] Jewish people issue, but they’re not as outspoken.”

With Schwemmer’s appointment, however, Avila is concerned that “now expressing openly antisemitic views won’t be as taboo as it was five or 10 years ago.” 

“If you’ve been on the local level you’ve seen the shift. Being as involved as I am with conservative politics, I’ve noticed it. We’re not just seeing it within College Republicans but in conservative discourse in general. I would describe it almost as a civil war where we’re seeing a dissident group with radical anti-Christian views that is almost trying to hijack the conservative movement,” said Avila. 

He described the antisemitic shift within Gen Z and millennial conservatives as “a pernicious disease that’s taken root within the conservative movement and we see that with this new appointment.”

“I think it will be a lot more encouraging for people to embrace these views… It’s simply a banner for frustrated young conservative men to hold these antisemitic, misogynistic views,” he said.

Ariel Akbashev, a junior at Queens College studying philosophy who identifies as conservative but has never been involved with College Republicans, said the appointment of Schwemmer, who he called a “big conspiracist” is “what I envisioned the Republican and conservative movement to lean towards.”    

“We’re seeing people like Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson and now Schwemmer have huge platforms, getting views and because of that the youth is heavily impacted,” Akbashev, president of EMET, an on-campus Jewish student association and treasurer of Turning Point USA, an unregistered campus group, told JI. 

Five years ago, a group like College Republicans would have worked with a pro-Israel campus group, said Avila. “Now, they’re very isolationist or hesitant to be seen working with us.”

For the first hour and a half of the White House Religious Liberty Commission’s Monday hearing on antisemitism, the Jewish witnesses testifying about their experiences of antisemitism seemed to be in alignment with the commission’s members — all generally conservative and eager to see antisemitism stamped out. 

Then Commissioner Carrie Prejean Boller began questioning the witnesses with a sharply anti-Israel bent, in an adversarial tone. Following public backlash, she was removed from the commission two days later by the commission’s chair, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. (Prejean Boller insists Patrick does not have the authority to remove her.) 

Prejean Boller, who wore a Palestinian flag pin at the hearing, has used the criticism to deepen her line of attack against so-called “Zionist supremacy in America,” doubling down on her opposition to Israel. “I am a free American. Not a slave to a foreign nation,” she wrote on X on Tuesday. 

While Prejean Boller may have been removed from the body, she found an ally who has stood by her this week and who remains on the commission’s advisory board: Sameerah Munshi, a Muslim activist who first gained a public profile in the summer of 2023, when she testified at a Montgomery County, Md., school board hearing against the inclusion of LGBTQ-related material in elementary school classes. 

That moment thrust Munshi briefly into the national spotlight, where she worked alongside conservative Christians who also opposed the liberal Maryland county’s approach to educating about LGBTQ issues. Prejean Boller, too, first gained national attention for her opposition to gay marriage at a beauty pageant in 2009. 

The two women — both of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump — have now joined together as the anti-Israel wing of the commission. Both of them have publicly defended antisemitic commentator Candace Owens, who uses conspiracy-laden language to discuss Jews and Israel. In a shared Instagram post last week, Prejean Boller and Munshi pointed fingers at a shadowy cabal that they blame for both the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the alleged crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. 

“The politicians who refuse to condemn the Israeli government’s starvation and genocide on the Palestinians are the same ones unmoved by the Epstein crime files,” Prejean Boller and Munshi wrote. “Gaza was a precursor to the release of the Epstein files. Their goal: normalize and justify the torture and killing of innocent children … Arrest these monsters. Drain the evil swamp. End Palestinian genocide. Defund Israel.” 

Prejean Boller and Munshi said in another post that they had submitted an alternative list of “fair witnesses” to the commission whom they hoped would present at the antisemitism hearing. The list included Norman Finkelstein, a discredited Holocaust scholar who has publicly defended the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, as well as Miko Peled and Yaakov Shapiro, two anti-Zionist Jewish activists. 

“Antisemitism should never be conflated with anti-Zionism or pro-Palestinian advocacy,” the two women wrote. 

When former UCLA law student Yitzy Frankel spoke at the hearing about his experience of antisemitism on campus after Oct. 7, and described a statement he wrote condemning Hamas’ “rape, beheading of children and taking of hostages,” Munshi muttered under her breath that Hamas had not beheaded anyone, a member of the audience who was seated near her told Jewish Insider. 

What remains unclear is who at the White House appointed Prejean Boller and Munshi to their roles on the commission and its advisory board, of which Munshi serves as a lay leader. Several members of the advisory board who spoke to JI said they did not know how they had been selected. A White House spokesperson declined to comment. Munshi did not respond to a request for comment. 

Neither Munshi nor Prejean Boller had a history of posting anti-Israel content online prior to late last year. 

Prejean Boller’s X account was used only infrequently, mostly to share content about Trump, illegal immigration, Christianity and gender issues. In early 2024, Prejean Boller began to come to Owens’ defense when Owens left The Daily Wire amid concerns about her antisemitic views. Munshi was also an infrequent user of X, and very occasionally posted pro-Palestinian messages over the last two years. Following Monday’s hearing, both women have taken to posting often and highlighting their opposition to Zionism.

“We condemn Zionist supremacy and the demanding we deny our individual faith for the fear of being called an antisemite. Religious freedom lives on,” Prejean Boller posted on Tuesday alongside a photo of the two women. 

Conservative activist Carrie Prejean Boller was removed from the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, the chair of the commission, announced on Wednesday. 

The news came two days after the commission held its first public hearing on antisemitism, which turned contentious when Prejean Boller minimized charges of antisemitism leveled against other public figures and pressed Jewish witnesses about whether they would consider her antisemitic for not being a Zionist and for believing Jews killed Jesus. 

“No member of the Commission has the right to hijack a hearing for their own personal and political agenda on any issue,” Patrick wrote in a post on X. “This is clearly, without question, what happened Monday in our hearing on antisemitism in America. This was my decision.”

Prejean Boller, who first entered the political fray in 2009 when she was stripped of her Miss California title following the release of a sex tape and controversial comments in which she said marriage should be between a man and a woman, reemerged as an activist in 2020. She was a member of Trump’s campaign advisory board that year, and gained a social media following for urging people to resist mask mandates and for speaking out against transgender women and girls participating in female sports. She converted to Catholicism last year. 

“Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know. So are all Catholics antisemites?” she said at the Monday hearing to four Jewish witnesses who were testifying about their experiences of antisemitism after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. Prejean Boller also came to the defense of right-wing podcaster Candace Owens, who regularly shares antisemitic conspiracy theories.

The White House, which appointed Prejan Boller to the commission last year, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Prejean Boller’s removal, and has otherwise not commented on the incident this week.

As Boca Raton, Fla., Mayor Scott Singer aims to unseat pro-Israel stalwart Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), the Republican is hoping that the region’s conservative shifts will help propel him to victory.

Singer told Jewish Insider last week he’s running for Congress because he “love[s] public service” and he sees the country at a “critical point … where we can go back to the failed policies of four years ago or continue to advance the gains that President Trump has made,” and he wants to help push Trump’s agenda forward. That includes Trump’s Middle East policy, which Singer lauded.

Singer, who is running in a traditionally Democratic district, emphasized his three-decade history of public service in the region, and said that he’s “seen a renewed enthusiasm and resurgence in terms of conservative, common sense policies,” particularly among Jewish voters, “as the Democratic Party has grown more and more left.”

“We’re seeing the Republican Party under President Trump becoming the party that really represents more of the issues that a lot of Jewish voters tend to care about,” Singer argued.

He also noted that the district, Florida’s 23rd, has seen a growth in conservative voters coming from out of state, many from states or cities led by Democrats. Trump came within two points of carrying the district in 2024, losing to former Vice President Kamala Harris, 50-48%. That was one of the bigger political shifts in the country, given that in 2020, Trump lost the district to Joe Biden by 13 points.Meanwhile, Moskowitz won his reelection bid 52%-48%.”

Whether Moskowitz and Singer actually end up facing each other in November remains somewhat of an open question, however, pending the outcome of Florida’s upcoming redistricting process.

Singer told JI that his alignment with the GOP has been shaped by his Jewish faith.

“Judaism places a value on individual rights and opportunity, responsibilities, education and freedom,” Singer said. “For hundreds of years, Jewish people were often excluded from Western society and had to make their way — often, as entrepreneurs or self employed, as generations of my family have been — finding ways for them to advance through society.”

“The promise of America is so great because anyone can come here and achieve great things,” he continued. “I’ve always leaned toward the right, because I found that this was a party that valued people’s individual opportunities, merits and contributions, and a natural home that’s consistent with the values that inform my faith.”

Singer argued that Trump has been the strongest advocate and champion of the U.S.-Israel relationship of any U.S. president and a “strong voice against antisemitism, and people are realizing this,” leading to shifts among Jewish voters toward the GOP.

He said that he “personally and spiritually [has] deep connections to the State of Israel and our ancestral home.” And he said that a continued strong U.S.-Israel relationship serves both countries’ interests.

“Israel has been taking a leading edge, fighting terror and fighting enemies who want to see the destruction of Western culture, Western values and the United States,” Singer said.

“What concerns me is in the Democratic Party — and I think it’s concerning a lot of voters, including historic Democratic voters and mainstream voters — is the outrageous and moral failings of Democratic leadership to to confront or contradict claims of genocide when Israel was brutally attacked by terrible terrorists who created committed horrific crimes against women and children — murdering, raping, strangling, kidnapping and torturing,” Singer continued, referencing the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks.

He downplayed anti-Israel trends among some on the right as “a few fringe commentators who seem to have lost semblance of what it means to be a conservative and do not represent the conservative movement.”

Singer emphasized that those voices are out of step with Trump.

“What concerns me is in the Democratic Party — and I think it’s concerning a lot of voters, including historic Democratic voters and mainstream voters — is the outrageous and moral failings of Democratic leadership to to confront or contradict claims of genocide when Israel was brutally attacked by terrible terrorists who created committed horrific crimes against women and children — murdering, raping, strangling, kidnapping and torturing,” Singer continued, referencing the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks.

Asked how he’d describe Moskowitz’s own record on these issues — the two-term Democratic lawmaker has been vocally supportive of Israel and has broken with many in his party on the issue — Singer offered little direct criticism for Moskowitz, instead arguing that he has limited power against what Singer described as a dominant anti-Israel current in the Democratic Party.

“You have to go back to the party and where you are,” Singer said. “When you’re a junior congressman and beholden to some of the increasingly hostile attitude of the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership, including statements by leaders in the House of Representatives that call Israel’s self defense a genocide. When they’re running the party, it’s very hard for any junior member to really stand out and make an effective difference in policy.”

Moskowitz responded in a statement to JI, “I guess the people who are trying to assassinate me over my support for Israel — they obviously think I’m pretty effective,” adding, “By [Singer’s] own logic, I guess there’s no reason for him to run for Congress because he won’t be able to help the district, because he’ll be a freshman.”

Moskowitz has stood apart from most Democrats on various issues relating to Israel, including voting for a controversial bill providing aid to Israel while cutting funding for the Internal Revenue Service, voting to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) for anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric, voting to override President Joe Biden’s holds on certain arms sales to Israel and calling for stronger action by the Biden administration on a range of areas related to Israel policy, Iran and antisemitism.

The Democratic congressman has regularly crossed party lines to cosponsor legislation to support Israel and combat Iran with Republican colleagues.

Moskowitz is also facing a progressive primary challenger who has focused significantly on attacking his support for Israel.

Singer said that the U.S.’ current focus, when it comes to Israel, should be disarming and removing Hamas from Gaza. He expressed support for the Trump administration-led ceasefire plan, and said it’s “too hard to speculate” what might come after that, including whether the U.S. should support a two-state solution.

Singer said that, as a member of Congress, he would be vocal against antisemitism, and said that “Congress needs to codify gains that are coming from the Trump executive orders and reevaluate its approach to universities and other institutions at all levels of education” due to what he said was their failure to protect Jewish students’ civil rights.

“There’s still a constant and present danger to people who love freedom, the Israeli people, and also the people who’ve been oppressed by 20 years of a brutal regime,” Singer said.

He praised Trump’s “bold and necessary action” to strike Iran’s nuclear program last June, and said that the U.S. needs to “stand strong” against the Iranian regime amid its violent crackdown on protesters.

“What we’ve seen over the last few weeks with the terrible slaughter — the extent of which we don’t quite fully know because of blackouts — of people longing for peace may hopefully send a signal of an end to this harmful regime,” Singer continued. “We need to continue to work through our diplomatic, economic and military channels to ensure the safety of our nation, the safety of allies, and hopefully bring relief to people in various lands who’ve been threatened by this rogue regime.”

Singer said that, as a member of Congress, he would be vocal against antisemitism, and said that “Congress needs to codify gains that are coming from the Trump executive orders and reevaluate its approach to universities and other institutions at all levels of education” due to what he said was their failure to protect Jewish students’ civil rights.

He said he would be open to bills to “increase standards” for schools receiving federal funding and to revoke funds to ensure that students’ rights are protected.

He said that Congress also “needs to continue to work in terms of fighting antisemitism, in terms of definitions, training, support for institutions — at the state level, we have strong support for religious schools — and ensuring religious freedom for all people.”

Singer said Congress should consider enhancing protections, such as the FACE Act, for religious institutions to allow people to worship freely and without fear, if necessary.

Singer argued that voices in the GOP that have been attempting to mainstream antisemitic ideology are confined to the “fringe,” emphasizing that he sees the issues as more within the mainstream in the Democratic Party.

“There are fringe voices who seem to have lost the thread of the conservative movement and even in some cases, the pro-America movement, by their unfounded criticisms,” Singer said. “And these loud voices should [continue] to be disregarded. Good speech drives out bad speech, and we need to continue to stand strong on all sides of the political spectrum.”

In his richly reported new book, Hated by All the Right People: Tucker Carlson and the Unraveling of the Conservative Mind, Jason Zengerle tracks the evolution of the mainstream conservative journalist for The Weekly Standard, CNN and FOX News into a prominent figure in the far-right media ecosystem whose commentary increasingly descends into open antisemitism.

Zengerle, a veteran political reporter, ruminates over Carlson’s troubling transition from magazine writer to cable news pundit to his current position as a widely followed podcast host whose credulous interviews with Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers, among others, have done little to dampen his influence in the MAGA movement he helped build.

In a recent interview with Jewish Insider, Zengerle, whose book will be published Tuesday, warned that Carlson’s efforts to smuggle antisemitic views into mainstream discourse should not be taken lightly.

“Tucker has credibility, and he comes across as a credible person,” Zengerle said. “That he’s giving voice to these really pretty fringe and dangerous sentiments is not to be underestimated, because people trust him.”

Whether Carlson personally believes the “awful things” he promotes, Zengerle writes in his book, “matters less than that he says them at all, and that millions of people — members of Congress, titans of industry, the president and just everyday Americans — listen to and take their cues from him.”

“What matters is that by saying these things, Carlson has finally achieved the fame, power and influence that for so long eluded him,” he adds.

Zengerle, 52, was recently hired as a staff writer for The New Yorker, and has previously contributed to The New York Times Magazine, GQ and The New Republic, among other publications. His book on Carlson is his first.

Speaking with JI last week, Zengerle discussed Carlson’s professional ascent, his motivations for demonizing Israel and why conservative Jews are so frightened by his potential role in shaping the future direction of the Republican Party after President Donald Trump leaves office, among other topics.

The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Jewish Insider: This book has been in the works for a while. How did the idea initially come about?

Jason Zengerle: It’s been a bit of a roller coaster. The initial idea sort of came from a conversation I was having with my agent about a book I didn’t want to write, about the Republican civil war that was about to unfold. This is not long after [the] Jan. 6 [2021 Capitol riot]. The people who are going to be vying to inherit Trump supporters, because Trump was obviously a finished product, would never be coming back. And I was sort of talking to my agent about the various characters, and explaining why I didn’t think, no matter how many positions [Sens.] Josh Hawley (R-MO) or Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Tom Cotton (R-AR) took that would seem to appeal to Trump’s base, there was no way they’re ever going to inherit those voters, because they just lacked the charisma and entertainment value that Trump obviously has. 

Offhandedly, I said something like, ‘You know, the only guy who really can do that is Tucker Carlson.’ That was the genesis of the idea. Then, obviously, when I started the book, Tucker was at the height of his powers. He had the highest-rated show on Fox. Trump had kind of exited the stage. And Tucker, in a lot of ways, had sort of replaced Trump, just in terms of the headspace he was occupying among both liberals and conservatives. You had this weird Tucker economy of liberal journalists and people on Twitter who would clip his show, sort of like outrage bait.

For the first couple years I was working on the book, Tucker was sort of occupying that space. And then he got fired from Fox, and everyone was predicting that he would basically suffer the same fate all Fox stars suffer when they leave Fox, which is irrelevance. Like, who thinks about Bill O’Reilly these days, right? But I thought that wasn’t going to happen. I thought Tucker was going to stay in the picture. That might have been some motivated self-reasoning on my part, because I wanted the book to be relevant. My original publisher definitely thought he was going to fade away because they canceled my contract. 

JI: It certainly seems you were right in suspecting that he would continue to be not only relevant, but extremely influential during the campaign and in influencing hiring decisions for key roles in the Trump administration, as you detail in the book. He’s had a circuitous and occasionally rocky career from print journalism to cable news and now to an independent podcast. How do you view his evolution? Is there a moment where you see a clear turning point toward the type of demagogic commentator he would become, or do you think it was more gradual?

JZ: I think there are definitely inflection points in his career, and you can point to a number of them. I think one was certainly the war in Iraq. I think that had a pretty profound impact on his thinking. You know, I think he harbored some private doubts about the wisdom of going to war there, but was not really comfortable expressing them publicly, for a couple of reasons. Today, he talks a lot about how Bill Kristol and all these guys kind of misled him, and that’s why he hates them so much. At the same time, his best friend and now business partner was Neil Patel, who was working for Scooter Libby [chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney]. And if you want to look at the disinformation that was put out into the world that supported going into Iraq, that was coming from Dick Cheney’s office. And I think Neil played a role in that. The fact that his best friend was sort of making the case for war, I think, made it difficult for him to oppose it. Two, the job he had at CNN at the time, on “Crossfire,” was to represent the right and the Bush administration — so just from a practical standpoint, he had to kind of support the war.

But anyway, the fact that things went so badly for Tucker at CNN, I think, made him reexamine a number of his priors and a lot of his time in his early career, when he was at The Weekly Standard and even after he had started writing for Talk and Esquire. There was such an effort among people like Kristol to excommunicate Pat Buchanan from the conservative movement. I think what happened with Iraq made Tucker reconsider Buchanan a bit, and he sort of saw that, ‘OK, well, I actually think this guy was right about foreign policy, and maybe he’s right about some other stuff as well.’ I think that led him to become much more hawkish on immigration. 

I think that what happened with Jon Stewart and CNN was a pretty big inflection point in the sense that the public humiliation he suffered, obviously, was difficult for him. But I also think he felt that his friends in the elite D.C. political and media circles didn’t come to his aid the way he would have liked. That started to breed a certain resentment he felt toward them that really grew as his career limped along. It made it a lot easier for him, when Trump came on the stage and started attacking the swamp and D.C. elites, to join in on those attacks, because I think he still nursed a grudge. So you can see things gradually, but you can also point to these crossroads moments, as well.

JI: You write that, while you didn’t know Carlson well, he often served as an “eager interview” subject and source for your stories over the years. Still, he didn’t agree to any interviews for your book. Why do you think that was?

JZ: I think it really is that Robert Novak expression: “a source, not a target.” I think he plays that game.

JI: There’s an interesting recollection in the prologue about your occasional interactions with Carlson when he would stop by the New Republic offices back in the late ’90s during your time as an intern there. You describe him then as a “hotshot young writer for The Weekly Standard,” and say he “seemed so much older, wiser and worldlier than we were.”

JZ: Maybe it didn’t take much to impress me. But the thing about him back then — and the thing I think others admired about him and looked up to him for — was that he was really courageous. The targets he picked, whether it was Grover Norquist or George W. Bush — it took guts to do that as a conservative journalist, and that was admirable.

JI: You write in the book that Carlson has “come a long way from the days when he described himself as a pro-Israel, Episcopalian neocon.” On his show now, he regularly promotes antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories, incessantly attacks Israel and hosts neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers for friendly interviews. Do you have insight into what sparked this openly antisemitic streak?

JZ: It’s funny, someone who’s close to him was telling me that they thought this basically started with his conclusion that all the people who were opposed to him and Trump, post-2016, were big Israel supporters. So Tucker’s like, ‘Alright, I’m just going to piss these people off by going after Israel,’ and that’s kind of where it started. I don’t know if that’s the case. 

I mean, Bill Kristol looms so large in his mind and in his own story. The story that he tells people, and the story I think he tells himself, is he was misled and used and kind of exploited by the neocons, that he was this young, naive, innocent writer who got just basically used to get us into a war and support free trade deals and do all these things that hurt the white working class in America, and that what he’s doing now is his penance. And I think that’s not a true story. I don’t think that’s what happened. 

Kristol is just such a huge figure in his own mythology. Even before Tucker went in this direction, he was really close to Kristol. He really looked up to him. He was his first boss, and I think he had a real impact on Tucker’s career. But now, Tucker wants that all to be a negative impact. He did an interview recently with his brother, Buckley Carlson, where he talked about how Kristol hates Christians. Bill Kristol, who hired Fred Barnes and took vacations with Gary Bauer. He’s recast all this stuff.

JI: Do you think Carlson’s hostility toward Israel and descent into nakedly antisemitic vitriol, such as when he called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “ratlike” and “a persecutor of Christians,” is motivated by more than just resentment of those he believes have spurned him? There’s been a lot of attention recently about a generational turn away from Israel on the right, which raises a question of whether he’s opportunistically tapping into that or directly influencing it.

JZ: I guess it’s both. I do think he’s making the calculation that that is where the energy is, and therefore he wants to make sure he stays out in front of it. He has a very good political radar and good professional radar. I think the Nick Fuentes episode was him recognizing he was in this feud with this guy, and he was losing, and him sort of deciding you cannot be successful in conservative media or conservative politics these days unless you have the support of these neo-Nazis. Unfortunately, it’s not going to work for you, and so he needed to get back on their good side. I think that’s part of the calculus. 

At the same time, I think he is influencing some of these people, maybe not the hardcore Nick Fuentes supporters, but young conservatives who, you look at what happened or what’s happening in Gaza and had questions and qualms and concerns. And then Tucker is out there — and Fuentes is out there as well — making the argument about how Gaza is wrong, but taking it so much further than that, and going into these really ugly corners of anti-Israel sentiment and taking them to those places. 

Now, I don’t want to get too far afield here, but that JD Vance talk at Ole Miss, where the frat boy asked that question about Israel persecuting Christians — that was a real light bulb moment for me. That this stuff had penetrated that deep that you have this guy who appears to be your regular old SEC frat boy saying this stuff. And I think Tucker is responsible for a lot of that, because that’s something he did at Fox, and he continues to do. He’s really good at taking ideas and arguments and even just stories from extreme, far-right fringy areas, often on the internet, and smuggling them into the mainstream. I think he’s doing that with the Israel stuff and with the Jewish stuff.

JI: His interview in 2024 with Darryl Cooper, the self-proclaimed podcast historian and Holocaust revisionist who has described Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II, seems an early instance of that effort.

JZ: That’s a perfect example. You have to be really steeped in this stuff to see what this individual is saying and doing and the rhetorical tricks they’re playing. Tucker just brings and vouches for these people, and I think that’s pretty dangerous. Tucker has credibility, and he comes across as a credible person. The fact that he’s giving voice to these really pretty fringe and dangerous sentiments is not to be underestimated, because people trust him, and it validates them.

JI: There’s been some intermittent speculation about whether Carlson will run for president. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

JZ: I don’t think he just wants to be a podcaster. I don’t think that’s his goal here. I think he has a real vision for what he wants this country to be, and he wants to achieve that vision, and if it turned out that running for office was the way to do that, I could see him doing it. I don’t think it’d be his first choice. I think right now, he has a nice, nice setup where he obviously has a president who listens to him. Maybe even more importantly, he has a vice president who I think he’s even closer to and more in alignment with. Just sort of thinking through the steps, as long as he thinks JD Vance and he are on the same page ideologically, and as long as he thinks JD Vance is capable of being elected president, that he has the political talent to pull that off, I can’t imagine him doing anything on his own. 

But if one of those two things changes, and I think it’s quite possible that the latter becomes a sticking point — if Tucker at some point were to conclude that JD Vance actually isn’t capable of being elected president and that his his ideological project is in jeopardy — I could certainly see him taking a shot at it. The way you would run for president now, it’s so different from how you had to do it before. He could probably do a lot of it from his podcast studio. But I think what’s more important is just understanding why he would do it, which is sort of the bigger point. He really does have a project he’s working on, and I think he’ll do what he thinks is necessary in order to bring that project to fruition.

JI: How would you characterize that project? 

JZ: He wants the United States to look like it did in the 1950s. I think he’s very much in alignment with Stephen Miller. Beyond the immigration stuff and us being a much whiter country, I think he wants to return to traditional gender roles.

JI: While some Republican lawmakers have spoken out against Carlson, it seems notable that Trump and Vance have both so far refrained from explicitly distancing themselves from him.

JZ: There’s this weird thing going on where certain Jewish conservatives feel like, as long as Trump’s there, everything’s going to be fine. You know, his grandchildren are Jewish, he might say some stuff, he might do some things, but at the end of the day, the worst-case scenario will never occur. They view Tucker as this bad influence on Vance, and if they can just get rid of the bad influence, Vance will be OK. But they’re really terrified of Tucker. They’re really terrified of what comes after Trump. And they’re terrified that Tucker will have a major influence on whatever comes after Trump. They’re worried about the influence he has on Vance. They want to believe that Vance would be OK, left to his own devices. They think Tucker is leading him in a bad direction, and therefore they need to take out Tucker.

I think it goes beyond Israel. I think it’s genuine fear about what it would mean to be Jewish in the United States. I’ve been talking to some of these folks recently. I think it’s a real, deep-seated fear about, in Tucker Carlson’s America, what would it be like to be Jewish here?

The House Foreign Affairs Committee removed key provisions of a bill designed to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization when it approved the legislation last week, prompting concerns from some conservatives. 

The bill was amended by a voice vote to strip out provisions mandating the designation of eligible Muslim Brotherhood branches and the entire Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations, including backing from the committee’s chairman, Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL).

The original legislation, introduced in both the House and Senate, included language requiring that the secretary of state assess each branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and report to Congress on whether those branches meet the criteria for designation as a terrorist group under either of two authorities. 

It then mandated that the administration designate those branches that meet the criteria as terrorist groups and impose sanctions pursuant to those designations, and required that those sanctions remain in place for at least four years. It would also impose sanctions on the entire Muslim Brotherhood.

The amended legislation mandates only the assessment of Muslim Brotherhood chapters “that pose a threat to United States national security interests,” rather than all branches of the group — potentially allowing some branches of the group to duck scrutiny — and requires a report to Congress on whether those branches “ha[ve] been designated” as terrorist groups. Most significantly, it removes the specific mandate that the branches in question and the full Muslim Brotherhood be designated as terrorist groups and sanctioned pursuant to the findings of that report.

In effect, the changes remove key provisions that made the legislation broader than an executive order issued by the Trump administration last month, which authorized the designation of certain Muslim Brotherhood branches as terrorist organizations, but did not mandate an assessment of all branches for terrorist activity or require that the entire organization be designated and sanctioned.

“The bill reported out of committee codifies the Trump administration’s bold efforts to counter the Muslim Brotherhood,” a House Foreign Affairs Committee spokesperson told Jewish Insider, when asked about the changes. 

“This is one part of a broader process to work directly with the administration as they advance towards imposing a full designation. There should be no question about House Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans’ commitment to hold terrorist groups accountable, and we are in lockstep with the administration in doing so.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), the lead Republican sponsor of the bill, said he is “thrilled the bill made its way out of committee and is grateful to Chairman Mast for providing that opportunity,” adding that discrepancies between final House and Senate legislation would need to be worked through in a conference committee. “We look forward to engaging throughout the process,” the spokesperson added.

An official at a pro-Israel organization, reflecting concerns about the amended legislation among some conservatives, said that the legislation should be stronger.

“While the legislation is still a step in the right direction, the version approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee lacks the teeth of the original House bill as well as the current legislation in the Senate put forward by Senator [Ted] Cruz,” the official told JI. 

“President Trump has been crystal clear about the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood. When President Trump says that we will not tolerate those who fuel and fund radical terrorism, it should be backed up with the strongest possible legislation that will cement his legacy on this issue.” 

Today’s special election in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District — covering parts of Nashville, its conservative suburbs and rural counties in middle Tennessee — was expected to be a sleepy affair, given that the district backed President Donald Trump with 60% of the vote in 2024. The state’s aggressively partisan redistricting in 2021 was intended to guarantee GOP dominance of the state’s congressional delegation, leaving just one Democratic district in Memphis.

But in a sign that Trump’s growing unpopularity is creating unforeseen problems for Republicans in conservative constituencies, the race between Republican military veteran Matt Van Epps, a former state Cabinet secretary, and Democratic state Rep. Aftyn Behn is highly competitive. 

The fact that polls show the race tightening — with one Emerson College poll showing Van Epps in a statistical tie with Behn — is a sign of just how treacherous the political landscape has become for Republicans. Gallup’s latest survey found Trump with a 36% job approval, close to an all-time low throughout his two terms in office.  

If Republicans are nervous about holding a seat that Trump won by 22 points, there’s a growing likelihood of a blue wave that would give Democrats comfortable control of the House and an outside shot at a Senate majority. (One useful benchmark: Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) carried the 7th District by just two points in her 2018 Senate race, the last election year when Democrats rode a wave to win back the House.)

The fact that Republicans are struggling to make the case that the unapologetically progressive Behn holds views out of step with the conservative district on everything from anti-police rhetoric to antipathy towards her home city of Nashville to a record of hostility against Israel is also a sign of how nationalized our politics have become. In today’s tribal world, candidate quality and specific policy views mean a lot less than the overall political mood (vibes) and the popularity of the president.

Once someone wins their party’s nomination, the penalty for holding ideologically extreme views isn’t as costly as it once was. Just look at incoming Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s showings in the November elections. Despite their substantial baggage, both candidates received a level of political legitimacy after winning their primaries.

Getting Trump voters to show up when the president isn’t on the ballot is also looking like an immense challenge that the closer-than-expected Tennessee race is showing — a dynamic that will continue past next year’s midterms. Part of it is the nature of off-year special elections, which less-engaged Republican voters aren’t likely to participate in. But some of the slippage in this race is also a sign of declining enthusiasm for the Republican Party even with more reliably GOP voters. 

The district is anchored by the affluent Nashville suburb of Williamson County, which stuck with Trump even as most other suburban areas swung towards Democrats over the last decade. 

Gallup found Trump dropping to 84% support among Republican voters, a decline of about 10 points in the last couple of months. If Republicans are slipping with their own voters, amid signs of cracks within the MAGA coalition, it would truly be a warning sign that the party’s vaunted unity under Trump could be dissipating as his final term progresses.

Odds still favor Van Epps in tonight’s special election, given the district’s solidly conservative bent. But if a progressive like Behn can make this race close — within single digits — it will serve as a flashing red light about where the political winds are heading for the White House, at least without a course correction. 

In the last decade and a half, Hungary has gained a reputation as the most conservative European nation, a distinction happily touted by the country’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who has been in office since 2010. 

In building that reputation, Orbán has courted controversy — with inflammatory comments about racial minorities and the LGBTQ community, by taking measures that critics say erode the country’s democracy and by adopting a more pro-Russia stance than most of the rest of the European Union. His hard-line policies are part of why Orbán and President Donald Trump have been able to cultivate a close relationship, with the U.S. and Hungary now far more aligned than they were during the Biden administration.

“That’s an understatement,” János Bóka, Hungary’s minister for EU affairs, told Jewish Insider with a laugh during a visit to Washington last week. 

But if Trump has taken a page from Orbán’s conservative governing playbook, bringing the two countries closer together, Bóka said there is one political trend playing out among American conservatives that he hopes Hungary avoids: the rise of antisemitism on the political right. 

“I am aware of the discussion that you are now having in the States on the reviving of antisemitism on the right. One of the added values of my trip in the U.S. is that I can study this firsthand and can discuss this with people so I have a better understanding,” Bóka said. “This phenomenon is something that is very difficult for me to understand, because at least in Hungary and in most parts of Europe, it doesn’t have a parallel, or at least not yet.”

That’s because Bóka says Hungary has all but eliminated right-wing antisemitism and the lingering vestiges of Nazi ideology, or at the very least that the country has made it “politically irrelevant.” 

“I cannot pretend the 20th century did not happen,” said Bóka, who as of May also serves as Hungary’s special commissioner tasked with fighting antisemitism. But, he added, “this government has basically expelled political antisemitism from the political discourse.” 

The situation in Hungary is more complicated than Bóka let on. Orbán has faced criticism from Jewish organizations for years over his targeting of Hungarian Holocaust survivor and financier George Soros, with the Anti-Defamation League writing in 2018 that the Hungarian campaign against Soros is “chilling.” Deborah Lipstadt, the Holocaust historian who served as the State Department’s antisemitism envoy during the Biden administration, said in 2022 that Orbán’s rhetoric warning against racial mixing “clearly evokes Nazi racial ideology.” 

Bóka, who was in Washington to meet with American Jewish communal leaders, said Hungary has adopted a “zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism,” and said the allegation that Orbán is antisemitic is “wrong” and “a misunderstanding of what he does.”

Similar to Trump, Budapest has adopted the stated goal of combating antisemitism, even if its approach is controversial and targeted toward one particular political ideology. And like Trump, Bóka views the fight against antisemitism as tied to the country’s broader efforts to limit migration. 

“We see some elements coming from the far left and as a part of a European network that is becoming more active and vocal in Hungary as well in the past few months. But I think this is very limited,” said Bóka. “We haven’t seen violent incidents that are in any way similar to what we see in some Western European cities because of the strict migration policy we have in place. And also because of the zero tolerance policy on antisemitism, we don’t see radical Islamism as a political factor in Hungary.” 

Because his job description includes Hungary’s relationship with the EU, Bóka sees his purview as broader than just antisemitism in Hungary. He called it a “European challenge” that must be addressed together. “Antisemitism exists in all EU member states, including Hungary,” Bóka acknowledged. He thinks he — and Hungary — have something to offer other European nations as they seek to combat antisemitism. 

His first lesson to them is about Israel: If you are serious about fighting antisemitism, Bóka argues, attacking Israel’s actions in Gaza in EU forums will undermine that goal. Israel has leaned heavily on Orbán as a pro-Israel bulwark in the EU. Hungary announced earlier this year that it would leave the International Criminal Court to protest its treatment of Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces an arrest warrant from the body. 

Jewish communities “will never believe that you are credible, that you have a real political commitment for fighting antisemitism, if at the same time you send very mixed messages as far as your relationship with the State of Israel is concerned,” said Bóka. “If you start speaking the language of isolation, sanctions and so forth, then you will lose the opportunity to cooperate with the State of Israel on fighting antisemitism in Europe, which is indispensable.” 

During his time in Washington, Bóka met with Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, Trump’s nominee to serve as U.S. antisemitism special envoy. Kaploun had his Senate confirmation hearing last week but has not yet been confirmed. Bóka also met in New York with Jeff Bartos, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform. He said he is “convinced” that the U.S. and Hungary can collaborate on fighting antisemitism. 

“I believe that we have a very similar strategic view on objectives and the ways and means to get there,” said Bóka. “I think there’s a lot of openness on both sides to cooperate.”

Conservative Jewish legal and education experts in Virginia are voicing concern over a request made by Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, for the University of Virginia to pause its presidential search until she takes office in January — and how such a move could impact campus climate for Jewish students. 

The issue of selecting board members at the state’s leading public universities has been a politically charged one since Gov. Glenn Youngkin took office in 2021. Several board seats remain unfilled at George Mason University after Democrats in the state legislature blocked Youngkin’s nominees, including Ken Marcus, founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, whom Youngkin appointed in 2024.  

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld the ruling in favor of Virginia Senate Democrats blocking more than 20 of Youngkin’s university board appointments at several schools, including UVA and GMU. 

Spanberger has spoken out against government interference at the University of Virginia over several of the Trump administration’s civil rights investigations into the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion program and over its alleged failure to address antisemitism. The university reached a deal with the federal government in October to pause the investigations, which led its president, Jim Ryan, to resign under pressure. 

Youngkin, in turn, attacked Spanberger for getting involved in university governance before she assumes office in January, criticizing a letter she wrote to the board as “riddled with hyperbole and factual errors and impugns both the Board of Visitors and the presidential search underway.” There are currently five vacancies on the UVa Board of Visitors, which Spanberger is looking to fill in order to put her own stamp on the school’s academic future.

Historically, such intraparty skirmishing over university governance and board appointments wouldn’t have a major impact on the Jewish community.  But at a time when dealing with antisemitism has become tinged with partisanship — with Democrats accused of being less aggressive in dealing with some prominent antisemitic incidents —  the makeup of these key leadership roles and appointments carries high stakes.

As a gubernatorial candidate, Spanberger’s campaign declined to comment when asked by Jewish Insider last year about reaction to news of a GMU student arrested for plotting a terror attack against the Israeli consulate in New York City.

“Democrats [may be] less interested in addressing campus antisemitism and associate allegations of it with the Trump administration’s so-called ‘assault on higher education’ and feel like acknowledging antisemitism may be playing into Trump’s hands,” David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, told Jewish Insider.

“Democratic-elected prosecutors in Albemarle County [where UVA is located] told universities that even if students violate the state’s anti-mask law, which is a felony, they’re not going to prosecute them. That’s evidence of Democrats in general not taking campus antisemitism seriously,” continued Bernstein, referencing the tendency of anti-Israel activists to wear masks to conceal their identities at protests. 

Marcus told JI his expectations for new UVA leadership include “moving forward with stronger policies to address antisemitism, [for example] more forceful use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. I’d like to see that be followed at UVA as it has been at George Mason [University].”

“But that’s now in question,” continued Marcus. “It certainly will make a difference whether the current board selects the president or whether they wait for Gov.-elect Spanberger to have a say in the matter. Issues driving selection of the president are unlikely to focus on antisemitism, but they certainly might include adjacent issues like DEI.”  

Jason Torchinsky, a partner at Holtzman Vogel who has filed several lawsuits on behalf of Jewish students alleging campus antisemitism, also expressed worry that “if new board members that the governor-elect appoints are not committed to combating antisemitism on campus, the tide is going to turn and it will get worse at UVA.” 

In Virginia, state university board appointees are typically former legislators of the governor’s party or an alum who donates to the school. Torchinsky said he “suspects Spanberger will follow that pattern.”  

Torchinsky represented Matan Goldstein, a Jewish UVA student who sued the school in 2024 over allegations that he was “a victim of hate-based, intentional discrimination, severe harassment and abuse and illegal retaliation.” As a result of the lawsuit and an anti-Israel encampment that spring, “UVA made a lot of good changes at that time,” including enforcing an anti-mask law at protests, Torchinsky told JI. 

“If the board reverses those policies or fails to enforce them, it could be bad for Jewish students,” continued Torchinsky. “I’m just hoping those don’t get reversed.” 

Robert George, a prominent board member of the Heritage Foundation, said on Monday that he was resigning from the conservative think tank, in the latest sign of continued fallout over its president’s controversial defense of Tucker Carlson after his friendly interview last month with a neo-Nazi influencer.

“I could not remain without a full retraction of the video released by Kevin Roberts, speaking for and in the name of Heritage, on October 30th,” George said in a Facebook post Monday morning, referring to the group’s president. “Although Kevin publicly apologized for some of what he said in the video, he could not offer a full retraction of its content. So, we reached an impasse.”

His decision to step down indicates that Roberts is likely secure, for now, in his role atop Heritage, as its board remains split about his future, according to a former Heritage staffer familiar with internal discussions.

“It’s a good sign for Kevin, that’s for sure, because Robbie was clearly upset about the mistake Kevin made and thought there really needed to be drastic action to correct it,” the former staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity to address a sensitive issue, told Jewish Insider on Monday. “This means there’s now one less vote on the board for removing Kevin.”

George, a Heritage board member since 2019 who serves as director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals & Institutions at Princeton University, reportedly lobbied for Roberts’ removal behind the scenes.

In his announcement on Monday, George called Roberts “a good man” and said that he had “made what he acknowledged was a serious mistake,” but added, “What divided us was a difference of opinion about what was required to rectify the mistake.”

He said that he was “sad to be leaving the” think tank and still had “great affection and esteem for” his “board colleagues,” wishing Heritage “the very best.”

He did not respond to a request for comment from JI.

“We are thankful for Professor George and his service to Heritage,” a spokesperson for Heritage said in a statement Monday. “He is a good man, and we look forward to opportunities to work together in the future. Under the leadership of Dr. Roberts, Heritage remains resolute in building an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish. We are strong, growing and more determined than ever to fight for our republic.”

George had argued in a social media post last month, in response to Roberts’ defense of Carlson, that “American conservatism today faces a challenge” from “those who reject our commitment to inherent and equal human dignity,” adding, “I will not — I cannot— accept the idea that we have ‘no enemies to the right.’”

“The white supremacists, the antisemites, the eugenicists, the bigots, must not be welcomed into our movement or treated as normal or acceptable,” he wrote.

Roberts, for his part, has apologized for his video remarks standing behind Carlson and refusing to “cancel” Nick Fuentes, whom the former Fox News host had interviewed in an amiable discussion that failed to challenge his admiration for Adolf Hitler, Holocaust denialism and other antisemitic views.

The Heritage president has also voiced regret for dismissing Carlson’s critics as part of a “venomous coalition,” claiming that he did not intend to invoke an antisemic trope, and denounced Fuentes. But he has otherwise continued to back Carlson, a personal friend, and declined to delete the video featuring his initial comments on the matter.

Some conservatives criticized the foundation on Monday for contributing to George’s departure.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said in a social media post that George “was the head of the ‘Kevin Roberts showed terrible judgment and there need to be consequences’ camp, which has apparently lost out to ‘everything is well, nothing to see here’ camp.” 

“Heritage will now decline as an institution (or we will decline as a nation). Sad,” Shapiro lamented.

George’s resignation marks the latest defection from Heritage in recent weeks, as the think tank continued to face backlash over Roberts’ handling of the controversy. Last week, for instance, a legal expert resigned from his role as a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation, citing Roberts’ video and “subsequent interviews, videos, and commentary.” 

Earlier this month, an antisemitism task force that worked with Heritage cut ties with the organization, saying it “cannot allow the conservative movement to be corrupted and destroyed by those consumed with attacking America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and values, thereby distracting us all from the real challenges facing our nation.”

The former Heritage staffer told JI that there are still “a lot of conservatives inside the” foundation “who are not comfortable with the trajectory of the organization,” noting that George’s departure could fuel further resignations. “It feeds the narrative that movement conservatives feel they’re being squeezed out.”

“What you’re not yet seeing is a mass exodus in terms of the scholars inside the organization, but that could be coming,” the former staffer predicted. 

In his resignation note on Monday, George expressed hope that “Heritage’s research and advocacy will be guided by the conviction that each and every member of the human family, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or anything else, as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, is ‘created equal’ and ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.’”

“The anchor for the Heritage Foundation, and for our nation, and for every patriotic American is that creed,” he wrote. “It must always be that creed. If we hold fast to it even when expediency counsels compromising it, we cannot go wrong. If we abandon it, we sign the death certificate of republican government and ordered liberty.”

President Donald Trump on Friday night publicly disavowed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), once one of the president’s closest and most committed allies on Capitol Hill, saying he was withdrawing his endorsement of Greene and is prepared to support a primary challenger to the far-right Georgia congresswoman.

Greene, long dogged by controversy for her record of promoting antisemitic and otherwise fringe conspiracy theories, has emerged as one of the most vocal opponents of Israel on the right, accusing the country of genocide and leading efforts attempting to cut off U.S. aid to the Jewish state.

She has also repeatedly publicly criticized Trump’s policies and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill since the start of the government shutdown, earning Trump’s ire. Her breaks with the GOP have made her into a budding star in liberal media circles, where her ongoing promotion of conspiracy theories has increasingly been overlooked.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that he has heard that “wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie” and that “if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support,” accusing her of having “gone Far Left.”

Greene’s district is among the most heavily Republican in the country, and losing Trump’s support could prove a significant blow to the congresswoman.

“All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!” Trump wrote, adding that Greene’s criticism began after he showed her statewide polling that placed her at just 12% support and discouraged her from running for Senate or governor, both positions Greene had been eyeing.

According to NOTUS, Greene is discussing a presidential run in 2028, though she denied that to the publication.

“[Greene] has told many people that she is upset that I don’t return her phone calls anymore, but with 219 Congressmen/women, 53 U.S. Senators, 24 Cabinet Members, almost 200 Counties, and an otherwise normal life to lead, I can’t take a ranting Lunatic’s call every day,” Trump continued in his post.

He later called Greene a “Traitor” and a “disgrace to our GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY!”

Greene responded on X, saying Trump had lied to her and claiming that two recent text messages about files related to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein had “sent him over the edge,” saying it is “astonishing really how hard he’s fighting to stop the Epstein files from coming out.”

Greene is one of a small number of Republicans cosponsoring a measure to force a vote, over Republicans’ objections on files related to Epstein. Trump, an associate of Epstein, has sought to prevent the full release of those files, calling the push for further disclosure “the Epstein hoax.”

“Most Americans wish he would fight this hard to help the forgotten men and women of America who are fed up with foreign wars and foreign causes, are going broke trying to feed their families, and are losing hope of ever achieving the American dream,” Greene said. “I have supported President Trump with too much of my precious time, too much of my own money, and fought harder for him even when almost all other Republicans turned their back and denounced him. But I don’t worship or serve Donald Trump.”

In a subsequent post, Greene shared a graphic showing she has not received support from pro-Israel groups alongside another graphic comparing her “Liberty Score” to that of Trump-backed pro-Israel Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). In the post, she wrote: “This and the Epstein files is why I’m being attacked by President Trump. It really makes you wonder what is in those files and who and what country is putting so much pressure on him?”

She also claimed that Trump’s posts are driving a wave of security threats against her.

Trump has also worked to defeat Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), another of the most vocal anti-Israel Republicans The president has endorsed retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, who is challenging Massie in the GOP primary. 

On Friday, Trump called Massie a “LOSER!” in a separate Truth Social post, claiming that “the Polls have him at less than an 8% chance of winning the Election” and mocked his recent remarriage.

The leaders of an antisemitism task force closely affiliated with the Heritage Foundation said on Monday that they would stand by the conservative institution for now as its president faces backlash for defending Tucker Carlson, following the conservative podcaster’s controversial interview with neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes.

The co-chairs of the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, a right-wing group that played a key role in drafting Heritage’s Project Esther antisemitism plan last year, said in a Monday night email to task force members that they had spoken with Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts earlier in the day. 

“He shared his apology about how he has handled this issue, and was very open to our counsel,” the task force co-chairs wrote in the email, which was obtained by Jewish Insider. “Because of this we are asking the members of the taskforce to give us additional time to work out the practical steps moving forward.”

The four co-chairs are Mario Bramnick, a Florida pastor and president of the Latino Coalition for Israel; Victoria Coates, vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation; Ellie Cohanim, who served as deputy antisemitism special envoy in the first Trump administration; and Luke Moon, a pastor and executive director of the Philos Project. 

In the email, Bramnick, Coates, Cohanim and Moon, all staunch supporters of President Donald Trump, said the “conservative movement” is at an “inflection point.”

“We can allow the movement to elevate the most base identitarian elements within the movement or we can choose to build on the wins of the last year under President Donald Trump’s leadership,” they wrote. “When we started the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism the challenges before us were from the pro-Hamas radical Left. More recently, forces have begun to come together to aggressively push antisemitism on the Right. Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes are the most notable, but not the only voices we need to contend.”

The four co-chairs urged their task force members to “stick with us.” They said they will “work closely” with Roberts and the Heritage leadership “over the next several days.” 

Roberts has faced significant backlash for defending Carlson and his choice to host Fuentes, including from some Republican senators. Amid the criticism, he has made clear his disavowal of Fuentes’ racist and antisemitic beliefs while standing by Carlson. 

In a Monday night speech at Hillsdale College in Michigan, Roberts took a sharp line against antisemitism and offered an apology to his “Jewish friends.”  

“Let me say loud and clear: The Heritage Foundation, which has always not only stood against antisemitism — and I, if you know anything about my career, have done the same — we will never, ever, ever stop fighting against antisemitism in all its forms,” he said. 

At least two organizations resigned from the antisemitism task force earlier Monday: Young Jewish Conservatives and the Zionist Organization of America. 

“While we understand that many pro-Israel, pro-America conservatives remain at the Heritage Foundation, the buck stops with Dr. Roberts. As long as he remains at the helm and Heritage continues its alliance with a vocal purveyor of antisemitism in the United States, Young Jewish Conservative[s] has no choice but to withdraw its membership in the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism,” Young Jewish Conservatives announced in a statement.

ZOA National President Morton Klein said the organization would quit its involvement with Project Esther “unless Heritage President Kevin Roberts publicly and immediately condemns Carlson’s actions and statements, apologizes for Roberts’ video statements and ends Roberts’ and Heritage’s relationship with Tucker Carlson.”

The newly open Senate race in Iowa could pit a House Republican seen as a conventional conservative against challengers likely to attack her from the right. The race could also be an early bellwether of the GOP’s direction as it moves toward the post-Trump era.

Multiple outlets reported on Friday that Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) will drop her bid for reelection in 2026 and retire from the Senate at the end of her current term. A member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Ernst has been a staunch ally of Israel and an Iran hawk in the upper chamber, traveling to the region repeatedly since Oct. 7, 2023, and serving as a co-chair of the Abraham Accords Caucus.

Ernst has been vocal in calling for ramping up U.S. pressure on Qatar to squeeze Hamas to release the hostages being held in Gaza, and has been a champion of efforts to integrate American, Israeli and Arab defensive systems in the region, including air and missile defense.

Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), a former local news anchor and state representative elected to Congress in 2020, is widely seen as likely to make a run for Ernst’s seat. She’s been an ally of Ernst as the senator has faced right-wing attacks..

In the House, Hinson has a consistent record of support for the U.S.-Israel relationship and legislation to combat antisemitism, and has signed onto congressional letters criticizing international legal cases against Israel and supporting the Abraham Accords. She supported the U.S. strikes on Iran earlier this summer.

Hinson called the U.S.-Israel relationship “absolutely imperative … for both of our countries,” in 2020. “We look at not only the partnerships for security, but also for economic development, research, medicine. There are so many ways our countries are helping each other, and I think that relationship is invaluable both from the past and going forward.”

Hinson has been endorsed in previous races by AIPAC and the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Her House campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Should she enter the race, she’ll face the prospect of running against lesser-known, right-wing Republicans like Jim Carlin, a former state senator who entered the race to challenge Ernst from the right.

Carlin has framed himself as a “reliable ally to President [Donald] Trump, not an adversary.” He has attacked Ernst for decisions including her vote in support of additional U.S. support for Ukraine.

“America First isn’t a slogan — it’s a governing philosophy. It means protecting American borders before foreign ones. It means putting our economy, our people, and our future ahead of global interests,” Carlin’s campaign site reads. “We need our allies to step up and pay their fair share.”

He added that European allies should “[pay] their fair share and [handle] their own issues. We’ve given them enough,” opposed additional aid to Ukraine and said that the “war must stop now!”

Carlin put up a meager showing in a primary challenge against Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) in 2022, picking up just 27% of the primary vote.

NBC News reported that Matthew Whitaker, the U.S. ambassador to NATO and former acting attorney general, may also be interested in the seat. He ran against Ernst in the 2014 GOP primary, only winning 8% of the vote. But as a Trump loyalist, he could have a shot at landing Trump’s endorsement, which could prove a problem for other potential candidates.

Whitaker, prior to his service in Brussels, had little foreign policy experience or record, but during his confirmation hearing said the Trump administration’s commitment to the mutual defense agreements enshrined in Article V of the NATO treaty were “ironclad.” He has also called on European allies to spend more on their own defense and provide additional support to Ukraine.

Joshua Smith, a former libertarian and podcast host, also declared his candidacy against Ernst. On his X account, Smith has been a critic of the U.S.-Israel relationship, saying “Joni definitely stands with Israel (money),” Israel is a “fake state of anti Jesus heathens who are fine with killing children” and “Iran is not a threat to America. Palestine is not a threat to America.”

Smith has opposed U.S. aid for Israel, suggested Israel is attempting a genocide, said that “you can’t be antiwar and support the continued support of the US for Israel,” claimed that Jews suffer from a “Jewish victim complex” and alleged that the U.S. attempted to “make Christianity antisemitic and outlaw criticism of Israel.”

Democrats are expected to make an aggressive bid for the seat in the general election, and several have already entered the primary race, including state Rep. Josh Turek, state Sen. Zach Wahls and Des Moines School Board Chair Jackie Norris.

David Yepsen, a longtime former political writer, editor and columnist at the Des Moines Register, told Jewish Insider that Hinson is the likely favorite if she gets in the race, but that she could face a real challenge from her right. 

Yepsen said that Hinson had previously been seen as more of a moderate, though she has recently made efforts to align herself more closely with Trump and the MAGA wing of the GOP.

Yepsen predicted a “really good race” in the general election, given that Democrats have already fielded several contenders, have put up strong showings in recent state special elections, have been energized by opposition to the Trump administration and have an advantage in the midterms. 

Yepsen added that, given the open Senate seat, an open gubernatorial race, multiple competitive House races and the developing presidential primary race, the coming cycle is likely to be an “unprecedented race in modern Iowa politics.” 

“There are plenty of Iowa Republicans who are not MAGAs, who are not Trump people, who just wanted somebody else,” he said. “It’s going to be played out on the ground, these early things about what the Republican Party is, what it stands for, what it’s going to be going forward. There are national implications to what goes on here in Iowa.”

Yepsen said that Ernst’s retirement is not likely to be a surprise to many in the state, given her clashes with Trump-aligned conservatives in the state and other recent scandals and public missteps. Democrats, he added, have seen her as vulnerable.