"Neocons" and "Realists" are clashing!

In my previous column, I pointed out that some factions within the “Trump Coalition” were behind former President Trump’s decision to delay—for 90 days—the steep tariffs imposed on countries other than China. That same coalition also houses deeply conflicting views on defense, national security, and foreign policy.

Some members of the Trump administration believe the U.S. should pull back from its military commitments in the Middle East and Europe and instead focus solely on countering China. These voices are often described as “America First Conservative Realists” or simply “Prioritizers.” On the other side are hawks—including “rebranded neocons” and “Establishment Republicans”—who argue that the U.S. is capable of handling multiple adversaries at once.

Although Trump has consistently railed against “endless wars,” he has managed to bring both camps under his wing. The Israel Lobby, however, has been pressuring him to keep the U.S. militarily engaged in the Middle East. In leaked Signal chats attributed to neoconservative sources, Vice President J.D. Vance was revealed to have opposed airstrikes on the Houthis—an intentional leak widely interpreted as throwing him under the bus to appease pro-Israel interests. Several high-ranking defense, intelligence, and national security officials are now facing similar pressure from the Lobby.

Recently, the U.S. Senate confirmed Elbridge Colby—one of the leading figures among the Prioritizers—as Deputy Secretary of Defense for Policy. The only senator to vote against Colby was Mitch McConnell, a leader among mainstream Republicans. Colby’s appointment triggered a strong reaction from both J.D. Vance and Donald Trump Jr., who publicly criticized McConnell.

Tulsi Gabbard, considered persona non grata by the neocons, faced significant pushback during her confirmation as Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Her attempt to appoint Daniel Davis as Deputy DNI—responsible for overseeing all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies—was blocked after Davis was targeted in pro-Israel media outlets. Gabbard was ultimately forced to withdraw his nomination.

Davis’s cautious stance on U.S. military interventions was enough for him to be labeled “anti-Israel.” He had publicly described American support for Israel’s actions in Gaza as both a moral and strategic error. Pro-Israel circles then accused him of downplaying Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attacks and undermining U.S. support for Israel.

The Israel Lobby is also uneasy about Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Iran, pushing instead for a purely confrontational approach. They fear that Trump may be influenced by isolationist or realist voices like the Conservative Realists and Prioritizers.

Adding to those concerns, Gabbard quietly appointed Dr. William Ruger—who shares Davis’s views—as Deputy Director for Mission Integration, a role that doesn’t require Senate confirmation. Ruger had previously been Trump’s pick for Ambassador to Afghanistan in 2020, though his nomination was derailed in the Senate. His current position, which gives him access to the President’s Daily Brief, is now a source of deep anxiety among pro-Israel actors in Washington. Ruger is also a lifetime member of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Colby remains one of the most prominent advocates of American Prioritization, while both Davis and Ruger are affiliated with the think tank Defense Priorities, which promotes reducing U.S. military commitments in the Middle East. Another figure from this camp, military analyst Michael DiMino, was recently appointed as Pentagon advisor on Middle East policy.

Defense Priorities argues for a narrow definition of U.S. national security interests—one that challenges the foundations of the Israel-centered Middle East strategy. The organization’s Middle East Program Director, Rosemary Kelanic, has publicly called for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria, arguing that the deployment exposes the U.S. to high risks for minimal strategic gain.

The growing rift over foreign policy within the Trump administration points to deeper fractures inside the Republican camp. Trump’s evolving position on Iran—and the factions battling to shape it—will be key to understanding where this internal conflict is headed.