Charlie Kirk and his team recently put a camera on young conservatives at the Student Action Summit and asked a simple question: what does Gen Z really think about Israel? The answers were blunt and raw — students aren’t reflexively pro-war, they’re exhausted, worried about bills, and skeptical that sending more taxpayer cash abroad helps them get ahead at home.
One recurring theme from the focus groups was a cold-eyed cost-benefit analysis: kids said billions sent to allies feel like money taken from Americans who can’t afford a home or a family. One student put it this way: “Our house is burning down and so is our neighbor’s,” meaning Washington should get its own priorities straight before underwriting endless foreign commitments. Those are not ideological talking points so much as practical frustration boiled down to plain language.
Let’s be clear — exhaustion about the economy and housing is a conservative opening, not an invitation to cede the argument. Conservatives who brush off these students as naive are missing the point: Gen Z’s skepticism is often about priorities and accountability, not hatred of allies. If Republicans want to rebuild support for Israel, we must first explain the national-security case plainly while also offering credible plans to fix life back home.
That said, the campus conversation is being poisoned by lazy left-wing narratives that too often turn legitimate foreign-policy debate into tribal accusations or worse. Students complained that criticizing Israel gets slapped with labels rather than genuine debate, and that’s exactly the environment where real grievances metastasize into dangerous polarization. Conservatives should call out bad-faith rhetoric while defending the right to criticize policy without descending into antisemitic tropes.
Charlie Kirk has sounded the alarm beyond the campus floor, even warning allies that America is losing a generation if we don’t act, and he’s taken those warnings straight to world leaders. That’s the kind of clarity the moment requires: unapologetic support for Israel paired with a strategy to win young Americans by addressing their immediate economic anxieties. This isn’t soft outreach; it’s strategic conservatism.
Establishing trust with Gen Z won’t happen with campaign slogans or virtue-signaling; it will happen by delivering on border security, lowering costs, and explaining why a secure, democratic Israel matters to American security and Christian heritage. If conservatives sell real results at home and pair that with honest, winsome arguments for alliances abroad, we can stop losing ground to the radical narratives on campus. The alternative is letting a generation drift into cynicism, and that’s a risk we can’t afford.
