As the annual National Conservatism Conference, known as NatCon5, kicked off in Washington on September 2, 2025, the mood was a mix of celebration and tension. With Donald Trump and JD Vance now firmly in power, the national conservative movement—once relegated to the political wilderness—had returned to the center of American politics. The event drew an impressive roster: Trump administration veterans like Tom Homan and Tulsi Gabbard, MAGA movement icons such as Steve Bannon, and even international figures like Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK. But beneath the surface, a growing and potentially explosive rift was on full display: what, exactly, should the movement do about Israel?
For years, support for Israel has been a rare point of bipartisan agreement in Washington. The country’s founding in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and its status as a democratic outpost in a volatile region, gave it a special place in American foreign policy. Both left and right have prioritized aid and weapons for Israel, and for decades, little seemed likely to change that. But as the conference unfolded, it became clear that the rise of America First principles was generating a split within the Republican Party—and within the national conservative movement itself—over whether that support should continue unconditionally.
Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative magazine and a featured speaker at NatCon5, didn’t mince words. “If MAGA and the America First movement, or whatever you want to call it, really wants to be ideologically coherent, then it can’t be America First with an exception asterisk for Israel,” Mills told The Telegraph. His message, he predicted, would be controversial—especially among the movement’s senior ranks. “I think the young people will like it, and I think it will be a mixed reception among the powers that be,” Mills said.
Mills argued that the strategic reasons for US involvement in the Middle East have narrowed considerably. “Where once it was vital to protect oil supplies, the US is now a net energy exporter, and the importance of the Suez Canal for US trade has diminished,” he explained. That, in his view, leaves only Israel as a rationale for American engagement in the region. But Mills questioned whether defending Israel is truly in America’s national interest anymore. “I also think it’s a false question, because I think Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, and they’re all trained on Tehran,” he said. “So the idea that it’s actually that threatened by its neighbours… I think it’s a false choice. I think it’s most threatened by its own contradictions and inability to solve its humanitarian problem on its borders.”
Sessions at NatCon5 reflected the movement’s evolving priorities and the rapid pace at which Trump has reshaped American politics. Topics ranged from “Fighting the woke-Islamist alliance on university campuses” to “What winning looks like.” The conference was, in part, a project to flesh out the political framework underpinning Trumpism—emphasizing national identity, sovereignty, family values, and a robust opposition to globalism. Yet, the Israel debate loomed over the gathering, with some calling for a more isolationist approach and others insisting on continued support for America’s old ally.
Steve Bannon, the influential host of the War Room show and a key MAGA figure, has been among the most vocal critics of foreign interventions. When Israel launched its 12-day war with Iran in June 2025, Bannon warned that Washington risked being “sucked into a devastating Middle East conflict.” His stance is clear: American interests come first, and foreign entanglements—especially in the Middle East—are a liability. Bannon’s skepticism is shared by others, including former Congressman Matt Gaetz, who has explicitly warned Trump that support for Israel could be a political liability.
The debate took a sharp turn when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed back against the isolationist trend. Speaking to Breitbart, Netanyahu declared, “Israel is fighting Iran, and you can’t be MAGA if you’re pro-Iran, you can’t be MAGA if you’re anti-Israel.” The response from Bannon was swift and blunt. On the social media platform Gettr, he wrote, “American citizens do not give 2 f---s About Your Thoughts on Maga, or what our citizens need to believe – they care about exposing your pathological lies in order to keep us out of your next war.” The public spat underscored just how deep the divisions run—even among those who agree on most other issues.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, the controversial Republican congresswoman from Georgia, added fuel to the fire. In August 2025, she called Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide,” a statement that put her at odds with her own party’s traditional stance and House leadership. Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson maintained the old guard’s position during his visit to Jerusalem’s Western Wall. “Our prayer is that America will always stand with Israel,” Johnson said, following the tradition of placing a handwritten note in the ancient stones.
This isn’t the first time NatCon has hosted a diversity of views on foreign policy. Last year’s NatCon4 featured Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, who called for Western support to restore democracy in his homeland. Mills, reflecting on the contrast, noted, “This year they’re gonna have me, who wants no part of a war with Iran. So that’s a big tent.” The movement’s ideological diversity is both a strength and a source of friction, as it attempts to chart a path forward in a rapidly changing world.
For many at NatCon5, the question of Israel is emblematic of a larger debate about America’s role in the world. Should the US continue to act as a global policeman, or is it time to pull back and focus on domestic priorities? For some, the answer is clear: America First means just that—no exceptions. For others, the historic alliance with Israel remains non-negotiable, both for strategic and moral reasons.
The split is not just philosophical but generational. Mills suggested that younger conservatives are more likely to embrace a consistent America First approach, even if it means rethinking support for Israel. The older generation, meanwhile, is more inclined to stick with established alliances. The tension between these camps was palpable throughout the conference, with both sides making their case in speeches, panel discussions, and private conversations.
As the national conservative movement continues to evolve, the outcome of this debate could have profound implications—not just for US foreign policy, but for the future of the Republican Party itself. Will the party embrace a new, more isolationist vision, or will it reaffirm its commitment to traditional alliances? The answer remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: the conversation has only just begun, and the stakes could hardly be higher.
With so many powerful voices weighing in, and with the world watching closely, the national conservative movement’s next steps on Israel will be scrutinized by allies and adversaries alike. The decisions made at NatCon5 may well shape American policy—and political identity—for years to come.
