By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Once proponents of “America First” isolationism, MAGA influencers are now supporting potential military action in Iran, revealing a shift away from their prior anti-war stance. This is likely due to the group’s prioritization of fealty to Donald Trump, as demonstrated by the actions of prominent influencer Laura Loomer. Loomer’s influence within the administration is exemplified by her direct access to Trump and ability to influence personnel decisions, even going so far as to provide a list of names to the president resulting in firings. While her influence may be waning, Loomer continues to maintain strong ties to Trump, and her primary focus remains on maintaining his support, even if it means supporting actions that contradict prior stated principles.
Read the original article here
Laura Loomer’s outsized influence on Donald Trump is, frankly, a deeply unsettling prospect. This isn’t just about a political disagreement or a difference in ideology; it’s about the potential for a figure with extreme views, a history of inflammatory rhetoric, and, as some allege, a penchant for making deeply disturbing statements, to hold significant sway over national security decisions. The reports suggest she’s not just offering casual advice; she’s actively involved, pushing for ideological purges and instilling fear within the very professionals tasked with protecting the country. That’s a far cry from a simple policy advisor; it sounds more like a de facto national security advisor, operating outside the established channels and norms.
The core of the concern stems from her reported direct access to Trump and her willingness to voice extreme opinions. The comments raise the unsettling possibility of someone who allegedly advocated for the genocide of a specific demographic having the president’s ear on matters of national security. Such extreme views aren’t just offensive; they raise serious questions about judgment, temperament, and the ability to approach complex issues with the necessary nuance and understanding. The idea that someone holding such views could influence decisions related to national security is, to put it mildly, concerning.
Of course, there are those who might argue that Loomer’s influence is overstated, that she’s merely taking credit for initiatives already planned by Trump. However, Trump himself seems to take her seriously, which suggests a different reality. This is where the potential danger lies. It’s not just about Loomer’s individual opinions, but the validation she receives from the former president. This validation gives her a platform and amplifies her voice, allowing her to reach an audience that might otherwise dismiss her pronouncements.
The nature of their relationship is another point of discussion. The way some people have described it is highly charged and reflects a sense of disgust. Whether her influence stems from a professional advisory role or a more personal connection is less important than the effect it has. The focus should be on the kind of impact she can have on the country. What matters is the potential for this to impact policy, strategy, and the overall tone of the administration’s approach to national security.
It’s worth noting that the dynamics of influence in the Trump orbit are often fluid and unpredictable. Those who are “in” one day can be “out” the next. This makes it difficult to assess the long-term implications of Loomer’s involvement. Will her influence endure? Will she eventually fall out of favor, like so many others before her? The answers to these questions are important. However, the fact that her views are being considered at all should be a source of worry.
The very idea of a president taking advice from someone with such controversial views is a problem. This isn’t about political correctness or silencing dissenting voices; it’s about the potential for a person with a history of extremism to influence critical decisions. The comments reflect a sense of disbelief that such a person could wield this kind of power, particularly given the serious nature of the issues at stake.
And finally, the ugliness of the situation is also a talking point. Some of the commentators remark on her physical appearance. Although it is important to refrain from personal attacks and insults, the comments’ focus should be on the nature of her opinions, not her appearance, and the impact she may have on national security policy. The emphasis should be on the substance of her views and the implications of her influence.