Trump's very consequential two weeks
David Urban, a former Trump Campaign adviser, and Xochitl Hinojosa, a former DNC communications director, join Smerconish to discuss how the American public is reacting to Trump's latest wins.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
37 minutes ago
- CNN
Prophecy, not politics, may also shape America's clash with Iran
When most people contemplate the future of America's conflict with Iran, they hunt for clues in grainy satellite photos, statements from military analysts and President Trump's social media posts. But when scholar Diana Butler Bass considers what could happen next, her thoughts turn toward another group she says is now thinking more about prophecy than politics. She recalls warnings from her childhood about the rise of an Antichrist, stories about weeping mothers clutching their empty blankets after their babies were suddenly 'Raptured' to heaven and paintings of an angry Jesus leading armies of angels to an Armageddon-like, final battle in modern-day Israel. Those stories terrified and thrilled Bass when she heard them growing up in a White evangelical church in the 1970s. It was a time when the end always seemed near, and books like the bestseller 'The Late Great Planet Earth' warned Christians to gird their loins for a period of Great Tribulation and prepare for Jesus' triumphant return to Jerusalem. Bass, a prominent, progressive religious author who hosts a popular Substack newsletter called 'The Cottage,' no longer believes those stories. Yet when she considers why the US struck three nuclear facilities in Iran this month and what could happen next, she now offers a prophecy of her own: Bombing Iran will reinforce Trump's status as God's 'Chosen One' and Israel as His chosen nation among many of the President's White evangelical supporters. Many of these supporters dismiss the dangers of a larger war, she tells CNN, because such a clash would mean the world is approaching the 'end times' — a series of cataclysmic events ushering in the Second Coming of Christ and the rise of Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. 'There's almost a kind of spiritual eagerness for a war in the Middle East,' says Bass, describing attitudes among some White evangelicals. 'They believe a war is going to set off a series of events that will result in Jesus returning.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran has so far been examined almost exclusively through the lens of politics or military strategy. Yet there is a religious dimension to his decision – and what could happen next – that's been underexplored. America's approach to Iran and Israel may not just be driven by sober assessment of geopolitics. Bass and other religious scholars say US policy in the Middle East is also influenced by the controversial teachings of a pugnacious 19th century Anglo-Irish clergyman and a series of lurid, 'Left Behind' doomsday Christian books and films. This is dangerous, says Jemar Tisby, a historian and best-selling author of 'Stories of the Spirit of Justice.' 'Trump's action underscores how these theological beliefs are not abstract; they have direct, dangerous, and deadly consequences,' Tisby wrote recently in his 'Footnotes' newsletter. He elaborated in an interview this week with CNN, saying that that apocalyptic visions from the Bible should not influence America's policy in Israel or Iran in any way. 'You layer on this prophecy about the rise of Israel and now all of a sudden you have this very literalistic interpretation of the Bible informing US foreign policy,' he says. White evangelicals who see America's conflict with Iran as primarily a spiritual battle instead of a political one tend to be motivated by several beliefs. One belief is that Trump is God's 'chosen one,' saved from assassination last year to do God's work and protect Israel. He is, to borrow from the parlance of evangelical subculture, called 'for such a time as this.' This belief is reflected in a text message to Trump from Mike Huckabee, the prominent evangelical and former Arkansas governor who was appointed by Trump to be US ambassador to Israel. In the text, which was shared by Trump, Huckabee alluded to the two assassination attempts Trump survived last year in saying that God spared him 'to be the most consequential President in a century—maybe ever.' He added, 'I trust your instincts,' because 'I believe you hear from heaven,' and that 'You did not seek this moment. This moment sought YOU!' Huckabee's ambassadorship to Israel is not surprising. Many White evangelicals believe the church is obligated by the Bible to provide unwavering support to Israel. They view the ancient Israel described in the Bible as the same as the modern nation-state of Israel, which was created in 1948. Trump reinforced this view during his first term when he broke from decades of American policy to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. The move thrilled many White evangelical leaders, two of whom attended a ceremony marking the occasion. There is a long history of White evangelical leaders urging American presidents and politicians to treat Israel as a divinely favored nation. Many White evangelicals believe Israel's existence is a fulfillment of biblical prophecies that would usher in Jesus' return. Some cite a scripture from Genesis 12:3, which recounts God saying, 'I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse.' That passage depicts God addressing Abraham, the Jewish patriarch and 'father of all nations.' But some White evangelicals say that passage also refers to Israel — both then and now. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz alluded to that scripture when he defended his support of Israel's war with Iran in a recent interview. 'Growing up in Sunday School, I was taught from the Bible that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed,' he said. Other evangelical leaders have made similar claims. Pastor John Hagee, a prominent evangelical leader, has said that supporting Israel is not a political issue — it's a biblical one. Hagee is the founder and chairman of Christians United for Israel, which boasts 10 million members and bills itself as the largest pro-Israel organization in the US. 'It is not possible to say, 'I believe in the Bible' and not support Israel and the Jewish people,' he once declared. Trump won the support of about 8 out of 10 White evangelical Christian voters in the 2024 presidential election. And in a CNN poll after the airstrikes on Iran, 87% of Republicans said they trust Trump to make the right decisions about US' use of force against the country. Franklin Graham, son of the late evangelical leader Billy Graham, said on X after the bombing of Iran 'that the world is in a much safer place.' The Rev. Robert Jeffress, a prominent evangelical leader, suggested last week that opposition to Israel is rebellion against God. While delivering a Sunday sermon praising Trump's decision, Jeffress sermon was interrupted by applause and a standing ovation from his congregation. 'Those who oppose Israel are always on the wrong side of history, and most importantly, they are on the wrong side of God,' Jeffress said. 'And I thank God we finally have a president who understands that truth in Donald Trump.' Such unconditional support of Israel might make spiritual sense to evangelicals. But some scholars say it's a risky stance for a multiracial and multireligious democracy like the US to take. Americans' support for Israel had dropped to historic lows before the US' use of force in Iran. Tisby, the religious historian, tells CNN that the Israel depicted in the Bible is not the same as the modern-day country. 'If you conflate the two, you end up supporting all kinds of actions that hurt people in the name of politics,' Tisby says. 'It leads to the reluctance to recognize the rights of Palestinians. It blinds us to the human rights and justice issues that are at stake in the Middle East.' Tisby and other religion scholars say America's bombing of Iran is also influenced by another source: a form of Christianity pioneered in the 19th century by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish pastor. Darby looked at certain passages in the Bibe's book of Revelations and devised the concept of 'dispensationalism.' It divides history into distinct 'dispensations,' or periods through which God interacts with humanity differently. Many adherents to this tradition believe in a fiery apocalypse and the 'Rapture' — a moment when Christians are suddenly lifted to heaven before a period of tribulation on Earth. Darby's views were amplified a century later by the popular 'Left Behind' novels and films of the 1990s and 2000s, which reached millions of evangelicals with apocalyptic visions of the end times. The book series, inspired by Rapture theology and gory scenes in the Book of Revelation, has sold more than 65 million copies. The 'Left Behind' books were marketed as fiction, but they were treated as biblical truth by many evangelicals. Views of dispensationalism were taught in many evangelical churches, youth camps and Sunday schools, bringing them into the mainstream. Central to dispensationalism is the role of Israel in the last days. Its adherents believe that the establishment of the modern state of Israel marks the beginning of the end times — heralding the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's geopolitical success and security are seen as necessary preconditions for Christ's return, Tisby says. Dispensationalism has permeated White evangelical culture so much that many evangelicals today have adopted its tenets without being familiar with the term, Tisby says. 'Just because you don't have the name doesn't mean you're not actually adhering to the beliefs,' he says. 'It's so common now that it doesn't need to be named anymore.' Prophecies about angelic armies battling demonic armies in an apocalyptic Middle East sound implausible to many, but such beliefs gripped many of the White evangelical pastors and families she grew up with, says Bass, author of 'Freeing Jesus.' She recalls evangelical pastors preaching that whenever Israel gained more territory, it was God's will. Some pastors condemned Iran as evil. Jews, they said, would finally accept Jesus as their savior. But Jesus' return would be preceded by a series of cataclysmic events like the sudden disappearance of God's faithful and those 'left behind' — the non-believers who didn't accept Jesus. The belief that Christians could be teleported to heaven in the twinkle of an eye traumatized many young people at the time, she says. 'I had friends who would literally wake up in the middle of the night. And if their house was really quiet they would get very frightened and they'd sneak into their parents' bedroom to make sure their parents were still in their house,' she says. Most mainstream biblical scholars say the word 'rapture' does not appear in most translations of the Bible or the Book of Revelation. Many mainstream Biblical scholars say the Book of Revelation does not depict the literal end of the world: It's an anti-Roman tract that used coded language to tell Christians that God would destroy Rome's evil empire. Bass calls belief in the Rapture a 'completely invented theology' and 'one of the most wildly successful heresies in the history of Christianity.' A belief system that says God will end the world through violence offers no incentive for a political or religious leader to avoid war — or backtrack when events spiral out of control, she says. 'In the framework of this 'end times' theology, destruction is always a sign that God is working and is about to return,' Bass says. 'In this theology, the worse things become, the closer it is to the end. There is no motivation to do good, care for the poor, make sure that wars don't happen, and care for the planet.' Apocalyptic visions about the end of the world are common in many religions. And it's not unusual for a political leader to invoke God before going to war. But when citizens in a democracy believe political leaders are divinely appointed and driven by prophecies, it leaves no room for debate, Tisby says. 'There's a sort of fundamentalism to it all,' he says. 'It's unbending, unchanging and it can't be critiqued because its divine. Who are we to question? 'Any uncritical, unyielding support of a political actor, no matter what the conflict, is dangerous,' he says. If this is part of the dynamic that guides the US' future actions in the Middle East, it could lead to another final question. Many critics of Iran say it is a theocracy led by someone who reduces the world to a clash between good and evil and whose foreign policy is driven by apocalyptic religious myths. What if America's clash with Iran is driven in part by some of the same religious forces? John Blake is a CNN senior writer and author of the award-winning memoir, 'More Than I Imagined: What a Black Man Discovered About the White Mother He Never Knew.'
Wall Street Journal
40 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Barclays Analyst on What Investors Should Know About Trump's Tax Bill - WSJ's Take On the Week
In this episode of WSJ's Take On the Week, we jump straight into a topic on many minds: the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill. Co-hosts Gunjan Banerji and Telis Demos are joined by Michael McLean, public policy senior analyst at Barclays, to unpack what some investors are paying attention to when it comes to the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill. McLean explains the differing viewpoints between Washington and Wall Street and the role of a rising U.S. deficit. Plus, the hosts share and answer listener questions about tax policy asked at WSJ's Future of Everything conference in May. The conversation also explores what economic growth the tax and budget bill can bring and why investors and government officials alike are watching to see how this tax bill addresses concerns with Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Gunjan Banerji, lead writer for Live Markets, and Telis Demos, Heard on the Street's banking and money columnist, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@ To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of Further Reading Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Gets Slimmed Down in Senate The Tax Bill Would Deliver a Big Win for Private Schools—and Investors The Path to Record Deficits For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Iran-China-Russia Axis Crumbles When It Matters
As Israel and then the United States battered Iran this month, the reaction from China and Russia was surprisingly muted. For years, shared antagonism toward the U.S. has been pushing China, Russia, and Iran together. All three benefit from embarrassing the West in Ukraine and the Middle East, and widening the gaps between Washington and Europe. So after Israel's first strike, on June 13, China—the strongest partner in the anti-America triad—could have been expected to rush short-range missiles and other air-defense equipment to Iran. Surely, Beijing would use its growing diplomatic muscle to isolate Israel and the U.S., demand an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council, and introduce a resolution deploring the two governments that were attacking China's ally. Instead, recent events in Iran have revealed that anti-Americanism can bind an alliance together only so much. After ritually denouncing Israel's first strike as 'b razen ' and a ' violation of Iran's sovereignty, ' Beijing proceeded cautiously, emphasizing the need for diplomacy instead of further assigning blame. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi refrained from condemning Israel's actions, in a call with his Israeli counterpart on June 14, and President Xi Jinping waited four days before calling for 'd e-escalation ' and declaring that 'China stands ready to work with all parties to play a constructive role in restoring peace and stability in the Middle East.' After Iran's parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, Beijing's foreign-affairs spokesperson stressed—in what looked like a warning to Iran —that the Persian Gulf is a crucial global trade route for goods and energy, and called for partners to 'prevent the regional turmoil from having a greater impact on global economic growth.' In calmer times, China, like Russia, is happy to use Iran as a battering ram against the U.S. and its allies. But when tensions turn into military confrontation and global stability is at risk, backing Iran looks like a far less sensible investment to Beijing than preserving its own economic and diplomatic relations with the West. China's mild reaction isn't just a blow to Iran; it may also suggest that the much ballyhooed 'no limits' partnership between Xi and Russia's President Vladimir Putin might not be as sturdy as Moscow and Beijing advertise. Iran, Russia, and China have different ideologies, political regimes, and strategic aims. Iran's relations with its two larger partners are wildly asymmetric. China, for example, is Iran's lifeline. It buys about 90 percent of Iran's oil and supplies materials and technologies central to Iran's weapons development. Yet the trading relationship matters less to China, which gets only about 10 percent of its oil from Iran. Plus, China has an economy more than 40 times as large, and it does far more business with the U.S. and the European Union. Russia has interests that similarly diverge from Iran's, and it, too, has conspicuously refrained from coming to the Islamic Republic's aid. But China following a similar approach toward Iran likely does not please Moscow. Although Moscow's relations with Beijing are less lopsided than Tehran's are, Russia's economy is still less than one-eighth the size of China's. One-third of Russia's state budget comes from oil sales, and China is the largest customer by far. Russia also depends on Chinese supplies for its war machine. This past March, the G7 foreign ministers called China a ' decisive enabler ' of Russia's war in Ukraine. But should the Kremlin begin to run out of money or soldiers, China's willingness to bail out its ally is very much in doubt. Even among authoritarian regimes, differences in values can limit cooperation. In 2023, Xi called Russia's 1917 October Revolution a 'cannon blast' that 'brought Marxism-Leninism to China, demonstrating the way forward and offering a new choice for the Chinese people who were seeking a way to save China from subjugation.' Putin, despite his formative years in the Soviet-era KGB, now laments the fall of the Russian empire and describes Vladimir Lenin's coup as the deed of 'political adventurists and foreign forces' who 'divided the country and tore it apart for selfish benefit.' The head of China's Communist Party may resent Putin's reduction of its Russian counterpart—the country's second-largest party—to the status of another bit player in Russia's rubber-stamping parliament. Since World War II, leaders of Western democracies have successfully collaborated in part because they have shared a common worldview. Whether Iran's Islamic theocrats can say the same about Xi, the leader of an avowedly atheist state, or Putin, who now positions himself as the champion of Orthodox Christianity, is another question entirely. Beijing's response to Iran's predicament ought to make the West feel cautiously optimistic. If Donald Trump finally learns to distinguish the aggressor from the victim—or at least realizes that Putin has been playing him—the U.S. president could support Ukraine in earnest without worrying much about China expanding its assistance to Russia. As long as both Iran and Russia keep providing cheap oil and antagonizing the West and its allies, they are serving China's purposes. But at least for now, Beijing looks unlikely to back either of its supposed partners if they jeopardize China's interest in stability or its extensive and profitable relations with the West.
