Random

    Opinion

    Home Opinion

    Investigate the ‘Other Insurrection’ – BLM’s 2020 ‘Battle for Lafayette Park’ and White House

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    2
    A protester holds up a Black Lives Matter sign outside the Hennepin County Government Center.

    ANALYSIS – The incessant drumbeat of the left’s campaign to keep the Capitol Riot in the news every day for nearly two years had some of its intended effects. 

    It probably helped persuade some voters not to pull the lever for those ‘dangerous’ MAGA Republicans during the midterm elections.

    It also may dissuade others not to vote for Trump or the GOP in 2024.

    And some of that concern may be justified.

    But the GOP and the right also failed miserably by not forcefully pushing the truth about the ‘other insurrection’ – the one against Trump and the White House by violent leftists under the BLM flag in May/June 2020.

    I was a risk advisor to foreign TV news crews during both violent riots. 

    I also strongly condemned both, writing of the Capitol rioters at the time: “…many were goons and criminals, and yes, ‘terrorists.’ No better than Antifa or BLM, or the #NotMyPresident rioters who disrupted Trump’s Inaugural four years ago.”

    I added of the violent Capitol rioters: “Whoever they were, they should be seen and treated as criminals. Arrested and prosecuted.”

    This sentiment didn’t apply to the hundreds who simply entered the Capitol non-violently, but that’s another issue altogether.

    Unfortunately, the left, colluding with the establishment media and Democrats in Congress and the White House, only ‘remembers’ one riot and erased that other one from history.

    If they mention the violent BLM riot at the White House at all, they focus on Trump’s Bible photo op the next morning at St John’s Episcopal Church, the site across from the White House of an attempted arson the night before.

    They also forget how they aggressively attacked any attempt by Trump, and federal and local authorities, to bring order to the violence.

    I even had a Canadian TV news reporter claim to me months after the protests at the White House that they were totally peaceful. 

    She said this nonsense despite the fact that the violence was reported, albeit briefly.

    And I had to forcibly intervene to protect one of her colleagues, a cameraman who was savagely beaten by two ‘BLM’ assailants without justification, while the crew was simply changing batteries and reorganizing away from the main battle lines.

    The cameraman fortunately was wearing a helmet at my suggestion, and ‘only’ suffered a mild concussion.

    I personally witnessed hundreds of rioters almost break through the thin improvised line of U.S. Park Police and Uniformed Secret Service in the park, while DC Metropolitan Police, for political reasons, assembled on the sidelines.

    As a security expert, I was concerned that there weren’t enough police to stop the large violent mob from crashing the fence at the White House; a concern apparently shared by the Secret Service who at one point that night rushed Trump to the protected underground bunker.

    A claim Trump sadly denied.

    I also witnessed everything described by CNN below, and more.

     As CNN reported at the time on May 31, 2020:

    More than 60 US Secret Service Uniformed Division officers and special agents were injured starting Friday night through Sunday morning near the White House as protests rocked Washington, DC, following the death of George Floyd last week, according to a statement from the Secret Service.

    The officers and agents were injured when protesters threw “projectiles such as bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items,” according to the statement. “Personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched and exposed to bodily fluids.”

    CNN teams were on hand for much of the protests and witnessed protesters throwing objects at officers and pulling temporary fencing away from them. 

    Eleven Secret Service employees were transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. A secret service officer suffered a head injury after being assaulted by BLM & far-left rioters trying to storm the White House. Dozens of other Secret Service agents were injured as well.

    This was also a violent riot, or call it an insurrection, but in this case against President Trump, the Executive Branch, and the politically sacred space of the ‘People’s House.’ 

    Perhaps with GOP control of the House, we can see a real congressional investigation of this ‘other insurrection.’

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Latest ISIS Terror Leader Reportedly Killed – How Long Will Next One Last?

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    0
    Photo via Pixabay images

    ANALYSIS – A spokesman for the Islamist terror group Islamic State, or ISIS, has announced that their latest leader has been killed “in action.”

    His death has not yet been independently verified, and no one has claimed responsibility for the killing.

    Asked in Washington about Abu al-Hassan al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi‘s death, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told The Associated Press: 

    “We certainly welcome the news of the death of another ISIS leader. I don’t have any additional operational details to provide at this time.”

    Qurashi refers to the tribe of Islam’s founder, the Prophet Muhammad, from whom ISIS leaders must claim descent.

    If the latest leader’s death is true, he would be the second ISIS leader killed this year, about 10 months after the death of the previous leader killed in a U.S. raid in northwest Syria in March.

    He would also be the third leader eliminated since the founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed by U.S. forces in Idlib, Syria in 2019.

    Their deaths came after the meteoric rise of ISIS in 2013-2014 following Barack Obama’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq in December 2011.

    Obama famously called ISIS the “JV team.”

    Meanwhile, some doubt the veracity of the claim that the latest ISIS leader has been killed.

    According to the Mirror, Hassan Hassan, co-author of the book “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror,” urged caution about the news and says ISIS could have “easily” said “that person was killed and replaced with ‘Abu al-HussAIN al-Qurashi.’ Who could tell?”

    The Mirror reported:

    Writing on Twitter Mr Hassan continued: “Important to note that this is quite possibly a fake announcement.

    “Scenario 1 is that the ISIS leader was killed ‘accidentally’ during a raid or fighting without him being known to whoever killed him (the US, Iraqis, Kurds) so those did not know they killed the leader. That’d be unprecedented, but possible.

    “Also, jihadist groups have a long history of claiming leaders/commanders dead, just to get intelligence/security agencies off their back.”

    ISIS has been mostly defeated in Iraq and Syria, under relentless attacks during Trump’s administration, but sleeper cells still carry out attacks on both countries

    The ISIS threat has also been increasing recently, under Joe Biden, especially in Africa.

    Abu al-Hassan al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi was reportedly replaced by Abu al-Hussain al-Hussaini al-Qurashi as the despicable terror group’s new caliph.

    The Daily Mail reported:

    The [ISIS] spokesman did not provide details on the new leader, but said he was a ‘veteran’ jihadist and called on all groups loyal to IS to pledge their allegiance.

    Little else is known of the leader who is taking control of the beleaguered terror group whose influence over the Middle East has waned in recent years.

    Apparently, being chosen the ISIS leader, or caliph, brings with it a very short life span. 

    Let’s see how long this new leader lasts before being sent to enjoy his 72 virgins.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: Hollywood Star Blasts Covid Inc!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    Hollywood actor Woody Harrelson is facing intense criticism after his recent Saturday Night Live appearance…

    Watch Amanda break down the scandal below…

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Tucker, Elon Real Winners Of First GOP Debate Night

    By
    Victoria Churchill
    -
    2
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr
    The true winners of last night’s debate are former prime-time Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk, owner of X – formerly Twitter. If you’ve spent the last 24-48 hours under a rock – here’s what transpired last night. Eight Republican candidates running to be the next President of the United States took the stage in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to talk about their visions for the future of America – and how they are the proper alternatives not only to the babbling buffoon currently in the White House Joe Biden, but also to America’s 45th President Donald Trump – now running for the office for a third time. The Wisconsin event was moderated, albeit poorly, by Fox News anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. Of course, the debate in itself was probably somewhat staged. According to multiple reports, the candidates and their prep camps were given the questions in advance. While the debate was going on in Milwaukee, Tucker Carlson aired an opposing pre-recorded interview with America’s 45th President Donald Trump, who himself is set to be arraigned in a Fulton County, Georgia court on Thursday where he is expected to front up a bail payment of $200,000. (RELATED: Trump Agrees To Release Conditions, Including $200,000 Bond) Tucker Carlson has enacted fully-fledged revenge on his former employer and put millions of dollars in the pockets of a new corporate overlord, Elon Musk. X, formerly Twitter, has been working to position itself as the preeminent alternative to the mainstream media since the Musk buyout earlier this year. By the view numbers still rolling in on the video posted last night, they seem to have succeeded in doing that to a level even Musk himself may have never imagined. As of the writing of this piece, Tucker’s 46-minute long X video has been viewed over 186.4 million times. Mediaite noted the following in a piece published yesterday:
    “The interview, which was taped this week and is dropping to coincide with the debate, is intended as additional salt in the wound for Fox executives wary that a Trump-less event will not bring in the major ratings typically expected from these kinds of nights.”
    Notably, video-sharing platform Rumble which was the the first place to try and pitch itself as the free speech alternative to YouTube partnered with the RNC and probably boosted their own profits last night as well. The Rumble stream of the debate from the GOP’s channel has amassed 1.54 million views. Definitely a respectable number, but making up less than 1% of the views amassed by Carlson on X. For the record the Rumble stream via Roku is how I personally watched the debate, refusing to give my dollars to the Fox News machine. Fox News has yet to officially release numbers on last night’s debate but here are some viewership numbers reported by Mediaite from past presidential debates:
    “In 2015, Fox’s primary debate – with Trump and nine other candidates – drew 24 million viewers, smashing previous records and earning the distinction of being one of the most-watched cable programs ever. Overall, 2016 was a blockbuster year for debate ratings: the 12 Republican primary events averaged 15 million viewers.”
    Even if Fox’s numbers last night were close to their past viewership – which they are not expected to be without Trump – Carlson’s X video dwarfed those numbers as well. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Great America News Desk. This piece is republished with permission from American Liberty News.

    Amanda Head: Tell Us What You Think – Coronation Edition

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    2

    There’s a new King of England.

    Did you miss the coronation? Let Amanda spill all the juicy details!

    Watch this special coronation edition of The Hollywood Conservative below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Amanda Head: New WOKE Disney Movie Utterly BOMBS!

    By
    Amanda Head
    -
    1

    Disney is committed to learning this lesson the hard way: Go woke, Go broke.

    Disney’s latest woke venture “Strange World” is on track to cost the company more than $100 million.

    Watch Amanda break down the spectacular flop below:

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    GOP Leaders Fund Anti-Freedom Caucus Primary Candidates

    By
    Alex Muse
    -
    2
    Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

    In the quiet corridors of Republican power, something unprecedented is happening. For decades, party leadership maintained a mostly unspoken, but deeply respected ethic: do not intervene in open-seat primaries, especially in safely Republican districts. Let the voters decide. Let the grassroots rise. Let the contest unfold without the heavy thumb of Washington tipping the scale. This was not merely tradition. It was a matter of trust, a recognition that voters, not donors, not operatives, not Majority Whips, should choose the next Republican standard-bearer. Today, that ethic is being cast aside.

    The stage is Arizona’s 5th Congressional District, a deep-red seat held by House Freedom Caucus (HFC) stalwart Andy Biggs, who is stepping down to pursue the governorship. Historically, this would be the moment for conservative insurgents to rise, for HFC allies to present their case to voters without interference from party brass. Instead, what we are witnessing is an unmistakable effort by House Republican leadership to erase one of the Freedom Caucus’s most reliable seats.

    Three separate leadership PACs have now contributed directly to Jay Feely, a former NFL kicker and establishment-favored Republican who is not aligned with the Freedom Caucus. Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s “Electing Majority Making Effective Republicans” PAC gave $5,000. NRCC Chair Richard Hudson’s “First in Freedom PAC” gave $2,500. And Rep. Juan Ciscomani, of neighboring AZ-6, added $1,000 from his own “Defending the American Dream PAC.” These are not idle contributions. They are targeted, strategic, and meant to shape the outcome of a race that should have been left to the people.

    Only one candidate in the race, Daniel Keenan, a local home builder, has pledged to join the Freedom Caucus. His candidacy represents continuity with Biggs’s conservative legacy. Feely’s candidacy, by contrast, is backed by leadership precisely because it promises rupture. That is the point. The goal here is not merely to elect a Republican, but to deny the seat to the Freedom Caucus entirely.

    To grasp the seriousness of this act, one must understand just how rare it is. Leadership PACs, particularly those operated by high-ranking figures like the Majority Whip and NRCC Chair, have historically stayed neutral in Republican primaries unless protecting incumbents. This was not a legal requirement, but a moral one. Rick Scott, as NRSC chair, was emphatic on this point during his tenure: “We should remain neutral in primaries, except in the cases of GOP incumbents. The voters will decide.”

    In fact, neutrality in safe-seat primaries was such a bedrock value that during the contentious 2023 Speaker’s race, conservative holdouts demanded that Kevin McCarthy enshrine it in writing. The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), the House GOP’s main super PAC aligned with McCarthy, publicly promised not to interfere in open safe Republican primaries. CLF president Dan Conston declared, “CLF will not spend in any open-seat primaries in safe Republican districts, and CLF will not grant resources to other super PACs to do so.” That promise secured enough support for McCarthy to win the gavel. It was a recognition that such meddling would constitute a betrayal.

    And yet, here we are, watching as Emmer, Hudson, and Ciscomani appear to do precisely what CLF promised not to do. They are not spending millions, but the act is significant because of who they are and what it signals. A whisper from the Majority Whip carries weight. A nod from the NRCC chair is not an idle gesture. Their PAC money announces a clear intention: the Republican Party must no longer accommodate the Freedom Caucus.

    To call this behavior unethical is not hyperbole. The entire point of leadership PACs is to strengthen the party against Democrats, not to wage civil war within it. Donors to these PACs do not expect their money to be used to sandbag fellow Republicans who happen to believe in a stricter reading of the Constitution, in tighter budgets, in actually following the rules. They expect their money to be used to expand the majority, not to hollow it out ideologically.

    This is why even modest interventions like these cause such a stir. They are not just financial acts, but symbolic declarations. They say to the conservative base, “You are not welcome here.” They say to the House Freedom Caucus, “You will be replaced.” They signal that what was once an uneasy coalition is now an open conflict.

    There is precedent, to be sure, but not encouraging one. In 2016, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp was defeated in his Kansas primary after outside money flooded the race. It was widely seen as retaliation for his opposition to then-Speaker John Boehner. The establishment, furious at Huelskamp’s independence, funded a challenger, Roger Marshall, who went on to win. At the time, that maneuver was shocking. Paul Gosar, another HFC member, remarked, “The Freedom Caucus hasn’t challenged sitting members. We’ve only played in open seats. But isn’t it interesting that K Street and Wall Street are playing against our members?”

    Now, that behavior is becoming institutional. The NRCC chair and the Majority Whip are no longer merely allowing such intervention, they are directing it. The shift is profound. It marks a move from tolerating intra-party dissent to crushing it.

    What changed? The rise of the Freedom Caucus has been a source of anxiety for establishment Republicans ever since its inception. But with the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 and the growing alignment between the Freedom Caucus and the MAGA base, that anxiety has morphed into fear. The Freedom Caucus has shown it can shape leadership elections, influence appropriations bills, and demand accountability. It is no longer a fringe. It is a force. And that makes it a target.

    Trump himself has called Tom Emmer a “RINO” and opposed his speakership bid. Hudson and Ciscomani have similarly earned the ire of MAGA-aligned voters for their votes on spending bills and procedural maneuvers seen as too accommodating to Democrats. The leadership PAC donations in Arizona’s 5th are not just about that race. They are part of a larger strategy to neutralize the most vocal advocates of the America First agenda.

    None of this is illegal. But neither is it wise. When party leadership abandons neutrality, it sends a message to grassroots conservatives: your vote does not count unless we approve of your candidate. That message corrodes trust. It demoralizes volunteers. It severs the organic connection between representative and represented. It replaces the republican with the oligarchic.

    The party should not fear its conservative wing. It should listen to it. If leadership believes Freedom Caucus members are too extreme, they should make that argument on the merits, in public, and with courage. They should not attempt to buy the outcome behind closed doors with PAC money. That is not persuasion. That is manipulation.

    What is unfolding in Arizona’s 5th is not just a local race. It is a test case. If leadership succeeds in deleting a Freedom Caucus seat here, others will follow. More PAC money will flow. More loyal conservatives will be boxed out before the voters even speak. The House Freedom Caucus will be diminished, not by debate or democracy, but by design.

    This is not the path to unity. It is the road to irrelevance. The Republican Party must decide whether it wishes to be a big tent or a closed club. If the answer is the latter, it should at least have the honesty to admit it.

    If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.

    Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

    DOUBLE Your Impact to Crush the Left’s Comeback! It’s up to patriots like you to stop them. Heritage will match every dollar — up to $1 MILLION. Double your impact before it’s too late!

    .

    FBI Sued for Documents on Cover-up of Hunter Biden Gun Sale

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    4
    President Joe Biden hugs his family during the 59th Presidential Inauguration ceremony in Washington, Jan. 20, 2021. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris took the oath of office on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M. Vazquez II)

    While law-abiding gun owners and sellers nationwide are targeted by the FBI and Justice Department over paperwork errors, at least one politically powerful gun owner may have gotten special treatment from the agency after his firearm was illegally left in a public trash can.

    The non-profit public interest law firm Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for FBI records about a gun owned by President Joe Biden’s 53-year-old son Hunter Biden, that reportedly was tossed in trash can behind a Delaware grocery store.

    “The FBI and Secret Service have both been implicated in a corrupt clean-up operation to protect Hunter Biden from the criminal consequences of his gun scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

    Multiple media outlets reported in October 2020, weeks before the presidential election between Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, that in October 2018, Hunter Biden’s handgun was taken by his girlfriend Hallie Biden, also the widow of his brother Beau. 

    Hallie Biden, fearing what Hunter may do with the gun, threw it in a trash can across the street from a high school.  Realizing what she did, she later returned to retrieve the weapon, but found it missing.

    Delaware police began investigating, fearing the illegally-disposed weapon may have been taken by a high school student, or could be later used in a crime.

    But the case took a different turn when the Secret Service showed up.

    Rather than investigate the Bidens for illegally disposing of a weapon, or helping track it down, Secret Service agents showed up at the store where it was purchased and seized all paperwork connecting Hunter Biden to the gun, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact.

    Judicial Watch filed suit after FBI did not comply with a January 30, 2023, FOIA request for “all records, including investigative reports, telephone logs, witness statements, memoranda, and firearms purchase documentation, related to the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of a firearm owned by Hunter Biden discarded in a Delaware trash receptacle circa October 2018.”

    In a separate FOIA lawsuit, Judicial Watch received records from the United States Secret Service implicating FBI in the unusual action to help Hunter Biden.

    In response, Judicial Watch also asked for “all records of communications of FBI officials regarding the reported purchase, possession, and disposal of the firearm,” which may detail an effort to cover up any potential Biden family crime.

    Included in those Secret Service records is a response to a February 2021 email from Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger regarding the Secret Service’s involvement in the investigation of the Hunter Biden gun incident, the Communications Department asks for “more information or documentation.” 

    “Sure thing. Agents visited StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply and asked to take possession of the paperwork Hunter had filled out to purchase a gun there. The FBI also had some involvement in the investigation,” Schreckinger wrote.

    Judicial Watch also uncovered a March 2021 email from New York Post reporter Lorena Mongelli, who reached out to the Secret Service Communications Office, asking for comment on text messages on Hunter Biden’s lost laptop.

    “It appears the text messages were sent from Hunter Biden in which he indicates that the Secret Service did in fact respond to the Oct. 23, 2018 [gun] incident. This information contradicts your previous statement relating to the incident and we would like to know whether the Secret Service would like to respond to these new findings,” Mongelli wrote.

    “We have received your inquiry, would you be able to provide copies of these alleged text messages for reference?,” replied a person from the Communications Office, whose name is redacted.

    Mongelli responds, noting the involvement of the FBI and Secret Service:

    The Daily Mail actually posted copies of the same text messages the NY Post is referencing. This is what one text message says:

    “She stole the gun out of my trunk lock box and threw it in a garbage can full to the top at Jansens [sic]. Then told me it was my problem to deal with,” Hunter wrote.

    “Then when the police the FBI the secret service came on the scene she said she took it from me because she was scared I would harm myself due to o my drug and alcohol problem and our volatile relationship and that she was afraid for the kids.”

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    House GOP Targets Anti-Christian Military Lobbying Group

    By
    Paul Crespo
    -
    1

    *Warning: This article contains some graphic language.

    ANALYSIS – For those conservatives who say that Republicans are weak or ineffective, take note of all the actions this GOP-led House has taken so far. And with only the slimmest of majorities. The latest effort targets a distasteful anti-Christian group that focuses on influencing Pentagon policy.

    While operating under the misleading name of the ‘Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), this advocacy group is anything but an organization for religious freedom. Its real mission is to attack and remove any Christian influences from our entire military.

    In February, for example, the MRFF convinced Merchant Marine Academy leaders to move a massive historical painting titled “Christ on the Water” from a public space to a chapel.

    This move was attacked by Republican lawmakers and Christian groups as gross overreach, especially since it was a historical item and part of the Academy’s proud heritage.

    But the Academy caved quickly to the group’s outrageous demand.

    The aggressive actions of the group have raised concerns among lawmakers for years, with ill-informed military staffers often overreacting to the group’s incessant, and at times inappropriate, demands without following proper review procedures.

    Thankfully, the GOP House has it in its sights.

    Under an amendment to the House draft of the annual defense authorization bill last week, reported Military Times, Defense officials and troops would be barred from communicating with the Foundation or from making “any decision as a result of any claim, objection, or protest made by MRFF without the authority of the Secretary of Defense.”

    While the language for the amendment was offered by Republican Rep. Mike Turner, of Ohio, the amendment was adopted with unanimous, bipartisan support in the House Armed Services Committee.

    The amendment is designed to simply ensure that military staffers don’t overreact to the group’s demands without following proper protocols. And its bipartisan support shows that it is very reasonable.

    But that didn’t stop the group from issuing a profanity-laced tirade.

    Confirming its bigoted anti-Christian bias, not to mention lack of professionalism and decorum, the MRFF’s president and founder Mikey Weinstein, angrily lashed out, calling his opponents “bastards” and “enemies.”

    More specifically he said, according to Military Times: “If they don’t like what we do at MRFF … they can take a number, pack a picnic lunch and stand in line with the rest of those fundamentalist Christian extremist bastards who constitute our enemies.”

    But he didn’t stop digging his anti-Christian hole there. He went on:

    If the fundamentalist Christian nationalists who are behind this are trying to execute us through legislation, we’ll take that as validation of the positive effect that we’re having for our clients and for the Constitution.”

    “And they can go fuck themselves.”

    Well, Mr. Weinstein, we won’t do that, but we will fight him and his group tooth and nail legislatively.

    The Senate Armed Services Committee’s draft of the defense authorization bill does not include any similar restrictions on communications or response to MRFF requests, but it should. Expect intense efforts to ensure that they are included in a final bill.

    House Republicans will also likely add more amendments on abortion and transgender issues when the bill is debated in the full chamber next month.

    If you want to be part of the solution, then contact your Senators and tell them how you feel about far-left extremists pushing a bigoted, anti-Christian agenda on our military.

    Religious freedom means our troops are guaranteed the right to express their religion, even on military bases and facilities. And defending that right is a fight worth having.

    Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

    Poll: Americans Oppose US Involvement In Iran, Believe US Should Stay Out Of Other Countries’ Business

    By
    Donny Ferguson
    -
    3

    A new poll finds overwhelming majorities of Americans oppose the U.S. government’s military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and believe the federal government should stay out of other countries’ disputes.

    Reuters/Ipsos reports their new poll finds “most Americans support immediately ending U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran. The poll also finds that Americans oppose U.S. military involvement in the Middle East unless the U.S. is directly threatened and that most Americans do not feel that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer.”

    Only 36 percent of Americans support the strikes, with 45 percent opposing.  

    A whopping 69 percent of Americans, including 57 percent of Republicans, oppose “any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened”.

    58 percent of Americans say “it is better for the nation if the U.S. stays out of the affairs of other nations”

    Republicans generally opposed U.S. strikes on Iran when Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden were president, warning it would lead to “World War 3.”  They now report supporting the policy under Republican President Donald Trump.

    Reuters summarized the findings, noting:

    * Seven in ten say they have been following the U.S. airstrikes against Iran (70%) or the war between Israel and Iran (67%) very or somewhat closely. Republicans are slightly more likely to say they are following the U.S. airstrikes very closely (39%) compared to Democrats (32%), independents (31%), and the general population (33%).

    * Four in five Americans say they are concerned with the conflict growing between the U.S. and Iran (84%) and U.S. military personnel stationed in the Middle East (79%). In comparison, similar numbers of Americans are concerned about rising inflation (81%) and growing U.S. debt (78%).

    * Republicans (69% support, 17% oppose) are significantly more likely to support the strikes compared to Democrats (13% support, 74% oppose) and independents (29% support, 48% oppose).

    * Just over one in three Americans (36%) say they agree that U.S. airstrikes against Iran make America safer, while 60% disagree and 4% refused or skipped. This is heavily divided along partisan lines, with 12% of Democrats, 29% of independents, and 67% of Republicans agreeing with this statement.

    * Most Americans say the U.S. should not become involved in any military action in the Middle East unless America is directly threatened (69%). Majorities across partisanship feel this way, with 57% of Republicans, 73% of independents, and 80% of Democrats agreeing with this statement. 

    “This Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted June 21-23, 2025. The poll began fielding immediately after the June 21 U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. The poll closed before the June 23 Iranian strikes on a U.S. military base in Qatar, which has reportedly caused no fatalities,” Reuters notes.

    123...40Page 1 of 40
    © Great America News Desk 2022