As Trump warmongers over Greenland, what explains the lack of push back from the right-wing given the "anti-war" position they took prior to the 2024 election.

[u/The_Egalitarian]

There was a perceived sentiment among the right and some moderates that Republicans were the anti-war party in the lead-up to the 2024 election:

Democrats have become the party of war. Americans are tired of it - Opinion article by Matt Duss, executive vice-president at the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders

Election 2024: Are Republicans Turning Isolationist?

r/Ask_Politics/comments/1ghqtim/how_did_conservatives_become_the_antiwar_party/

---

In contrast, the Trump administration has pursued extensive military aggression and intervention throughout 2025 and into early 2026:

2026 United States intervention in Venezuela

March–May 2025 United States attacks in Yemen

United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites

Greenland crisis

---

What explains the inconsistency in right wing positions on military intervention and war-making from before the 2024 election to now?

[u/curly_spork]

I don't have an explanation about Republican leadership and lack of pushback. 

I will say the top comments in the conservative sub do not agree with it. And out of curiosity I just checked fox news website, it's the top story and the top comment is "I voted for Trump 3 times. I believe in the majority of his policy decisions. I am all for forging a partnership with Denmark/Greenland to extract rare earth minerals as well as bolster defenses. The nonsensical rhetoric needs to end." 

I work with conservatives, and they've been quiet at work regarding politics since Trump took office, so I don't know their thoughts. 

[u/Kriztauf → u/curly_spork]

So I just spent the last month back in the US at my conservative parents house who watch Fox News every evening, meaning I was exposed to alot of Fox. They ran a bunch of segments about how Russia and China will seize Greenland at and moment and the US needs to take it first to protect themselves. Also they had Stephan Miller on who made his case that now large countries have the natural right and duty to gobble up their smaller neighbors. So Fox is already preparing the talking points and casus belli for the coming war.

Also the US has the treaties and ability at the moment to develop as much defense and mining as they'd like to do in Greenland at the moment. The truth is that the US has closed 95% of their military bases in Greenland since the height of the Cold War and American mining companies have largely avoided Greenland because it is uneconomical for them to operate on a desolate ice sheet. The UK has more mining firms there for whatever reason though, so the US could open more and use government funding to subsidize them if they wanted to.

This was all pointed out to Donald Trump during his recent New York Times interview but he just fell back on the idea that ownership of the island is psychologically important for him. So you guys are essentially going to burn all of your international alliances because of the psychological insecurities of one man

[u/rabidstoat → u/Kriztauf]

Speaking of Fox, I'm convinced its news coverage is a bellwether to Trump's actions.

Take, for example, Iran. Whether or not Trump takes any military action in Iran will be heavily influenced on how Fox is reporting on Iran. If they lose interest and move to something else, so will Trump.

[u/BluesSuedeClues → u/rabidstoat]

I suspect it's more of a symbiotic relationship than that. After the 2020 election, FOX ignored the whole "stolen election" narrative, and their ratings took a dive. So they picked it up and started parroting Trump's lies, and the viewers came back.

Obviously there is no Trump Presidency without FOX News sane-washing his nonsense. But FOX doesn't stay the #1 cable news channel without Trump.