Aletho News

Two Primary Elections for the Soul of ‘America First’

By Alan Mosley | The Libertarian Institute | March 27, 2026

Political slogans are cheap. Governing is not. “America First” is not a bumper-sticker philosophy. It is a testable claim about priorities: How much debt will we pile up, how many wars will we drift into, and how often will elected officials treat Congress as a ceremonial prop rather than a constitutional branch.

Midterm elections are where slogans go to trial. Primaries, especially, are where interests that cannot reliably win a general election try to win the nomination. They do it with money, with media saturation, and with the oldest trick in politics: framing obedience as unity.

This year, two Republican races show the fork in the road. In northern Kentucky, Rep. Thomas Massie is fighting a primary that has become a national vendetta project. In South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham is seeking a fifth term while publicly linking his political identity to a foreign-policy crusade, and treating dissent at home as a moral failing.

If Massie survives and Graham falls, it signals that Republican voters still have room for independence, constitutional friction, and skepticism toward overseas commitments. If Massie loses and Graham wins, it signals the reverse: the slogan becomes a mascot for power, not a restraint on it.

Thomas Massie’s case is straightforward: he acts like Congress matters.

That is not a rhetorical compliment. It is a job description. Legislators are not hired to be studio analysts for executive decision-making after the fact. They are elected to vote, to demand records, and to treat spending as something more than a press release. Above all, they are meant to represent the voters of their district.

Massie has built a voting record that major conservative scorekeepers rate highly. Conservative Review’s Liberty Score gives Massie a 96% A-rating for his consistent conservative record. Club for Growth rates him at 92 for 2024 and 93 lifetime, and labels him a “Defender of Economic Freedom.” These scorecards are not holy writ, but they are a consistent signal: Massie votes against the spending reflex that has turned the federal government into a debt machine.

Recent actions match that pattern. Federal records show Massie raised about $2.45 million in 2025, with roughly $840,000 coming in unitemized contributions, the classic signature of small-dollar fundraising rather than a donor class writing checks in neat, report-friendly chunks. He also voted against President Donald Trump’s marquee tax-and-spending package, a bill that passed the House by a single vote, 215–214.

Then there is the achievement that infuriates people who prefer secrecy to law. Massie used a discharge petition process to force a House vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which passed 427–1. He and Senate partners later pressed the Justice Department to brief lawmakers on implementation of that law. In plain English, he pushed Congress to demand documents from the executive branch. That is not radical. That is what should come standard for any elected official: constitutional oversight.

Massie’s opponent is Ed Gallrein, a Trump-endorsed challenger who leans into being the president’s chosen foil for Massie and says he is fighting for “the America First agenda.”

The Trump factor is not ambiguous. Reuters reported that Trump endorsed Gallrein as Massie continued pressing for release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein, and as Massie criticized the administration’s handling of that issue. CBS reported Trump has crusaded against Massie and predicted he would be remembered as the “WORST Republican Congressman” in history.

But the most important part of the Gallrein candidacy is not biography. It is the machinery behind him.

By March 11, outside groups had already spent more than $5 million aiming to unseat Massie in the May primary. A super PAC linked to the Republican Jewish Coalition directed more than $2.8 million into the contest since late February, with the group “MAGA KY” spending around $2.7 million this cycle. Those numbers matter because they establish what this contest is: a safe-seat nomination being nationalized by outside spenders.

What is the glue holding this coalition together? Foreign policy, especially Israel-related aid and posture.

Much like the antiwar congressional hero Dr. Ron Paul before him, Massie has taken lonely stands, including voting against funding tied to Israel’s Iron Dome system. That is not a minor detail. It explains why “America First” branding is being used to sell a campaign that is bankrolled by groups whose defining priority is unwavering support for Israel-focused policy.

Long before the current burst of spending, reporting showed that pro-Israel megadonors were flowing money toward the anti-Massie effort. Donors backing Israel were funneling money to denounce Massie with ad buys in his district, and identified major donors associated with that effort. Senior Republicans expected the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to target Massie ahead of the 2026 primary, as they had done the same in prior spending runs against him.

The result is a familiar Washington pattern where a member votes against the foreign-policy consensus, and the donor class tries to end his career in a low-turnout election where ads can substitute for local affection.

A movement that cannot tolerate this kind of internal dissent is not a movement. It is a hierarchy.

Where Massie’s story is conflict with the foreign-policy consensus, Lindsey Graham’s story is partnership with it.

Graham filed for reelection in March with a campaign operation that looks financially impregnable. Federal Election Commission data show $19.6 million in total receipts through the end of 2025 and $13.4 million cash on hand. In a state where incumbency already carries heavy weight, that kind of bankroll makes a primary challenger’s job close to impossible.

But money is not the core issue. The issue is what Graham says he is for.

In an Associated Press report from March 16, 2026, Graham described the war posture toward Iran with blunt certainty: “We’re crushing them.” Graham was also quoted making an Israel-centered argument in which he said Iran would “kill all the Jews, and we’re next,” and then added that he would put his efforts to ensure the military has what it needs to win “ahead of anybody in the United States Senate.” That is not a senator describing prudence. That is a senator describing priority.

The rhetorical line that detonated online came from cable news. In remarks reported by Newsweek, Graham said, “I’m not with you, I’m with Israel,” and pledged to be with Israel “to our dying day.” In the same reported segment, he said he was going back to South Carolina to ask people to “send their sons and daughters into the Mid East.”

When a senator tells his own state, in effect, that the dissenters are beneath contempt, and the sacrifice is owed, he is not practicing representation. He is brazenly announcing to the world that his true constituency lies in a foreign nation.

That posture is consistent with Graham’s official communications. On his Senate website in January 2026, Graham praised Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “duo” for the security and prosperity of both countries, described enhanced weapons cooperation with Israel as a potential “21st century ‘Manhattan Project,’” and insisted “failure is not an option.” That is language designed for permanent emergency, not constitutional restraint.

Even AP’s reporting framed Graham as having “everything he could ever want,” including Trump’s ear and the war he has long advocated, while critics compared his posture to a child on Christmas morning. His energy for more war would make even the late John McCain blush.

None of this requires conspiracy theories. American campaign-finance law makes the incentives plain.

Now place AIPAC and allied pro-Israel groups into that structure. FEC data show AIPAC has raised $34.3 million in receipts from January 1, 2025, through February 28, 2026, and disbursed $32.3 million in that period, including over $30.5 million in contributions to other committees. That is not marginal money. It is an industrial operation.

Major outlets have documented how Israel-related outside spending has surged in the 2026 cycle, including efforts in key primaries where advertising often avoids overt mention of Israel while targeting candidates critical of Israel policy. The Washington Post described AIPAC’s role in super PAC spending this cycle and the use of affiliated committees with benign names. When accounting for other associated organizations, upwards of $200 million has been spent on 361 congressional candidates who pledge to support a pro-Israel agenda.

Against that backdrop, the contrast between Massie and Graham becomes obvious.

Massie is punished for crossing the line against an imperial presidency. Graham is rewarded for enforcing it, in public, with contempt for “isolationists,” and with calls for deeper military involvement.

This is why the “America First” label is now contested terrain. A slogan that can be used to sell both constitutional restraint and open-ended war is not a philosophy. It is a marketing asset, and marketing assets are purchased.

Massie’s primary is not simply a question of whether he will hold a House seat. His district is reliably Republican and not expected to be competitive in the general election. The real decision is whether a Republican electorate will allow an independent lawmaker to keep office when national money and presidential ego demand submission.

Graham’s race is not simply a question of whether he will win reelection. It is whether South Carolina Republicans will ratify a posture that treats foreign conflict as a defining purpose, and treats constituents as a manpower pool, rather than citizens with rights and limits on what government may demand.

If “America First” means anything beyond applause, it means the country is not obligated to bankrupt itself, or bleed itself, to prove its virtue to donors, allies, or television audiences. It means wars are debated and authorized by Congress, and that military force is not a lifestyle. It means elected officials remember that “ally” is not a synonym for “master,” and that patriotism is not measured by willingness to sign blank checks.

That is why these two primaries matter as a pair. One man is being targeted for saying no. The other is being rewarded for never saying no, and for mocking those who do.

A party can choose restraint, or it can choose appetite. It cannot choose both and keep its soul intact.

March 27, 2026 - Posted by aletho | Militarism, Wars for Israel | AIPAC, Israel, Middle East, United States, Zionism