No, Fuentes hasn’t already won

Richard Hanania double-downs, “Groypers Are Just More Honest MAGAs” confidently proclaiming that “Fuentes has already won”. Recall I have taken the opposite position that the Goypers are a short-term distraction that will have no lasting influence on the GOP.

He writes:

When I say the right is being Groyperized, some respond that not that many people have heard of Nick Fuentes. This is kind of like saying that Republicans aren’t a low tax party because nobody knows who Grover Norquist is. Obviously, people can have major impacts on political movements without being household names.

As I said in my original post, even if the Groypers infuse youthful enthusiasm in the party, any additional votes by appealing to the Groypers may be negated by losing reliable votes by Evangelicals and moderates in swing states, who either consider the Groypers to be reprehensible or never heard of them. Tax cuts are much less polarizing than the Groypers’ stance on Israel. The GOP has to weigh if this trade-off is worth it; I predict–and their actions suggest–it’s not.

The actions of the Trump administration continue to suggest that party officials do not care about the Groypers, or the online-led dissent-right, in general. This is seen on foreign policy, economic policy, Epstein transparency, Ukraine aid, and Israel. The Groypers wanted full disclosure on Epstein–and for Trump to not attack Iran and to stop being so deferential towards Israel; the opposite has happened.

So Hanania has to wrestle with this contradiction or cognitive dissonance that the Groypers are the ‘future of the party’ even when the party’s actions suggest the opposite. Even Fuentes says so:

For example, Trump’s proposed $2k tariff stimulus checks may mean more inflation, in total disregard to the online-right’s concerns last week about inflation. As seen in 2022-2023 following the Covid stimulus, inflation may surge. Trump historically has shown no concern for inflation. The best play here is to buy stocks, which tend to hedge inflation well compared to bonds or cash.

(I however predict any excess inflation for said checks will be much more muted, as post-Covid inflation was attributable more to ‘supply shocks’ and disruption, than stimulus-led consumer spending.)

And let’s not forget Ukraine. Trump has hosted many positive meetings with Zelensky, and in In September 2025 pledged more aid. Moreover, the administration has kept the $30 billion of aid pledged under Biden in place:

The Trump administration policy appears to keep in place the military aid committed under the Biden administration, which is set to deliver around $30 billion over the next three-and-a-half years. This is significant as that stream of equipment is larger than anything that might come out of the U.S.-NATO deal.

This is more evidence that the online fringes, despite large followings, have no influence on the party. Yes, there are some dissidents such as Richard Spencer or some neo-Nazi types who support more aid for Ukraine, but overall, the most common critcism is that it’s a taxpayer gift for Zelensky. Moreover, this is a position that is much more mainstream than abandoning Israel, and still Trump has not defected on Ukraine.

What about the tariffs? Aren’t those an olive branch to the fringe-right? Not really. Many on the online or dissident-right have criticized the tariffs as being an ineffective or a shallow populist appeal to economic illiterates that will not move the needle on anything, or will make things worse, such as worsening inflation and disproportionately hurting small businesses:

Although Mr.Fuentes endorsed the tariffs, many of his followers pushed back, arguing that businesses would pass the inflation on to consumers, which is true and how it has always worked, as seen in 2022-2024 when consumer prices surged, although I was correct in predicting in 2025 that inflation would remain low in spite of the Trump ‘liberation day’ tariffs:

There aren’t just anti-Groyper shills, but include his own followers. For example, the most upvoted reply if from “@grimcalls” with 40k followers, who in his bio identifies as a “Christian | Gen Zyklon | JQ shitposter”. The thing is, in their defense, the Groypers are not dumb or overly impressionable. Their views are uncouth, yes, but they are not going to be placated by shallow appeals to populism. They have enough common-sense to know that the tariffs are not a ‘free lunch’.

Hanania lists five bullet-points and argues that the GOP has acceded to the Groypers on all four, but the last:

Mainstream MAGA has already fully adopted 1-4. These also are part of the worldview of what are called “dissident right” or “national conservatism,” with broadly defined race being an arguable sticking point. Only 5 is left to fight about.

But points 1-4 are much more vague though or nothing new. The GOP has always positioned itself as vaguely Christian, in opposition to the ‘secular left’. Sometimes rather obviously, as seen during the second Bush administration. Ironically, Trump is the most secular Republican president ever. Same for nationalism; the GOP has historically leaned heavily on appeals to national identity, such as the “support the troops” messaging in the early 2000s after 9/11 and during the Iraq War, which tied patriotism and military loyalty to party identity.

On immigration, yes, the party has moved further to the right. But this sentiment predates the Groypers though. Trump, in large part, became a political force by riding a wave of skepticism towards immigration, which predates the popularity Fuentes. But, still, Trump refuses to outright reject immigration. Fuentes was still obscure in 2016 when Trump secured the GOP nomination on promises of a border wall, no less.

Hanania mentions Charlie Kirk defecting on immigration:

On immigration, the watershed moment came in 2019 when Charlie Kirk changed his position on the issue in response to pressure from Fuentes and his fans. Although practically everyone on the right already opposed illegal immigration, until that point, supporting legal,

But Fuentes and his followers heckled Charlie Kirk and TPUSA about Israel from 2019-2020 during the so-called “Groyper Wars”, and still, he didn’t change his mind on Israel (save suspiciously until 48 hours before his death). He remained popular despite being pro-Israel for all those years; in fact, his brand blew up. In Summer 2025, Fuentes was again trying to drive a wedge between Trump supporters on Iran, Israel, and Epstein which predictably totally failed.

Even Hanania admits that much of the change is aesthetic, not even quantitative:

Stylistically and in terms of aesthetics, the conservative movement has likewise moved towards Groyperdom. Regarding number four from the list above, this is just the Based Ritual, which has become the default way of communicating among conservatives. See Matt Walsh denouncing the idea that anyone would ever “punch right” by criticizing those who say pro-Nazi things.

Again, so what? If he means, “the GOP will adopt memetic messaging to attract new voters and to counter left,” yes, he may be right, but this not the same as the party becoming Groyper-ized. The Groypers are not going to be fooled by this when the GOP still toes the line on foreign policy or economic policy. He is right though that the messaging has changed. It’s surreal to see official, grey-checkmark goverment accounts “shitposting“, and I have to periodically remind myself that those accounts are not hacked and that this is the ‘new normal’ for better or worse.

Finally, let me reiterate my position: the Groypers are treated as nothing more than a distraction by party officials. Trump and other higher-ups will not acknowledge him. It’s as if he does not exist to those people. This happens every 4-6 months: Tucker, Candace, or Fuentes–the trio– will ‘trend’ and then it’s back to politics as usual.

On October 31st on his show, Fuentes issued a warning to Vance:

No, he’s not going to be sending 10,000 people anywhere. The media often exaggerates the influence of fringe or dissident figures far beyond their real impact or achievements. They make for an interesting story, and people want to root for an underdog. There is a long history of the far-right fringes trying to infiltrate or influence the Republican Party, and they always fail despite getting a lot of media coverage and at least momentarily having momentum. Their ideas are never assimilated by party officials or major candidates.

Examples include John Birch, David Duke, Ross Perot (not that extreme, but a staunch deficit hawk and protectionist), and Patrick Buchanan. Mr. Fuentes had already tried in 2022 to earn Trump’s approval and friendship at a Mar-a-Lago dinner, along with Kanye West, which failed and was a PR disaster that saw Trump disavow him after being ‘tricked’.

Recall in 2017 how Bronze Age Pervert (BAP), who was a big deal at the time, threatened to mobilize his large following in an attempt to influence Trump, which also predictably failed, “BAP first surfaced in the corporate media in the Atlantic Monthly in 2017 announced by Curtis Yarvin as the alleged architect of a secret plan to organize a flash mob of nudist bodybuilders in MAGA hats on the Washington Mall, but the event never materialized. ”

From 2016-2018, BAP and his so-called ‘Baptist’ army was arguably bigger and more important than the Groypers. How many of the groups and individuals that attended the 2017 ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville still exist, let alone are relevant? Richard Spencer at one point was considered an influential intellectual. The list goes on, and they all fell by the wayside.

BAP in August 2025 criticized Trump’s tariffs, which also was ignored given how on Trump would go on to threaten more tariffs on China in October. See also for example how some of Trump’s wealthiest supporters donated in the expectation of a ‘Bitcoin reserve’, which in early 2025 I predicted would fail. Almost a year into Trump’s first term has seen no progress on the reserve, later downgraded to a stockpile, which remains unfunded, and Trump hardly talks about Bitcoin anymore.

I think the overarching pattern or theme is how the Trump inner circle, despite being well-aware aware of these fringe figures or the dissident-right, are relatively insulated from them policy-wise. They all heard of Yarvin, BAP, and Fuentes, but that is the extent of their influence on the party. It’s hard for anyone to influence Trump, save for ‘Israel interests’ and top tech CEOs, like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, or Tim Cook. This is also seen with Trump’s very low pardon rate relative to past presidents (excluding Jan 6th pardons). This agrees with Trump being most deferential towards power, whoever holds it. And fringe groups by definition are not powerful.

Trump and Vance know to just let the ‘Fuentes wave’ pass than to take the bait. This has been going on since 2018. Mr Fuentes is the master of stirring controversy, but it never produces tangible results. Hence, party officials learned the best strategy is to do nothing and wait until whoever has assumed the mantle of the spokesperson the fringe, meets the inevitable fate of fading into irrelevance or self destruction.