The Deception of "America First"

Few political slogans have been as emotionally potent or as strategically misleading as America First. At face value, it appears unimpeachable. Who would argue against prioritizing the well-being, security, and prosperity of the United States? Patriotism, after all, demands that leaders act in the nation’s best interest.

But slogans are rarely meant to clarify. They are meant to simplify, unify, and disarm. And history teaches us that the most dangerous political movements are often those that cloak radical or destructive ideas in language that sounds self-evidently virtuous.

To understand the America First movement, one must move beyond the slogan and examine the ideas, alliances, and policies being promoted beneath it. When we do, a troubling pattern emerges, one of racial grievance, strategic retreat, fear-driven foreign policy, and growing hostility toward America’s closest allies, particularly Israel. What presents itself as patriotism often turns out to be something far less noble.

The Power and Danger of the Slogan

“America First” operates as a rhetorical shield. It discourages scrutiny by framing disagreement as disloyalty. Question the policy implications of the movement and you are accused of hating your country or prioritizing foreign interests over American ones.

This tactic is not new. The slogan “Black Lives Matter” functioned similarly. The phrase itself states an obvious moral truth: Black lives do matter. But embedded within the movement were radical policy proposals, such as defunding or abolishing the police, that many Americans rightly rejected. To oppose those policies was to risk being labeled racist, even if the objection was rooted in concern for public safety and social stability.

“America First” follows the same playbook. Of course, Americans should come first. But what does that mean in practice? Does it mean abandoning global leadership? Does it mean redefining American identity along ethnic lines? Does it mean withdrawing support from democratic allies while downplaying the threat posed by authoritarian regimes?

When slogans replace substance, they become tools of manipulation. They short-circuit debate and reward emotional allegiance over intellectual honesty. A healthy republic requires the opposite: clarity, nuance, and a willingness to interrogate even the ideas that sound most patriotic.

The White Nationalist Undercurrent

One of the most uncomfortable realities of the America First movement is its overlap with white nationalist ideology. This is not an exaggeration or a smear. It is openly acknowledged by some of the movement’s most vocal advocates.

Figures like Nick Fuentes and others within the America First ecosystem have argued that America is fundamentally a nation for “Heritage Americans.” This term is intentionally vague, but its meaning is unmistakable. It is an attempt to recast American identity as ethnic rather than civic, racial rather than constitutional.

To be clear, concerns about immigration are legitimate. For decades, the United States has failed to enforce its borders consistently or to implement an immigration system that balances compassion with sovereignty. Unchecked immigration can strain social services, undermine wages, and erode cultural cohesion. Replacement theory, stripped of its more conspiratorial framing, reflects a real anxiety many Americans feel about rapid demographic change imposed without democratic consent.

But acknowledging those failures does not justify embracing racial nationalism. The solution to policy negligence is better policy, not a retreat into identity politics that mirrors the worst excesses of the progressive left.

America was never defined as a race. It was defined by shared ideals: liberty under law, equal justice, individual responsibility, civic participation, and Christian morality. When a movement insists that America belongs more to one ethnic group than another, it abandons the very foundation that made the country worth defending in the first place.

White nationalism does not strengthen America. It fractures it. And any movement that tolerates or amplifies it, no matter how loudly it waves the flag, is engaged in deception.

Isolationism Masquerading as Strength

Another defining feature of the America First movement is its embrace of isolationism, often disguised as realism or restraint. The argument typically goes something like this: America has spent too much time and money abroad, foreign conflicts are endless and unwinnable, and it’s time to put the domestic needs of Americans first.

There is truth here. America has made costly mistakes in foreign policy. Endless wars without clear objectives or public accountability have drained trust and treasure. But the conclusion drawn by America First advocates that withdrawal and disengagement are the solution is profoundly flawed.

Power abhors a vacuum. When the United States retreats from global leadership, it does not usher in an era of peace. It cedes influence to actors who are far less restrained and far more hostile to American interests. China does not withdraw when America steps back; it expands. Russia does not de-escalate; it exploits. Iran does not moderate; it accelerates.

A truly America First foreign policy recognizes that American prosperity and security are inseparable from global stability. Trade routes, energy markets, military alliances, and deterrence all depend on sustained engagement. The idea that America can simply “mind its own business” in a globalized world is not realism; it is doing the work of China, Russia, and Iran, who stand to benefit the most from America’s retreat.

Isolationism does not make America safer or more prosperous. It makes America irrelevant.

Fear as a Foreign Policy Tool

Perhaps the most corrosive aspect of the America First worldview is its reliance on fear to shape public opinion. Again and again, influential voices within the movement have warned that any assertive action abroad will inevitably trigger World War III.

This narrative was especially prominent in discussions surrounding Iran. Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, among others, repeatedly argued that confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions or taking military action to stop them would lead to global catastrophe. The message was clear: inaction was the only acceptable action.

But fear is not strategy. And paralysis is not peace.

History shows that wars are more often started by weakness than by strength. Deterrence works when adversaries believe consequences are real. When America signals that it will not act under any circumstances, it invites aggression. This is why President Trump’s position of peace through strength is so effective. It is not a coincidence that Putin invaded Ukraine under Obama and Biden, but not when Trump was in office.

The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities did not lead to World War III. It reinforced red lines. It reminded hostile regimes that American warnings are not empty. And it demonstrated that strength, when used judiciously, can prevent wider conflict rather than provoke it. 

Foreign policy driven by constant dread of escalation is foreign policy surrendered to adversaries. A nation that cannot act out of fear will eventually be acted upon.

“America First” and the Turn Against Israel

One of the most revealing and disturbing developments within the America First movement is its growing hostility toward Israel. This is often framed as a rejection of “foreign entanglements” or a desire to avoid putting “Israel First.” But beneath the rhetoric lies something older and uglier.

In many America First circles, the slogan is no longer simply America First; it is America First, Not Israel First. Israel is portrayed not as a democratic ally, but as a manipulative force dragging America into unwanted conflicts. Longstanding antisemitic tropes about dual loyalty and hidden influence are repackaged as nationalist critique.

This shift has been amplified by high-profile commentators like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens, who have increasingly framed Israel as a liability rather than an asset. Their rhetoric often minimizes the threat posed by Iran and Islamist extremism while scrutinizing Israel’s actions with singular hostility. For example, Tucker has given favorable interviews to Vladimir Putin and Masoud Pezeshkian, the president of Iran, but chose to have a very confrontational interview with Senator Ted Cruz over his pro-Israel stance. Tucker recently stated that the people he dislikes the most are Christian Zionists. Not radical Islamists, not blue-haired progressives, not Marxists, but Christian Zionists.

This is not principled nationalism. It is selective outrage.

Israel is one of America’s closest allies, a stable democracy in a volatile region, and a frontline defender against the same radical ideologies that target the United States. Supporting Israel is not charity. It is strategic alignment.

When America First advocates attack Israel while excusing or rationalizing the behavior of regimes openly hostile to the West, they reveal the emptiness of their stated priorities. This is not about American interests; it is about grievance, suspicion, and a deranged conspiratorial belief that “the Jews” are the cause of all our problems. This deranged thinking has led some conservatives to become more sympathetic to Islam while sounding more like they belong in the Iranian parliament, chanting “Death to America” than an America First conservative. 

The Moral Failure at the Core

At its core, the deception of America First lies in its reduction of patriotism to posture. Flags, slogans, and defiance replace wisdom, responsibility, and moral clarity.

True patriotism is not afraid of complexity. It does not confuse restraint with retreat or strength with belligerence. It does not define the nation by race or scapegoat allies to soothe domestic frustrations or to gain a following.

America First, properly understood, should mean defending American values and economic interests wherever they are threatened, at home or abroad. It should mean upholding alliances that deter tyranny, confronting enemies who seek our destruction, and resisting ideologies that fracture the nation from within.

A movement that relies on slogans to avoid scrutiny, fear to avoid action, and resentment to maintain loyalty is not worthy of the country it claims to love.

America deserves better than a slogan.It deserves leadership rooted in truth.It deserves patriotism without deception.

More analysis from Kevin on the "America First" movement: