Trump’s Promises Versus Reality: Neoconservative Appointments in Focus
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to end “forever wars” and to prioritize an “America First” policy. Yet, recent announcement for appointments reveal his foreign policy team as deeply influenced by neoconservatives, favoring interventionist stances that contradict his promises. Trump supporters initially welcomed assurances that hawks like Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley would stay out of the administration. When Donald Trump Jr. tweeted, “Agreed 100%! I’m on it,” he reassured conservatives and libertarians eager to see a less militaristic agenda. However, Trump’s key appointments—including Elise Stefanik, Mike Waltz, and Marco Rubio—suggest the opposite, as each of these figures represents a pro-war and pro-Israel outlook.
Trump’s campaign to curb military intervention earned him significant support from conservatives who hoped for a non-interventionist policy. Trump’s earlier criticisms of the Iraq War and his denouncement of neoconservatives seemed to promise a new direction. However, Trump’s first administration saw him bring in John Bolton, a leading advocate for military action, as national security advisor. This trend has reemerged, with figures linked to interventionism and pro-Israel stances returning in this administration. As a result, Trump’s recent selections have caused frustration and disillusionment among his base, who feel let down by these appointments.
Stefanik’s UN Role Reveals Pro-Israel Focus
The appointment of Elise Stefanik as UN Ambassador showcases the administration’s alignment with interventionist, pro-Israel priorities. Stefanik, who is closely tied to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, holds staunch pro-Israel views. Daniel Larison, a commentator for Truthout, described her as “one of the most vocal supporters of the war in Gaza over the last year.” Stefanik’s support for Israel is unwavering; she views any UN criticism of Israel’s Gaza policies as “antisemitic.” Pro-Israel organizations have contributed approximately $900,000 to Stefanik’s campaigns, reinforcing her loyalty to their causes and ensuring her alignment with their goals.
Mike Waltz’s selection as National Security Advisor reflects the neoconservative tilt in Trump’s policy approach. Waltz has consistently supported interventionist policies, having previously worked under Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Responsible Statecraft’s Kelley Beaucar Vlahos noted that Waltz “spent much of his time on Capitol Hill… calling for a ‘new Monroe Doctrine’… to confront China.” Waltz’s foreign policy stance includes a willingness to use military force in Iran, with him previously advocating for attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites. In addition to his hardline stance, Waltz has received $235,000 from pro-Israel groups, aligning his interests closely with those of the neoconservative lobby.
Rubio’s Appointment: A Clear Neocon Choice
Trump’s expected choice of Marco Rubio for Secretary of State confirms his administration’s alignment with pro-Israel and interventionist agendas. Rubio has consistently supported aggressive policies on Iran, China, and the Middle East, often rejecting more diplomatic approaches. Pro-Israel donors, who have contributed over $1 million to Rubio, have backed his hawkish positions and his support for every pro-Israel measure. Rubio said, “The risk of a nuclear Iran is so great that [war with Iran] must be on the table.” Rubio’s support for illegal settlements in the West Bank further highlights his commitment to hardline policies, and his actions reflect a continuity with previous pro-intervention administrations.
Zionist Funding Behind Trump’s Foreign Policy Team
Pro-Israel financial contributions have profoundly influenced Trump’s foreign policy team, as evident in the significant support from Zionist lobbyists. High-profile donors like Sheldon and Miriam Adelson have made considerable financial contributions to pro-Trump campaigns. Miriam Adelson’s $100 million donation to a pro-Trump PAC in 2024 likely helped solidify her influence in Trump’s foreign policy decisions. Hunter DeRensis, stated, “Trump’s political campaigns have been fueled by enormous donations from… the Adelsons, a billionaire couple whose foremost policy concern has been ensuring steady financial, military, and political support for the State of Israel.” The appointment of figures aligned with Adelson’s interests suggests a strong connection between Trump’s policy choices and the financial support he has received.
These contributions have effectively connected pro-Israel organizations and individuals to Trump’s cabinet selections, ensuring that each appointee’s interests align with a pro-Israel and interventionist stance. Rubio, Stefanik, and Waltz all received substantial financial backing from pro-Israel groups, shaping their policy decisions in ways that prioritize Israel’s goals. Trump’s promises of “America First” ring hollow in the face of the overwhelming influence of these financial connections on his foreign policy team. The connections between these donations and Trump’s policy decisions have raised concerns about the true motives behind his administration’s foreign policy.
Implications of Trump’s Pro-Israel, Pro-War Policies
Trump’s cabinet choices signal a likely increase in tensions in the Middle East, with growing concerns over his administration’s foreign policy direction. Jehad Malaka, a Palestinian researcher interviewed by Al Jazeera, shared fears that “Trump’s election only means that Netanyahu will continue his plans of invading Gaza and evicting its people, but with less pressure and more ease.” Trump’s foreign policy appointments raise the likelihood of escalated conflict in Gaza, Iran, and beyond, as each appointee’s background suggests support for interventionist approaches. Many Americans, who expected Trump’s commitment to domestic issues, now question his administration’s loyalty to its campaign promises. Trump’s “America First” message appears compromised as his administration embraces the very policies he once condemned.
The contradiction between Trump’s campaign promises and his foreign policy appointments has led to frustration among his supporters. Trump’s cabinet choices resemble those of previous administrations that prioritized military involvement and interventionist policies. Appointees who have received substantial support from pro-Israel groups now shape Trump’s foreign policy, casting doubt on his administration’s commitment to American interests. These figures, driven by interventionist agendas and financial backing, indicate a significant shift from Trump’s initial anti-war stance. The direction of U.S. foreign policy under Trump’s leadership increasingly reflects a pro-Israel influence that contradicts his pledges to avoid foreign entanglements.
Trump’s Foreign Policy Betrays “America First” Supporters
Trump’s supporters, expecting a restrained foreign policy, now feel let down by the administration’s return to neoconservative influences. Trump’s decision to include figures aligned with pro-war and pro-Israel agendas contradicts his pledges to his base. Campaign contributions from the Adelsons and other Zionist supporters have clearly impacted Trump’s policy decisions, shaping a foreign policy at odds with “America First.” Potential appointees like Rubio, Stefanik, and Waltz reflect the interests of Zionist financial supporters, prioritizing interventionist policies over American needs. Trump’s foreign policy approach ultimately exposes the significant impact of Zionist donations and raises questions about the administration’s true motivations.
