When candidate Donald Trump promised mass deportations on the 2024 campaign trail, it was hard to imagine exactly what that might turn into. 

Though he boasted about implementing the “largest domestic deportation operation” in history, you could be forgiven for believing he meant something more limited — a “sequential” approach (as JD Vance suggested), starting with recent arrivals, “violent criminals,” and suspected gang members. 

That, at least, seemed to be what a lot of voters who trusted him on this topic imagined — including many immigrant-heavy communities who voted Republican in historic numbers, and were also concerned about the sometimes chaotic flow of asylum seekers into the country. 

Pollsters were quick to note that, though many of these deportation proposals were quite popular with the average American, support varied dramatically depending on the details. Targeted ICE arrests of convicted felons and those who arrived in the United States during the Biden presidency polled significantly better than separating mixed-status families, carrying out arrests at or near churches and schools, and deporting longtime residents — who might be your neighbors or friends.

Instead, American cities were occupied by federal law enforcement agencies; the National Guard was deployed to quell protests; unidentified and masked agents strolled through neighborhoods, chased suspects into stores, and arrested immigrants at courthouses; protesters, politicians, and journalists were arrested or injured; people with pending asylum cases were seized and deported to a notorious foreign maximum-security prison; and two American citizens were shot and killed. 

Much of the Department of Homeland Security remained shut down or operated without pay as Democrats demanded new limits attached to any funding this month. In response, Trump deployed ICE to airports — to help beleaguered TSA agents and even rehabilitate their image, he says, but also implicitly to pressure an opposition party that has come to see them as the president’s personal army and associate them with repression. “That’ll drive the Democrats crazy,” US Rep. James Comer (R-KY) said on Fox Business News recently. 

A year into this deportation program, it’s safe to say that the joint work of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, US Border Patrol, and other federal agencies has reshaped American life, from coast to coast, in both dramatic and more quiet ways. It has touched all kinds of ethnic communities — Somalis in Minnesota, Haitians in Ohio, Arabs in Michigan — and has had a particular impact on the nation’s largest cohort of recent immigrants, those from Latin America.

A new kind of civically conscious activist has risen in places that experienced ICE surges or are continuing to see enforcement actions. Local economies were devastated by deportation efforts, and are still struggling to recover. And fear, suspicion — and, in some cases, paranoia — have remade the social fabric of communities touched by ICE.

But in conversations with affected people across the country, there’s also a sense of hope — and a sense that the Trump administration is realizing how far it has gone, and may be attempting to tone down or change how it pursues its immigration goals. 

ICE created a new kind of citizen-activist — the case of Charlotte

When rumors began circulating last year that ICE was planning a surge of agents to the Charlotte, North Carolina, area, locals were alarmed and looking for something to do.

“I was never really an activist, but the stuff that I was seeing, I just didn’t like,” Jonathan Pierce, a drugstore employee in Hickory, North Carolina, told me. “I didn’t like how Trump talked about immigrants and I was seeing how the immigration stuff was affecting people that I work with, who are my friends, who have been active in church.”

Fortunately, for Pierce, he had options. Concerned citizens had an easy entry point into local activism and a clear blueprint for action that had been prepared months in advance and was being tested and updated in cities around the country.

In November, Homeland Security officially announced Operation “Charlotte’s Web.” Soon, unmarked vans and masked federal agents patrolled the city and its suburbs. They would end up carrying out raids, arresting and detaining hundreds, and sparking fear in the region’s primarily Hispanic immigrant communities. But locals were already organizing and responding.

It started at the grassroots level, with support from religious leaders. Immigrant rights groups and legal aid organizations were already in contact with pastors, priests, and preachers in the region to iron out ways they could support immigrant neighbors. Congregants at the First United Methodist church in Taylorsville, North Carolina — Pierce among them — had already begun attending trainings on how to respond. 

The original plan was to teach volunteers how they could help vulnerable neighbors get to and from churches and schools, the Rev. Joel Simpson, a First United Methodist pastor, told me. As they watched ICE tactics grow more aggressive in other cities where they had launched major operations, “those trainings shifted from what we had originally planned once we realized this could get much more violent and intense.” 

Working with groups like Siembra NC and the Carolina Migrant Network, churches began to host more trainings and activate neighbors to sign up to monitor ICE operations. They learned de-escalation tactics, how to communicate via whistles, and how to document interactions between ICE agents and detained people. They refreshed their frightened neighbors on what their rights were, shared how to get legal assistance, and how to be aware of potential danger.

In all, more than 2,000 people were trained and organized during that first week of ICE operations in the area, Simpson told me.

The defining image of resistance during Trump’s first term was the mass protest: The Women’s March at its start, the March for Our Lives in the middle, and finally Black Lives Matter protests at the end. In his second term, it has become more about individual action: Recording federal agents with a smartphone or sounding a car horn to alert a street to their presence.

The Minneapolis uprising that forced ICE to pull out in January — and eventually led to the firing of DHS secretary Kristi Noem — confirmed the ascendance of a new type of activist movement that had already established itself around the country: Small, nimble, local, and constantly adopting new tactics to protect neighbors from harassment, detention, or deportation.

“It’s churches and neighborhoods and grassroots community organizational networks that are already existing that mobilized to help immigrant families first and foremost,” Theda Skocpol, an expert on political organizing in the US, told me in January. 

While Minneapolis was the culmination of these forms of networking, elements of this activism preceded it in places like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, DC, all following similar blueprints.

TheTrump administration sees it differently: Officials have argued that these protests and community organizing tactics are impeding normal enforcement operations — particularly deporting criminals — and that participants have endangered officers with disruptive behavior. Earlier this year, Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act and use federal troops to quash protests.

Pierce’s life feels a lot different now than a year ago. He’s participated in those November trainings; he’s joined protests in both Raleigh and in Washington, DC, and he now cares about more than just immigration. 

Though he’s been limited by his work schedule — child care responsibilities as a single parent — and weather, he’s tried to remain active, trying to convince neighbors in Hickory to care about ICE and other economic concerns ahead of the 2026 midterms: organizing letter-writing campaigns to local and state representatives, and talking with neighbors about the future of SNAP benefits, health insurance, and affordability. 

Pierce is an example of what another preacher told me has changed in the Charlotte area: of politically agnostic or sympathetic neighbors being convinced to practice what they believe.

“I knew that there were people in Charlotte that cared for the immigrant community, but it wasn’t until Border Patrol was in Charlotte that I saw the action that came attached to that,” Erika Reynoso, a Pentecostal preacher in Gastonia, a neighboring suburb, told me. “It gave them a chance to take action as opposed to just having an ideology.”

Reynoso knew plenty of people who were detained or racially profiled during the Charlotte surge. She herself feared what might happen to her as ICE behaved more aggressively. Though she began to participate in ICE watches and mutual aid groups early in November, once she heard reports of Latino citizens being detained and questioned, she pulled back.

“I went to one of the sightings and thankfully there was already a white male verifier there, and I asked him, ‘Hey, are you here to verify?’ And he said, ‘Yes, you should leave immediately,’” she said. “I knew that in that moment there was something terrible happening in that neighborhood and he was protecting me.” 

Instead, she shifted her activism toward more quiet forms of mutual aid, of educating neighbors, and preaching about social justice at her church. And though ICE’s heavy presence is gone now, those memories and that fear still linger.

But these communities have been changed for the better, too, Reynoso said. The training has stuck with them, and so has the confidence that it can make a difference in practice.

“They know what it takes,” she said. “So if Border Patrol shows up again, we’re ready.”

Local economies still feel under siege — the case of Chicago

Anchored by taquerias, grocery stores, boutique shops, and bakeries on 26th Street southwest of downtown Chicago, Little Village is known as the “Mexico of the Midwest.”

It’s renowned for being the economic engine of Chicago’s Latino community — city officials told me that along with the Magnificent Mile downtown, Little Village is among the top tax-revenue-generating stretches of Chicago. 

And it’s not just the locals driving commerce: Little Village, and specifically the 26th Street corridor, “is a tourist destination for other Latinos in the United States,” Jennifer Aguilar, the executive director of the local chamber of commerce, told me. “We see a lot of visitors from the Midwest and East Coast that come to buy things that they can’t find in the states that they live in, like food, quinceañera dresses or ingredients that they need to cook traditional dishes. And since a lot of them can’t go to Mexico, this is the next big best thing.”

Then the immigration authorities arrived. 

When Greg Bovino, the former Border Patrol commander-at-large, came to town, residents, leaders, and business owners knew to expect disruption. They just didn’t expect how bad things would get, how hard the economic hit would be, and how long it would take to recover.

Immediately, the midwestern Latino visitors who made the trek by car to drive under the corridor’s iconic welcome arch were too afraid to come in “because they heard that ICE was targeting Little Village,” Aguilar said.

News coverage at the time showed scenes of a ghost town in Little Village, of canceled Mexican Independence Day celebrations in downtown, of ICE targets being chased into shops and restaurants, of seemingly random traffic stops, and of protests prompting armored vehicles and federal agents to deploy tear gas — including at least three times in Little Village.

The effect was immediate. From September to late October, when ICE was most active in Chicago, business owners in Little Village were reporting 50 percent to 60 percent drops in sales compared to the previous year, according to the local alderperson, Michael D. Rodriguez. Some shops struggled to make a single sale in a week, while others temporarily closed their doors.

Wherever ICE and CBP officers have surged, a trail of economic devastation has often followed. Local businesses in multiple cities have complained of foot traffic shutting down, frightened employees staying home, and vendors scared off streets. 

Nationally, these enforcement operations have remade the economy. The flow of immigrants into the United States — both documented and undocumented — has turned net negative for the first time in 50 years, according to a Brookings Institution report, with more people now exiting the country overall. The report estimated the change could result in a $60 billion to $110 billion drop in consumer spending between 2025 and 2026, and further worsen prices because of higher labor and production costs, particularly in agriculture, construction, and manufacturing. 

While the White House has touted every migrant worker removed as a potential job opening for a native-born one, hiring has slowed nationally over the same period. The administration has also made some concessions to immigrant-heavy industries, particularly agriculture, by discouraging raids. 

But these big-picture statistics can obscure the very real way these economic hits have damaged American communities. And perhaps no place is a better example of this pattern than Little Village.

When trying to describe the economic pain caused over these weeks, the Chicagoans I spoke to tended to come back to a chilling comparison: the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The last time they had felt a shock like this had been during the peak of the coronavirus shutdowns. But unlike in 2020, there were no equivalent grant programs or federally backed loans, like the Paycheck Protection Program, to help keep businesses and employees afloat.

“At least people were getting paid; you had essential workers, and I never stopped working,” Christina Gonzalez, the co-owner of the Los Comales taqueria and catering group, told me. “But we were recovering from 2020 and this [with tariffs] hit us like a one-two punch.”

When ICE and CBP arrived, businesses were already struggling with higher costs as a result of tariffs, and dealing with financial hits from some enforcement actions in the city in the first half of the year. Shop owners had to furlough or lay off employees; others couldn’t convince workers to commute to the area, for fear of being detained. This all created a cycle: Lost wages meant less purchasing power, which meant lower sales for these small businesses.

In response, city and local officials have tried their best to take stock of what was happening and track the lingering fallout. Since October, local, state, and federal representatives have met with business owners, collected testimony, connected businesses with small grant funds, and promoted campaigns to convince people of means — often wealthier, white, or citizens — to visit Little Village and other primarily Mexican American neighborhoods to shop and spend.

Still, the impacts have lingered. Chicago City Clerk Anna Valencia, whose office started the “Shopping in Solidarity” initiative to promote visits and investment from those outside Little Village, said there’s only so much she and local communities can do without more state and city support. She’s called for the creation of a joint public-private relief fund to help with small business recovery and investment efforts in 2026. And she’s preparing for more bad news in April across the city.

“When the tax returns are filed, you’ll be able to actually see the real numbers,” she said. “But we know that it’s already going to be devastating just by hearing the stories and seeing it with our own eyes — the ghost towns of a lot of our neighborhoods.”

The social fabric has been changed — everywhere

All these months later, residents across the country, particularly those in immigrant or diaspora communities, continue to describe a kind of “survival mode” — a feeling that extends beyond economic pain. 

It’s a sense of wariness that sometimes borders on paranoia, that ICE will return or is hanging around the corner. And it lingers even as residents prepare for better weather and more time spent together outdoors — a footprint still left on residents’ souls as they navigate public life across the country. 

The stories of Latino residents in the greater Phoenix area gave me another window into this reality, in addition to stories from Charlotte and Chicago. Immigrants, mixed-status families, citizens, and activists in Maricopa County have a long history with immigration politics, deportations, and the inevitable shearing of the social fabric that comes with it.

This part of the country was the focal point of enforcement in the pre-Trump years, when the battle over immigration and what to do about those who had been living in the US for years was most acrimonious. Championed by hardline anti-illegal immigration officials like Gov. Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, state law SB 1070 essentially deputized local law enforcement to enforce immigration law: requiring police to check immigration status during stops if they suspected someone might be undocumented. It made a lack of documentation a state crime, and empowered Arpaio, “America’s toughest sheriff,” to continue an aggressive crackdown on undocumented immigrants in the county that sparked accusations of racial profiling and mental and emotional distress to brown people in the region.

The law was largely blocked in court after years of long legal battles. But that memory — and the activism and organizing that sprang up in response by primarily Mexican Americans in the area — still remains.

Though Phoenix hasn’t seen the same kind of mass deployments that Chicago, Charlotte, or Minneapolis have faced, the area has experienced similar kinds of quiet enforcement, targeted raids, and rumor-mill sightings of federal agents across the area, as in those other cities.

“Our community is thinking twice when they open their doors, when they leave their homes,” César Fierros, an organizer and spokesperson for the immigrant rights group Living United for Change in Arizona, told me. “It’s this thing in the back of your head: What if you get stopped because of the color of your skin? or they inquire about your citizenship because of the color of your skin.“ It’s a fear, Fierros said, “even among citizens and people that have the proper documentation to be in the country,” of having to encounter a federal officer, of being racially profiled, of being harassed — because community members feel like it’s happened before.

Fierros told me that he’s had to have conversations with his family similar to the ones his organization is having with community members: of carrying a REAL ID, a passport, or a permanent residency card at all times and making plans if a family member without documentation is detained.

“My mom’s a school bus driver. She has an accent because English is not her primary language and she’s very proud of being an American. But at the same time, she’s fearful of potentially being racially profiled by ICE or by a federal agent or by law enforcement,” Fierros told me. So his mother carries her passport with her, something that she has never done before.

It’s not just Fierros’s community that has this fear or has changed their behavior like this. I heard similar stories from each of the people I spoke to for this story. Driven by news reports that not only undocumented immigrants have been detained or targeted for deportation, but also people in legal asylum proceedings, refugees, green card holders, students, and US citizens, their personal safety has never felt more precarious.

This uneasiness has registered in national polling as well. A Pew Research Center survey published in November analyzing the mood and feeling of Latinos living in the US found a consistent shift in how they are changing their behavior as a result of Trump’s second-term enforcement agenda. Some one in five Hispanic adults told pollsters they changed their daily activities out of fear they’ll be asked to “prove their legal status.” One in 10 say they carry a document to prove citizenship or legal status now, more often than they used to do.

And then there are more difficult conversations, about what a family will have to do in the case that someone is detained. 

Yolanda Landeros, a 56-year-old resident of Buckeye, a Phoenix suburb, told me that in addition to carrying a REAL ID and avoiding spending too much time outdoors, she’s had to develop different plans with her extended family in the Southwest and Iowa about what to do if ICE comes knocking or detains a member — memorizing phone numbers to alert family or attorneys, knowing not to open doors, and asking for warrants. 

She’s most worried about an undocumented cousin living in Iowa, who deals with chronic health issues and requires dialysis treatment. 

“If he gets detained, he could be there for days, weeks, or months. He can’t do that. He won’t survive,” Landeros told me.

So they developed a Plan A, B, and C:

• Plan A: He asks for an immediate deportation, and signs whatever paperwork he’s asked to sign. “We have family in Mexico ready for him, to pick him up,” she said. 
• Plan B: They hire an immigration attorney to try to fight a lengthy detention. But they’re expensive, and live in different states. “Here in Arizona, I know I can contact someone who can offer pro-bono help,” she said. “But in Iowa, I don’t know anybody.”
• Which leaves Plan C: funeral arrangements. “But funeral arrangements are super expensive, and we’ve already had several deaths in our family,” she said. 

The stories of changed social and family life around the country reminded me of what my colleague Anna North recently dubbed the “ICE pandemic” — the sense that even beyond the lasting fear and economic damage that ICE surges created, there is also lingering damage to community trust and willingness to participate in social life. Kids have been kept home from school or educated remotely; churchgoers skipped services or were issued dispensations to forgive a missed Mass; scared workers stayed home and refused to expose themselves to potential stops; sick kids or adults in need of medical care opted to delay or postpone checkups for fear of ICE exposure.

And there’s the sadness that comes with knowing people who have opted to uproot their lives preemptively, retire early, or self-deport.

“They want to wear people down, and it has worked in some instances,” Aguilar, the Chicago small business activist, told me. “Some business owners have shared with me stories of regular clients that they’ve had for years that decided to self-deport because they’re like, Well, I’d rather take my stuff with me. I’d rather go home in a dignified way than end up in one of these camps and God knows where I’ll end up and if my family’s going to be able to reach me.”

Gonzales, of Los Comales in Chicago, recalled how her son asked her if he should be carrying his passport or ID around with him in order to prove his citizenship. 

“I said, ‘No, fuck ’em.’ Somebody needs to vet me? I’m not living in a Kafka-esque Nazi government,” she said. “You can find me with my fingerprints or you can figure out who I am based on the information I give you from my mouth. But I should not have to show you my goddamn ID to walk down the street.”

Ratings of Trump’s immigration policy have been solidly negative for months now among voters, shifting most dramatically among Latinos, Latino Republicans, and Trump 2024 voters. A Fox News poll in March found his overall approval at 28 percent with Hispanic respondents, with 72 percent disapproving. Democrats have also made gains in elections with Hispanic communities that swung right in 2024. Trump has reportedly told his inner circle that he fears his early plans for “mass deportation” have gone too far for voters.

For now, residents in these communities remain in a bit of a holding pattern. They all expect that ICE or CBP will return at some point, particularly after the outrage and attention that the Minneapolis operations sparked dies down. But they also feel some optimism about how their communities and neighbors will respond in the future. In each of my conversations, a silver lining was repeated: that even though there is more suspicion and fear now, there are new bonds that have been forged among neighbors, in faith communities, and among Latinos themselves, specifically.

“Whatever divisions there may have been across the Latino community with the us versus them, the documented versus the undocumented, the criminals versus the noncriminals…there’s a greater sense of unity now and a willingness to help,” Reynoso, the Pentecostal pastor in North Carolina, told me. “We must exercise grace and compassion with each other in these uncertain times.”

Nearly a month into the joint US-Israeli war on Iran, there’s a good chance you’ve heard something about the apparent civil war on the right over the conflict. Though polling shows steady support for President Donald Trump from his MAGA base, the war has been tearing apart the MAGAsphere, pitting disenchanted MAGA influencers against fervent pro-Trump and pro-Israel loyalists.

The seeds of this split were apparent even before the US and Israel launched their first strikes, when Tucker Carlson, of the America First, Israel-skeptical, anti-interventionist wing of the party, interviewed Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel and fervent pro-Israel activist, on Carlson’s podcast last month. Huckabee argued that, as a Christian Zionist, he believed the Bible showed that God had promised not just Israel, but large portions of the Middle East, to the Jewish people. Carlson argued it wasn’t a valid basis for a modern state, and accused Israel of dragging the US into war with Iran.

As their conversation suggested, there’s a religious dimension to this emerging rift on the right: 

Huckabee is an evangelical Christian, a group that is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Carlson, like many of the biggest critics of both the US relationship with Israel and the Iran war, is not. 

Since their interview, this divide has exploded into public view as a political, theological, and policy argument across multiple fronts that’s drawn in everyone from likely 2028 presidential candidates, to popular influencers, to top religious leaders. The most explosive fights have centered on the relationship between conservative Catholics and the GOP’s dominant evangelical base.

How these play out will have implications not just for inter-religious understanding in the US, but for the future of the Republican Party, and by extension American politics. 

An emerging rift in the Trump political coalition

Until recently, the story of the religious right had largely been about increasing cooperation to defend traditional values in a secularizing world. This political effort created interdenominational alliances within the Republican Party: evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews found each other allied on issues like gay marriage, abortion, education, and protections for religious dissenters. In the Bush years, almost the entire GOP was united around confronting Islamic terrorism, an issue where Israel was seen as a leading ally. 

But in recent years, this relationship has come into question. Trump’s hedonistic personal style expanded the party tent to more secular voters with their own divergent interests. His criticism of the Iraq War and embrace of an “America First” message helped build up voices on the right who were openly critical of US entanglements abroad, including support for Israel. And his removal of guardrails around extremist speech on the right helped pave the way for more openly antisemitic figures, which has created new tensions within the coalition. 

All of these issues have been coming to a head in recent weeks, and the Iran war is likely to be a catalyst for even more tough discussions. 

Emblematic of this crack-up is the case of Carrie Prejean Boller, a former model and beauty pageant contestant who converted to Catholicism last year. She sat on the White House’s Religious Liberty Commission until a few weeks ago, when, she claims, she was booted for criticizing the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in Gaza, for not being supportive enough of Israel, and for defending her “deeply held” Catholic beliefs that Israel is not a unique nation that fulfills Biblical prophecies.

Prejean Boller’s ouster ended up an inciting event that blew open underlying tensions among right-wing Christian thinkers and influencers — many of whom already are critical of Israel and involved in feuds with other conservative commentators and influencers.

In an open letter to Trump, Prejean Boller argued that Trump, in advancing this war and removing her from the commission, was betraying Catholics who joined his political coalition and believed in his America First pledges. “Most Catholics who voted for you feel the exact same way. Why have you betrayed us?” she wrote.

Those anti-Israel views, which Prejean Boller shared at commission meetings and online, sparked condemnation from many familiar voices within the right: the commentator Mark Levin, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who chairs the commission, the writer Seth Dillon of the Christian satirical outlet Babylon Bee, and commentators aligned with Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire network. Many of her critics argued she had crossed the line into antisemitism, which she denied, by making comments focusing on Jews’ role in crucifying Jesus and defending Candace Owens, a popular influencer who has increasingly denigrated Jews in conspiratorial terms. 

But she also drew support from an emerging set of influential, self-described Catholic voices: controversial figures like Owens, Megyn Kelly, and antisemitic podcaster Nick Fuentes; as well as Israel-critical, conservative Catholic bloggers and writers. Carlson, who was raised Episcopalian, brought Prejean Boller onto his show to talk about her removal from the religious liberty commission.

There is a theological component to this dispute. The predominant view on the right, of evangelical Protestants like Huckabee and some nondenominational churches, is a form of “Christian Zionism” rooted in “dispensationalism”: the belief in supporting the modern state of Israel as the biblically prophesied “Israel,” and a prerequisite for the final period of human history in which Jesus Christ returns and the Rapture happens.

Carlson, Prejean Boller, and other Israel-critical MAGA Catholics and Protestant Christians do not believe this, and hold views that distinguish between the modern state of Israel and the spiritual “Israel” of the Bible. Some traditionalist and MAGA Catholics have also pushed a more radical, though historic, interpretation of Christians being the “new Israel,” of God forming a new covenant with a new chosen people that “supercedes” or replaces God’s relationship with the Jewish people from the Old Testament. 

In theological terms, this view is called “supersessionism” — and though it was the common view of Catholics up until the 20th century, it has also been blamed for contributing to antisemitism and worsening relationships between Jewish and Christian peoples. Notably, supersessionism is not the view of the modern Church. The Second Vatican Council clarified that the Church does not blame Jewish people for the death of Christ, condemned antisemitism as a sin, and settled that the Jewish people do have a unique relationship with God, separate from the Catholic Church’s role.

But there’s also a raw politics element to the fight — especially surrounding the next presidential election and which figures will lead the party after Trump. Which is how the Prejean Boller story entered political overdrive when a leading potential contender weighed in. 

The GOP’s religious fights are also a proxy war for power 

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Southern Baptist whose father is an evangelical preacher, has been picking fights for months with the emerging wing of Israel critics on the right — including Carlson — and delivering speeches warning Republican donors and leaders to step in. 

So naturally, he wanted to take a stance on the Prejean Boller dispute. In this case, he did it by sharing an essay from an anonymous MAGA influencer who goes by “Insurrection Barbie” on X. “READ every word of this. It’s the best & most comprehensive explanation of what we’re fighting,” Cruz wrote.

The author, like Cruz, complained that the new right was attacking the evangelical pro-Israel consensus. But the deeper fear it raised was “who controls the ideological and theological DNA of the Republican Party’s base.” “Insurrection Barbie” warned of a conspiracy by a small number of elite “Catholic integralists” and traditionalist Catholics to take over the party by gaining control of its institutions, undermining evangelical theology, and convincing rank-and-file Trump voters to follow along. If nothing was done, the author warned, the party’s activist base would soon become “a coalition dominated by ethnically and religiously defined Catholic and Orthodox nationalism,” with evangelicals relegated to junior status. 

Among the accused: Fuentes, Owens, MAGA icon Steve Bannon (“He controls the media infrastructure”), and Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts (a “Cowboy Catholic”). But the most important name, who he called “the wild card in this drama” was JD Vance, a conservative Catholic with close ties to the anti-Israel right who has tried to bridge the gap between the party’s warring factions. The author was still hopeful Vance might side with the pro-Israel evangelicals.

Cruz’s decision to share the post sparked immediate backlash from conservative and MAGA Catholic commentators and activists who called it an “anti-Catholic screed,” and “ugly, archaic anti-Catholic resentment” that “risks burning the Trump coalition down.” 

But it also spoke to the power battles looming over the party in the immediate post-Trump era. Cruz, Carlson, and Vance have all widely been discussed as presidential candidates in 2028 or beyond. Bannon has also been reportedly weighing a run. Another major potential contender not mentioned in the essay, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is a Catholic pro-Israel hawk with a mixed religious background.

“There’s no doubt that Ted Cruz and the author are using that article to try and subtly discredit the vice president, a notable Catholic, who Cruz probably wants to challenge for the 2028 Presidential nomination,” Gabe Guidarini, the chair of the Ohio College Republican Federation and a former president of the College Republicans of America, told me. “Cruz knows Trump’s victory over him in 2016 was driven by Catholics, and he probably holds some resentment over it.”

Guidarini was among those critical of Cruz’s post. But he also emphasized that, for now, these seem to be elite-level and online feuds not materializing on the ground as they are on social media. “You get some key online players who align a certain way based on niche perceptions of group interest,” Guidarini said. “But it bubbles to the surface sometimes in election [years].”

The specter of antisemitism, as Catholic influencers squabble

But the Republican Party isn’t the only institution grappling with this issue. These differing views over what “Israel” means in theological terms have now, in turn, sparked an internal Catholic debate, centered on how to handle rising antisemitism in the US while being critical of Israel.

Since Prejean Boller came to my attention in early February, I’ve been fascinated by her willingness to speak for all Catholics (again, she converted last year), to speak authoritatively about what the Catholic Church teaches, and, more recently, to confront leading conservative Catholic prelates for not supporting her in her fight against the White House commission, and its evangelical leaders. The Catholic Church is politically diverse, and even among its right-leaning adherents there is a wide mix of perspectives, including plenty of Catholic Republicans with strong pro-Israel views, or who support confronting Iran. 

Nor has her claim to represent Catholics writ large gone unnoticed. What has been most surprising, to me and to Catholic thinkers I’ve spoken with, is how much turmoil her spat, and some MAGA Catholics’ pushing of supersessionism, is beginning to cause within the Catholic Church.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the leadership body of the church in the US, weighed in this month, with a video message condemning antisemitism and reasserting the Church’s teachings on religious liberty. Notably, it was delivered by a leading traditionalist voice in the American clergy — the Archbishop of Portland, Oregon, Alexander Sample. His message was echoed, along with more pointed rebukes of Prejean Boller and her wing of conservative Catholics, by two other highly respected Catholic leaders online: Bishop Robert Barron and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, themselves no political progressives.

Prejean Boller, some traditionalist Catholics (unhappy with the Church’s more progressive tilt since Vatican II), and zealous young converts are forcing American church leaders to reckon with this challenge, the Catholic theologian and author Massimo Faggioli, a professor in ecclesiology at the Loyola Institute at Trinity College Dublin, told me. 

“Both those who are supporting the alliance between Trump and Israel, and those who say, ‘I’m a Catholic, and therefore I have to be against Zionism’ are [pushing] very dangerously formulated frameworks,” he told me. “These people are being really clumsy…it’s incredibly inflammatory and it ignores the incredible care with which the Catholic Church has talked about these issues so far.”

In addition to the theological debate, this conversation also touches on some painful history that may be encouraging leaders to step in more aggressively. The Church has a long and unfortunate relationship with antisemitism that took decades to repair through the help of a generation of converts beginning in the 1930s. That quest to vanquish antisemitism reached its zenith after Vatican II in 1965 with the publication of Nostra Aetate, a church document that rejected the view of Jewish people as “rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.”

Faggioli told me that, in turn, these rifts on the American right are reopening old wounds and forcing the Church to confront the ambiguity with which it has approached its relationship with modern Israel, where successive popes have called for a two-state solution, hold to an anti-war doctrine, and have pursued a middle way between dispensationalism and supersessionism, but try not to make too news. 

“There’s something new happening now. I’m terrified by the risk that this is bringing back the monster of anti-Judaism on which the Catholic Church tried very hard to liberate itself from,” Faggioli told me. “These so-called heroes that are challenging the Zionist orthodoxy of American conservatives — they might look like those who want to help the victims of certain policies in the Middle East, but at the real risk of bringing back one of the worst things that we thought we had defeated.”

What comes immediately next may depend on how this war proceeds. But in the long run, these tensions will likely escalate if the war drags out and ends up hurting the Republican coalition in midterm elections. For now, it’s unclear how much of this remains an elite intellectual debate and how much it may filter its way down to the faithful. 

But we may also only be seeing an initial preview right now of factional fights that will end up playing out in the 2028 presidential primaries, with religion and belief as a point of conflict. The field of likely contenders is religious and politically at the center of these fights.  And the pro-Israel consensus on the right looks more fragile than ever.

About six months ago, I noted an interesting divide among the right-leaning or politics-adjacent podcasters and influencers who helped get Donald Trump reelected. They were either shutting up about politics, bending over backward to justify his policies, or citing a couple of issues — ICE and the Epstein files — as red lines causing them to turn on him.

What united them all was a loss of enthusiasm for him: not really championing him the way they did when they gave him a platform during the 2024 campaign season. That’s why I was especially curious to see how this MAGA-manosphere would process yet another breach of their trust, after the joint American-Israeli attacks on Iran that took out Iran’s senior leadership this weekend. This regional conflict has already cost us three American lives, let alone the billions of dollars funding the American military presence in the region.

As someone who has been following this universe of yappers and influencers for some time, I was expecting universal outrage — ending foreign entanglements and intervention abroad, in favor of investment and economic growth at home, were central to this media ecosystem’s support of Trump and distrust of Democrats. They fully bought into the idea of “Donald the Dove,” who spent years railing against neoconservatives, Middle East involvement, and the Democratic Party’s embrace of hawkish military action since the turn of the century.

Instead, what I’ve been seeing has surprised me: disparate reactions across the alternative media ecosystem that suggest, at least at the elite level, another splintering of the Trump coalition — though not one as straightforward as the pod bros and MAGA influencers simply turning on Trump.

What’s emerged is a collection of strange bedfellows: Some anti-war MAGA influencers have turned into foreign policy hawks, some MAGA influencers are speaking out about the action, and the pod bros seem to be reserving their commentary until they can see how this unfolds and get in front of microphones.

An unexpected MAGA influencer breakup is underway

Already, plenty of media reports suggest that Trump is facing “a furious MAGA backlash,” that his base is revolting, and that “MAGA stalwarts” are turning on him over the Iran attacks. The early polling, at least, indicates that these attacks are inspiring some caution among everyday Trump supporters. But at the elite and influencer level, the picture is a little more muddled.

Yes, Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene are condemning this military action and arguing that it’s another blatant betrayal of “America First” principles by the president. But that’s not new — they’ve been sounding that beat for the last four months at least, since both began to criticize not just the Trump administration, but Trump himself more forcefully around his foreign policy and his refusal to be transparent about the Epstein files. 

Joining them this time around are an interesting collection of MAGA and manosphere figures: Andrew Tate, the misogynistic influencer who was accused of sex trafficking in Romania, also denounced the actions, tweeting, “NOBODY WANTS THIS WAR.” Popular pro-Trump Twitter accounts, like the Hodge Twins, are highlighting Israel’s role in getting America involved, saying, they “don’t care if we lose all our followers over this war we won’t stay quiet about Americans getting sent to die for Israel.”

More radical figures, such as Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes, are condemning the strikes as well. Charlie Kirk Show producer Blake Neff is calling this “extremely depressing” and a reason for “never voting in a national election again.”

And even Erik Prince, the mercenary army founder, was skeptical of the attacks while debriefing with Steve Bannon and Pizzagate conspiracist Jack Posobiec. Posobiec himself was urging caution over the weekend, telling Politico that “There is a MAGA generational divide on this. Older voters support it, younger voters do not… Gen Z MAGA wants arrests on Epstein, deportations, and economic relief, not more war.” 

And there’s still the politics-adjacent comedians and podcasters to come, who are likely to weigh in more forcefully starting Monday when they publish their episodes — and who seem primed to rail against this. The comedian Tim Dillon, for example, spent the latter half of his last show before the weekend priming his audience for a war with Iran, sounding depressed and resigned.

“This whole thing is about remaking the Middle East,” he said. “America does not want this war. … We don’t need a war. Unless all those white-collar consultants join the military and go fight and die in Iran, we don’t need a fucking war in the Middle East. So we can either do something fake, which I’m for, a pretend show of force, but … it feels like we’re too far down the line. There’s a little bit of war fever in Washington, and that it’s gripped people, and that there’s an inertia that’s moving us forward towards this conflict, no matter what we do. And that once we’re on a path like this, it’s very hard to completely reverse course.”

Comedians like Andrew Schulz and Theo Von have not weighed in; they’re anti-interventionist for the most part and have railed against the last few Trump-led foreign strikes against Iran and in Venezuela. Podcasters Shawn Ryan, Lex Fridman, and Joe Rogan have not commented yet either, but given their past comments, their reactions will probably be lukewarm at best; Ryan has turned sharply on Trump and Republicans over their opposition to the release of the Epstein files, while Rogan has also soured on Trump’s immigration enforcement actions. 

And their audiences, too, will probably be demanding analysis. Already, some of the comments on Fridman’s latest episode bemoan his silence on “current events” (the episode, which Fridman promoted on Saturday, was an interview with a musician).

But Trump still counts support among another part of this alternative media ecosystem: during an emergency show on Saturday, podcaster Patrick Bet-David, himself Iranian-born, tried to walk a careful line between feeling emotional and hopeful about a “free Iran,” and cautious about endorsing full-scale war. 

“For Americans that are saying, ‘Pat, but we don’t want to go to war,’ I get that as well,” he said. “It’s not an easy thing. It’s going to be nasty. It’s going to be ugly. And god-willing, it’s not going to be something that’s prolonged. For all the people that are criticizing and saying, ‘What if this thing drags out?’ Fair criticism. I’m hopeful it goes a few weeks. God-willing, less, as soon as possible to get it done. … But we have to also be realistic and realize that this may not be a popular war that a lot of people want.”

This cautious line — “I don’t want to see another Afghanistan” — will likely be replicated by other influencers as time passes. But it will also be balanced with a different sentiment Bet-David shared: “I voted for this man to be in a negotiating room, having access to the information and make the decisions based on his instinct. And I give this man a lot of credit for having the courage to do what a lot of presidents couldn’t do.”

For now, there is a whole cohort of anti-war MAGA influencers who are pushing that line and staying loyal to Trump. One Democratic operative kindly assembled that list already.

But the next few days will be crucial to this limbo state in the manosphere: additional escalation, more American or civilian casualties, or domestic economic fallout will all help determine whether these divided voices close ranks as they have during previous moments of foreign entanglement in Trump 2.0, or turn more fully against Trump’s position, as they have during moments of domestic crises.