We Never Thought We'd Be Here. So Who Changed?

In partnership with

Trusted by millions. Actually enjoyed by them too.

Most business news feels like homework. Morning Brew feels like a cheat sheet. Quick hits on business, tech, and finance—sharp enough to make sense, snappy enough to make you smile.

Try the newsletter for free and see why it’s the go-to for over 4 million professionals every morning.

Check it out

Hard to believe that just 6 months ago these two agreed on completely everything. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and former President Donald Trump were once seen as ideological allies, with Greene's staunch support for Trump’s policies and rhetoric. However, recent developments have highlighted significant disagreements between the two, prompting a question: who changed their politics, Trump or Greene?

One of the most notable points of contention is Trump's imposition of tariffs. Greene has publicly criticized these measures, pointing out that major manufacturing companies are experiencing supply chain disruptions as a result. She argues that these tariffs are causing problems for businesses and, by extension, the workers they employ. This stance contrasts sharply with Trump's earlier policies, which Greene once fully endorsed, suggesting a shift in her economic perspective or a reevaluation of the practical impacts of such policies.

Another area of disagreement lies in their approach to Israel and the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Greene's recent comments on the situation in Gaza, where she echoed criticisms of Israel's actions, have drawn ire from AIPAC. In fact, Greene has of recent been extremely critical of AIPAC and Israeli influence in American politics. This position marks a departure from her previous alignment with Trump's unwavering support for Israel, which was a cornerstone of his foreign policy. AIPAC's response, likening Greene to left-wing critics of Israel, underscores the depth of this rift, as it challenges the "America First" mantra that both once championed, albeit in different contexts.

Perhaps the most publicized disagreement concerns the Jeffrey Epstein files. Greene has been vocal about the need for transparency regarding these files, even going so far as to say she would read names on the House floor if provided with a list. This push for accountability contrasts with Trump's apparent reluctance to engage deeply with the issue, often dismissing it as a "Democrat hoax." Greene's insistence on this matter reflects a commitment to addressing a high-profile issue that has captured public attention, whereas Trump's focus has shifted towards other priorities like immigration and crime.

These disagreements raise the question of who has changed their stance. Be sure to vote in our poll below. We’d love to know your answer. Has Trump modified his approach to governance and policy since returning to office, or has Greene's perspective evolved in response to new information or political realities? Trump's administration has seen shifts, such as the controversial "One Big Beautiful Bill" (OBBB), which has faced criticism for potentially increasing the budget deficit, a concern that aligns with some of Greene's recent criticisms of economic policy. On the other hand, Greene's willingness to negotiate with Democrats on health care subsidies, a move that has earned her unexpected praise from the opposition, suggests a pragmatic shift that might not align with some Republicans’ more rigid party lines.

The reader is left to ponder whether these changes are a result of evolving circumstances, new insights, or a strategic recalibration by either figure. The tariff disagreement highlights economic policy divides, the Israel/AIPAC issue reveals foreign policy tensions, and the Epstein list controversy underscores differences in transparency and accountability. Each of these points of contention offers a lens through which to view the evolving relationship between Trump and Greene, inviting consideration of whether one has deviated from a previously shared path or if both have independently charted new courses. The answer, it seems, lies up to the constituency. What do you think?