President Donald Trump’s broad coalition faces the hardest test of his second administration this week, all depending on what the president commits the country’s armed forces to over the next few days.

On one side of the MAGA coalition, Iran hawks, military interventionists, and remaining neoconservatives are excitedly watching for their long-awaited collapse of the ayatollahs’ regime. On the other, America-firsters, skeptical non-interventionists, and the handful of the coalition’s actual isolationists watch with worried eyes.

Just consider the pros and cons. Foreign entanglements are rarely clean and simple, and a lot rides on the next few days.

From a certain point of view, it is the best of times to attack; from another, it is the worst of times — for both MAGA and the historically close American-Israeli relationship. So let’s examine the pros and cons.

Pro: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump are both credible wartime leaders. Israel’s longest-serving prime minister has a long history of successful hawkish intervention where he felt necessary, and Trump is no slouch either.

In Trump’s first term, the president proved the Washington blob wrong when he swiftly dealt with the Islamic State’s “caliphate,” bombing its forces into submission and hunting its leader down “like a dog.”

In Syria, too, Trump enforced the red lines he drew — but didn’t involve the United States any further than that. And in Afghanistan his famed MOAB strike helped bring the Taliban to the table.

Both men have repeatedly warned Iran for a decade that it was on the path to a war they’d gladly bring it, and here we are.

To the hawks, Trump and Netanyahu seem a match made in heaven for realizing their dreams of crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities or even ousting the regime entirely. But wait just a minute and consider why Trump is back in office in the first place!

Con: Trump was elected first in 2016, then again overwhelmingly in 2024 on great big waves of discontent.

That anger, first rippling in the Tea Party movement and then apparent from Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders’ first and only authentic campaign, stretches across tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, outsourcing, DEI, immigration, and the Democratic Party’s obsessions with social issues. It can all be boiled down to “the elites do whatever they want without any regard for what will actually help Americans.”

Bombing Iran’s nuclear program into the Age of the Steam Engine might be the right thing to do for an ally in need. It might be smart foreign policy, when it comes to America’s red lines being taken seriously. It might even be just. But you really, truly have to stretch far and wide into the future and all the many paths it can take to divine how intervention helps Americans here at home.

That’s a problem. It’s a big reason you see such discontent and even rage bubbling up all over the America First and MAGA right, from Tucker Carlson to the Federalist’s Sean Davis to the anonymous X poster down the way.

Some of these types think war not only doesn’t serve American interests but actively threatens our safety by unleashing broader conflict. Others recognize the promises we heard in the lead-up to Afghanistan and Iraq: that this is different from Vietnam and we won’t get bogged down because we’re way smarter now.

The reality is that a large segment of voters never signed up for another Middle Eastern war. They want the government to focus on problems at home for a change.

This discontent doesn’t just jeopardize the MAGA coalition’s unity; it jeopardizes broader domestic support for our alliance with Israel, which is already under strain among the Democrats.

None of the latter MAGA camp are happy right now, but a very short war made up of successful strikes could change a lot of their minds. Trump is just the sort of man to deliver that possibility.

Pro: Trump’s done this before, in Afghanistan and Syria. The reason he has such credibility on the national stage is that unlike his two Democratic predecessors, he delivers overwhelming force exactly when he says he will.

Let’s say American bombs could reach Iran’s football-field-deep mountain uranium enrichment plant and we blast it and go home, leaving in place an Iranian regime still clinging to power but set back decades from developing nuclear weapons.

Is Trump the man to break the curse of the Middle East? A wise man once told me the number-one trick to never getting divorced is simple: Never get divorced, even — especially! — when times are tough. Maybe all it takes to not get entangled in nation-building is not to get entangled in nation-building — especially when times are tough.

Since right around the time he descended the golden escalator 10 years ago, the president has told the Iranians to stop enriching. The United States has made that demand for decades longer still.

Now the bill has come due. Unlike previous U.S. presidents, this one collects. Wasn’t one of the driving issues of both 2016 and ’24 the Democrats’ foreign policy weakness, from “pallets of cash” and “red lines” under Barack Obama to the sloppy retreat from Afghanistan under Joe Biden? What no American voted for, however, is another 20-year war in the Middle East.

Con: Reports suggest Israel wanted to take out Iran’s supreme ayatollah but that the United States blocked the operation. The president later posted on Truth Social that we know the ayatollah’s location and will kill him if he makes a wrong move.

But what happens if he’s killed and the Iranian regime doesn’t recover? What if the entire state collapses? The regime has endured for five decades, but tyrannies often seem invincible — right up until their leaders flee to exile through Moscow International Airport.

Iran has a sophisticated society, far more advanced than Iraq’s and nothing like the tribal chaos of Afghanistan. It’s also a much older civilization. But it’s not a unified Persian monolith. Between 35% and 40% of the population — including the ayatollah’s own late father — belongs to one of the country’s many ethnic minority groups.

Maybe that wouldn’t come to any violence, and maybe Iran’s oil could pay for reconstruction. Some Iranian dissidents and expats hope Reza Pahlavi, the 46-year-exiled crown prince of Iran and eldest son of its last shah, could return. He’s the current head of the National Council of Iran, a secular, United Nations-friendly group that claims to represent millions of Iranians.

The problem is we don’t know, do we? Sure, the crown prince’s father ruled Iran at the peak of its domestic freedoms, but he was ousted by a violent domestic revolt. Iran’s hard-line regime makes it more than a little challenging to gauge domestic opinion, and lots of exiled leaders have promised the West they’d be greeted with ticker-tape parades upon their triumphant returns.

But few have pulled off such a feat without the U.S. military marching behind them, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, both exiled governments ended in failure even with American GIs dying in the streets to maintain their power. And don’t forget that during the half-century they’ve spent in exile, the council backed Iraq in its disastrous war on Iran.

So let’s assume the worst: civil war, with Iranian refugees flooding into Europe. Who steps in?

Israel has neither the ability, the mandate, nor the care to do so. Nearby China certainly doesn’t care and would probably just profit and steal along Iran’s periphery. Russia remains bogged down in Ukraine, and Europe simply cannot afford to bring stability.

So it would fall to us. Nation-building once more, whether we like it or not.

It needn’t come to that. Trump won in 2016 and ’24 saying his predecessors started conflicts but that he would end them with strength. In that sense, his involvement in this conflict isn’t really a departure from what he ran on — so far.

Trump’s foreign policy only works when allies and adversaries believe he’s willing to respond with overwhelming force when challenged. Under his leadership, the United States regains the ability to tell the West how much to spend on defense — and the world how to trade with us. Foreign leaders know he won’t hesitate to use the big stick.

Maybe he can land this plane. Just consider the pros and cons. Foreign entanglements are rarely clean and simple, and a lot rides on the next few days — both foreign and domestic.

Daniel McCarthy in the Spectator: Trump won’t be dragged into a regime-change war

Blaze News: Israel’s strategy now rests on one bomb — and it’s American

Blaze News: Massie, Dems seek to limit presidential war-making authority amid talk of Iranian regime change

ABC News: Exiled Crown Prince Reza sees ‘best opportunity’ to get rid of regime

The Spectator: Has Trump sided with the hawks?

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter
Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines.

“The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public,” wrote Kennedy. “News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues.”

The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.

Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that “Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins.”

“Consistent with Secretary Kennedy’s public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency,” added Hilliard.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.

The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.

Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.

Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.

Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.

The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.

Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.

‘The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.’

Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.

AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company “would have to pivot,” potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.

RELATED: MAHA scores major victory as Kraft Heinz vows to stop using artificial food dyes

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Alex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, “Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns.”

Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.

Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well.

“The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs,” Sanders said in a statement.

“The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads.”

An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.

Unlike the Trump administration’s potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.

The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban.

“The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier,” said King.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Big pharma, Pharmaceuticals, Pharmaceutical, Robert f kennedy jr, Kennedy, Trump, Trump administration, Health and human services, Health, Drugs, Politics 

Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota launched into a histrionic tirade against the U.S. and pointed to President Donald Trump’s order to send military troops into Los Angeles, California, as the reason why it is no longer a beacon of hope.

Omar made the comments while being interviewed on “Democracy Now!” from the U.S. Capitol. The interview was published on Friday.

‘Can you imagine that image that is going to be coming out of our country? I mean, I grew up in a dictatorship, and I don’t even remember ever witnessing anything like that.’

“We are in the midst of the creation of a police state where you have masked, armed men who are in plain clothes that are snatching people off the streets, unwilling to identify themselves. You have the military being deployed in our streets. My God, this is America. You have states’ rights being disregarded, so you know, a constitutional crisis that’s being created in front of our eyes!” Omar ranted.

“And the same week where we have a president who has deployed the military, who are trained to kill our enemies — not Americans, but our enemies — are in our streets!” she added.

RELATED: Hegseth orders battalion of US Marines to quell anti-ICE rioting in Los Angeles

Photo by BENJAMIN HANSON/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

She went on to excoriate the president for the military parade Saturday in Washington, D.C., on the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army.

“Can you imagine that image that is going to be coming out of our country? I mean, I grew up in a dictatorship, and I don’t even remember ever witnessing anything like that,” Omar said.

“To have a democracy, a beacon of hope for the world, to now be turned into one of the worst countries, where the military are in our streets without any regard to people’s constitutional rights,” she added, “while our president is spending millions of dollars propping himself up like a failed dictator with a military parade, it is really shocking, and it should be a wake-up call for all Americans.”

The president is in a legal battle with California and its Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom over whether he was acting constitutionally when he ordered troops into Los Angeles without the cooperation of local state officials. Critics accuse the president of wanting to militarize the streets, but his defenders say the attacks on federal agents justify a federal troop response.

The full interview with “Democracy Now!” can be viewed on its YouTube channel.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Ilhan omar vs us, Ilhan omar hates the us, Trump troops into la, Trump sends military, Politics 

Is Donald Trump a warmonger? It’s a simple question, and yet an increasingly popular accusation from corners of the political class and commentariat that once saw him as the clearest alternative to globalist foreign adventurism. But such an accusation also defies the record. Whatever else one might say about Trump, he has been — consistently and vocally — against needless foreign entanglements.

To suggest that he has suddenly pivoted toward militarism is to misunderstand either the man himself or the moment we are in. Trump is not easily swayed from his core convictions. Trade protectionism and anti-interventionism have always been part of his political DNA. On tariffs, he is unbending. And when it comes to war, he has long argued that America must stop serving as the world’s policeman.

Is Iran another Iraq, or is it more like Poland in 1980?

So when people today accuse Trump of abandoning his anti-interventionist principles, we must ask: What evidence do we have that he has changed? And if he has, does that mean he was misleading us all along — or is something else happening?

If you’ve lost your trust in him, fine. Fair enough. But then the question becomes: Who do you trust? Who else has stood on stage, risked his life, and remained — at least in conviction — largely unchanged?

I’m not arguing for blind trust. In fact, I strongly advise against it. Reagan had it right when he quoted a Russian proverb during nuclear disarmament talks with the Soviet Union: “Trust, but verify.” Trust must be earned daily — and verified constantly. But trust, or the absence of it, is central to what we’re facing.

Beyond pro- and antiwar

The West is being pulled in two directions: one toward chaos, the other toward renewal. Trust is essential to renewal. Chaos thrives when people lose confidence — in leaders, in systems, in one another.

We are in a moment when clarity is difficult but necessary. And clarity requires asking harder questions than whether someone is “for or against war.”

Too many Americans today fall into four broad categories when it comes to foreign conflict.

First are the trolls — those who aren’t arguing in good faith, but revel in provocation, division, and distrust. Their goal isn’t clarity. It’s chaos.

Second are those who, understandably, want to avoid war but won’t acknowledge the dangers posed by radical Islamist ideology. Out of fear or fatigue, they have chosen willful blindness. This has been a costly mistake in the past.

Third are those who, like me, do not want war but understand that certain ideologies — particularly those of Iran’s theocratic rulers — cannot be ignored or wished away. We study history. We remember 1979. We understand what the “Twelvers” believe.

Twelvers are a sect of Shia Islam whose clerics believe the return of the 12th Imam, their messianic figure, can only be ushered in by global conflict and bloodshed. Iran is the only nation in the world to make Twelver Shia its official state religion. The 12th Imam is not a metaphor. It’s doctrine, and it matters.

Finally, there are the hawks. They cheer for conflict. They seek to project American power, often reflexively. And they carry the swagger of certainty, even as history offers them little vindication.

The last few decades have offered sobering lessons. Regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria — none produced flourishing democracies or stable allies. While America is capable of toppling regimes, we’re not so good at manufacturing civil societies. Real liberty requires real leadership on the ground. It requires heroes — people willing to suffer and die not for power, but for principle.

That’s what was missing in Kabul, Baghdad, and Tripoli. We never saw a Washington or a Jefferson emerge. Brave individuals assisted us, but no figures rose to power with whom nations could coalesce.

Is Iran 1980s Poland?

That is why I ask whether Iran is simply the next chapter in a tired and tragic book — or something altogether different.

Is Iran another Iraq? Or is it more like Poland in 1980? It’s not an easy question, but it’s one we must ask.

During the Cold War, we saw what it looked like when people yearned for freedom. In Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, dissidents risked everything for a chance to escape tyranny. There was a moral clarity. You could hear it in their music, see it in their marches, feel it in the energy that eventually tore down the Berlin Wall.

Is that spirit alive in Iran?

RELATED: Mark Levin sounds alarm: Stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions before it’s too late

Alex Wong/Getty Images

We know that millions of Iranians have protested. We know many have disappeared for it. The Persian people are among the best educated in the region. They are culturally rich, historically sophisticated, and far more inclined toward Western ideals than the mullahs who rule them.

But we know Iran’s mullahs are not rational actors.

So again, we must ask: If the people of Iran are capable of throwing off their theocratic oppressors, should the United States support them? If so, how — and what would it cost us?

Ask tougher questions

I am not calling for war. I do not support U.S. military intervention in Iran. But I do support asking better questions. Is it in our national interest to act? Is there a moral imperative we cannot ignore? And do we trust the institutions advising us?

I no longer trust the intelligence agencies. I no longer trust the think tanks that sold us the Iraq War. I certainly don’t trust the foreign policy establishment in Washington that has consistently failed upward.

But I do trust the American people to engage these questions honestly — if they’re willing to think.

I believe we may be entering the first chapter of a final, spiritual conflict — what Scripture calls the last battle. It may take decades to unfold, but the ideological lines are being drawn.

And whether you are for Trump or against him, whether you see Iran as a threat or a distraction, whether you want peace or fear it’s no longer possible — ask the tougher questions.

Because what comes next won’t be determined by slogans. It will be determined by what we truly believe.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Opinion & analysis, Glenn beck, Mark levin, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nuclear weapons, Bombing, Regime change, Donald trump, War, Endless war, Tel aviv, Tehran, Libya, Afghanistan, Civil society, Shia, Twelvers, 12th imam, Religion, Islam, Revolution, Intervention, America first, Anti-war 

This past Saturday, Israel continued its Operation Rising Lion with attacks on Iranian gas and oil facilities, Iranian Ministry of Defense buildings in Tehran, and missile launch sites in Tehran.

President Donald Trump responded to the attacks on Truth Social, writing, “The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight. If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before.”

“However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!” he continued.

The U.S. does have many assets currently in or near Israel, including military troops, U.S. diplomats, the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, patriot missile batteries, fighter jets, and U.S. Navy destroyers.

“Trump hints that the United States might get involved if Iran hits our assets,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says. “That was a pretty strong statement that President Trump said, right? If we are attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might is going to come down on you at levels never seen before.”

“He hints that the United States might get involved. But we’re using our assets to already protect Israel, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone if Iran attacks our Patriot missiles, our THAAD system, any of those assets,” she continues.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said in response to the attacks that there is “well-documented and solid evidence of the support provided by American forces in the region.”

“Therefore, the U.S., in our opinion, is a partner in these attacks and must accept its responsibility,” Araghchi said.

Gonzales notes that it would be hard for the U.S. to dispute this accusation, as President Trump had just spoken about Israel’s use of American weapons before the attacks.

“It’s just like if a gun manufacturer makes a gun, and then eventually someone gets sold a gun and they go on to do a school shooting or murder people or whatever. Is it the gun manufacturer’s fault? Of course not,” Gonzales says.

“This is Iran just begging, begging for the United States to get involved,” she adds.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Upload, Video, Video phone, Youtube.com, Sara gonzales unfiltered, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, President trump, Iran israel, Iran, Israel, Operation rising lion, War with iran, United states military, Patriot missiles, Iran foreign minister 

Police said they found a pipe bomb and other improvised explosive devices at the home of a man who was arrested near a No Kings protest in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Law enforcement searched the home of 31-year-old Kevin Krebs on Conestoga Road in East Whiteland Township on Monday evening and disabled all of the explosives, according to a spokesperson for the West Chester Police Department.

‘I always tell him, you are safe always. You’re always being protected. You’re never in any harm’s way.’

Officials had initially said that seven explosives had been found at the home but later said the total number came to 13 explosive devices.

Krebs had a fully loaded Sig Sauer P320 handgun under a long yellow raincoat when he was spotted at the protest Saturday, according to police. He also was found with ammunition, an M9 bayonet, a pocketknife, pepper spray, a ski mask, and gloves.

Police said they found an AR-15 style rifle on the floor of his SUV.

RELATED: Video captures the moment SUV driver barrels through No Kings protesters after getting surrounded in California

Photo by: Visions of America/Joseph Sohm/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Investigators said they also found sketches of explosive devices in the home, as well as tactical vests and other items.

Krebs was initially released on a $250,000 bond, but he was rearrested and denied bail. He is being held at the Chester County Prison and faces a slew of charges, including 13 counts of weapons of mass destruction.

Krebs’ younger brother told WPVI-TV that the suspect carried the weapons for his protection.

“In his brain, he’s scared,” said Alex Krebs. “I always tell him, you are safe always. You’re always being protected. You’re never in any harm’s way.”

In a separate incident from the protest in Riverside, California, an SUV driver barreled into protesters after they surrounded the vehicle and one damaged a rear brake lamp. Police are trying to identify the driver, and one woman suffered critical injuries from the incident.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Kevin krebs arrest, Arrest at no kings protest, Pennsylvania no kings, Explosives on no kings protester, Politics 

Timothy Snyder has built a career trying to convince Americans that Donald Trump is a latter-day Adolf Hitler — a fascist demagogue hell-bent on dismantling America’s institutions to seize power. Last week, the Yale historian and author of the bestselling resistance pamphlet “On Tyranny,” briefly changed course. Now, apparently, Trump is Jefferson Davis.

In a recent Substack post, Snyder claimed Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg amounted to a call for civil war. He argued that the president’s praise for the military and his rejection of the left’s historical revisionism signaled not patriotism but treason — and the rise of a “paramilitary” regime.

Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

No, seriously. That’s what he thinks.

Renaming Fort Bragg

Trump’s first alleged Confederate offense, Snyder said, was to reinstate the military base’s original name: Fort Bragg. The Biden administration had renamed it Fort Liberty, repudiating General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate ties. Trump reversed the change.

The Biden administration had renamed the base Fort Liberty, citing General Braxton Bragg’s service to the Confederacy. Trump reversed the change. But he didn’t do it to honor a Confederate general. He did it to honor World War II paratrooper Roland L. Bragg, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth explained.

Snyder wasn’t buying it. He accused the administration of fabricating a “dishonest pretense” that glorifies “oathbreakers and traitors.”

That charge hits close to home.

My grandfather Martin Spohn was a German Jewish refugee who fled Nazi Berlin in 1936. He proudly served in the U.S. Army. He trained with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Bragg before deploying to Normandy. Like thousands of others, he saw the base not as a Confederate monument but as a launchpad for defeating actual fascism.

Restoring the name Fort Bragg doesn’t rewrite history. It honors the Americans who made history — men who trained there to liberate Europe from tyranny.

That’s not fascism. That’s victory over it.

Deploying the National Guard

For Snyder, though, Trump’s real crime was calling up the National Guard to restore order in riot-torn Los Angeles. That, he claimed, puts Trump in the same category as Robert E. Lee.

According to Snyder, the president is “preparing American soldiers to see themselves as heroes when they undertake operations inside the United States against unarmed people, including their fellow citizens.”

Let’s set aside the hysteria.

Trump didn’t glorify the Confederacy. He called for law and order in the face of spiraling violence. He pushed back against the left’s crusade to erase American history — not to rewrite it but to preserve its complexity.

He didn’t tell soldiers to defy the Constitution. He reminded them of their oath: to defend the nation, not serve the ideological demands of woke officials.

Snyder’s claims are as reckless as they are false.

He smears anyone who supports border enforcement or takes pride in military service as a threat to democracy. Want secure borders? You’re a fascist. Call out the collapse of Democrat-run cities? You’re a Confederate.

This isn’t analysis. It’s slander masquerading as scholarship.

The real division

But this debate isn’t really about Trump. It’s about power.

The left has spent years reshaping the military into a political project — prioritizing diversity seminars over combat readiness, purging dissenters, and enforcing ideological loyalty. When Trump pushes back, it’s not authoritarianism. It’s restoration.

The left wants a military that fights climate change, checks pronouns, and marches for “equity.” Trump wants a military that defends the nation. That’s the real divide.

Over and over, Snyder accuses Trump of “trivializing” the military by invoking its heroism while discussing immigration enforcement. But what trivializes military service more — linking it to national defense or turning soldiers into props for progressive social experiments?

RELATED: The real tyranny? Institutional groupthink disguised as truth

Photo by Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

And Trump isn’t breaking precedent by deploying the National Guard when local leaders fail. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal troops during desegregation. Johnson federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers. The Guard responded during the 1967 Detroit riots, the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and the Black Lives Matter and Antifa upheavals of 2020.

Trump acted within his authority — and fulfilled his duty — to restore order when Democrat-run cities descended into chaos.

A House divided?

Snyder’s rhetoric about “protecting democracy” rings hollow. Trump won the 2024 election decisively. Voters across party lines gave him a clear mandate: Secure the border and remove violent criminals. Pew Research found that 97% of Americans support more vigorous enforcement of immigration laws.

Yet Snyder, who constantly warns of creeping authoritarianism, closed his post by urging fellow academics to join No Kings protests.

Nobody appointed Timothy Snyder king, either.

If he respected democratic institutions, he’d spend less time fearmongering — and more time listening to the Americans, including many in uniform, who are tired of being demonized for loving their country. They’re tired of being called bigots for wanting secure borders. They’re tired of watching history weaponized to silence dissent.

Snyder invokes Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address to condemn Trump. But it was Lincoln who paraphrased scripture when he said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

Americans united behind Trump in 2024. Snyder’s effort to cast half the country as fascists or Confederates embodies the division Lincoln warned against.

Here’s the truth: Trump doesn’t want a second civil war. He wants the first one to mean something.

He wants a Union preserved in more than name — a Union defined by secure borders, equal justice, and unapologetic national pride.

If that scares Timothy Snyder, maybe the problem isn’t Trump.

Perhaps, the problem lies in the man staring back at him in the mirror.

​Opinion & analysis, Donald trump, Authoritarian, Timothy snyder, Tyranny, Yale university, History, Abraham lincoln, Dwight d. eisenhower, Lyndon johnson, John f. kennedy, National guard, Confederate, Fort bragg, Pete hegseth, Riots, Robert e. lee, Jefferson davis, No kings protest, Immigration and customs enforcement, Mass deportations, California, Los angeles, Union, Fascism, World war ii, Traitor