Strange Bedfellows: The Rise of the Anti-War Right in American Politics
The American political landscape has witnessed a remarkable transformation over the past decade with the emergence of a significant anti-war and anti-interventionist faction within the Republican Party and broader conservative movement. This development represents a dramatic departure from the neoconservative consensus that dominated right-wing foreign policy thinking from the Reagan era through the early 21st century. Led by influential figures including Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Andrew Bacevich, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, and several others, this movement has fundamentally challenged assumptions about American military engagement abroad that once seemed immutable within conservative circles. This essay traces the development of this anti-interventionist right, examining its intellectual foundations, key figures, relationship to traditional anti-war positions on the left, and potential implications for the future of American foreign policy. Understanding this shift provides crucial insight into one of the most consequential realignments in contemporary American politics.
[I used Claude 3.7 to write this essay, with significant input and feedback from me, your lowly human facilitator of ideas; I continue to use AIs like Claude in order to plumb their abilities as they swiftly reach AGI and then ASI]
Introduction: From Fringe to Potential Policy
In a striking indicator of how far anti-interventionist ideas have penetrated Republican politics, President Donald Trump recently suggested cutting U.S. military spending by as much as 50% in coordination with Russia and China. Coming from a president who increased the defense budget significantly during his first term (2017–2021), this statement represents a profound shift in rhetoric and potentially in policy. As Trump enters his second month in office in February 2025, many observers, including this one, are watching closely to see whether such proposals will translate into concrete policy initiatives.
Trump’s statements didn’t emerge in a vacuum. He represents the culmination of years of growing skepticism toward military adventurism within right-wing circles — skepticism cultivated by the figures profiled in this essay. I was pleasantly surprised by his calls for military cuts but I had suspected based on his bizarre sovereigntism and retrenchment in the Western Hemisphere that he may have been queuing up such a shift in spending priorities.
When Trump declared his goal for a 50% cut in the US military budget, he was channeling arguments long advanced by Carlson, Bannon, Bacevich, and others who have questioned America’s global military footprint on both strategic and economic grounds.
As a long-time strongly anti-war Leftie progressive, I applaud the rising of the anti-war Right!
Whether such a dramatic reduction in military spending actually materializes during Trump’s second term is yet to be seen, but what the proposal reveals is significant: the intellectual and political space for challenging America’s expansive military commitments has widened substantially on the right. A position that would have been political suicide for a Republican just two decades ago is now openly advocated by a sitting Republican president. This transformation in acceptable discourse and potential policy merits serious examination — not merely as a political curiosity but as a possible harbinger of significant shifts in American foreign policy during the coming four years.
From Neoconservative Hegemony to America First
To appreciate the significance of the current anti-war right, one must first understand the depth of neoconservative dominance over Republican foreign policy thinking in recent decades. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, neoconservative thinkers like William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and Paul Wolfowitz articulated a vision of American foreign policy centered on military intervention to spread liberal democracy globally. This “benevolent hegemony” approach reached its zenith during the George W. Bush administration, when neoconservative ideas provided the intellectual architecture for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The neoconservative framework rested on several core assumptions: that American military power could successfully transform other societies into liberal democracies; that doing so served both moral and strategic interests; and that international institutions should be shaped or, if necessary, bypassed to facilitate American leadership. These ideas represented a significant departure from older conservative traditions of foreign policy realism and skepticism toward foreign entanglements. Nevertheless, by the early 2000s, they had achieved near-total dominance within Republican foreign policy circles.
The current anti-interventionist movement on the right emerged largely as a reaction against the perceived failures of this neoconservative project. The protracted, costly nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with their ambiguous outcomes, created space for alternative perspectives. Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign accelerated this process by explicitly rejecting key aspects of the Bush-era foreign policy, particularly in his criticism of the Iraq War as a “big, fat mistake” and his promise to avoid similar ventures.
Trump’s “America First” rhetoric, while inconsistently applied during his presidency, provided a framework for articulating a non-interventionist position on the right that was distinct from both neoconservatism and traditional isolationism. This framework emphasized national interest narrowly defined, skepticism toward international commitments, and redirection of resources toward domestic priorities. These themes have become central to the emerging anti-war right, even as its proponents have sometimes diverged from Trump himself on specific policy questions.
Tucker Carlson: Populist Voice of the Anti-War Right
No figure has been more influential in articulating and popularizing anti-interventionist positions within conservative circles than Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Through his nightly television program, which at its peak reached several million viewers, Carlson has consistently challenged the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has governed American military engagements abroad. His evolution reflects broader currents within the conservative movement — having initially supported the Iraq War, Carlson later called it “a betrayal of the American people” and has become an increasingly vocal critic of military interventions.
Carlson’s opposition to foreign interventions is framed in distinctly populist terms. He routinely portrays wars as projects of elites that impose costs primarily on working-class Americans while benefiting defense contractors, foreign governments, and the professional-managerial class that staffs the national security apparatus. This framing connects foreign policy criticism to broader themes of elite betrayal that resonate throughout right-wing populism.
What distinguishes Carlson from many traditional anti-war voices is his explicit nationalism. He opposes interventions not primarily on pacifist or humanitarian grounds, but because he views them as contrary to American national interests narrowly defined. This allows him to simultaneously criticize military adventures while advocating for a strong defense posture against perceived genuine threats, particularly China. He has been especially critical of policies he perceives as prioritizing the interests of allies like Ukraine or Israel over immediate American concerns.
Carlson’s influence extends beyond his direct audience. His willingness to challenge foreign policy orthodoxy has created space for similar perspectives throughout conservative media and politics. During the Ukraine conflict, for instance, his skepticism toward American involvement helped shift Republican opinion on the issue, demonstrating the power of his platform to influence party positions on foreign policy questions.
Steve Bannon: Strategic Architect
While Carlson has served as the most visible advocate for anti-interventionist positions on the right, Steve Bannon has provided much of the strategic and intellectual framework for this movement. As Trump’s campaign CEO and later White House strategist, Bannon played a crucial role in articulating the “America First” approach to foreign policy that would challenge neoconservative dominance.
Bannon’s critique of foreign interventions stems from his broader economic nationalist project. In his worldview, the trillions spent on wars in the Middle East represent resources diverted from domestic investment in infrastructure and industry. Moreover, he views these interventions as serving globalist rather than nationalist interests — a distinction central to his political framework.
Unlike many traditional anti-war activists, Bannon maintains a militarist perspective in areas he considers vital to national interest. He has consistently advocated for a confrontational approach toward China, which he views as the primary strategic challenge to American power. This selective hawkishness distinguishes the Bannonite approach from both neoconservatism (with its broader interventionist agenda) and traditional pacifism.
Bannon has been particularly critical of what he sees as neoconservative fixation on the Middle East, arguing that these interventions served Israeli and Saudi interests more than American ones. This position creates one of the more complex aspects of the emerging anti-war right — simultaneously declaring support for Israel while questioning policies advocated by pro-Israel hawks in Washington. This nuanced position on Israel distinguishes the anti-interventionist right from some strains of anti-war activism on the left, which often adopt more consistently critical positions toward Israeli policies.
Through his media platforms, including his “War Room” podcast and earlier leadership at Breitbart News, Bannon has helped mainstream anti-interventionist perspectives within conservative discourse. His influence represents the strategic counterpart to Carlson’s more visible rhetorical role in the movement.
Andrew Bacevich: The Scholar-Soldier
No figure better represents the intellectual credibility of the anti-interventionist right than Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel, Vietnam veteran, and distinguished scholar whose personal and professional trajectory mirrors the evolution of conservative thinking on American military power. Bacevich, who lost his son to combat in Iraq in 2007, brings unique moral authority to his critique of American militarism.
Bacevich’s approach differs markedly from the populist messaging of Carlson or the strategic nationalism of Bannon. His critique is rooted in a deep historical understanding of American foreign policy and a traditionalist conservative concern with limits — both material and moral. In works like “The New American Militarism” (2005) and “America’s War for the Greater Middle East” (2016), Bacevich traces how military adventurism represents a departure from traditional conservative principles of prudence and restraint.
What distinguishes Bacevich from many other critics is his comprehensive historical framework. He argues that American interventionism represents not a response to specific threats but a decades-long pattern reflecting deeper cultural pathologies — a “crisis of profligacy” in American life that manifests in both domestic consumption and imperial overreach. This moral dimension gives his critique particular resonance among traditionalist conservatives concerned with national character and virtue.
Bacevich has been especially scathing in his assessment of the post-9/11 wars. Drawing on his military background, he has highlighted not only their strategic failures but their corruption of military institutions themselves, arguing that endless wars have transformed the military from a defensive force into an instrument of global power projection disconnected from genuine security needs.
As president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Bacevich has worked to institutionalize anti-interventionist thinking and build bridges between critics of militarism across ideological lines. His presence in this role lends considerable credibility to the organization’s efforts to challenge foreign policy orthodoxy from both left and right perspectives.
Bacevich represents a crucial link between older conservative traditions skeptical of imperial ambitions and newer movements questioning American interventionism. His academic rigor and personal sacrifice place him beyond simple partisan categorization, allowing him to serve as an intellectual touchstone for the developing anti-war right while maintaining dialogue with like-minded critics across the political spectrum.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: The Persistent Voice
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos stands out as one of the most enduring and substantive journalistic voices in the anti-war right movement. Since the early 2000s, when dissent against the Iraq War was rare in conservative circles, Vlahos has maintained a consistent critique of American military interventionism that combines detailed policy analysis with powerful human storytelling.
Vlahos began her career in mainstream Washington journalism before joining The American Conservative magazine during its formative years. There, she distinguished herself with deeply reported pieces on the human costs of the War on Terror, military contracting abuses, and the domestic consequences of America’s foreign wars. Her early and persistent skepticism toward the Iraq War — at a time when such positions faced significant backlash in conservative circles — demonstrated both intellectual independence and journalistic courage.
What sets Vlahos apart from many other critics is her sustained focus on the human dimension of military interventions. Her extensive reporting on veterans’ issues — including traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, suicide epidemics, and inadequate care systems — has highlighted the disconnect between pro-war rhetoric and the lived reality of those who serve. This emphasis on concrete human consequences rather than abstract geopolitical theory gives her work particular moral force and has helped broaden anti-interventionist arguments beyond traditional strategic or financial considerations.
Vlahos’s current role as editorial director at Responsible Statecraft, the Quincy Institute’s publication, has positioned her at the institutional center of the anti-interventionist movement. Under her leadership, the publication has become an important platform for challenging foreign policy orthodoxy from multiple ideological perspectives. Her ability to bring together contributors from across the political spectrum reflects her understanding that effective opposition to military interventionism requires coalitions that transcend traditional partisan divides.
Throughout her career, Vlahos has demonstrated a willingness to challenge power regardless of partisan affiliation. She has criticized military interventions across administrations, maintaining consistent principles rather than adjusting her stance based on which party controls the White House. This consistency has earned her respect even from those who disagree with her conclusions.
Vlahos represents an important counterpoint to more explicitly populist or nationalist figures within the anti-war right. Her approach is grounded in detailed factual reporting and policy analysis rather than ideological pronouncements or culture war positioning. This substantive focus has helped establish the anti-interventionist position as a serious intellectual alternative rather than merely a reactive stance, contributing significantly to its growing credibility within conservative circles.
Intellectual Foundations: Paleoconservatives and Beyond
The current anti-war right draws significant intellectual inspiration from paleoconservative thinkers who maintained skepticism toward foreign interventions even during the height of neoconservative dominance. Figures like Pat Buchanan, who challenged George H.W. Bush in the 1992 Republican primaries partly on an anti-interventionist platform, maintained an alternative tradition within conservatism that emphasized national sovereignty, skepticism toward global institutions, and restraint in military deployments.
Publications like The American Conservative, founded in 2002 explicitly as an alternative to neoconservative foreign policy thinking, provided intellectual space for developing these ideas during the Bush years. This publication emerged precisely when questioning the Iraq War was deemed almost heretical in mainstream conservative circles, creating a crucial platform for dissenting voices on the right.
The anti-war right has also drawn from foreign policy realism, a tradition associated with figures like Henry Kissinger that emphasizes power balances and national interest over ideological considerations. Scholars in this tradition, including John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, provided intellectual ammunition against neoconservative idealism, particularly in their critiques of the Iraq War and what they considered excessive influence of Israel on American foreign policy through their controversial work “The Israel Lobby.”
More recently, think tanks like the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft have emerged to provide institutional support for “restraint” in foreign policy, bringing together critics of interventionism from both left and right. Founded in 2019 with support from both George Soros and Charles Koch, Quincy represents an attempt to create bipartisan intellectual infrastructure for challenging interventionist consensus.
These various intellectual strands have converged to create a more coherent alternative to neoconservatism within right-wing foreign policy thinking. This alternative emphasizes American sovereignty, skepticism toward democracy promotion, and redirection of resources from foreign military adventures toward domestic priorities — themes that resonate across the emerging anti-war right.
Congressional Voices: From Rand Paul to the New Right
The anti-interventionist current within the Republican Party has found expression not only in media and intellectual circles but also within Congress. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has been the most consistent voice for restraint in American foreign policy, continuing the legacy of his father, former Representative Ron Paul, who built a significant following partly through his opposition to foreign wars.
The younger Paul has consistently opposed military interventions across administrations, voting against authorizations for use of force and criticizing presidents of both parties for military actions taken without congressional approval. His opposition draws from both constitutional concerns about executive war powers and practical objections to the costs and consequences of foreign engagements.
More recently, a new generation of Republican legislators has embraced aspects of the anti-interventionist position. Representatives like Matt Gaetz of Florida and Madison Cawthorn (during his brief tenure in Congress) have voiced skepticism toward military deployments abroad. During debates over U.S. support for Ukraine following the Russian invasion, a significant faction of House Republicans opposed military aid packages, reflecting the growing influence of anti-interventionist perspectives within the party.
However, this congressional movement remains inconsistent in its application of anti-interventionist principles. Many of the same legislators who oppose involvement in Ukraine have maintained strongly hawkish positions on Iran and unwavering support for Israeli military actions. This selective application of restraint principles suggests that for some, opposition to specific interventions may reflect partisan calculations or cultural affinities rather than consistent application of a coherent foreign policy framework.
Nevertheless, the emergence of a vocal anti-interventionist faction within the Republican congressional delegation represents a significant shift from the party’s recent past. During the Bush administration, Republican support for military adventurism was nearly unanimous; today, significant debate exists within the party on questions of war and peace, reflecting the broader ideological diversification occurring on the right.
Media Ecosystem: Beyond Carlson
While Tucker Carlson represents the most prominent anti-war voice in conservative media, he is no longer alone. Throughout right-wing media, from Fox News to online publications and podcasts, voices skeptical of military interventions have gained prominence. Conservative commentators like Laura Ingraham, Michael Tracey, and Saagar Enjeti have consistently questioned American military engagements abroad, representing a significant shift from the nearly unanimous support for interventions that characterized conservative media during the Bush era.
This media ecosystem has been particularly influential in shaping conservative opinion on the Ukraine conflict. Where Republican voters once reliably supported American military involvement overseas, polling has shown significant skepticism toward aid to Ukraine among the Republican base, largely tracking with messaging from conservative media figures.
Online platforms have played a crucial role in this development. Substack newsletters, YouTube channels, and podcasts have created space for anti-interventionist perspectives outside traditional media gatekeeping. This has allowed for more diverse viewpoints and facilitated conversations between anti-war voices on the left and right that might not occur in mainstream venues.
The rise of this alternative media ecosystem reflects a broader fragmentation of the conservative movement following the Trump presidency. Where the movement once maintained relatively unified positions on foreign policy questions, significant divergence now exists, with anti-interventionist voices representing an increasingly influential current within right-wing discourse.
Women Leaders in the Anti-War Right
Several other influential women have emerged as significant voices in reshaping conservative thinking on foreign policy. Their perspectives have added important dimensions to the movement, often emphasizing humanitarian costs and domestic impacts of military interventions that complement the approaches of figures like Vlahos.
Tulsi Gabbard, though originally elected as a Democrat, has become an increasingly important voice in right-leaning anti-interventionist circles. The former congresswoman and Iraq War veteran has consistently criticized American military interventions across administrations. Her military background lends credibility to her critiques of failed interventions in Syria, Libya, and elsewhere. Since leaving the Democratic Party in 2022, Gabbard has appeared frequently on Fox News and other conservative platforms, where her anti-interventionist stance has found receptive audiences. Her example illustrates the complex political realignments occurring around foreign policy issues.
Laura Ingraham, host of one of Fox News’ highest-rated programs, has evolved into a consistent critic of military interventions, particularly in the Middle East. While maintaining traditionally conservative positions on most domestic issues, Ingraham has questioned the wisdom of continued American military engagement abroad and criticized the financial costs of overseas deployments. Her evolution mirrors the broader shift within parts of the conservative movement away from neoconservative foreign policy frameworks.
Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist, while not exclusively focused on foreign policy, has increasingly incorporated skepticism toward military interventions into her broader conservative commentary. Her emphasis on the disconnect between Washington foreign policy consensus and the concerns of ordinary Americans aligns with the populist framing that characterizes much of the anti-war right.
These women often frame their anti-interventionism somewhat differently than their male counterparts. Where figures like Carlson and Bannon frequently emphasize financial costs and abstract national interests, women leaders in the space often highlight humanitarian consequences, effects on military families, and moral questions about civilian casualties. This difference in emphasis helps broaden the movement’s appeal and connects foreign policy issues to domestic concerns that resonate with broader audiences.
The presence of these women leaders challenges simplistic characterizations of the anti-war right as merely isolationist or narrowly nationalist. Their perspectives have helped develop a more nuanced critique that incorporates both strategic and humanitarian concerns about American military engagements abroad.
Cross-Ideological Convergence: Left-Right Alliance?
One of the most intriguing aspects of the anti-war right’s emergence has been the potential for alliance with traditional peace movements on the left. Despite profound differences on domestic policy, figures like Carlson and Bannon sometimes find themselves aligned with progressive anti-war activists on specific foreign policy questions. This has led to speculation about the possibility of a left-right coalition against military interventionism.
Jeffrey Sachs represents perhaps the most prominent example of this cross-ideological pollination. A renowned economist, Columbia University professor, and advisor to multiple UN Secretaries-General, Sachs has traditionally been associated with the political left. Yet in recent years, he has found a substantial audience on the right through appearances on Tucker Carlson’s programs and other conservative platforms where he has articulated powerful critiques of American interventionism.
Sachs’s evolution is instructive. Having advised on economic transitions across the globe and worked extensively in international development, his critique comes not from isolationism but from deep engagement with global systems. His opposition to American military adventures stems from witnessing their destabilizing effects on developing nations and international institutions. This perspective — grounded in expertise rather than partisan positioning — has allowed him to transcend traditional political boundaries.
What makes Sachs particularly effective in these cross-ideological spaces is his willingness to challenge establishment narratives regardless of which party advances them. His criticisms of NATO expansion, skepticism toward the official accounts of the Nord Stream pipeline explosions, and questioning of aspects of U.S. policy in Ukraine have resonated with conservative audiences increasingly skeptical of establishment foreign policy consensus. Yet he maintains these positions while simultaneously advocating progressive positions on climate change, economic inequality, and international cooperation.
Carlson, recognizing Sachs’s credibility with international and intellectual audiences, has featured him repeatedly, creating space for substantive critiques of military interventionism that might otherwise be dismissed as merely partisan or isolationist. Their unlikely alliance illustrates how opposition to military interventionism can create strange bedfellows across traditional political divides.
There have been other notable instances of such cooperation. Journalist Glenn Greenwald, originally associated with left-leaning outlets, has become a frequent guest on Carlson’s program, discussing their shared opposition to various military engagements. The Quincy Institute represents an institutional attempt to bridge this divide, bringing together scholars and activists from across the political spectrum who share skepticism toward military solutions.
However, significant obstacles to sustained cooperation remain. The anti-war right and left operate from fundamentally different frameworks — one nationalist, the other often internationalist; one concerned primarily with American interests narrowly defined, the other frequently motivated by humanitarian and anti-imperialist concerns. These different starting points can lead to divergent positions on specific conflicts, even when both sides oppose direct American military involvement.
The Ukraine conflict illustrates these tensions. While both progressive and conservative critics have questioned aspects of American policy, their reasons often differ fundamentally. Left critics have frequently emphasized the role of NATO expansion in contributing to tensions, while right critics more often focus on the financial costs of support for Ukraine and skepticism toward open-ended commitments abroad.
Nevertheless, the emergence of anti-interventionist voices across the political spectrum creates possibilities for tactical alliance on specific issues, even if broader strategic cooperation remains challenging. The potential for such alliances represents one of the more significant disruptions to traditional political alignments in recent American history.
The Israeli Question and Middle East Entanglements: The Trillion-Dollar Catalyst
The relationship between the anti-war right and Middle East policy, particularly regarding Israel, represents both the movement’s most significant catalyst and its most complex ideological terrain. The astronomical costs of post-9/11 military adventures in the region — by some estimates exceeding $8 trillion when including future veterans’ care — provided the economic foundation for the anti-interventionist critique that resonates deeply with fiscal conservatives and economic nationalists alike.
The neoconservative-paleoconservative divide over Israel and Middle East policy began long before 9/11 but was dramatically accelerated by it. This split represents one of the most consequential ideological battles within modern conservatism, with profound implications for American foreign policy. At its core lies a fundamental disagreement about America’s proper relationship with Israel and the extent to which American and Israeli security interests align.
Neoconservatives, many of whom had intellectual roots in the Democratic Party before migrating rightward in the 1970s and 1980s, have consistently advocated for robust American military presence in the Middle East, regime change in hostile states, and unconditional support for Israeli security policies. This position gained overwhelming dominance within the Republican establishment following 9/11, with figures like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and William Kristol successfully arguing that American and Israeli security interests were effectively identical in the region.
Paleoconservatives and their intellectual heirs have rejected this framework, arguing that it subordinates American interests to foreign ones and embroils the United States in conflicts peripheral to its core security needs. Pat Buchanan famously described Congress as “Israeli-occupied territory” as early as the 1990s, while more moderate figures questioned whether American and Israeli strategic interests were as aligned as neoconservatives claimed.
The post-9/11 wars brought this tension to a breaking point. As casualties mounted in Iraq and Afghanistan without clear strategic victories, and as costs escalated into the trillions, the paleoconservative critique gained new resonance even among traditional Republicans. The financial burden became particularly powerful as an argument — the trillions spent in Baghdad and Kabul could have rebuilt American infrastructure, revitalized manufacturing, or remained in taxpayers’ pockets. This economic argument formed a crucial bridge between traditional conservative skepticism of foreign entanglements and newer populist critiques of elite governance.
Figures like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon have questioned aspects of the U.S.-Israel relationship, particularly the scale of military aid and the influence of pro-Israel advocacy groups on American policy. During Israeli military operations in Gaza, Carlson has raised questions about civilian casualties and American support that would have been almost unthinkable from a prominent conservative commentator in previous decades.
However, this criticism differs significantly from left anti-war perspectives on Israel. Where left critics often frame their opposition in terms of Palestinian rights and anti-colonialism, right critics more typically emphasize American interests and the financial costs of support for Israel. Many on the anti-war right maintain strong cultural and religious affinity for Israel even while questioning aspects of the bilateral relationship.
This nuanced position creates strange dynamics within the Republican coalition. Some of the most vocal critics of interventions elsewhere, like Representative Matt Gaetz, remain staunchly supportive of Israeli military actions. Meanwhile, traditional pro-Israel hawks within the party, like Senator Lindsey Graham, often remain interventionist across the board. This creates a complex matrix of positions rather than a simple interventionist/anti-interventionist binary.
The post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq serve as the decisive breaking point for many conservatives who subsequently embraced anti-interventionism. The human cost — thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties — combined with the staggering financial burden and ambiguous strategic outcomes created a powerful narrative of elite failure that resonates deeply with the populist turn in American conservatism. When critics like Carlson and Bannon point to “failed forever wars” costing trillions while American infrastructure crumbles, they tap into genuine grievances that transcend traditional ideological boundaries.
The Israeli question thus reveals the limits of describing the emerging faction simply as “anti-war.” For many within this movement, opposition to military involvement is selective rather than universal, reflecting calculations about national interest and cultural affinities rather than consistent application of non-interventionist principles. Yet the financial and human costs of Middle East interventions remain the single most powerful catalyst for the movement’s growth, providing concrete evidence for its critique of the foreign policy establishment.
Implications for American Foreign Policy
The rise of the anti-war right carries significant implications for the future of American foreign policy. While this faction does not yet represent the dominant perspective within the Republican Party, its growing influence has already shaped policy debates and may continue to do so in more profound ways in the future.
Most immediately, this movement has complicated bipartisan consensus on specific conflicts. Support for Ukraine, which initially enjoyed broad backing across party lines, has faced increasing skepticism from the Republican base as anti-interventionist voices have gained prominence. Similar dynamics could affect future crises, potentially constraining options for military deployment regardless of which party controls the White House.
More broadly, the anti-war right contributes to a fundamental rethinking of American grand strategy. The neoconservative vision of universal democracy promotion through military means has lost credibility even among many who once supported it. The traditional liberal internationalist approach favored by Democratic administrations likewise faces challenges from both left and right. This creates space for a significant recalibration of American global engagement.
The potential for left-right cooperation on specific anti-war initiatives, while limited, represents another important implication. Such cooperation could create unexpected coalitions in Congress on matters like war powers reform or military spending reductions, potentially constraining executive authority to initiate conflicts.
However, several factors limit the anti-war right’s immediate impact. First, the movement remains inconsistent in its application of anti-interventionist principles, often maintaining hawkish positions on select issues like Iran or China. Second, the institutional infrastructure supporting interventionist policies — the defense industry, national security bureaucracy, and foreign policy establishment — maintains significant influence regardless of partisan shifts. Third, the anti-war right has yet to develop a comprehensive alternative vision for American engagement with the world beyond opposition to specific interventions.
Nevertheless, the emergence of this faction represents one of the most significant shifts in American foreign policy thinking in recent decades. It signals a broader rethinking of assumptions that have guided American global engagement since the end of the Cold War and potentially opens space for more fundamental debates about America’s role in the world than have been possible in recent decades.
Conclusion: A Durable Realignment?
The rise of the anti-war right represents a significant disruption to traditional foreign policy alignments in American politics. For decades, the Republican Party was reliably more hawkish than its Democratic counterpart; today, significant anti-interventionist currents exist on both sides of the partisan divide, albeit with different emphases and motivations.
Whether this realignment proves durable remains an open question. The anti-war right faces significant challenges, including resistance from established interests within the party, inconsistency in the application of its principles, and the persistent influence of security threats in shaping public opinion. Historical precedent suggests caution — previous moments of restraint in American foreign policy have often given way to renewed interventionism following perceived security challenges.
Nevertheless, several factors suggest this movement may have staying power. First, it draws from multiple intellectual traditions with deep roots in American political thought, from Jeffersonian skepticism toward foreign entanglements to realist emphasis on defined national interests. Second, it aligns with broader populist currents in American politics that emphasize elite betrayal and redirection of resources toward domestic priorities. Third, the perceived failures of recent interventions provide powerful evidence for its central claims about the limits of military solutions.
Ultimately, the anti-war right represents not merely a tactical shift in Republican positioning but a more fundamental challenge to assumptions that have guided American foreign policy for generations. By questioning the wisdom and efficacy of military interventions that once commanded bipartisan support, figures like Carlson and Bannon have created space for broader reconsideration of America’s role in the world. Whether one welcomes or fears this development, its significance for the future of American foreign policy cannot be denied.
References
Bacevich, A. J. (2008). The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. Metropolitan Books.
Beinart, P. (2010). The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris. Harper.
Carlson, T. (2018). Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. Free Press.
Desch, M. C. (2007). America’s Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy. International Security, 32(3), 7–43.
Drezner, D. W. (2019). This Time Is Different: Why U.S. Foreign Policy Will Never Recover. Foreign Affairs, 98(3), 10–17.
Greenwald, G. (2021). Securing Democracy: My Fight for Press Freedom and Justice in Bolsonaro’s Brazil. Haymarket Books.
Hadar, L. (2017). The Libertarian and Paleoconservative Movements: The “Other” Dissenters. In R. Jervis, F. J. Gavin, J. Rovner, & D. Labrosse (Eds.), Chaos in the Liberal Order: The Trump Presidency and International Politics in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 235–247). Columbia University Press.
Kaplan, R. D. (2019). The Return of Marco Polo’s World: War, Strategy, and American Interests in the Twenty-First Century. Random House.
Layne, C. (2006). The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present. Cornell University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Parmar, I. (2018). The US-led liberal order: imperialism by another name? International Affairs, 94(1), 151–172.
Paul, R. (2011). The Revolution: A Manifesto. Grand Central Publishing.
Posen, B. R. (2014). Restraint: A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy. Cornell University Press.
Scahill, J. (2013). Dirty Wars: The World Is a Battlefield. Nation Books.
Teitelbaum, B. R. (2020). War for Eternity: Inside Bannon’s Far-Right Circle of Global Power Brokers. Dey Street Books.
Walt, S. M. (2018). The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
