Charlie Kirk Convenes Gen Z Conservatives to Discuss Israel, Aid, and America-First Priorities

Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.

Up Next

Charlie Kirk Debates Palestinian Christian on Israel Support, Turkey's Role in Armenian Persecution, and U.S. Foreign Aid

Charlie Kirk Debates Palestinian Christian on Israel Support, Turkey's Role in Armenian Persecution, and U.S. Foreign Aid

9:30

Tucker Carlson Defends America First and Charlie Kirk's Legacy Against Deplatforming and Political Attacks

Tucker Carlson Defends America First and Charlie Kirk's Legacy Against Deplatforming and Political Attacks

41:43

Candace Owens and Bassem Youssef Expose Zionist Influence Operations Inside Evangelical Churches and Political Organizations

Candace Owens and Bassem Youssef Expose Zionist Influence Operations Inside Evangelical Churches and Political Organizations

16:11

Charlie Kirk Convenes Gen Z Conservatives to Discuss Israel, Aid, and America-First Priorities

Charlie Kirk gathered Turning Point USA chapter leaders from across the country for an unfiltered focus group on Israel, AIPAC, and U.S. foreign policy. The young conservatives voiced exhaustion with being called anti-Semitic for questioning Israeli aid while struggling to afford homes and facing open borders. Kirk acknowledged a generational shift, rejecting Jew-hatred while arguing that criticism of the Netanyahu government or concerns about AIPAC influence shouldn't brand anyone as hateful. The conversation revealed that most Gen Z conservatives support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but want the U.S. to prioritize domestic crises, from deportations to housing, over foreign subsidies.

Categories: Foreign Policy
July 25, 2025

Setting the Stage: A Focus Group on Israel and Gen Z Conservatives

Charlie Kirk opened the session by acknowledging what he knew would be a contentious conversation. He brought together Turning Point USA chapter leaders from across the country — real conservatives, many of them Christians — to discuss one of the most polarizing topics of the moment: Israel, U.S. aid, AIPAC, and the war in Gaza. Kirk framed it as a focus group, not a debate, and made clear his goal was to document what this generation actually thinks, not what anonymous social media comments suggest they believe.

Producer Andrew Kolvet joined Kirk to help navigate the discussion. Kirk emphasized that the conversation would be raw, real, and likely to bother people on all sides — but that honest dialogue was necessary. He encouraged viewers to watch to the end, promising that the group would arrive at a path forward that rejects anti-Semitism while also affirming that questioning the current Israeli government does not make someone a Jew-hater.

Word Association: What Comes to Mind When You Hear "Israel"?

Kirk began with a word-association exercise. When asked what comes to mind upon hearing "Israel," the responses ranged widely:

  • Judaism
  • Aid (twice)
  • Netanyahu
  • Tax dollars (twice)
  • Liability
  • Sacred
  • Conflict
  • Complex
  • Controversial
  • Scary
  • Strategic
  • Mossad

The mention of Mossad stood out. Kirk pressed the participant on why Israel's intelligence service was the first thing to come to mind. The response: it reminded them of the CIA — shadowy, involved in things the public doesn't know about, and potentially connected to events like the Epstein scandal. Kirk asked if the Epstein issue felt connected to Mossad and Israel in their mind. One participant said they viewed them as separate; another said there's a growing consensus that a connection exists.

Foreign Aid and Return on Investment

The word "aid" came up twice in the initial exercise. Kirk asked why. One participant compared U.S. support for Israel to support for Ukraine: billions of dollars with little return on investment. They argued that America has bigger problems at home — particularly the southern border, where illegal immigration has resulted in thousands of American deaths. Another participant agreed, saying the U.S. should focus on securing the border and keeping Americans safe rather than subsidizing foreign countries.

Kirk then introduced a counterargument: supporters of Israel argue that the country does a lot of America's "dirty work" in the Middle East, especially intelligence gathering. Was that persuasive? Not really, one participant said, pointing to Israel's strike on Iranian targets during active U.S.-Iran negotiations. The State Department had been negotiating, and Israel launched Operation Rising Lion anyway, which the participant felt derailed diplomacy and sped up conflict. Kirk asked how many in the group felt Israel had pulled the U.S. into that conflict. Some raised their hands; others disagreed, arguing that the U.S. had the authority to choose whether to join and saw strategic value in doing so.

Israel's Right to Exist vs. America's Burning House

Kirk asked a pointed question: given that nations like Hamas and Iran have sworn to destroy Israel, at what point would participants be okay with the U.S. defending Israel's right to exist? The response was measured. Israel absolutely has a right to exist and a right to defend itself, one participant said. That wasn't the issue. The issue was priorities. They offered an analogy: "Our house is burning down and so is our neighbor's, and we're trying to put their fire out before we put ours out."

Kirk then disclosed the figure: the U.S. sends roughly $4 billion to Israel annually, totaling approximately $319 billion (adjusted for inflation) since 1948. Did that upset them? Yes, several said. One participant listed multiple domestic needs — from supporting an economy that would allow their generation to afford homes to addressing the cartels operating across the southern border, which have killed thousands and contributed to hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths. It felt insulting, they said, that money went anywhere else.

Would Decoupling from Aid Change Perceptions?

Kirk posed a hypothetical: What if the Israeli government announced a five-year plan to decouple from U.S. aid, saying, "Thank you for the help since 1948. We're a rich country. We've balanced our budget. We have money in our sovereign wealth fund. We're now going to transition to self-reliance." Would that help people's view of Israel?

The answer was unanimous: Yes. Absolutely. 100%. One participant compared it to Trump's efforts to even out NATO contributions, noting that Americans do not want other nations freelloading off the United States. Another added that there has been enormous controversy over aid to Ukraine, yet not as much over Israel — and people are judged very heavily if they critique aid to Israel. Why, they asked, are we treating Israel differently than any other ally? Why aren't we holding them to the same standard?

Theology, Policy, and Genesis 12:3

Kirk shifted to a sensitive topic: lawmakers like Ted Cruz using the Bible — specifically Genesis 12:3 ("I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse") — to justify aid to Israel. Did that resonate with them? Most raised their hands to indicate it didn't. One participant, a convert to Catholicism from Judaism, explained that many people look to the writings of Paul in the New Testament, particularly Romans 9, which speaks to how the new covenant applies to all people, not just ethnic Israel. Another participant said they found "prophecy as policy" to be theologically problematic. While the Bible contains many things, using it to justify current nation-state actions felt off.

Kirk asked the ethnically Jewish, now-Catholic participant about AIPAC. They had concerns about it. Kirk noted that some people say criticizing AIPAC is anti-Semitic. The participant thought that was ridiculous. They believed it was reasonable to have concerns about any lobbying group, especially one that doesn't primarily represent American interests but influences American lawmakers.

AIPAC and Foreign Lobbying

Kirk asked the group more broadly: does AIPAC represent a kind of "cutting in line" — a separate group getting higher priority than American citizens? Several participants agreed. One said the entire idea of AIPAC is to represent a group, but the fact that a group not representing American interests is allowed to influence U.S. representatives is a huge problem. They added that they believe only about 20 members of Congress — between the Senate and the House — are fully doing the work of the American people without the influence of outside groups pulling their priorities.

Kirk pointed out that many other countries also lobby in Washington. Does that upset participants equally, or does AIPAC just get the most attention? The response: if those other lobbying groups are doing the same thing, of course it's a problem. No other country should be telling U.S. representatives how to spend money or where to focus. The principle is America First.

Gaza, Destruction, and Social Media Algorithms

Kirk flipped the word-association exercise: What comes to mind when you hear "Gaza" or "Gazans"? (He asked participants to leave Hamas out of it for now.) Responses included:

  • Complicated
  • Life
  • Destruction
  • Differences
  • Perish

Kirk asked what impression participants had of what's been happening in Gaza. One said "severe loss of life," adding that loss of life is always a bad thing, no matter who is dying. Kirk asked if social media algorithms were feeding them images of children dying or destruction. Yes, several said. One participant noted that on their campus, there are "missing kid" posters featuring children who have died in Gaza, seemingly designed to elicit sympathy.

Kirk then asked an important follow-up: Has there been any awareness on campus for the Israeli hostages or the more than 1,200 Israelis massacred on October 7? No, the participant said. Kirk emphasized the need for a balanced conversation.

What Should We Be Focused On Instead?

Kirk asked each participant to name one issue they wish the country were focused on instead of Israel:

  • Border (multiple participants)
  • Deportations
  • Housing (twice)
  • Families

Kirk then asked how many felt that Israel matters more to policymakers than enabling young people to own homes. Every hand went up.

One participant pushed back slightly, noting that the U.S. government can handle multiple priorities at once — that's why there are so many cabinet secretaries. But they acknowledged understanding where Gen Z is coming from: "We can't buy homes. We can't afford anything."

Is Jew-Hatred Increasing?

Kirk asked directly: Do you see Jew-hatred increasing among your generation? One participant said there's a lot of confusion between criticism and hate. Legitimate hatred exists, but a lot of criticism is being framed as hatred, and that conflation is unhelpful. Kirk asked if participants thought it was anti-Semitic to say they don't like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. No, they all said.

Another participant said there is a rise in Jew-hatred, but it's not the majority driver. The majority driver among Gen Z conservatives is exhaustion. Kirk asked if that was a fair characterization. Yes, they agreed. There are isolated weirdos who genuinely hate Jews, and no one in decent society wants that. But most young people are just tired. They want to be able to buy a home. They want deportations. They're not anti-Israel. They don't wish Israel harm. They're not cheering on Iran. They support Israel as an ally. But they would be called anti-Semites by some people for expressing these views, and they think that's ridiculous.

The Danger of Overuse: Anti-Semitism and Racism

One participant compared the accusation of anti-Semitism to the accusation of racism: words thrown out when people can't prove someone wrong or can't agree with them. Another participant made a striking observation: among people they know, there is growing disdain toward Jewish people — not because of inherent hatred, but because they're constantly being told they hate Jews. "If you're going to say I hate Jews over and over and over again," the participant said, "if I'm going to be convicted of the crime, I might as well do the crime."

Kirk agreed, adding that he fears the same thing happens with constant talk of race: the more it's discussed, the more racism actually happens. He thanked the participant for being honest and used the example of Tucker Carlson. If Tucker were "canceled" for statements some call anti-Semitic, would anti-Semitism increase or decrease? The group agreed: it would increase, because every Tucker supporter would then be considered anti-Semitic by association.

The Binary Trap and a Path Forward

Kirk identified the destructive binary being presented: if you don't passionately and uncritically support everything related to Israel, you are a hater. He proposed a different path. He loves Israel. He visited there with his wife and had incredible experiences. He saw where Jesus rose from the dead and walked on water. But he is also an American. He represents a generation that can't afford anything, that is flooded with illegal immigrants, where no one speaks English and hospitals are overwhelmed.

Kirk argued for prudence: reject Jew-hatred outright — it's dumb and unacceptable. But also, don't call everyone an anti-Semite if they don't take a puritanical view of the Netanyahu government. That approach is bad for everybody. Kirk asked if the group would welcome the country talking about Israel much less. Yes, they all said. Every day.

Messaging Problem or Material Problem?

Kirk shared a principle he learned over 13 years: when a broken institution says it has a "messaging problem," dig deeper. Sometimes the issue is bad communication. Sometimes the institution is actually doing something wrong. Kirk asked the group: Is this a messaging problem or a material concept problem? One participant said it's a values and priorities problem. Another said it's a messaging problem in the sense that politicians need to be truthful, not salesmen. They're not being honest, and they're letting Gen Z down.

Who Represents Gen Z Best?

Kirk asked who, outside of Trump, represents the group best. One participant said Kirk himself. Kirk thanked them and explained why he convened this focus group: he has been trying to tell others that an earthquake is coming on this issue, and they don't believe him. So he decided to let young people speak for themselves.

Another participant warned that if Republicans don't get young conservatives involved, they will lose to the Democratic Party, which is starting to engage the younger generation more effectively.

What Pro-Israel Arguments Are Persuasive?

Kirk asked what pro-Israel points participants have found most persuasive on social media or campus. Responses included:

  • Emphasizing how Israel helps the U.S. with intelligence, especially regarding Iran
  • Educating people about Islamic terrorism, particularly in the context of 9/11 (though one participant noted that many in their generation know almost nothing about it)
  • Highlighting Israel as the protector of the Holy Land

Kirk asked if it's persuasive when the Israeli Tourism Board brags about gay pride parades in Tel Aviv. No, participants said. That makes no difference.

Kirk then focused on the Holy Land argument, which he said is his biggest personal argument. One participant agreed, noting that the U.S. is a mostly Christian country, and many people can sympathize that the Holy Land is where Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, and rose from the dead. Another added that Islamic terrorism connects Israel and the U.S. as facing a common threat, which brings the issue home.

Evangelicals, Catholics, and the Holy Land

Kirk noted an important distinction: American evangelicals tend to be very pro-Israel, while younger Catholics often are not. Yet the two Catholic participants (one a convert from Judaism) said that talking more about the Holy Land — the place, the environment, the artifacts, the discoveries, the ground where Christ bled — would be more persuasive than any theological argument. In Catholicism, the Via Dolorosa (the path Jesus walked to his crucifixion) and the Stations of the Cross are central. Catholicism is a tactile religion.

Kirk asked if arguing that the Holy Land must be protected so Christians can access it, worship there, and preserve it — rather than letting it be taken over by Muslims as happened in Bethlehem — is a winning argument. Absolutely, they said. 100%. Far more persuasive than anything about gay pride parades in Haifa.

Kirk thanked the group for their time.

Video Transcript

Link copied to clipboard!