The latest TPUSA America Fest recently wrapped up, the first without its beloved founder and standard-bearer, Charlie Kirk. Three months have passed after his life was tragically, unjustly cut short by a deranged transgender-loving assassin’s bullet. The loss still lingers for the conservative cause—as it should. The occasion was momentous enough that even Rolling Stone and Politico reported on the conference.
The TPUSA audience and the general conservative movement are feeling Charlie Kirk’s passing more keenly, since the MAGA Coalition, which he helped forge and flourish, is beginning to fray. Divisions are the norm in politics, especially among party brass and grassroots activists. They all claim the right vision for their party’s standards, but rarely have the conflicts burst to the forefront as they did at TPUSA American First 2025.
Setting aside the open divisions for the moment, TPUSA should be applauded for growing the ranks of the conservative cause, inviting new members and even celebrities! Who would have thought that a Hollywood actor from the United Kingdom, like Russel Brand, would be speaking at a conservative conference? How about once-liberal singer and performance artist Nicki Minaj, who is not only aligning with Trump’s foreign policy protecting Christians around the world, but also sharing her newly-established Christian faith?
Not just with Kirk’s death, but with a growing number of members comes the infighting. How will the movement proceed? Who can join? Should we enforce stricter standards? Briefly, let’s consider who said what at the latest TPUSA Fest.
Ben Shapiro called out the callous commentators who blithely suggest that TPUSA orchestrated Charlie Kirk’s murder. He also slammed so-called conservatives who have normalized ethnic bigotry under the guise of MAGA. He named names, particularly frustrated with the unwillingness of some fellow pundits to speak the truth within the conservative media ecosystem.
Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon, as well as Megyn Kelly, pushed back on Shapiro’s attacks. Tucker sounded particularly defensive, although he avoided mentioning Shapiro by name. Bannon was less charitable, accusing Shapiro of trying to take over prior media companies that he worked for. Megyn Kelly just ripped up her most outspoken critic with a sense of betrayed outrage.
For now, I don’t want to get into the details of their drama. I do think that the policy disputes that emerged in Shapiro’s speech deserve consideration. His point about character do matter, as well. The conservative movement can only get stronger as ideas get hashed and thrashed about. Confronting bad actors who lie is a must, too.
But Shapiro’s point at the conference is well-taken, regardless of your views on his direct criticisms. Commentators, writers, and grassroots activists must operate with a longer-range responsibility. They can determine the direction of future coalitions, and they must stay grounded in the truth.
Still, what should we make of the open disagreements among the keynote speakers? Is there a massive division on the right? Should we worry about a fraying conservative coalition that will fail to capitalize on Trump’s victories going into 2026 and 2028?
This discussion is timely, after all. The conservative movement has suffered for decades from too broad a coalition that welcomes just about anyone who puts on a MAGA hat. When Charlie Kirk opened up one of his previous conferences this year, highlighting uber-progressive Cenk Uyghur, he didn’t back down from his conservative bona fides. He allowed The Young Turks podcaster to speak his mind and even forced him to give some ground on some of the Left’s non-negotiable points, like men in women’s sports. However, Cenk still thinks confused underage boys should be in girls’ sports, and he maintained that goods and services should be treated as rights. Kirk properly pushed back on him: “Cenk, housing is not a right!”
Exactly.
Our division with the Left remains strong.
Where do the current rising divisions among the right spring from, then?
One of the concerns is foreign policy. A growing dissident movement on the right vocally opposes Israel, with claims (however baseless) that the Jewish State dominates our foreign policy. Frankly, this discussion seems like a distraction without a direction. President Trump has forced Republican lawmakers to reject frequent, fervent foreign policy interventions in general, and that’s what matters most. The new crop of Congressmen and US Senators are talking the right talk and walking a more foreign policy realist walk in Washington. The more serious danger from the out-of-power Big Foreign Policy bigwigs is their trying to force a return to Bush-era international globalism, but Trump successors like Vance, Rubio (even DeSantis) have shown a strong commitment to keeping America out of entangling alliances.
What about immigration and trade? Those issues have generated some contention between more free-market-oriented concerns, who disdain tariffs, while the more protectionist crowd has won adherents. Economic freedom needs more promotion and advocacy, especially in light of more young conservatives are giving the impression that Trump and the federal government should provide answers to affordability problems, rather than simply removing the government obstacles to human thriving.
And how about a positive vision for the future? Let’s talk about what conservatism can be—must be—for the future, shall we?
Michael Knowles stepped up to answer those questions. He avoided naming names, but cogently established core principles to define the flourishing conservative cause. Unity does matter, and he stressed the importance of maintaining the now-fragile coalition.
Knowles’ principles for what unites the Right should serve as our template going into next year and into the (sad to say, but we have to face it) post-Trump era.
Here are the values he outlined, which I think conservatives need to get behind:
If there is one thing conservatives pride ourselves on, it is our relationship to reality.
It sounds so simple, and yet so true and neglected a truism. The Left focuses on what should work, how there should be enough of x, y, or z, regardless of scarcity. The Left convinces its members that biology, history, and human psychology don’t matter. Conservatives, even as far back as Dinesh D’Souza in Letters to a Young Conservative, emphasize working with the world as is, rather than as it should be.
Knowles set further boundaries:
Some things are out of bounds: injustice, cruelty, vulgar hatred on the basis of race or sex or religion.
Bigotry based on identity politics is a loser. The right must move on from identity politics, whether good or bad.
To be on the team, in my humble opinion, you have to love our country.
Michael Knowles stated that differences of opinion on tax policy or other economic issues should not make or break your entry into the coalition. His stress on the American ideal, identity, and idiosyncrasies should stand out the strongest. What is this American, this new man? Hector St. John de Crevecoeur posed.
The American nation is a real place: blood and soil and spirit, rooted in Anglo-American legal traditions and our Judeo-Christian heritage. If a partisan thinks America’s Founding or Heritage is garbage to be tossed out, they aren’t part of the team. A commitment to spiritual verities, not just economic necessities, should define the truth conservative cause.
These divisions matter, but they can be bridged, and a better movement will come forth.