Dave Smith: “America First Means Non-Interventionism”; Republicans Debate GOP Schism

Yesterday, in a special ZeroHedge debate on What Is America First?, libertarian comedian Dave Smith and conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza clashed over whether the slogan implies non-intervention abroad or a more assertive, national interest-driven foreign policy. Moderated by Judge Andrew Napolitano, the exchange cut directly to the fault lines dividing the modern right into what might be coined the Carlson and Shapiro camps.

Here were the highlights for those who missed it:

“America First means non-interventionism”

Smith argued America First ought to mean “a preference for republicanism, little ‘r’, over imperialism,” citing its earliest presidential use which followed that logic. Woodrow Wilson campaigned on America First by “promising to keep us out of World War I,” before reversing course, an example of how presidents often “campaign on one thing and then do the exact opposite.”

The phrase was later used “to oppose military adventurism,” by figures like Robert Taft and by the America First Committee, which opposed U.S. entry into World War II, and by Pat Buchanan. Donald Trump picked up “the exact same theme,” pledging to “break with neoconservatism,” reject “regime change wars,” and eventually boasting of “no new wars.” 

Saying America First means “toppling the Ayatollah” or “flirting with wars of choice, and wars of aggression,” Smith said, “is nonsense.”

“We’re not gonna go fight wars to make the military industrial complex rich… we’re not gonna fight wars on behalf of Israel that are not in the interest of the United States of America.”

pic.twitter.com/NgSQaU27SA

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 15, 2026

“This is Idiocy”

D’Souza framed his rebuttal around national attachment: “This is our country and our patriotism is based on an attachment to our country.” Nations act on interests, where “this guy has a lot of oil and we could use some of that,” or “this country has rare earth minerals and we could use some of that.”

He stressed that the United States was no longer a weak republic. “We are a powerful country in the world today.” Early cautions by John Quincy Adams about not “go[ing] in search of monsters to destroy,” reflected, in his telling, the reality of a fledgling state. D’Souza compared that posture to “an infant in the playground” who avoided fights because “I’m three years old,” a position that changed “when his position of power is completely different.”

For D’Souza, this is realism: “We have ideals and interests and we live in a hostile world.” That world included actors who were “beneficial to our interests” and those who were “harmful or inimical to that.” He summarized the isolationist stance as “closing your eyes, sticking your two forefingers in your ears… this is idiocy.”

pic.twitter.com/TNOzR6ltLT

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 15, 2026

The Israel Question

When the question was posed by the Judge, D’Souza rejected the idea that the United States is subservient to Israel, arguing the power relationship ran in the opposite direction.

“It makes no sense to talk about the rabbit controlling the elephant when quite clearly the elephant controls the rabbit.” As evidence, he pointed to Iran, saying Israel would have welcomed U.S. action to “wipe out the mullahs,” but “their hand was stayed” by Trump, “a clear indication of the United States calling the shots and not Israel.”

The value of a Jewish-Christian alliance, D’Souza said, is that the LGBT community and radical Islam are forming an unholy alliance and taking over the domestic United States.

Smith argued U.S.-Israel relationship has led only to “a lot of trouble and a lot of unnecessary wars.” He mocked the “fight them over there” justification, noting that after “two plus decades fighting them over there, slaughtering them by the millions, blowing trillions of dollars,” the argument simply shifted to “look, we got to fight them over here.” 

Smith then described the pro-Israel security argument as circular. “If we support Israel, then a whole bunch of Muslims hate us because we support Israel,” he said, that hostility was then used as proof that “see, the Muslims hate us and therefore we have to keep supporting Israel.”

pic.twitter.com/nYoVcCrKGr

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) January 15, 2026

Watch the full debate on X:

https://t.co/hwDX5KTxke

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 15, 2026

Or listen on Spotify: