How MAGA Turned the Republican Party into the "Trump Party"

It had been just five days since President Barack Obama's reelection in November 2012 when a New York real estate mogul paid $325 to trademark the phrase " Make America Great Again " (MAGA) for political use. The phrase wasn't exactly new: in 1980, Ronald Reagan had already run for the White House with the slogan "Let's Make America Great Again." But Donald Trump's decision in the fall of 2012 ended up leaving a more visible mark on American politics.

Thirteen years later, MAGA has not only served as a slogan for the current President's three campaigns, but has transformed into a movement that has taken over the Republican Party. Interviewed by Observador, four former Republican political staffers outline a formula that has enabled success: the "America First" political agenda, combined with a founder and leader who knows his support base "better than anyone." " President Trump is the Republican Party. This is not the Republican Party. This is the Trump Party ," summarizes Matt Terrill, current political strategist and former chief of staff for Marco Rubio's presidential campaign.

The formula leads these Republicans to another certainty: until 2028, the date on which Donald Trump's term ends, MAGA's dominance will remain unquestionable. The topic of a possible split in this coalition supporting the President has emerged in recent weeks due to several issues that have generated divisions both among the electoral base and within the Party: first, the US strikes against Iran; then, the mega-legislative bill of tax cuts and exemptions; and, this week, the publication of the Epstein files. However, time and again, these issues have been addressed without sacrificing the unity of the MAGA movement.

In this scenario, one question remains: what happens to success when one part of the formula is removed? Or, in other words, can MAGA survive without Donald Trump, now serving his final term? Certainties vanish. Matt Terrill, Cesar Conda, and Brian Seitchik, who worked with Donald Trump or some of his closest allies, believe that MAGA has irreversibly changed the Republican Party. Whether for ideological reasons—Republicans have genuinely converted to this ideological line—or for calculated reasons—Republicans have understood that the "America First" agenda helps win votes—they believe the Party will continue to pursue this agenda.

However, Michael Connallen, who worked with more moderate congressmen, believes that MAGA was a wave that will soon recede after Donald Trump's departure. Subsequently, the Republican Party will return to the pre-Trump way of doing politics, which is based on negotiation between more diverse ideologies.

When Laura Ingraham took the stage at the Tampa, Florida, convention center last weekend, her question to her audience was simple: "How many of you are satisfied with the results of the Epstein investigation ?" The response was a chorus of boos, reports the Washington Post . Ingraham was one of dozens of speakers at the Student Action Summit, an event organized by the conservative group Turning Point, which targets students and younger generations.

Ingraham wasn't the only one to bring the Epstein issue to the table. The same was done by Charlie Kirk , founder of Turning Point, and Steve Bannon , former Trump advisor, two of the most influential voices on the conservative right. It was precisely in the conservative right's online spaces, particularly among younger generations, that the Trump administration's initial refusal to publish the Epstein files made itself felt. Matt Terrill, who told Observador, argued that this group seeks "justice," "clarity," and "answers."

Despite the fierce criticism, Kirk assured the Washington Post that he "never said" that the chorus of criticism could represent the end of MAGA. "People are talking about Epstein because they LOVE Trump . We're afraid that the same people who tried to kill Trump, impeach him, and throw him in prison were after Epstein," the activist later explained on his social media , where he has millions of followers.

The statements, made after Donald Trump first called for MAGA unity and then refused to support the "weaklings" who pressed the Epstein issue, were very similar to those of Laura Loomer , another influential voice on the online right, closer to President Trump. Also on Wednesday, Loomer argued that her insistence on the Epstein case was justified by her concern that the work she has been doing in the White House could be "consumed" by a single case. "I would be angry too if I were President Trump, winning for the American people every day, and people wanted to focus on one issue instead of all the others. President Trump is doing so much good, and we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater ," she wrote .

Their statements represent the position of a fringe of Donald Trump's electorate: even though they are disappointed with certain of the President's actions, they do not withdraw their support and seek to frame their criticism as a concern for maintaining his leadership. This reality leads Matt Terrill to say, like Kirk, that narratives of a MAGA "divorce" are exaggerated. "The MAGA movement will be united. We've seen this before: both in Iran and even in 2020 [after losing the election], when people said, 'He's finished, the base will abandon him.' That didn't happen. And it won't happen now," he argues.

The fact that these criticisms have already surfaced on other occasions helps explain this statement, as it illustrates the diversity of positions within MAGA. For a split to occur, there would have to be a faction that always aligns with Trump and another that always disagrees with him, but that's not what happened. On the contrary, some followers criticized the attacks on Iran, others his tax policy, others his acceptance of a plane from Qatar, and still others his refusal to release the Epstein files.

Since its founding in the mid-19th century, different ideological strands have coexisted within the Republican Party, adapting to the changing circumstances of history. The justification for this coexistence stems from the American political system itself, which favors bipartisanship and forces ideological fringes to align with one of the two major parties, or risk extinction. In 2016, a new ideological strand emerged within the Republican Party: MAGA.

"The existing Republican Party coalition, composed of Reaganites [supporters of Ronald Reagan's line], libertarians, social conservatives, and foreign policy hawks, had to adapt to these new, more populist constituencies brought in by Donald Trump," argues Cesar Conda, consultant and former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney between 2001 and 2003. Speaking to Observador, the four Republicans highlighted the integration of "working-class, Hispanic, and African-American" voters—traditionally Democratic voters—and of independents and abstentionists disillusioned with the system, whose vote shift to the Republican Party is confirmed by post-election studies .

Conda believes the success of this ideological line lies in the "winning message" he conveyed: "The populist 'America First' agenda." Republicans unanimously point to two pillars of this message that, they say, address voters' expressed concerns: the economy and immigration . His promises to combat rising inflation and curb the illegal entry of immigrants into the country earned him not only the votes of traditional Republicans but also a new wave of other voters. Matt Terrill defines this agenda as Donald Trump's "formula."

The fact that these are the two central issues of Donald Trump's coalition helps to understand why none of the other issues that have generated debate within the MAGA party have, so far, resulted in a deep split. "There will be internal debates about the details of tariffs and tax policies and the extent to which the U.S. government should intervene abroad," admits Cesar Conda, emphasizing that success will continue as long as the "America First" agenda remains paramount. "The American people are aware of the good and bad things [about Donald Trump] and are willing to deal with some things that may bother them in exchange for what they see as a vision for America," considers Brian Seitchik, who headed Trump's presidential campaigns in Arizona.

The same idea was conveyed by Laura Loomer in a message shared on her X account : "Trump didn't campaign on releasing the Epstein files. He was asked if he would, and he said, 'I'll look into it.' He campaigned on reducing inflation, reciprocal tariffs, mass deportations, finishing the wall, and ending wars."

Beyond the popularity of this agenda, Michael Conallen, former chief of staff to several Republican congressmen, makes a point of highlighting another factor in its success: the movement's founder. "There's something unique about Donald Trump. His ability to communicate and connect with Republican voters is unprecedented," says the now political consultant. Donald Trump's leadership is so pervasive that it's visible not only among his electoral base, but also within the party.

In January 2016, while passing through Iowa and with his first election still several months away, Donald Trump was already boasting about the loyalty he had managed to cultivate among his voters. " I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and I wouldn't lose any votes ," he declared during a rally .

"The statement is hyperbolic, but the sentiment is real and very true," comments Brian Seitchik. Nine years later, is it still true? Republicans interviewed by Observador have no doubt about it and list several examples. At the polls , Trump improved his results in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. In the White House , he managed to maintain a more united administration—evident in a much lower turnover rate than in the first year of his first administration. Republicans attribute the cohesion within the administration to Trump's appointment of more loyal figures than in his first administration, a loyalty evident in the successive issues that have divided the voter base: on all of them, the administration spoke with one voice: Trump's. " Ultimately, the President is leading, and we're seeing that," considers Matt Terrill.

Donald Trump himself remains aware of his dominance and his agenda. On the first day of the Iran-Israel war last month, the Atlantic asked the President how the "America First" agenda could include attacks on Iran—which some of his supporters wanted to avoid and which ultimately drew criticism. "Considering I developed 'America First,' and considering the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one to decide that ," Donald Trump responded.

Just as it's difficult to maintain a cohesive electoral base or a cohesive administration, the same challenges extend to Congress , where it's necessary to balance differing ideological lines, but also the state interests of each congressman, and, in this particular legislature, the very narrow margins in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Throughout history, presidents' legislative victories in Congress have been achieved through negotiations, argues Michael Conallen, who, as chief of staff, witnessed this process alongside three different congressmen between 2002 and 2018.

Under Trump, this negotiation is less visible, the consultant continues. "I think Donald Trump demands loyalty . It's very rare that he allows any kind of disloyalty," he declares, adding that what the President says is taken as "gospel." Why? Because if a congressman dares to challenge the "America First" agenda, the head of state will support a candidate more aligned with him in the 2026 congressional elections, he believes. This punishment of disloyal Republicans was evident in the case of Thomas Massie, a libertarian Republican congressman who voted against the "One Big Beautiful Bill." A few days later, a new political action committee was formed to support a MAGA candidate to challenge the Kentucky representative for reelection in 2026.

Despite being the main target of Donald Trump's discontent, Thomas Massie wasn't the only Republican representative who voted against his bill. Alongside him in the "no" vote was Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, whose chief of staff Conallen served as chief of staff during the first Trump administration. The now-consultant believes the cases are different, as Fitzpatrick had an advantage: the fact that his district is " purple ," meaning it elects both Democratic and Republican representatives, with no clear party allegiance. In fact, Fitzpatrick is one of only three Republican representatives who won a district where Kamala Harris won the presidential race. And, with current margins, every congressional seat counts in the 2026 elections.

"The people in the Trump administration, the MAGA movement, aren't stupid. They understand that Brian Fitzpatrick will vote without necessarily agreeing with the MAGA movement, but that those votes are necessary for his reelection. And they give him that authorization," assesses Michael Conallen. Despite this, he acknowledges that the process of negotiation between the President's interests and the interests of the constituencies that elected him is also increasingly rare, due to the widespread adoption of the "America First" agenda and the MAGA Movement at all levels of the Republican Party.

However, just as among the electorate's base, the formula "political message + leader's character" also weighs heavily in Congress. Recognizing that the intra-party negotiation process is an intrinsic feature of the American political system, Brian Seitchik states that each president has their own strategies for getting members of Congress to approve their bills. Donald Trump's weapon? His "accessibility." " Members of Congress know that if they vote 'no,' he'll call them . But they also know that if they have an opinion, they can approach him and they'll be heard. He understands the commercial nature of politics," he explains.

JD Vance and Marco Rubio : what do the two figures at the top of the Trump administration have in common? Among other things, the fact that, at the origins of the MAGA movement, they were his critics. "I vacillate between thinking Trump is a cynical idiot like Nixon who can't be that bad and that he's America's Hitler," Vance wrote in a private message in 2016. He later explained that his hostility to Trump was based on "style" rather than "substance," which he said he realized he agreed with. Rubio, who opposed Trump in the 2016 Republican Party primaries, justified his change of position by saying that "Trump gave voice to the sentiment [of millions of Americans who no longer believed in the 'American dream']."

Rubio and Vance are just two of dozens of Republican voices who have embraced the MAGA movement. Cesar Conda, who also served as Rubio's chief of staff when he was a senator, asserts that the explanation for this shift is "simple." " Politicians are policymakers who gravitate toward the agendas voters demand. During the last election, voters demanded an end to illegal immigration, foreign ties, and inflation," he summarizes. Matt Terril, who worked on Rubio's presidential campaign, and Brian Seitchick, who worked on Trump's Arizona campaign, corroborate the position that the conversion to MAGA stemmed from a genuine—if often calculated—belief in Donald Trump's agenda.

For this same reason, they consider, respectively, that "there has been a permanent shift " and a "shift in the goals" of the Republican Party. In other words, the new populist agenda, in addition to attracting new voters, has eliminated the influence of a faction within the Party. In this case, a very specific faction: the neoconservatives or foreign policy "hawks," who favored foreign intervention. In their place were ideas of isolationism and nationalism. This shift in ideas occurred through the conversion of Republicans to this line or the departure of others from Congress.

These three Republican consultants' insights into how MAGA has colonized the Republican Party help us understand their vision for the future. They all believe the change has been so systemic that the movement will survive even with Donald Trump out of the White House . This confidence is driven by a combination of factors. First, because the political message has proven effective with a broad group of voters. "If the [Republican Party] wants to continue dominating elections nationally, it will have to continue promoting the 'America First' agenda that appeals to the millions of working-class voters Donald Trump brought into the [Republican Party] Big Tent," Cesar Conda believes.

On the other hand, the 2024 election proved that, even outside the White House, Donald Trump can mobilize voters and get them to the polls. The question arises as to how effective this mobilization will be if his name isn't on the ballot. Terrill and Seitchik argue that this answer depends on who Trump chooses to support in the 2028 Republican primaries—that is, who will be his political heir. Without committing to any name—not even J.D. Vance—they acknowledge that success will depend on this successor's ability to capture the "trust" of the MAGA movement . And how can this trust be achieved? While there are no certainties, Brian Seitchik believes that having the vote of confidence from the movement's leader would be a great starting point.

However, Michael Connellan, who has worked with Republicans farther removed from the MAGA movement, has a completely different view of the Republican Party's future. For this consultant, MAGA is merely a "fad" that many Republicans have seized to get closer to the President and his voters, rather than an ideology that has genuinely taken hold of the Party. Therefore, he believes that, without Trump, the ideology will not disappear, but it will lose some of its luster.

" I don't see potential MAGA successors capable of continuing to advance President Trump's agenda. Unless a successor demonstrates the same ability to communicate and connect in the same way, we will see other [Republicans] who may have walked alongside the President or in silence become more influential," he argues. But for now—and until 2028—Republicans agree that the MAGA coalition Trump founded and which supports his administration is here to stay.