By a Trump Supporter Who Believes Loyalty and Honesty Are Not Opposites...
Let me tell you who I am before I tell you what I think — because in today’s political climate, context is everything.
I voted for Donald Trump. Twice.
And I would do it again.
I watched crime rates fall in my community after his immigration policies took hold.
I watched my retirement account grow under his economic stewardship.
I watched him move the American embassy to Jerusalem, broker the Abraham Accords, and take on a political establishment that had been failing working Americans for decades.
I believe in his vision of an America that puts its own citizens first.
I believe the mainstream media spent years trying to destroy a man they feared rather than covering a man they disagreed with.
And I believe the Russia collusion narrative — built around a politically funded dossier and later exposed as deeply compromised by official investigations — was one of the most consequential political controversies in modern American history.
I am telling you all of this because what I am about to say next is not what you would expect from someone who just said all of that.
And I need you to understand that what follows is not disloyalty. It is not antisemitism. It is not pro-Iran. It is not unpatriotic.
It is something rarer and more valuable than any of those things.
It is honesty.
WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT IRAN — AND WHY IT MATTERS
The Iranian regime is genuinely dangerous.
This is not a matter of political debate.
Since 1979, the Islamic Republic has funded violence against Americans through Hezbollah and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. U.S. military assessments have long tied Iranian weapons, training, and support to attacks that killed and maimed American service members.
The regime has chanted “Death to America” as a matter of state posture for decades. It has built a network of proxy forces — the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and militias across the region — specifically designed to project Iranian power and threaten American allies.
I have no sympathy for the Iranian regime. None.
And I want to be equally clear about something that gets lost in this conversation: the Iranian people are not their government.
The young Iranians who risked imprisonment to protest after Mahsa Amini was killed by the morality police for improperly wearing her hijab — those people are not America’s enemies.
The students who refused to walk on American flags painted on their university floors — those people are not America’s enemies.
The millions of Iranians using VPNs to access Western culture their government tells them to hate — those people are not America’s enemies.
They are, in many ways, among the natural allies America has in the Middle East.
And every bomb dropped on Tehran makes their situation more dangerous and their voices more silent.
Understanding why the regime hates us — rooted partly in America’s own 1953 CIA-orchestrated overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government — does not excuse a single act of terrorism.
But it does explain why the hatred found fertile soil.
And understanding your adversary is not sympathy for them. It is strategy.
MY HONEST QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS WAR
I am a Trump supporter asking these questions — and I am asking them because I believe “America First” is a principle that demands honest answers, not a bumper sticker that demands blind loyalty.
Question One: Were we told the truth about why we went to war?
America’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard — a Trump appointee — said in written and public remarks that Iran’s nuclear capability had been significantly degraded, while questions remained about the immediacy of the threat that was used to justify war.
She omitted or minimized parts of that material in live testimony, and when pressed, she said questions of imminence were ultimately a presidential judgment rather than an intelligence-community one.
I am not asking this question to undermine my president.
I am asking it because Americans are paying the price — in deaths, injuries, higher energy costs, and a staggering financial burden — and the public deserves an honest accounting.
Question Two: Was a diplomatic solution available?
One day before the February 28 strikes, Omani officials said Iran had accepted constraints on weapons-grade uranium and verification arrangements. A fourth round of negotiations had been scheduled shortly afterward. At the same time, reports indicated that the decision to attack had already been made earlier.
I am not saying we should have trusted Iran blindly.
I am saying we were told diplomacy was exhausted when the documentary record suggested it was still moving — and that is a fact every American deserves to know.
Question Three: Who resigned and why?
Joe Kent was Trump’s head of the National Counterterrorism Center.
He is a decorated combat veteran who deployed eleven times to the Middle East. His wife, a U.S. Navy officer, was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria. He gave more to this country than most of us will ever be asked to give.
He resigned on March 17, 2026, saying this war was manufactured by Israeli pressure, that Iran posed no imminent threat, and that the same tactics used to draw America into Iraq in 2003 had been used again.
You can disagree with his conclusions.
But a man of that service record, making that sacrifice, deserves to be heard rather than dismissed.
The administration said he was “always weak on security” — a claim that sits oddly beside the fact that they appointed him to lead the National Counter-terrorism Center in the first place.
MY HONEST POSITION ON ISRAEL
Here is where I need to be the most careful — and the most honest simultaneously.
I support Israel’s right to exist. I have always been a supporter of Israel.
I support Israel’s right to defend itself. I believe the October 7 attacks were an atrocity. I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization.
I believe that, of all the regional powers in the Middle East, Israel most closely shares America’s values of democracy, rule of law, and individual liberty.
And I believe that, between Israel and Iran, there is no question which side I stand on. I stand with Israel.
All of that is true.
And the following is also true — simultaneously, without contradiction:
Israel’s government has a documented history of actions against the United States that would strain any alliance. They are the brother that you love; but who keeps stealing things from your room and keeps denying it.
Jonathan Pollard sold over 800 classified documents to Israeli intelligence. The damage to national security was described at the time as severe. Some of that intelligence was later believed to have reached the Soviet Union in exchange for emigration permissions.
So again, the brother you love and are trying to understand has gone into your room and swiped your prized Pokemon card collection and pawned them....you confront him privately but keep quiet publicly because family is more valuable than objects.
The United States government’s own 2013 National Intelligence Estimate ranked Israel among the most aggressive intelligence services operating against America, behind only Russia and China.
On June 8, 1967, Israeli forces attacked the USS Liberty — an American naval signals intelligence vessel operating in international waters. Thirty-four Americans were killed. One hundred seventy-four were wounded.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Thomas Moorer, accused President Johnson of covering up the deliberate nature of the attack. The chief counsel to the Naval Board of Inquiry signed an affidavit stating he had been ordered to reach a predetermined conclusion of mistaken identity despite what he called overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The attack has remained controversial for decades, and many Americans still believe the truth has never been fully confronted.
Now your brother got ahold of your keys and wrecked your car! Kind of getting harder to keep you cool....I mean, he family!
AIPAC — the pro-Israel lobbying organization — spent more than $100 million influencing American elections in the 2024 cycle.
No domestic American interest group deploys comparable resources on a single foreign-policy criterion.
The result is not conspiracy. It is a structural reality: American politicians know that breaking with Israeli government policy can provoke well-funded primary challenges, while supporting it produces organizational and financial support.
That is not how true, trusting allies behave towards each other.
The US, although having done similar things around the world; would have been rebuked and distanced immediately by Israel had they done even one of those things to the Israeli Government.
In the current war, Israel struck strategic infrastructure, and the retaliation that followed widened the regional crisis. Energy markets reacted, Gulf allies grew alarmed, and the ripple effects reached Americans at the pump.
The American president publicly denied approving every aspect of the action. His own officials and allied statements created a more complicated picture. Netanyahu said Israel “acted alone” — technically true in an operational sense, but carefully worded to avoid fully addressing the coordination that occurred.
Israeli officials shrugged off Trump’s public denial with the quiet confidence of a partner who knows the leverage runs in its direction.
I say all of this not as a dissenter of Israel... I say it as an American citizen who believes that no ally — regardless of shared values, regardless of shared enemies, regardless of religious or historical significance — should be exempt from the honest scrutiny that allies should expect to apply to every other relationship in the world.
The pilots and protesters and hostage families demonstrating inside Israel right now are asking their own government hard questions.
They are not antisemites.
Neither am I.
Supporting Israel over Iran does not require trusting every decision made by the Israeli government.
It does not require silence about documented actions that harmed American citizens.
And finally, it does not require pretending that American and Israeli strategic objectives are always identical.
THE GRADY JUDD EXAMPLE — WHEN A TRUMP SUPPORTER ASKS THE RIGHT QUESTION
If you need a single example of exactly the kind of honest, loyal, principled conservatism this article is advocating for, look no further than what happened in Florida this past week.
Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd is not a soft politician.
He is one of the most respected and plain-spoken law enforcement officers in America — a man DeSantis himself has called on repeatedly to stand beside him at press conferences, a man whose tough-on-crime record is beyond reproach, a man who supported Trump’s immigration crackdown wholeheartedly.
He is, by every measure, exactly the kind of Trump-supporting, law-and-order conservative whose opinion on immigration carries the most credibility.
And last week, Sheriff Judd stood up at a meeting of Florida’s State Immigration Enforcement Council — a council DeSantis himself created — and said something that took political courage to say.
Judd offered a real-life scenario:
“There was one lady who was brought here from Colombia as a child and now she’s in her late 20s trying to go through the process to become legalized, and she was scooped up out of the waiting room at ICE for deportation back to Colombia. It was like, where in Colombia do I go? I don’t have any relatives, I don’t know anybody in Colombia.”
Judd doubled down the following day:
“Those people who are adding to the American dream, enjoying the American dream, that came here illegally but they’re doing good and they’re not a drag on society — in fact they’re helping society — we need to find a path for them. The reason for that is simple: You’re doing what’s right.”
Judd said his proposed path for citizenship would require, among other things, paying civil fines for violating immigration law and learning to speak English.
“They should be fined, they should be held accountable. But if Congress will do their job and deal with this group, then it frees us up to focus on those who are committing crimes, those who are dangerous, those who are violent.”
Six of eight council members — all Republicans, all appointed by DeSantis — agreed with him.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri put it plainly:
“What’s right’s right, and what’s not’s not. And going after this mom who’s got three kids, who’s just trying to make a living, who’s been here for 15 years — that isn’t right, and they do need to fix it.”
Governor DeSantis’s response?
He called it “incoherent.”
DeSantis said:
“This idea that unless you’re an axe murderer you should be allowed to stay, that is not consistent with our laws, and it’s also not good policy.”
Here is what I want every conservative reader to notice about that exchange.
Grady Judd did not break with Trump. Judd was explicit:
“What President Trump is doing with illegal immigration is right and what Governor Ron DeSantis is doing is right. There is not one right answer to every circumstance.”
He is not asking to stop deportations.
He is not asking for open borders.
He is asking — as the man who actually has to look these families in the eye at the local level — for the common-sense distinction between a violent criminal who should be deported immediately and a woman who was brought here as a child, has committed no crime, and is sitting in an ICE waiting room trying to do things the right way.
That is not incoherence.
That is exactly what policing at the local level looks like when it is done with humanity and wisdom rather than with a political scoreboard.
Notably, a Trump adviser privately told Republicans to stop talking about full-on deportations and instead focus on violent offenders who are in the country illegally — suggesting that even within the Trump orbit, the nuance Judd is advocating is quietly understood even if it is not publicly embraced.
What Grady Judd did is precisely what this article is advocating for across every issue it touches.
He is a Trump supporter.
He supports strong immigration enforcement.
He supports the president’s overall direction.
And he is still smart enough — and honest enough — and secure enough in his convictions — to stand up and say: there is a right way and a wrong way to do this, and ICE grabbing a woman out of a waiting room who has no criminal record and sending her to a country she has never known is the wrong way.
That is not disloyalty. That is the definition of integrity.
And when a governor responds to that integrity by calling it “incoherent” rather than engaging with the human reality that an elected sheriff with boots on the ground is describing, the governor is telling you more about his political calculations than about his values.
I had some of the same thoughts about the wide net cast by ICE, but I did not speak up.
The fact that Judd not only said it publicly — knowing the backlash would come, knowing DeSantis would push back, knowing the media would try to weaponize it — is exactly the kind of principled conservatism this movement needs more of, not less. Judd represents the humanity, consideration and concern that every individual deserves to be offered before they are judged and confined or deported without recourse.
I still believe in Governor DeSantis, but I support Judd’s concerns and believe that his concerns on this issue should be fully considered and, where appropriate, implemented.
America First means putting American families first. All of them including the ones who came here the wrong way but are living the right way — and who deserve the same honest accounting that Sheriff Judd had the courage to demand.
WHAT I STILL BELIEVE IN
I believe Donald Trump has done things for this country that needed doing for decades.
The border is more secure than it has been in a generation.
The fentanyl crisis is being addressed with a seriousness previous administrations never matched.
The economy, for all its current war-related strains, was showing genuine strength before the Iran conflict drove oil sharply higher.
The Abraham Accords were a genuine diplomatic achievement.
Stablecoin regulation and digital-dollar policy may turn out to be among the most important financial decisions of this era.
I believe the deep state is real.
I believe the Russia collusion fraud was a deliberate attempt to destroy a presidency the establishment feared.
I believe the media has spent years lying to the American public about things they could have verified with basic reporting but may have been told to avoid.
And I believe the American working class has been abandoned by politicians of both parties for decades — until someone was willing to say it out loud.
I also believe that America First is a principle, not a personality.
And applied as a principle — consistently, honestly, without exception — it demands that we ask whether 13 dead Americans, hundreds wounded, $200 billion in new war debt, and gas nearly a dollar higher at the pump serves American citizens first.
It demands that we ask whether a war started on a justification our own intelligence chief contradicted serves Americans first.
It demands that we ask whether an alliance in which one partner has stolen our secrets, attacked our sailors, and spent enormous sums shaping our elections is a partnership of equals — or a relationship shaped by fear of political consequences.
These are not disloyal questions.
They are the most loyal questions an American can ask.
Because loyalty to America means demanding that America’s power be used for America’s people — not for any foreign government’s objectives, however much we may share values or support existence.
A WORD ABOUT ANTISEMITISM — AND WHY THIS ARTICLE IS NOT IT
I want to address this directly because I know some readers will reach for that accusation the moment any question about Israeli government behavior is raised.
Antisemitism is hatred of Jewish people because they are Jewish. It is one of history’s most persistent and destructive evils. It has no place in honest political discourse and no place in this article.
What this article contains is criticism of a specific government’s specific documented actions — the same standard I would apply to any government regardless of the ethnicity or religion of its people.
The Israeli pilots who signed the open letter saying their government is fighting for political survival rather than security are not antisemites.
The Tel Aviv protesters asking what the war’s goals are from underground bomb shelters are not antisemites.
Haaretz — Israel’s oldest newspaper — whose Jewish Israeli journalists have raised identical concerns, is not antisemitic.
And an American conservative who asks whether America’s most consequential Middle Eastern alliance is a partnership of genuine equals is not antisemitic either.
The accusation of antisemitism has sometimes been used too loosely to silence legitimate political questions — and that overuse harms everyone, because it makes the term less effective when actual antisemitism needs to be confronted.
I refuse to be silenced by a mislabeled accusation.
And I trust that my readers are intelligent enough to know the difference between hating Jewish people and questioning a government’s specific documented actions.
THE ONES WE CANNOT FORGET — THE MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM
Before I close, I want to say something that transcends every political argument in this article.
Something that should unite every American regardless of whether they support this war or oppose it, regardless of party or ideology, regardless of how they feel about Trump or Netanyahu or Iran.
Right now — at this very moment — there are American men and women in uniform standing on the decks of aircraft carriers in the middle of a foreign ocean, thousands of miles from home, surrounded by enemies, carrying out orders they did not write in service of a country they love.
They are not politicians.
They are not lobbyists.
They are not the people who made the decisions that put them there.
They are sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. Husbands and wives. Friends and neighbors.
They are the kid who sat behind you in high school.
The cousin you see at Thanksgiving.
The neighbor whose car you borrowed once.
They did not choose this war. They chose to serve.
And there is a profound difference between those two things.
Every decision we make in this country — every argument about justification, every question about intelligence assessments, every debate about Israeli objectives and diplomatic off-ramps and war budgets — lands on their shoulders.
Not on the shoulders of the generals in air-conditioned command centers.
Not on the shoulders of the politicians in Washington who will never hear a missile incoming.
On the shoulders of the twenty-three-year-old standing watch at 3 a.m. on a ship in the Persian Gulf who is thinking about his mother’s kitchen and wondering if he will see it again.
Thirteen of those men and women have already come home in flag-draped caskets.
Hundreds more have been wounded.
Their sacrifice demands that the people who sent them there be held to the highest possible standard of honesty about why.
And here is where history demands that we be brutally clear-eyed — because America’s record of how it treats its soldiers when political winds shift is not one we can be proud of.
We left Vietnam in 1975 in a withdrawal so chaotic that the images of helicopters lifting off the American embassy roof became the defining symbol of national failure for a generation.
The soldiers who fought there — who served honorably in a war their government sent them to fight — came home to be spat upon in airports by the very citizens they had served.
It took decades for America to reckon honestly with what it had done to those Vietnam veterans.
We left Afghanistan in August 2021 in a withdrawal so disorganized that thirteen Americans died in a suicide bombing at Abbey Gate — the last American casualties of a twenty-year war — while thousands of Afghans who had stood beside American soldiers for two decades were left behind to face the Taliban’s retribution.
And when we left, we left behind billions of dollars’ worth of American military equipment — helicopters, armored vehicles, artillery systems, night-vision goggles, ammunition — that the Taliban claimed from bases we had occupied the day before.
That equipment is now in the hands of people who were not supposed to have it.
The soldiers who spent years building and defending those bases watched with disbelief as it happened on the news from their living rooms at home.
Stuart Scheller — the Marine lieutenant colonel who asked publicly why no senior officer faced accountability for that catastrophic withdrawal — was court-martialed and lost seventeen years of retirement benefits for asking.
Let me say that again: Stuart Scheller, a high-ranking Marine who questioned why no one faced accountability for that catastrophic withdrawal, was court-martialed and lost 17 years of retirement benefits for asking.
Meanwhile, the generals who presided over twenty years of strategic failure before the chaotic pullout kept their pensions, wrote books, and went on television as analysts.
Was Scheller unpatriotic for asking?
After years in the U.S. Marines and rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel, was he an enemy of the state just for asking for accountability about the withdrawal?
This is the history that every American must carry in mind when debating what comes next in Iran.
Because whatever decision is ultimately made — whether America escalates, maintains current operations, negotiates an exit, or declares victory and withdraws — the soldiers on the front lines will face the consequences of that decision in ways that no politician, no analyst, no newspaper columnist, and no social media commentator ever will.
If we escalate, they absorb the incoming fire.
If we negotiate poorly, they stand exposed during the transition.
If we withdraw chaotically — as we have done before — they face the most dangerous moment of any military operation: the pullout, when the enemy knows you are leaving and sees opportunity in your retreat.
And if we leave equipment behind again, those weapons will be turned against the next generation of Americans who may have to go back and face them.
I want to say this to every American reading this article regardless of where you stand on any of its arguments: you do not have to support this war to support the soldiers fighting it.
In fact, the most genuine form of supporting the troops is demanding that the people who send them into harm’s way tell the truth about why, plan thoroughly for every outcome including withdrawal, and never — under any political pressure or time constraint — make decisions that leave American service members exposed, abandoned, or forgotten.
The political debate about this war is important.
The historical questions about justification and Israeli objectives and diplomatic off-ramps are important.
The economic arguments about war costs and gas prices are important.
But they are all secondary to this: somewhere in the Persian Gulf tonight, a young American in uniform is standing watch so the rest of us can have this argument in safety.
The very least we owe that person is the dedication to have this argument honestly — and the resolve to make sure that whatever we decide, we do not leave them holding a position we are no longer willing to defend.
We have let our soldiers down before in the past. We cannot afford to do it again.
CONCLUSION — WHAT AMERICA FIRST ACTUALLY MEANS
Fifty years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower — a U.S. general who had commanded the greatest military force in human history before becoming president — warned America about the military-industrial complex.
He said the danger was not only external enemies but the permanent war machine that feeds on American treasure, American lives, and American attention — growing powerful precisely by manufacturing the urgency that justifies its own expansion.
Today, that warning resonates with a clarity Eisenhower could not have anticipated.
We are weeks into a war whose justification our own intelligence chief has contradicted in writing.
We are spending money we do not have.
We are watching gas prices climb while being told the war will be over soon.
We are asking our allies to send warships — and watching every one of them say no.
And the man who promised his voters no new wars is now watching his senior intelligence official resign, his internal coalition fracture, and his legacy being written in a language he did not intend.
I am a Trump supporter who believes America deserves better than this.
Not better than Trump — better than the information environment that surrounds every American president, regardless of party, and too often, substitutes managed narratives for honest accounting leaving the President and the public to trust that they speak truthfully.
There was a time when a president or official caught lying was embarrassed enough to step down or resign in disgrace.
Nowadays, across all political parties, lying often just becomes part of the narrative.
America First means American lives first.
American treasure first.
American national interest first.
It means asking hard questions about every alliance, every commitment, and every war — not despite our patriotism but because of our patriotism.
The greatest act of loyalty any American can perform right now is to refuse to mistake silence for support — and to demand, clearly and without apology, that the people making decisions in our name tell us the truth about what they are doing and why.
Thirteen Americans are dead. The bill is enormous. The gas is higher.
We deserve the truth.
Misdirection is for magicians, not politicians.
#AmericaFirst #ConservativeVoices #ForeignPolicyDebate #SupportOurTroops #USPolitics #MiddleEastPolicy #IsraelUSRelations #IranPolicy #NationalSecurity #PoliticalCommentary #TruthMatters #Accountability #VeteransFirst #DiplomacyMatters #Patriotism
Short Source List
Public congressional testimony, declassified historical records, major-wire reporting, Florida public-meeting remarks, and contemporary coverage of U.S.–Iran and U.S.–Israel policy developments.
If you’d like, I can next turn this into a clean op-ed format for publication with tighter paragraphing and a more newsroom-style finish.
Comments
Post a Comment