Nick Fuentes wants you to believe that American Jews are dangerous. Not because of anything they’ve done, but because of where their loyalties supposedly lie. According to Fuentes, the 26-year-old white nationalist American Jews are a fifth column, their true allegiance pledged to Israel rather than the United States. He frames this as a national security concern, a matter of protecting America from internal subversion: Jews have U.S. institutions under their thumb and use their power to advance Israeli interests at America’s expense.
He hasn’t just hinted at divided allegiance. He has declared it openly and repeatedly.
The claim collapses under scrutiny, but not for the reasons you might expect. The problem isn’t just that the facts contradict Fuentes. The problem is that Fuentes himself embodies the precise disloyalty he claims to expose in others. His accusation is thus a confession.
Who Is Nick Fuentes?
Fuentes, born in 1998, hosts the “America First” podcast and calls the movement he leads the same name. His followers, known as “Groypers,” engage in organized campaigns to promote his views. He gained notoriety for his presence at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville and his participation in the January 6, 2021 Capitol events.
Fuentes advocates explicitly for a white ethnostate and opposes racial integration. He has denied the Holocaust, asking on his show, “How many Jews do you think really died in the Holocaust?” He has praised Adolf Hitler, stating “Hitler is awesome. Hitler was right. And the Holocaust didn’t happen.” He has called for a “holy war” against Jews and compared the six million killed by the Nazis to “cookies being baked in an oven.” He wants the U.S. government under authoritarian “Catholic Taliban rule” and has been vocal about his disdain for women, Muslims, the LGBTQ+ community, and others. “All I want is revenge against my enemies and a total Aryan victory,” Fuentes said in 2022.
His speeches frequently attack Jewish influence in media, finance, and politics. He frames Israel as evidence of Jewish disloyalty to America, arguing that American Jews prioritize Israeli interests over American welfare and therefore cannot be trusted as citizens.
The Accusation: Jews as America’s Fifth Column
Fuentes’s core claim is straightforward: American Jews cannot be trusted because their loyalty lies with Israel rather than the United States. In one typical statement, he declared: “The American government is Israeli-occupied territory … Jews are disloyal to America and loyal to Israel.”
He presents this as a matter of national security, suggesting that Jewish Americans form a fifth column within the country. According to his logic, support for Israel among American Jews proves they place foreign interests above American ones. On Tucker Carlson’s show in October 2025, he argued that “the main challenge” to conservative unity is “organized Jewry in America.” He told Carlson that Jews are “a stateless people” who are “unassimilable” and said Judaism is incompatible with Western civilization, asserting that “they hate the Romans because the Romans destroyed the Temple. We don’t think that, as Americans and white people.”
He frames his position not as antisemitism but as legitimate concern about conflicted loyalties in positions of power. This argument appears repeatedly across his broadcasts and public appearances, forming a central pillar of his political worldview. The accusation sounds almost reasonable if you don’t think about it too hard. Dual loyalty. Conflicted interests. Foreign allegiance. But when you examine the argument with any rigor, it collapses immediately.
Why the Accusation Fails: The Selective Standard
Start with the basic problem: Fuentes applies a standard to Jews that he applies to no one else. The United States is a nation of immigrants. Millions of Americans maintain strong connections to other countries. Irish Americans celebrate Ireland. Italian Americans preserve Italian culture. Polish Americans engage with Polish politics. Greek Americans lobby for favorable U.S. policy toward Greece. Cuban Americans advocate specific positions on Cuba. According to Pew Research, approximately nine million Americans hold or qualify for dual citizenship.
These connections provoke no suspicion. No one suggests that Irish Americans who supported Irish independence were undermining America, or that Greek Americans in government pose a security risk. But Fuentes singles out Jews. Only Jewish Americans face this interrogation. Only their cultural and political connections to another country become evidence of disloyalty.
If his concern were really about divided allegiance as a general phenomenon, he would apply it consistently. He doesn’t, which means the accusation isn’t actually about dual loyalty. It’s about Jews. Research consistently shows that American identity is layered and complex. The General Social Survey has documented for decades that Americans maintain multiple, non-competing identities. A person can be fully American while also feeling connected to Italian culture, Mexican heritage, or Jewish tradition. The accusation of dual loyalty treats this normal aspect of American life as suspicious only when applied to Jews.
The selective application becomes even clearer when we examine who else Fuentes attacks. His problem isn’t dual loyalty; it’s racial and religious identity he finds objectionable. He has attacked Vice President JD Vance and his marriage to Usha Vance, a Hindu Indian American, with incendiary rhetoric “replete with references to ‘race mixing,’ mockery of their son’s Indian name,” and criticism of the vice president’s weight. If loyalty to America were really his concern, why attack a sitting vice president for his choice of spouse?
What American Jews Actually Vote For
The empirical evidence makes the failure of Fuentes’s argument even clearer. If American Jews were primarily motivated by loyalty to Israel, we would see it in their political behavior. The 2024 presidential election provides a perfect test.
Donald Trump positioned himself as strongly pro-Israel. His administration moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, brokered the Abraham Accords, and withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Trump campaigned explicitly on his record of support for Israel and received enthusiastic backing from the Israeli right. Kamala Harris, while not hostile to Israel, represented a Democratic position that included more criticism of Israeli settlement policy, greater emphasis on Palestinian rights, and willingness to condition aid to the Jewish state. The Democratic platform was measurably less aligned with current Israeli government preferences than the Republican one.
If Israeli interests drove Jewish voting, Trump should have won overwhelming Jewish support. He didn’t. Approximately 32 percent of American Jews voted for Trump. This pattern holds across decades. American Jews vote Democratic by large margins even when Republican candidates align more closely with Israeli government positions.
Consider the recent election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York City. The mayor-elect holds positions sharply critical of Israel, the region’s only liberal democracy. If American Jews were indeed primarily motivated by loyalty to Israel, as Fuentes claims, we would expect near-universal rejection of such a candidate. Yet approximately one-third of Jewish voters in New York supported Mamdani.
This presents a useful thought experiment: How many American citizens of German descent would vote for a candidate who claimed there was excessive German influence in American politics, that German Americans constituted a disloyal fifth column, or that Germans effectively controlled the country? Substantially fewer than one-third, we can reasonably predict.
The counterfactual clarifies what actual dual loyalty would look like. Yes, if armed conflict ever arose between the United States and Israel (an eventuality approximately as probable as discovering a square circle), there would undoubtedly be profound distress within the American Jewish community. But the same emotional conflict would arise for any American community facing hostilities between their country of citizenship and their ancestral homeland. This is the normal complexity of identity in a nation of immigrants, not evidence of disloyalty.
What actually drives Jewish voting? Surveys show that American Jews prioritize domestic issues: the future of democracy (44 percent cite as top priority), abortion (28 percent), the economy and inflation (24 percent), climate change (19 percent), healthcare (12 percent), and church-state separation. According to the Manhattan Institute’s 2024 survey of Jewish voters, abortion topped the list at 33 percent, followed by the economy (28 percent), and democracy/election integrity (27 percent), while “security, Israel, and antisemitism” ranked fourth at only 22 percent. They also express concern about antisemitism and extremism, which they perceive as more threatening from the far right. Their voting reflects American political priorities, not Israeli ones. Notably, despite 72 percent of Jewish voters feeling emotionally attached to Israel, only 6-9 percent consider it a top concern when deciding how to vote. Fuentes ignores this data because it destroys his narrative.
Fuentes Dismisses the Constitution
The projection becomes even more explicit when we examine Fuentes’s own statements about governance and loyalty. He hasn’t just hinted at divided allegiance. He has declared it openly and repeatedly.
Donald Trump has ignored Fuentes and his policy preferences so thoroughly since taking office (e.g. bombing Iran, backing Israel and, with less enthusiasm, Ukraine) that a frustrated Fuentes has had to publicly break from Trump over the course of the last year. So it may be hard to recall that at one point Fuentes called for Donald Trump to “rule by decree.” He tweeted his support for giving Trump dictatorial powers and declared his allegiance to Trump over the U.S. Constitution. This isn’t a casual comment. It’s a systematic vision of governance that mirrors fascist models. His call for “rule by decree” is reminiscent of the powers attained by Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini in 1926 and German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler under the 1933 Enabling Act.
Fuentes elaborated on his vision in segments of his America First show. He advocated for the arrest and imprisonment of state governors, media figures, and political enemies. He called for measures to bring constitutionalists and libertarians “to heel.” He described the situation as binary: “You have two options. You can go to jail, or you can put your enemies in jail. There is no third option.”
In January 2024, Fuentes gave a Nazi salute during a Rumble stream while stating his willingness to commit violence for “Supreme Leader Trump.” He declared: “I am not a Republican…. I want everyone to know that…. I am part of the Revolutionary Guard. I do not answer to the Pentagon. I do not answer to the civilian government.” He continued: “If Donald Trump ordered me to do an extrajudicial killing, I would perform it.”
This is not theoretical speculation about divided loyalties. This is explicit rejection of constitutional governance in favor of personal allegiance to a leader. Fuentes openly states that he does not answer to civilian government. This is dual loyalty in its purest and most dangerous form.
His accusation of dual loyalty toward American Jews reflects a projection of his own mindset. His commentary draws heavily on fringe notions, and he has adopted these ideas to a degree that exceeds even the usual bounds of such discourse.
The Vision: Theocracy and Racial Hierarchy
Fuentes’s disloyalty to American constitutional principles goes beyond his vision of installing a dictator. He advocates for a complete restructuring of American society that would require dismantling the Constitution itself.
He has called for “Taliban rule in America, in a good way.” When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, he celebrated it as the advent of “Catholic Taliban rule” and said it meant that “banning sodomy is back on the menu, banning contraceptives is back on the menu.” This explicitly theocratic vision contradicts the entire framework of constitutional rights.
His vision for America is even more explicit in its rejection of constitutional principles. On his show in March 2025, Fuentes stated: “Jews are running society, women need to shut the f*ck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise … White men need to run the household, they need to run the country, they need to run the companies. They just need to run everything, it’s that simple. It’s literally that simple.”
This vision of racial hierarchy directly contradicts the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under law. Fuentes’s ideal America would require nullifying the Constitution’s most fundamental provisions. His loyalty isn’t divided between two nations. It’s divided between the Constitution as written and a racial-religious ideology that contradicts it at every level.
Fuentes is an effective communicator, though his rhetoric is directed toward deeply hostile themes. Earlier periods in American history might have treated such speech as incitement punishable by law. We do not endorse that approach. We support broad protections for free expression. What remains puzzling is why Tucker Carlson chose to host Fuentes and offered almost no substantive challenge to his claims. To be clear, we do not advocate canceling Carlson’s program, nor restricting Fuentes’s online platforms. We favor strong speech rights for all parties. At the same time, we find the conduct of both figures open to criticism, and as Jews, we also exercise our own right to speak in response.
Fuentes has also stated that he would join antifa if they were “waving the banner of Benito Mussolini…waving the banner of Falangism,” referring to Spanish fascists, “and they were saying ‘Catholic fascism now.’” His allegiance is to fascist governance models, not to American constitutional principles. He calls himself a “reactionary” who wants to turn the Republican Party into “a truly reactionary party.”
The Question Fuentes Can’t Answer
So here’s the question that cuts to the heart of the matter: if Fuentes had to choose between the Constitution and his racial ideology, which would he pick? If the Constitution protects the equal rights of non-white citizens and his ideology demands their subordination or removal, which loyalty prevails?
The answer is obvious. Fuentes would choose his ideology. The Constitution’s colorblind principles are obstacles to the America he wants to create. His vision demands subordinating constitutional law to racial hierarchy. His pledge to “not answer to civilian government“ means rejecting constitutional governance entirely. That is dual loyalty in its purest form, except instead of loyalty to a foreign state, it’s loyalty to an ideological program and a “supreme leader“ that contradicts the nation’s legal and moral foundation.
Here stands a man who openly calls for racial hierarchy that would nullify the 14th Amendment, who rejects civilian government entirely, yet he dares to question the patriotism of American Jews whose voting record proves their commitment to American democratic values. This is classical projection at its most transparent. The patriot who isn’t questions the patriotism of those who are.
Why This Matters Now: Fuentes’s Growing Influence
The exposure of Fuentes’s contradictions matters more now because his influence is growing, not diminishing. According to conservative writer Rod Dreher, “something like” 30-40 percent of staffers under the age of 30 working for Republican Party officials or institutions in Washington DC are Groypers. Political commentator John Ganz notes there is a “marked” generation gap in the conservative movement, with younger staff members “much more open to Fuentes’s ideas” while the older generation’s “horror of the holocaust, support for Christian Zionism and Dispensationalism, and taboos against antisemitism” are “fading or gone.”
Fuentes’s recent interview with Tucker Carlson on the Tucker Carlson Network was seen over 20 million times. Despite being banned from most major platforms, he was reinstated on X (formerly Twitter) by Elon Musk in 2024, where he now has over a million followers. His message is reaching an increasingly mainstream conservative audience.
This makes it all the more important to expose the fundamental contradiction at the heart of his message. He warns about traitors while articulating a vision that would betray the Constitution. He claims to defend America while rejecting its foundational principles. He accuses others of dual loyalty while pledging loyalty to racial ideology over democratic governance. The traitor who warns of traitors has given us a confession, not an argument.
READ MORE from Walter E. Block and Oded J.K. Farah:
The New York Times , Kristof, and the Ethics of War Reporting
