Marjorie Taylor Greene vs. Laura Loomer: What Sparked the Feud and Why It Matters
.jpg)
A long-simmering rift between Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and activist Laura Loomer boiled over this August, with sharp personal insults and policy jabs flying on X. The fight centers on loyalty tests inside the pro-Trump movement and how Republicans should talk about Israel, Gaza, and the military—turning an internal dispute into headline news.
The latest spark came after Loomer blasted Medal of Honor recipient Florent Groberg; Greene publicly told her to “shut up,” siding with veterans who condemned the attack. Coverage noted the clash as a MAGA-on-MAGA moment fueled by social media. Loomer hit back by accusing Greene of disloyalty and corruption and threatening an ethics complaint, while also using harsh personal insults. Greene questioned who finances Loomer and called her commentary dangerous. The back-and-forth showed how fast online beefs can jump from policy to personal.
Loomer’s growing influence with Trump world has been reported since spring, when several National Security Council aides were dismissed soon after an Oval Office meeting where she aired loyalty concerns. Major outlets confirmed the firings; Trump downplayed her role.
Another fault line is Israel-Gaza. Greene has lately emphasized civilian suffering in Gaza and even used the word “genocide,” a stance that drew Loomer’s ire and helped fuel their split. That policy gap—hawkish consistency versus a more non-interventionist tone—keeps the feud alive.
From a conservative view, supporters of Loomer argue she’s enforcing discipline and defending a strong pro-Israel line; from a middle-of-the-road perspective, the feud looks like a distraction from governing and an image problem for Republicans. Even pop-culture coverage has mocked the spat, underscoring how intramural fights can spill beyond politics.
Viewed through a constitutional, America-First lens, the only test that matters is whether this feud produces outcomes that strengthen the Republic—secure borders, energy independence, fair trade that rebuilds U.S. industry, restrained spending, and protections for speech and due process—not whose brand trends on X. Primary challenges are legitimate checks, but they should be about votes and policy, not personalities; donor pressure should never outrank voters, and any ethics complaints must follow transparent rules and equal treatment under law.
Party leaders—including President Trump and House leadership—should steer the dispute toward constructive unity: insist on public debates, not subtweets; channel influence into co-sponsored bills and tough oversight of the border, the budget, the Pentagon, and federal bureaucracies; and pledge to rally behind the nominee once voters decide.
The oath is to the Constitution, not to cliques, and the measure of every move should be simple: does it advance American security, prosperity, and liberty, or distract from it?
Sources
Newsweek: Loomer–Greene insults and ethics-complaint threats.
https://www.newsweek.com/laura-loomer-marjorie-taylor-greene-feud-trump-israel-2112015
Task & Purpose and Mediaite: Groberg episode and veteran pushback. https://taskandpurpose.com/culture/groberg-loomer-speak-out/?utm
AP, Reuters, Washington Post, ABC News: NSC staff firings after Loomer meeting. https://apnews.com/article/959b718b04b240c5c8ba3736b4d8aa62?utm
The Guardian: Greene’s Gaza comments and Loomer’s response. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/23/marjorie-taylor-greene-bernie-sanders-famine-gaza
Page Six: Cultural spotlight on the feud.
Please Like & Share 😉🪽
@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.
Comments
Post a Comment