MAGA faithful cheer Trump for pausing Ukraine weapons after bristling at Iran strikes
This week's announcement pausing deliveries of key air defense missiles, precision-guided artillery and other equipment to Ukraine comes just a few weeks after Trump ordered the U.S. military to carry out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Bombing those sites in Iran had some hardcore supporters of the "Make America Great Again" movement openly questioning whether Trump was betraying his vow to keep America out of 'stupid wars" as he inserted the U.S. military into Israel's conflict with Tehran.
With the Ukraine pause, which affects a crucial resupply of Patriot missiles, Trump is sending the message to his most enthusiastic backers that he is committed to following through on his campaign pledge to wind down American support for Ukraine's efforts to repel Russia, a conflict he has repeatedly described as a costly boondoggle for U.S. taxpayers.
'The choice was this: either prioritize equipping our own troops with a munition in short supply (and which was used to defend U.S. troops last week) or provide them to a country where there are limited U.S. interests,' Dan Caldwell, who was ousted as a senior adviser to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, posted on X.
Caldwell publicly worried before the Iran strikes that U.S. involvement could incite a major war and ultimately cost American lives.
Far-right influencer Jack Posobiec, another ardent MAGA backer, warned as Trump weighed whether to carry out strikes on Iran last month that such a move 'would disastrously split the Trump coalition."
Both the White House and the Pentagon have justified the move as being consistent with Trump's campaign pledge to limit U.S. involvement in foreign wars.
'The president was elected on an America first platform to put America first,' Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell said.
At the same time, the decision is stirring anxiety among those in the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party. Many are flummoxed by Trump's halting the flow of U.S. arms just as Russia accelerates its unrelenting assault on Ukraine.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican who hails from a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, wrote to Trump and the Pentagon on Wednesday expressing 'serious concern' about the decision and requesting an emergency briefing.
'We can't let (Russian President Vladimir) Putin prevail now. President Trump knows that too and it's why he's been advocating for peace,' Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, wrote on X. 'Now is the time to show Putin we mean business. And that starts with ensuring Ukraine has the weapons Congress authorized to pressure Putin to the negotiating table.'
Trump spoke by phone with Putin on Thursday, the sixth call between the leaders since Trump's return to office. The leaders discussed Iran, Ukraine and other issues but did not specifically address the suspension of some U.S. weapons shipments to Ukraine, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser.
Zelenskyy said in Denmark after meeting with major European Union backers that he hopes to talk to Trump in the coming days about the suspension.
The administration says it is part of global review of the U.S. stockpile and is a necessary audit after sending nearly $70 billion in arms to Ukraine since Putin launched the war on Ukraine in February 2022.
The pause was coordinated by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby.
Colby, before taking his position, spoke publicly about the need to focus U.S. strategy more on China, widely seen as the United States' biggest economic and military competitor. At his Senate confirmation hearing in March, he said the U.S. doesn't have a 'multi-war military.'
'This is the restrainers like Colby flexing their muscle and saying, 'Hey, the Pacific is more important,'' said retired Navy Adm. Mark Montgomery, an analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Backers of a more restrained U.S. foreign policy say the move is necessary, given an unsettled Middle East, rising challenges in Asia and the stress placed on the U.S. defense industrial complex after more than three years of war in Ukraine.
'You're really coming up to the point where continuing to provide aid to Ukraine is putting at risk the U.S. ability to operate in future crises,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities. 'And you don't know when those crises are going to happen."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk Announces New America Party Is Formed Amid Trump Split
Elon Musk speaks during an America PAC town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on Sunday, March 30, 2025. Credit - Jamie Kelter Davis—Getty Images Elon Musk says he has 'formed' his new political party titled the "America Party." The former lead of the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) had promised to do just that if President Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' passed. Musk has been—and continues to be—a vocal critic of the policy bill, arguing that it will 'cause immense strategic harm' to America on account of the trillions of dollars the bill is projected to add to the debt of the country. 'By a factor of two to one, you want a new political party and you shall have it! When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste and graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' Musk said via his social media platform, X, on Saturday, a day after Trump signed the bill. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' The Tesla CEO had opened a poll on July 4, Independence Day, asking his more than 220 million followers if he should create the new political party. Over 65% of the more than 1.2 million respondents voted 'yes.' Read More: Musk Renews Promise to Start New Rival Political Party as Trump Debates Deporting Him Musk went on to share his potential strategy for 'gaining independence from the two-party system,' arguing that he might try to 'laser-focus on just two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 House districts' for his party. 'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people,' Musk elaborated. But as for what exactly Musk plans to do with his rival third party is largely open for discussion. Musk has yet to share any specific proposed policies or explicitly state what the core tenets of his party would what we do—and don't—know about Musk's vision for the America Party and how it came to be. When Musk floated the idea of creating a new political party in early June amid the very public fracturing of his relationship with Trump, his one-time ally, Musk after conducting a poll said: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80% in the middle!' He appeared to be referring to those who may not feel seen or represented by either the Republican Party or Democratic Party. Musk, the country's biggest Republican donor, is seemingly committed to campaigning against any Republicans who showed support and voted for the Big, Beautiful Bill that he so vehemently opposes. 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame!' Musk said on June 30. 'And they will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth.' If he so desired, Musk could target pivotal congressional seats in an effort to turn them and thus potentially have the upper hand during votes on key matters. He seemingly referenced this plan with his July 4 post about establishing a 'laser-focus on just two or three Senate seats and eight to 10 House districts.' Musk did not elaborate or specify which seats would be at the center of his focus. While Musk has yet to share an actual policy platform for his party, he has reposted and responded affirmatively to some of his X followers' posts about what the platform could be. What appears to be on the docket is a platform that prioritizes cuts on debt and excess spending within the government, similar to what Musk pushed for during his time in the White House. One of Musk's followers asked: 'Is this the America Party platform?' They went on to list the following stances: Reduce debt, responsible spending only Modernize military with AI/robotics Pro tech, accelerate to win in AI Less regulation across board, but especially in energy Free speech Pro natalist Centrist policies everywhere else In response, Musk said 'yeah!' and went on to repost the list to his millions of followers, but stopped short of providing his own official policy plan. Read More: Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Faces Opposition From Musk and Some Republicans as Senate Narrowly Votes to Advance It Though Musk had voted Democrat previously, he played a vital role for the Republican Party when he became the largest donor of the 2024 presidential race, predominantly funding Trump's campaign but also financially backing other Republicans via his super political action committee (PAC) titled America PAC. Musk became a close ally of Trump's and appeared at major campaign rallies with him, addressing large crowds and urging them to vote for Trump. As a sign of their close working relationship, Trump appointed Musk as the lead of DOGE, a role he held until May. During his tenure, Musk became known for actualizing Trump's vision of cutting 'waste' in the government, which amounted to laying off thousands of federal employees. But Musk and Trump's relationship soured, especially after the former took a public stance against the spending bill. 'I think a bill can be big or it could be beautiful,' Musk told CBS News in May, shortly before he announced his DOGE departure. 'But I don't know if it could be both.' Going a step further in early June, Musk said the 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination' and told his millions of followers to 'call your Senator, call your Congressman… kill the bill!' Musk and Trump engaged in an all-out war of words, exchanging jabs and lobbying threats—with Trump threatening to take away the government contracts for Musk's companies, including the SpaceX firm that has become a critical player for NASA. Trump has repeatedly claimed that the falling out stemmed from Musk being unhappy over changes to the Electric Vehicle [EV] mandate. Tensions reignited once more when Musk renewed his calls for the policy bill not to be passed. When asked by reporters on July 1 if he was planning to deport Musk, who has U.S. and South African citizenship, Trump replied: 'I don't know, we'll have to take a look.' 'We might have to put DOGE on Elon. The monster that might have to go back and eat Elon. Wouldn't that be terrible?' Trump said, appearing to refer to the contracts and subsidies that Musk's prominent businesses have from the federal government. Read More: Musk Floats Idea of Starting New Rival Political Party—and Even Names It—Amid Trump Feud Though Musk is looking to build a viable, competitive third party, it requires more than an X poll to actualize it in the U.S.. In fact, many have tried before. Two major parties—Democratic and Republican—have dominated U.S. politics and no third party in recent memory has been able to penetrate the two-party system in a meaningful way. Former 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate Andrew Yang has pushed for representation beyond the two-party system, but has arguably encountered limited success with his Forward Party. In June, Yang expressed a keenness to join forces with Musk, seemingly hoping that the two of them may have a stronger chance of succeeding. 'Elon has built world-class companies from nothing more than an idea multiple times, and in this instance, you have the vast majority of Americans who are hungry for a new approach,' Yang said in an interview with Politico. 'I'm happy to spell it out for Elon, or anyone else who wants to head down this road. A third party can succeed very quickly.' Part of the reason third parties struggle is due to the U.S.' 'winner takes all' system in the Electoral College. 48 out of the 50 States award Electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis (so does the District of Columbia). This makes voting for third party candidates difficult. For example, support for the Tea Party held strong at 24% according to polls in the 2010s, though they rarely held significant political power, since the Republicans were often fearful of splitting votes in races with narrow margins, which would have risked giving the election to Democratic candidates. Contact us at letters@
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Attack on rural America': Kentucky governor hits Medicaid cuts in Trump's megabill
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear argued the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's sweeping tax policy bill will have a 'devastating' impact on rural communities. 'It's the single worst piece of legislation I've seen in my lifetime, and it is a congressional Republican and presidential attack on rural America,' the Democrat told CNN's Dana Bash in a July 6 interview on "State of the Union." He said around 200,000 people in Kentucky are could lose their healthcare under the bill, which implements new work requirements for Medicaid and a raft of other restrictions that healthcare experts argue will trigger hospital closures in rural areas. Lawmakers included a $50 billion fund in the legislation to prop up these hospitals, but experts say it won't be enough to make up for the $155 billion expected decline in federal Medicaid spending in rural areas. Beshear, who is considered a potential presidential candidate for the party in 2028, said up to 35 rural hospitals in Kentucky could be at risk of closing as a result of the bill. 'What that means is our economy takes a huge hit,' he said. 'You lose 200 jobs from doctors and nurses and orderlies and all of a sudden the coffee shop does worse, the bank doesn't have as many folks coming in. This is going to hit rural America right in the face.' Still, Republicans have argued that the biggest expected cut to Medicaid – the implementation of work requirements for able-bodied adults – is popular among voters, and other changes such as more frequent eligibility checks are common sense options. Democrats "unfortunately seem to think that poor people are stupid. I don't think poor people are stupid. I think they have agency, and I think to have them register twice a year for these benefits is not a burden," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said on CNN on July 6. "People who want to infantilize the poor and people who need these Medicaid benefits are alarmist.' Republicans in Congress passed the massive tax-cut and spending package on July 3. Trump signed it into law on July 4. It was the key goal for Trump and Republican leadership in Congress, which captured a trifecta during the 2024 elections and has used that political muscle to force what they've dubbed their "One Big, Beautiful Bill" through both chambers at a rapid-fire pace. The passage came despite deep reservations within their own party and unanimous opposition from Democrats who see it as a ticket to winning back congressional majorities in 2026.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Social Security no taxes message on Trump bill raises eyebrows
President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is sending mixed messages about whether most Americans are required to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. 'It's a mixed bag for seniors, because some seniors will get some tax relief; the cost of that, though, is borne by the entire Social Security system,' Alex Lawson, executive director of left-leaning advocacy organization Social Security Works, told USA Today. The bill, which Trump signed into law on Saturday, included a $6,000 tax deduction for Americans 65 or older. After Congress passed the bill on Thursday, the Social Security Administration said the legislation 'delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans.' 'The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples,' the Thursday press release said. 'Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.' However, policy experts are concerned that the bill does not include a provision to eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits. 'There is no provision in the budget bill that directly 'eliminates' or even reduces taxes on Social Security benefits,' Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, told the Washington Post. Trump's bill offers a tax deduction of $6,000 to seniors making up to $75,000 individually, or $150,000 on a joint return. The deduction is lowered for incomes above that level and axed for seniors with individual incomes of more than $175,000, or $250,000 jointly. However, the new deduction for seniors is set to expire within a couple of years. The median income for seniors in 2022 was about $30,000. 'The people who benefit by definition have to be richer, and people who benefit the most are the richest people,' Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, told CBS News. Before the megabill's passing, 64 percent of seniors receiving Social Security income paid no tax on their Social Security due to exemptions and deductions, according to an estimate by Trump's Council of Economic Advisers. Under Trump's megabill, 88 percent won't be paying. Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told the Post that the rise is due to the bill's increase in 'the standard deduction for seniors, which, as a result, reduces the number of seniors who will pay taxes on their Social Security benefits.' Put simply, the new legislation will provide limited benefits for lower-income seniors because they already pay less in taxes. 'Lower-income earners benefit less than middle and upper-middle income households,' Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank, told USA Today. 'It's been marketed as tax relief for seniors, but a lot of seniors are going to be surprised when they find out it doesn't apply to them,' he added. 'I'm getting asked all the time by folks what this actually means for their tax situation.'
