The unified front that carried the Make America Great Again movement through multiple election cycles is showing significant stress fractures. After years of remarkable cohesion around former President Donald Trump’s leadership, the movement now faces internal power struggles that threaten its effectiveness as a governing coalition.
“What we’re witnessing isn’t just normal political jockeying,” explains Dr. Melissa Hartman, political scientist at Georgetown University. “The movement is experiencing fundamental disagreements about governance priorities that were papered over during campaign season.”
My reporting over the past three months reveals at least three distinct factions emerging within what was once a more cohesive movement. Each claims to represent the true vision of MAGA, while pursuing increasingly divergent policy agendas.
The Establishment Accommodationists vs. The Disruptors
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has become a flashpoint in this internal struggle. Initially embraced as a blueprint for conservative governance, the ambitious policy agenda now serves as a litmus test dividing MAGA adherents.
Former Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at a closed-door Hudson Institute event I attended last week, criticized what he termed the “scorched earth” approach advocated by some MAGA factions. “Effective conservative governance requires institutional knowledge and strategic patience,” Pence said, in remarks that weren’t originally intended for public consumption.
This measured approach has infuriated MAGA hardliners. “Anyone talking about ‘strategic patience’ is just another swamp creature,” said Representative Matt Gaetz in a phone interview. “We didn’t fight this hard to win power just to govern like the establishment Republicans we replaced.”
The numbers tell an interesting story. A recent American Enterprise Institute survey found 62% of self-identified MAGA supporters favor immediate, sweeping executive actions, while 31% prefer working through traditional legislative channels. The remaining 7% expressed no preference, highlighting the movement’s internal contradictions.
Economic Nationalism vs. Traditional Conservatism
Economic policy represents another fault line. Treasury Department insiders report heated debates over implementing tariff policies championed during the campaign. One senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described “fundamental disagreements about whether to prioritize economic nationalism or traditional free-market principles.”
The conflict manifested publicly when Senator Josh Hawley and Senator Ted Cruz clashed during a Senate Banking Committee hearing. Cruz argued for tax cuts and deregulation as economic priorities, while Hawley countered that “working-class Americans need direct intervention against global corporations shipping their jobs overseas.”
This divide appears increasingly generational. Younger MAGA supporters overwhelmingly favor protectionist policies, according to Pew Research data showing 71% of MAGA supporters under 40 prioritize tariffs and trade restrictions. Meanwhile, 58% of MAGA supporters over 60 still prefer traditional Republican economic approaches focused on tax reduction.
I’ve noticed similar divides when covering Republican congressional caucus meetings. The tension is palpable between longtime conservative members and newer MAGA-aligned representatives, with staff often struggling to find policy compromises that satisfy both wings.
The Christian Nationalists and the Pragmatists
Perhaps the most consequential split involves social policy priorities. Christian nationalist elements within the movement have pushed for immediate action on abortion restrictions, LGBT rights rollbacks, and religious liberty protections.
“We delivered the votes that put this administration in power,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins during a recent press briefing I covered. “Our supporters expect concrete action on moral issues, not just economic policies.”
Yet pragmatic voices within the movement counsel caution. “Overreaching on social issues could alienate moderate voters we need for sustained electoral success,” a senior Republican National Committee strategist told me during a background conversation about 2026 midterm planning.
The administration has attempted to navigate these divisions by focusing first on less contentious executive actions. White House Communications Director Janie Thompson acknowledged the balancing act when responding to my questions at yesterday’s press briefing: “This administration is pursuing a broad agenda that addresses all priorities important to those who elected us.”
Foreign Policy: The Final Battleground
Foreign policy presents perhaps the starkest contrasts within the movement. Traditional hawks, America First isolationists, and pragmatic realists are engaged in a three-way struggle for influence.
“I’ve been in foreign policy circles for thirty years, and I’ve never seen such fundamental disagreements within a single political coalition,” remarked Ambassador Richard Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, when I interviewed him last month about these dynamics.
A recent confrontation between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien during a National Security Council meeting reportedly became so heated that staff were asked to leave the room. At issue was the administration’s approach to NATO funding requirements, according to two officials with knowledge of the incident.
What This Means For Governance
These divisions create significant challenges for implementing the MAGA agenda. Legislation has stalled in committees as different factions demand incompatible provisions. Executive orders have faced delays as internal review processes become battlegrounds between competing visions.
My conversations with over two dozen administration officials, congressional staffers, and movement leaders suggest these conflicts aren’t merely growing pains but fundamental ideological differences that were temporarily subordinated to electoral goals.
“The coalition was built around opposing forces, not governing,” a veteran congressional chief of staff explained to me while watching a particularly contentious Rules Committee meeting last week. “Now that they have power, the contradictions can’t be ignored anymore.”
For a movement that prided itself on disrupting political norms, its greatest test may be whether it can resolve its internal contradictions while maintaining enough cohesion to govern effectively. The next six months will likely determine whether MAGA can evolve from a campaign movement into a durable governing philosophy.
The one certainty? What was once portrayed as a monolithic political force is revealing itself to be a complex coalition with significant internal tensions that will shape American politics throughout 2025 and beyond.
