Shifting Perspectives: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Megyn Kelly on U.S.-Israel Relations Amid Ongoing Gaza Conflict

In a recent episode of The Megyn Kelly Show, aired on August 19, 2025, U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) engaged in a candid discussion with host Megyn Kelly about the influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups, U.S. foreign aid to Israel, and the humanitarian implications of the prolonged Israel-Hamas conflict.

This conversation, lasting over an hour, highlighted emerging fissures within conservative circles regarding unwavering support for Israel, particularly in light of the Gaza war that has persisted since Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack. As of August 2025, the conflict has resulted in over 61,000 reported deaths in Gaza, according to U.N. estimates, fueling global debates on proportionality and U.S. involvement.

Background on the Interview

Greene, a vocal proponent of the "America First" agenda associated with former President Donald Trump, has increasingly questioned U.S. foreign entanglements, including aid to Israel. Kelly, a former Fox News anchor known for her conservative commentary, has historically defended Israel's right to self-defense but expressed evolving reservations during the interview.

The discussion touched on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a prominent pro-Israel lobbying organization, and its perceived sway over U.S. policymakers. This comes amid broader shifts in public opinion: Polls indicate declining support for Israel's actions in Gaza among younger Republicans and independents, with some conservatives prioritizing domestic issues over foreign aid.

Greene's appearance underscores her role as a lightning rod in these debates, having previously faced criticism for controversial statements on foreign policy.

Key Themes from the Conversation

Central to the dialogue was AIPAC's influence on Congress. Greene described Israel as having "some sort of incredible influence and control over nearly every single one of my colleagues," a claim she struggled to fully explain but attributed to lobbying tactics.

She highlighted AIPAC-funded trips to Israel for freshman lawmakers, suggesting these excursions foster loyalty: "AIPAC takes every single — that they can — freshman member of Congress, their first year in Congress they take them on a very special trip to Israel."

Greene, who declined such invitations, argued that this extends to influencers like Kelly, aiming to align them with pro-Israel positions.

The conversation also scrutinized U.S. financial aid to Israel, amounting to approximately $3.8 billion annually. Greene contrasted this with America's $37 trillion national debt, noting Israel's lower debt-to-GDP ratio (under $400 billion) and domestic benefits like government-funded healthcare and education: "If you’re an Israeli citizen, you have government-funded health care and you have government-funded college. So, why is America having to give Israel $3.8 billion?"

She implied that such aid enables policies in Gaza that she labeled a "genocide," referring to the humanitarian crisis involving widespread destruction and civilian casualties.

Kelly, while affirming her pro-Israel stance—"I’ve been very pro-Israel and I’ve been very defensive of their right to defend themself"—acknowledged a personal shift: "My own feelings, I’m looking at Israel in a different way right now than I was on 10-8, that’s for sure—of ’23."

She revealed receiving "multiple" invitations to visit Israel, interpreting them as attempts to bolster her support amid perceived erosion: "I can feel the pressure being slightly ratcheted up. Like you’re not allowed to."

Kelly emphasized that Israel is "losing Republicans by the day here in America, which is their most important ally," attributing this to the protracted nature of the conflict and U.S. involvement in related escalations, such as Iranian strikes.

However, she distanced herself from Hamas, stating, "I’m not on Hamas’s side," and framed her concerns as pragmatic rather than ideological.

Analytical Insights: Signs of a Broader Shift?

Objectively, this exchange reflects a tension within the MAGA movement between traditional pro-Israel conservatism and isolationist "America First" priorities. Greene's critiques resonate with segments frustrated by foreign aid amid domestic economic pressures, echoing sentiments that U.S. funds indirectly support a disproportionate response in Gaza—where infrastructure devastation and famine risks have drawn international condemnation.

Data from recent surveys, such as those by Pew Research, show a generational divide: While older Republicans remain staunchly pro-Israel, younger cohorts are more sympathetic to Palestinian perspectives, viewing the conflict as uneven.

Kelly's position appears transitional—she maintains Israel's defensive rights but questions unchecked support, suggesting a "waking up" process among conservatives to perceived excesses. This aligns with analytical observations that Israel's public relations challenges, including graphic media coverage of Gaza, have eroded global sympathy.

Yet, her refusal of visits indicates resistance to lobbying pressures, potentially signaling a more independent conservative media voice.

Critics argue these views risk veering into antisemitic tropes by exaggerating Jewish or Israeli influence.

Pro-Israel advocates rebut Greene's claims, noting that AIPAC's budget pales compared to other lobbies (e.g., pharmaceuticals), and U.S. aid largely funds American-made weapons, benefiting U.S. jobs and military innovation.

Israel's intelligence sharing and combat testing of U.S. gear provide reciprocal value, they contend. The interview's backlash, including from conservative commentator Laura Loomer who stated "MTG doesn’t speak for MAGA," underscores internal GOP rifts, with figures like House Speaker Mike Johnson prioritizing pro-Israel policies.

Reactions and Implications

The interview sparked immediate controversy. Pro-Israel outlets labeled it "vicious anti-Israel lies," accusing Kelly of platforming distortions without pushback.

AIPAC and allies have intensified fundraising against Greene, likening her to progressive critics like Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. Conversely, some online conservative voices praised the discussion for challenging "endless" aid, viewing it as a step toward fiscal conservatism.

Analytically, this dialogue may foreshadow policy shifts if MAGA regains power in 2025 elections. Reduced U.S. support could pressure Israel to seek ceasefires or reforms, but it risks weakening a key alliance against regional threats like Iran. For conservatives, it highlights the challenge of balancing humanitarian concerns with security imperatives in a polarized landscape.

In sum, Greene and Kelly's conversation captures a moment of introspection in U.S.-Israel relations, where longstanding alliances face scrutiny amid humanitarian fallout. While Greene pushes for reevaluation, Kelly's nuanced stance suggests gradual evolution rather than outright rejection, potentially influencing broader conservative discourse.