Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Opinion

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”


Upon returning, one of Trump’s so-called reps, an influential MAGA podcaster, told his audience that it was absolutely imperative that America acquire Greenland. Why?

“It makes America dream again, that we’re not just this sad, low-testosterone, beta male slouching in our chair, allowing the world to run over us. It is the resurrection of masculine American energy. It is the return of Manifest Destiny.”

Wow. What an endorsement.

The idea that America is, essentially, owed Greenland as ordained by God, and that acquiring it was going to accomplish nothing short of resurrecting both the American dream and “masculine American energy” was quite the preposterous promise. But it was made in earnest by someone Trump voters loved and trusted: Charlie Kirk.

It was a huge shift in a very short period of time from the way Kirk and other MAGA acolytes had been talking. Kirk had long bought into Trump’s “America First” marketing pitch, and he often used it as a cudgel against all sorts of liberal ills.

“American citizens should come first,” he’d insist, arguing for a total halt to immigration at times. “The last thing America needs right now is a new war,” he’d argue as it pertained to foreign policy and meddling in other countries’ affairs. He believed the United States was founded as an “America First” Christian nation. And he warned that a vote for Kamala Harris was a vote for WWIII.

As Trump touted an end to “forever wars” while on the campaign trail, Kirk and others in the manosphere — including previously Trump-skeptical media personalities — decided “America First” was Trump’s calling card, his raison d’être, his most compelling doctrine. Gone were the days of George W. Bush’s cowboy neoconservatism — real men minded their own business. And if you couldn’t abide the other more sordid stuff — say, the fact that Trump was a convicted criminal — putting an end to America’s interventionist foreign policy should trump it all.

That was the pitch to voters made for years by MAGA influencers who promised nothing was more morally imperative than America retreating from the world.

Until it wasn’t.

Kirk was hardly alone in flipping the script to suddenly defend the thing they’d been told would never happen. Now, they were telling us, intervention, threatening to invade sovereign nations, maybe even getting involved in some foreign wars, and even Trump’s tariffs — an economic interventionist policy — were not only OK, they were crucial to making America great again. (And men, too.)

The shameless abandonment of principles is so utterly comical in its scope and speed, calling it “hypocrisy” almost gives it too much intellectual heft. They simply don’t care.

This week Sen. Rick Scott is boasting that Trump, in addition to toppling the Nicolás Maduro regime in Venezuela, will also see to the toppling of the Cuban government “this year,” after spending years touting Trump’s America First agenda.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, another of Trump’s “America First” foot soldiers, is now brazenly warning the leader of Iran that Trump is going to kill him — “Change is coming to Iran.”

After lambasting just two months ago our “endless cycle of regime change,” DNI Tulsi Gabbard is now offering “kudos” to the Trump administration for the capture of Maduro in a constitutionally questionable operation that ended with Trump insisting “we’re in charge” now.

These people were either never serious about America First, ending forever wars, and minding our business, or they are so wholly owned by Trump that his unhinged whims just matter more.

But, as he threatens to take Greenland and Canada, and invade Colombia and Mexico and Cuba, it’s very clear Trump was never serious about America First. Just as he was never serious about releasing the Epstein files. Or making America affordable again. Or draining the swamp. Or replacing Obamacare. Or myriad other slick slogans he pitched to get elected.

But are his voters serious about America First? While MAGA falls in line to defend Trump’s imperialist warmongering and oil-grabbing, many of his voters did not sign up for this. Midterms are around the corner. We’ll know their answer soon enough.

S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.


Read More

Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building

Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building on Oct. 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. If Democrats win the House in November, questions will swirl around impeaching President Trump yet again.

(Andrew Harnik/Getty Images/TNS)

The Good Reasons and Bad Politics Surrounding a Third Trump Impeachment

A coalition of right-wing organizations and activists is lobbying the White House to grant mass pardons to junior staffers in the administration. “A pardon for all junior administration personnel is viewed as unlikely,” one source told the Washington Sun, “but the president could issue blanket pardons for all employees involved in particular policy areas, such as deportations, war or trade.”

Oh, just war, deportations and trade? Is that all?

Keep ReadingShow less
US Capitol building
The United States Capitol building with its white dome against a blue sky

Would Congressional Term Limits Make Congress Better—or Worse?

Starting in the 1990’s, the idea of putting term limits on members of Congress became a recurring idea to reform the institution and improve democracy. The idea was born out of the theory that replacing the current crop of legislators with a new batch would produce a better Congress. More than 30 years later we now have quantitative and qualitative data showing the impact of term limits.

Twenty-one state legislatures have enacted some kind of term limit on legislators since 1990. Since then, dozens of academic studies have examined the impact on such factors as: complexity of legislation, influence of lobbyists and staff on legislative outcomes, and interactions with constituent. Here are some key findings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand points to the word tax on a screen

Data calculations

Getty Images

Inconvenient Numbers Are a Sign the System Works

Earlier in October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices rose 3.7 percent over the past year, a little higher than the month before, with gasoline accounting for more than half of September's increase. Rising prices are the kind of news no incumbent politician wants weeks before an election. The report was published anyway, on schedule. That is the quiet discipline of a trustworthy statistical system. It tells us what is true even when the number is unwelcome to whoever holds power.

So, do Americans trust government data? We do. But that trust is incomplete, and it has room to grow.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less