May. 3, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

The American right is mired in a civil war over Israel.

Over the past year, a number of prominent right-wing pundits and activists have broken from President Donald Trump over his support for Israel and condemned Israeli policy in Gaza as mass murder. This dispute is reaching new heights since the anti-Israel sector of the right — led by right-wing pundit Tucker Carlson and including former Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, right-wing podcaster and conspiracist Candace Owens, former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent, and white supremacist livestreamer Nick Fuentes — has accused Trump of betraying his own MAGA movement by, in their view, allowing Israel to drag the U.S. into the disastrous U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. “I hate this war and the direction that the U.S. government is taking,” Carlson said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal published last weekend, while accusing the administration of failing to “act on behalf of its own citizens.”

Much of the pro-Palestinian left is watching with curiosity and amazement. At the peak of its energy objecting to U.S. backing for Israel’s genocide in Gazathe left-wing pro-Palestinian movement was overwhelmingly opposed by the right and sidelined by the Democratic Partyquashed by university administrators and silenced by a shameful round of cancel culture within liberal institutions. Now it watches as the right is riven by its own internal split over support for Israel, with the anti-Israel tendency spearheaded by the most powerful right-wing pundit in America and buoyed by widespread defection from a pro-Israel status quo among Republicans under age 50.

The pro-Palestinian left — which includes swathes of the Arab American community, movement advocates, democratic socialists, progressive students and a segment of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party — is in a strange position. Some leftists are pondering whether Carlson and his faction are in fact an unlikely ally to the pro-Palestinian movement.

Online, this discussion often takes the form of debating how to respond to Carlson saying humanizing things about Palestinians that can make him sound quite a lot like a leftist when engaging with the mainstream press. Over and over again, this discussion centers on whether one must “hand it to Tucker Carlson” or one of his allies, or whether their seeming correctness on one issue deserves “credit” or should become a basis on which they are “liked.”

But these are the wrong questions. They consider the issue through the cultural lens of whether it is appropriate to applaud. Instead, the left should be asking why Carlson et al. believe what they do — and then use that understanding to form judgments about political action.

Doing this makes clear that the anti-Israel right is not committed in any meaningful sense to Palestinian liberation and is not a friend of the left. That doesn’t mean there aren’t opportunities for strategic partnership across the aisle at the level of legislation in Washington. But this is a hardly a case of common cause or grounds for a conjoining of movements.

That’s because Carlson’s intensifying criticism of Israel does not stem from some kind of new, leftist-inspired commitment to universal human rights or egalitarianism. Rather, it can be traced back to the same right-wing white nationalist worldview that he’s held for years, which constantly deploys antisemitic tropes to insinuate that Jews constitute a threat to ideal Western civilization — and that the fundamental problem with Israel is its Jewishness.

Carlson is a staunch advocate of “great replacement” theorya concept that holds that shadowy Jewish financiers are behind porous borders and the replacement of “native” Americans with immigrants. He ascribes to Israel “an Eastern view” that is “totally incompatible with Christianity and Western civilization.” He holds the view that Israel has a secret plan to demolish the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and trigger a global religious war whose primary victims would be “Christian, Western, white countries.” In October he invited Fuentes — a Holocaust denier who has called Adolf Hitler “really f–––ing cool” — onto his podcast for a softball interview, during which Fuentes said “organized Jewry” undermined American cohesion. After his podcast appearance, Fuentes said in a video, “We are done with the Jewish oligarchy. We are done with the slavish surrender to Israel.”

In other words, this faction’s hostility to Israel is tied to the idea that Jews — in the U.S. and outside of it — exert an undue and corrupting influence on American life. Carlson will periodically go out of his way to condemn antisemitism and deny that he supports it, but it’s not hard to see how it animates his worldview if you examine it closely. It’s also evident when, for example, he discusses Russia and Ukraine. He describes Ukraine’s Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as “ratlike” and a “persecutor of Christians,” and says he is “more sympathetic” to warmongering Russian President Vladimir Putin than Zelenskyy.

Carlson’s allies also exhibit an aversion to Israel that seems tied to its identity and uncanny “influence” rather than a principled opposition to its misbehavior. Owens subscribes to a whole host of antisemitic conspiracy theories about Israel. More subtly, in Kent’s resignation letter from the Trump administration, he framed the president as innocent in his decision to launch the Iran war, and argued that Israeli leaders “deceived” him into joining it. (Inexplicably, Kent also blamed Israelis for the Iraq War, contra the historical record.)

It is true that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied Trump aggressively to join the war. But the idea that Trump and his entire inner circle were duped, or that he could have been strong-armed while presiding over the most powerful country in the world, is nonsense. The U.S. and Iran have been adversaries for decades, and the U.S. launched a war alongside Israel because it perceived shared interests in hobbling Iran, as well as providing a close ally with uncontested regional hegemony in an area vital to U.S. energy interests.

There also are many other factors explaining why Trump was convinced that dominating Iran would be easier than it has been, including his own anti-intellectualism, the surprising smoothness of his Venezuela intervention and his many yes-men advisers. Kent’s cartoonish theory of the cause of the war only makes sense if one subscribes to the harmful worldview of Israelis as all-powerful puppeteers. And the entire anti-Israel right’s fixation on the country as an engine of U.S. imperialism allows it to preserve the myth of America as wholesome when it isn’t “manipulated”or made a “slave” by subversive outsiders.

The real rationales for right-wing anti-Israel positioning have nothing to do with Palestinian dignity or opposition to Israeli apartheid, genocide and its brutal style of warfare against neighbors. Rather, to the extent that the right mentions Palestinians at all, it uses them as a prop: part of an agenda to force the U.S. to break with Israel based largely on a bigoted suspicion of Jews and isolationist inclinations to withdraw from Middle East interventionism.

So what does it mean from the perspective of left-wing politics? It means the anti-Israel right is a terrible source of media information and political education, because of its noxious ideologies. It also means it’s a bad idea to invite champions of the anti-Israel right to intellectual and political organizing conferences on the left as featured speakers or as friends of the cause. That would mean importing and normalizing antisemitism — and virtually every other kind of bigotry that prevails on the American right — into spaces that are meant to counter bigotry and uphold universal human rights as core principles. The left’s opposition to domination is irreconcilable with the right-wing nationalist ambition to unleash domination within America for “heritage Americans.”

But there are a couple of opportunities here for the left. One is through an emerging opportunity to persuade and recruit people from the right to the left at the grassroots. This can be done by leveraging disenchantment with Trump’s policies on Israel and Iran, and by persuading ordinary, disillusioned right-wingers to rethink their worldview. As polarized as the country is, a nontrivial share of the public floats to different parts of the political spectrum based less on ideology than on broad sentiments about status quo policies and institutions. They can be persuaded to think differently. Consider, for example, the roughly 12% of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential primary voters who cast their general election ballot for Trump in 2016likely based on the notion that any vote against the political-economic establishment and forever wars was worth considering.

Pro-Palestinian organizations and the left more broadly have an opportunity to change the mind of people from the right who are sick of war and instinctively repelled by the carnage in Gaza and who feel betrayed by Trump. This would entail making clear and unapologetically antiracist arguments to persuadables that no group of people — Palestinians, Jews, immigrants, Black people, women, trans people or any other marginalized group — is “the problem.” The real problems are the political and economic systems and ideologies that uphold exploitation and perpetual warfare while scapegoating out-groups.

A charismatic Democratic presidential candidate who is fiercely opposed to the belligerent logic of imperialism has a lane here. Arguing that putting an end to American meddling in other countries’ business and to backing Israeli carnage in the Middle East could plausibly siphon off soft Trump voters who are sick of the wasteful and gruesome business of empire maintenance.

If the anti-Israel right eventually evolves into a significant subset of the GOP in Congress, Democratic lawmakers looking to cut off aid to Israel will have an opportunity to collaborate with those members to bind the president’s hands. (Greene tried to work with a handful of progressive Democrats to oppose Israeli military funding last year.) This kind of cross-ideological strategic partnership is how lawmakers get things done all the time, and a focus on a concrete policy position — no more aid to Israel — wouldn’t require the left to compromise its values. It may be the only way for progressive Democrats to wor k around pro-Israel holdouts in their own party establishment.

The question of how to work with people across different political camps is never a simple one. But here’s something that is straightforward: You don’t have to hand it to Carlson, nor do you have to not hand it to Carlson. You should ignore him and get on with with the real work of liberation and opposing empire.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

May. 3, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

In March 2025, 10 Senate Democrats voted to advance a government funding bill and avoid a government shutdown. Responding to furious Democratic voters who felt betrayed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said“a shutdown would be 10 or 20 times worse.” Six months later, seven Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King voted to end a 40-day stalemate. Had the shutdown continued, Sen. Tim Kaine, one of those seven, argued“I do not believe Republicans would have conceded on health care.”

What a difference a few months make.

The House of Representatives suddenly passed a bill to reopen the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday, ending a 76-day funding standoff. The legislation funds all of DHS with two exceptions: Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol. Instead, Republicans will fund ICE and CBP separately through the budget reconciliation process, without the cover of Democratic votes.

After federal immigration agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis this year, Democrats refused to fund ICE without reforms, and they demanded the agency’s funding be dealt with separately from the rest of DHS. In late March, Senate Republicans gave up on waiting for a handful of Democrats to end the filibuster, and they passed by unanimous consent a partial funding bill splitting off ICE, as Democrats demanded. The House dragged its feet for almost a month after that, but gave in Thursday and meekly passed the bill in a voice vote. “Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Schumer crowed.

For the first time, the side precipitating a government shutdown neither had to cave in the end nor suffer a backlash for holding out. It seems that, at least for now, the politics of shutdowns have fundamentally changed.

It should be acknowledged at this point that unlike last year’s shutdown showdowns, this one was over one department and not the whole government. But though the shutdown was more limited, its effects were still visible to voters:  Lapses in TSA funding led to long lines at the airport, for instance. And the debate concerned immigration and border security,  issues on which Republicans typically poll well. Many of the dynamics at play in this debate, then, should carry over to future government funding fights.

The shift in shutdown politics may be a function of two circumstances, but neither is changing soon. It certainly helps Democrats that congressional Republicans can barely keep their ship afloat. The relationship between Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune is frosty at bestand while Republicans’ narrow House majority would challenge any speaker, Johnson’s tenure has consisted largely of disorganization punctuated by last-minute scrambles to push through must-pass bills.  “It’s just been a mess,” one House Republican told MS NOW’s Mychael Schnell. “We haven’t really had any guidance or direction. We’re moving from one fire drill to the next every single week, and then half the time it feels like, why are we even here?”

It also helps that President Donald Trump at this point in his term is less popular than any recent president. A president doesn’t even need high approval ratings to “win” a shutdown: When House Speaker Newt Gingrich led Republicans in shutting down the government in late 1995 when Bill Clinton was president, Clinton’s approval was around 50%. When Sen. Ted Cruz and a handful of other GOP senators encouraged the House to shut down the government in 2013, President Barack Obama’s approval was in the low to mid-40s. But in both cases, the party out of the White House ended up caving.

Trump, however, is below 40% in multiple polling averages. His war with Iran and the related spike in gas prices are just the latest errors perpetuating the slow but steady downward march of his numbers. What works in this political environment may not work in opposition to even a president of average popularity. But Trump has work to do before even getting back to average popularity.

The DHS funding bill, like the other appropriations bills earlier this year, runs through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. If Republicans pass their reconciliation bill, ICE and CBP won’t be on the table then; the GOP plans to fund the agencies for three years. And with midterms looming, Congress could punt the next round of funding bills until after votes are cast, as it did in 2024. But with even some Republicans expecting Democrats to flip the House and perhaps the Senate, a postponement could hurt the GOP’s leverage. Regardless of the date for the next funding fight, though, Democrats should reprise and even deepen the resolve they showed in this one.

James Downie is an opinion editor for MS NOW Daily.

May. 3, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

Though President Donald Trump has not carried out his threat to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency, his administration has systematically weakened it during his second term. He has hollowed out its workforce, pushed out experienced staff in favor of political lackeys, dismantled preparedness programs and undermined the agency’s ability to respond when Americans need it most. Last spring, the administration announced that it had canceled billions of dollars worth of key mitigation programs that helped communities become more resilient to the effects of floods, hurricanes and other disasters.

The elimination of those mitigation projects shifted risk onto states and local governments that lack the resources to pay for them themselves. More than 5,000 employees have left or been pushed out of FEMA since the beginning of the second Trump administration, worsening an already severe staffing shortage. Now reports suggest the Trump administration is considering even deeper workforce cuts — a highly dangerous proposal with the start of hurricane season less than a month away.

But just as worrisome as qualified people being pushed out of FEMA is unqualified people being brought in. Gregg Phillips, whom Trump appointed associate administrator of the Office of Response and Recovery in December, holds one of the most powerful positions at FEMA. It’s his  job to lead the federal government’s frontline response to hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires and other disasters. Because lives are on the line during such emergencies, the role ought to be filled by someone with relevant experience who has demonstrated a commitment to public safety, as well as has sound judgment and a steady hand. Unfortunately, it was clear before Phillips took his position that he lacks all those qualifications.

Phillips has no background in emergency management. He built his career as a political operativerising through Republican politics in Mississippi and Texas, where his time in state government was marked by controversy and ethics concerns. He later gained national prominence by promoting conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

Not only has he demonstrated a lack of commitment to public safety, he has encouraged heinous political violence. He has said former President Joe Biden “deserves to die,” and he has urged Americans to “learn to shoot” migrants who are “coming here to kill you.”

And then there’s the truly bizarre. Phillips has said he’s experienced teleportation on multiple occasions and that he was once teleported 50 miles away to a Waffle House in Georgia. Reportedly, Phillips has quarreled with Trump’s social media platform, which he has accused of suppressing posts about his teleportation claims.

With that single appointment at FEMA, the Trump administration’s lack of seriousness about its duty to protect Americans was exposed. However, Phillips is not the root of the problem at FEMA; he is just a recent example of it.

Nearly half the agency’s top positions remain vacantand Trump has not nominated a permanent, Senate-confirmed FEMA administrator since he was inaugurated. Reports indicate he may nominate Cameron Hamilton, who ran FEMA in early 2025 until he was fired by Kristi Noem. But Hamilton does not have the necessary qualifications or experience to lead the agency.

Neither does Karen Evans, FEMA’s third acting administrator in a year who currently serves in two senior roles — administrator and chief of staff. Saddling an unqualified person with two important positions at the agency is more evidence of how Trump has deprioritized FEMA and its leadership. FEMA also does not have leadership in its southern regional officeswhich assist the states that traditionally see the most destruction from hurricanes.

In addition to all the above, there are growing concerns that disaster response is being politicized. The rate at which Trump has approved major disaster declarations has varied sharply by statewith Republican-led states receiving much more FEMA assistance than those led by Democrats. In some cases, Trump has denied aid to Democratic-led states even after federal assessments showed communities qualified for help.

Taken together, the Trump administration’s actions have left FEMA and communities less prepared than they have been in a generation. In any other administration, FEMA would by now have a permanent administrator, its leadership ranks filled and a reserve workforce under contract and ready to deploy. As hurricane season approaches, the stakes could not be higher.

If FEMA is to be functional and ready for disasters in the coming months, the Trump administration must course correct and stop playing around with the nation’s lead disaster response agency. To put it back on course, the administration must rebuild FEMA’s workforce, fill vacancies with experienced leaders, restore preparedness programs and ensure that disaster assistance is delivered based on need — not politics. When disaster strikes, Americans should not pay the price for an administration that refuses to take its responsibilities seriously.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat representing Mississippi’s 2nd congressional district is the ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.