Latest news with #AmericaFirsters
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Cracks in the Trump coalition? They won't matter
Donald Trump's coalition has always been a Frankenstein's monster — stitched together from parts that were never meant to coexist. Consider the contradictions: fast-food fanatics hanging out with juice-cleanse truthers chanting 'Make America Healthy Again' between ivermectin doses, immigration hardliners mixing with business elites who are 'tough on the border' until they need someone to clean their toilets or pick their strawberries, and hawkish interventionists spooning with America Firsters. Dogs and cats living together — mass hysteria — you know the bit. Navigating these differences was always going to be tricky. But in recent days — particularly following Israel's bombing of Iran, an operation widely believed to have been greenlit by Trump — the tension has reached new highs. Signs of strain were already emerging earlier this year. We got early hints of discord during the 'Liberation Day' tariff fiasco — where Trump declared an 'emergency' and imposed steep tariffs, only to suspend them after they riled markets and spooked his business-friendly backers. The tariff blunder was a harbinger of things to come. But it was the House's passage of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' — a budgetary monstrosity that self-respecting Freedom Caucus deficit hawks should've torched on principle — that truly exposed the rift. Enter Elon Musk, the billionaire tech bro and MAGA ally, who publicly trashed both the bill and Trump in a flurry of posts. He even referenced Trump's name reportedly appearing in Jeffrey Epstein's files — a claim that, though unverified, was tantamount to 'going nuclear.' But before there was enough time to say 'Republican civil war,' Musk deleted his mean tweets, adding to the evidence that this is still Trump's party; that modern Republicans view deficits the way the rest of us view library late fees — technically real, but nothing to lose sleep over; and that ketamine is a hell of a drug. The next internecine squabble was over immigration. Trump proudly ran on rounding 'em all up. Mass deportations! Load up the buses! But then it turned out that his rich buddies in Big Ag and Big Hospitality weren't so keen on losing some of their best employees. So Trump floated a carve out to protect some 'very good, long time workers' in those particular industries. It even started to look like some exemptions were coming — until his Department of Homeland Security said 'no mas.' (The raids will presumably continue until the next time a farmer or hotelier complains to Trump in a meeting.) But the real fissure involves some prominent America First non-interventionists who thought Trump was elected to end the 'forever wars.' In case you missed it, Israel has been going after Iran's nuclear capabilities with the same gusto that Trump aide Stephen Miller applies to deporting Guatemalan landscapers, and Trump is all in, calling for an 'unconditional surrender' of the Iranian regime (and then deploying bombs on Saturday). This didn't sit well with everyone in the MAGA coalition. 'I think we're going to see the end of American empire,' warned Tucker Carlson on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast. 'But it's also going to end, I believe, Trump's presidency — effectively end it — and so that's why I'm saying this.' And Carlson (co-founder of the Daily Caller, where I worked) didn't stop there. 'The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians,' he tweeted. 'It's between warmongers and peacemakers.' Then he named names, alleging that Fox's Sean Hannity, radio firebrand Mark Levin, media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Trump donors Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson were among the warmongers. Trump hit back, calling Tucker 'kooky' and repeating his new mantra: 'IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.' It's tempting to see this spat as the beginning of a schism — a break that might finally yield a coherent Trump Doctrine, at least, as it pertains to foreign policy (possibly returning the GOP to a more Reaganite or internationalist party). But that misunderstands the nature of Trump and his coalition. These coalitional disagreements over public policy are real and important. But they mostly exist at the elite level. The actual Trump voter base? They care about only one thing: Donald Trump. And Trump resists ideological straitjackets. If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu rubs him the wrong way next week (as he did by congratulating Joe Biden in 2020), or if Israel's military campaign starts slipping in the polls, Trump could flip faster than a gymnast on Red Bull. There is no coherent philosophy. No durable ideology. What we're watching is a guy making it up as he goes along — often basing decisions on his 'gut' or the opinion of the last guy who bent his ear. So if you're looking for a Trump Doctrine to explain it all — keep looking. There isn't one. There's only Trump. Matt K. Lewis is the author of 'Filthy Rich Politicians' and 'Too Dumb to Fail.' If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Cracks in the Trump coalition? They won't matter
Donald Trump's coalition has always been a Frankenstein's monster — stitched together from parts that were never meant to coexist. Consider the contradictions: fast-food fanatics hanging out with juice-cleanse truthers chanting 'Make America Healthy Again' between ivermectin doses, immigration hardliners mixing with business elites who are 'tough on the border' until they need someone to clean their toilets or pick their strawberries, and hawkish interventionists spooning with America Firsters. Dogs and cats living together — mass hysteria — you know the bit. Navigating these differences was always going to be tricky. But in recent days — particularly following Israel's bombing of Iran, an operation widely believed to have been greenlit by Trump — the tension has reached new highs. Signs of strain were already emerging earlier this year. We got early hints of discord during the 'Liberation Day' tariff fiasco — where Trump declared an 'emergency' and imposed steep tariffs, only to suspend them after they riled markets and spooked his business-friendly backers. The tariff blunder was a harbinger of things to come. But it was the House's passage of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' — a budgetary monstrosity that self-respecting Freedom Caucus deficit hawks should've torched on principle — that truly exposed the rift. Enter Elon Musk, the billionaire tech bro and MAGA ally, who publicly trashed both the bill and Trump in a flurry of posts. He even referenced Trump's name reportedly appearing in Jeffrey Epstein's files — a claim that, though unverified, was tantamount to 'going nuclear.' But before there was enough time to say 'Republican civil war,' Musk deleted his mean tweets, adding to the evidence that this is still Trump's party; that modern Republicans view deficits the way the rest of us view library late fees — technically real, but nothing to lose sleep over; and that ketamine is a hell of a drug. The next internecine squabble was over immigration. Trump proudly ran on rounding 'em all up. Mass deportations! Load up the buses! But then it turned out that his rich buddies in Big Ag and Big Hospitality weren't so keen on losing some of their best employees. So Trump floated a carve out to protect some 'very good, long time workers' in those particular industries. It even started to look like some exemptions were coming — until his Department of Homeland Security said 'no mas.' (The raids will presumably continue until the next time a farmer or hotelier complains to Trump in a meeting.) But the real fissure involves some prominent America First non-interventionists who thought Trump was elected to end the 'forever wars.' In case you missed it, Israel has been going after Iran's nuclear capabilities with the same gusto that Trump aide Stephen Miller applies to deporting Guatemalan landscapers, and Trump is all in, calling for an 'unconditional surrender' of the Iranian regime. This didn't sit well with everyone in the MAGA coalition. 'I think we're going to see the end of American empire,' warned Tucker Carlson on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast. 'But it's also going to end, I believe, Trump's presidency — effectively end it — and so that's why I'm saying this.' And Carlson (co-founder of the Daily Caller, where I worked) didn't stop there. 'The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians,' he tweeted. 'It's between warmongers and peacemakers.' Then he named names, alleging that Fox's Sean Hannity, radio firebrand Mark Levin, media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Trump donors Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson were among the warmongers. Trump hit back, calling Tucker 'kooky' and repeating his new mantra: 'IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.' It's tempting to see this spat as the beginning of a schism — a break that might finally yield a coherent Trump Doctrine, at least, as it pertains to foreign policy (possibly returning the GOP to a more Reaganite or internationalist party). But that misunderstands the nature of Trump and his coalition. These coalitional disagreements over public policy are real and important. But they mostly exist at the elite level. The actual Trump voter base? They care about only one thing: Donald Trump. And Trump resists ideological straitjackets. If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu rubs him the wrong way next week (as he did by congratulating Joe Biden in 2020), or if Israel's military campaign starts slipping in the polls, Trump could flip faster than a gymnast on Red Bull. There is no coherent philosophy. No durable ideology. What we're watching is a guy making it up as he goes along — often basing decisions on his 'gut' or the opinion of the last guy who bent his ear. So if you're looking for a Trump Doctrine to explain it all — keep looking. There isn't one. There's only Trump. Matt K. Lewis is the author of 'Filthy Rich Politicians' and 'Too Dumb to Fail.'
Middle East Eye
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
US Senator Ted Cruz faces backlash for not knowing basic facts about Iran
A series of clips from an interview between prominent US conservative broadcaster Tucker Carlson and US Senator Ted Cruz have gone viral, igniting controversy over the senator's foreign policy positions and apparent gaps in basic geopolitical knowledge about Iran. The full conversation, released on Wednesday on The Tucker Carlson Show, showcases rising tensions within Trump's right-wing base over the US role in the Middle East, particularly regarding Israel, Iran, and the possibility of wider war. The rift within Republicans has seen Trump's "Make America Great Again" base, or "America Firsters", generally opposing the US being dragged into another war in the Middle East. The hawks within his base and his administration have been pushing the US into greater involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. In a striking exchange, Carlson and Cruz engaged in a heated argument over US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, with voices raised as they shouted over each other. Carlson pressed Cruz on the population of Iran, asking, New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters 'How many people live in Iran, by the way?' Cruz replied, 'I don't know,' before being interrupted by Carlson: 'You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple?' NEW: Republican Senator Ted Cruz is completely stumped after Tucker Carlson asks him what the population of Iran is. Tucker: How many people live in Iran? Cruz: I don't know the population. Tucker: You don't know the population of the country you seek to topple? Cruz: How… — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 18, 2025 A person on X wrote, 'Tucker Carlson was taken aback by the level of ignorance of Senator Ted Cruz. He is advocating to overturn the regime of a country he knows nothing about??' Another social media user added, 'If you're calling for the bombing of or entry of war, you should at least be informed about the country you're targeting'. Ted Cruz, in the interview with Tucker Carlson, couldn't answer a single basic question about Iran about the population and ethnic composition of the country and admitted that the US is helping Israel bomb Iran. This is an absolutely insane state of the US politicians. Morbid. — Olga Bazova (@OlgaBazova) June 18, 2025 The clips led to a broader discussion about the implications of Cruz's statements. A person on X highlighted the cultural and religious ignorance displayed by Cruz, posting: 'The American establishment that wants regime change in Iran & claim that they care about Iranians actually knew nothing about Iranians, their population or religions or even ethnic groups, Ted Cruz in Tucker Carlson interview thinks that all Iranians are 'Persian Shias' 😂'. Similarly, Donna Miles, a writer and columnist, wrote, 'Tucker Carlson's interview with Ted Cruz is truly eye-opening. This is how the Iraq disaster happened, and the reason why we are here today, on the brink of a major global war.' Tucker Carlson's interview with Ted Cruz is truly eye-opening. This is how the Iraq disaster happened, and the reason why we are here today, on the brink of a major global war. Iran war hawks are ignorant sycophants. They know nothing about Iran, its resilient people and its… — Donna Miles دانا مجاب (@UnPressed) June 18, 2025 Cruz attempted to deflect, stating that he doesn't 'sit around memorising population tables', but this only fuelled further criticism of his readiness to advocate for military intervention. The controversy extended beyond Iran, with another clip drawing attention to Cruz's views on alleged Israeli espionage on the US. @tuckercarlsonnetwork Why is it so hard to say that it's not okay for foreign governments to spy on our president? Watch the full episode tomorrow at 1PM ET ♬ original sound - Tucker Carlson Network Carlson questioned Cruz about reports that Israel spies on American officials, to which Cruz responded, 'They probably spy on us and we spy on them. Friends and allies spy on each other.' Reflecting a sentiment shared by many, a social media user wrote, 'Thanks Tucker for showing the world the real Ted Cruz… It's time that America no longer be controlled by Israel.' Ted Cruz openly admits that Mossad, Netanyahu and Israel spy on our government and even our President. Think about that. Many Trump supporters are okay with Israel starting a war send US Soldiers to fight their battle. Allies do not spy on each other. — Thomas Paine Band (@ThomasPaineBand) June 18, 2025 On TikTok, people pointed to Cruz's financial ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, with one asking, 'Why can't a US politician simply admit that it's not in America's best interest to be spied on by Israel? Hint: he has accepted 1.9 million from AIPAC,' with another suggesting he should be asked this question 'after stopping his AIPAC cheque'. Social media reactions have been sharply divided, with some mocking Cruz for his lack of basic knowledge, while others accused him of prioritising foreign interests over those of the United States. The interview's timing is significant, given the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. On 13 June, Israel launched unprovoked strikes targeting Iran's nuclear programme, military leadership, scientists and residential areas, prompting retaliatory missile attacks from Iran. Publicly, the US has said it is playing a supportive role in the conflict, but Cruz, seemingly mistakenly, admitted that "we" were striking Israel when discussing the strikes with Carlson. After Carlson pushed back, he corrected himself, saying Israel was striking, but that the US was playing a supporting role. President Trump's social media posts, claiming 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran' and demanding 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER', have further intensified debates about US involvement. As tensions mount, the interview serves as a flashpoint for discussions about America's role in the region and the accountability of its leaders.
Vox
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Tucker Carlson and Trump are falling out over the Iran war
is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He's worked at Vox since the site's launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker's Washington, DC, bureau. Tucker Carlson has been one of the right's loudest voices urging the United States to stay out of Israel's war with Iran — part of a broader effort to overturn the GOP's hawkish consensus. But now, as tensions rise amidst Israeli strikes, Carlson has had a setback to his project: a derogatory nickname from President Donald Trump. ''Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that,' IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!'' Trump posted on TruthSocial on Monday night. This is more important than just a nickname; there are real stakes here. Trump's lashing out is a sign that, on this pivotal issue of potential war with Iran, he's turned against Carlson — a longtime close ally. On Monday, I published a lengthy feature about the rise of an America First faction — including Carlson, Vice President JD Vance, and Donald Trump Jr. — that sought to overturn the Republican Party's foreign policy establishment. Famously, they want the US to stop supporting Ukraine against Russia. But they're also deeply suspicious of the US becoming embroiled in 'forever wars' in the Middle East. For the few months of this administration, they appeared to have gained remarkable sway. The America Firsters were deeply influential in staffing the new administration. And when it came to Iran, Trump seemed to be following their counsel. For the first time, he pursued talks with Iran over its nuclear program, instead of the 'maximum pressure' sanctions approach of his first term. Yet the hawks — strongly supportive of Israel, very hostile to Iran, and very skeptical any nuclear deal could be reached — remain very strong in the GOP. Every Republican senator except one (Rand Paul of Kentucky) signed a letter demanding Iran not be permitted any nuclear enrichment. Their belief is that Iran can never be 'allowed' to go nuclear — that the US must stop it, by force if necessary. When I interviewed Carlson earlier this month (before the Israeli strikes), he disputed this logic. He argued that since Pakistan already had nuclear weapons, 'It's not without precedent that another Islamic nation gets the bomb.' And he argued that a war to try and stop Iran from getting nukes would be 'a true disaster' and 'would not stay in Iran, of course.' Right now, the hawks are urging Trump to enter the war against Iran more directly, arguing that the US has the responsibility, the capability, and the opportunity to end Iran's nuclear program for the foreseeable future and perhaps even to topple its regime. The America Firsters are urging restraint, worrying that US entry to the war could unleash far worse consequences. But Carlson suggested Trump had already done too much to support Israel's strikes. 'While the American military may not have physically perpetrated the assault, years of funding and sending weapons to Israel, which Donald Trump just bragged about on Truth Social, undeniably place the U.S. at the center of last night's events,' he wrote in a newsletter Friday. 'Washington knew these attacks would happen,' Carlson added. 'They aided Israel in carrying them out. Politicians purporting to be America First can't now credibly turn around and say they had nothing to do with it.' Yet what's become clear is that, unlike many of the America Firsters, Trump doesn't truly want to withdraw from the world or stay out of foreign entanglements. He wants to accomplish and achieve big things on the global stage. He has declared that his goal is to force Iran to completely give up its nuclear ambitions. 'Remember, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,' Trump said Monday. 'They just can't have a nuclear weapon.' The shifting currents could be seen in a long X post by Vance. Vance is a close Carlson ally and who (per the New York Times) worried internally that an Israeli strike could lead lead to a drawn-out war or spiral out of control. But, per his position and his political future, he's also obligated to defend the president. So, pushing back Tuesday against what he called 'crazy stuff on social media' — the MAGA influencers and America First supporters dismayed or outraged over Trump being drawn into war — Vance blamed Iran for the collapse of negotiations and praised Trump for being 'amazingly consistent' and displaying 'remarkable restraint.' 'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president,' Vance added. 'Of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy. But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.' Yet, with each new Truth Social post, the US risked getting drawn deeper into the conflict. By midday Tuesday, Trump was claiming that 'we' had gained 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' and warning Iranian leaders that 'our patience is wearing thin.' Carlson's warnings had been ignored — and the future of the America First faction was in serious doubt.
Spectator
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Why is the US so reluctant to fight Iran?
MAGA (Make America Great Again) isolationists all agree: the United States must not be drawn into the Israel-Iran war. Donald Trump was not elected president to become entangled in pointless foreign conflicts. Over on Truth Social, Trump's hokey-pokey routine continues – in, out, in, out, send the Fifth Fleet out? – and America Firsters despair at the prospect of the US fighting 'a war for Israel'. In Jerusalem, the thinking is the exact opposite: Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly concerned that the unpredictable Trump could push Israel to conclude Operation Rising Lion before its military objectives are met. This is all very interesting as Kremlinology, but it also throws up a point of curiosity: why is the US so reluctant to get involved? This is, after all, an offensive conducted by its most reliable ally in the region against a regime where 'Death to America' practically doubles as the national anthem. It kills and kidnaps American citizens, funds Islamist groups that commit terror attacks against the US, and pours cash and arms into every conceivable conflict in the region. Lighting up Ayatollah Khamenei like a nuclear Christmas tree would fall squarely in the category of 'US interests'. Ah, but Iraq. And Afghanistan. And, for those of a certain vintage, Vietnam. Ever since the last Bell 204B took off from the roof of Saigon's Pittman apartments, the American collective consciousness has come to associate military invention with bloody and expensive quagmire, an instinct seemingly vindicated by Mogadishu, Afghanistan and Gulf War II. Why is that? The US armed forces are the mightiest military on the planet, a $1 trillion carnage factory that could obliterate an average-sized European country in the space of a morning – before breakfast if nukes were involved. Is it simply that the US now excels only in aerial firepower in a way it previously also did with boots on the ground? Is it poor leadership among the joint chiefs; substandard intelligence out of Langley, Fort Meade and Anacostia–Bolling; squeamishness in rules of engagement and norms of armed conflict; or hubris in planning and executing action against nations and forces the Pentagon underestimates as primitive or ill-prepared? Is it spiritual? Are civic and military elites so macerated in national and civilisational self-hatred, in an anti-Americanism pervasive in higher education, elite media and high-status culture, that they possess neither the confidence nor the will for American victory that were taken for granted among the pre-1960s generations? If any country should be morally paralysed at the thought of armed conflict, it ought to be Israel Whatever the answer, it prompts a corollary question: why doesn't tiny Israel, vulnerable on all fronts, with its own bitter memories of quagmires and retreats, its own self-lacerating institutions, and its own intelligence failures, evince a similar pessimism about military engagement? After all, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is a conscript army. In theory, every mother's son is on the frontline. If any country should be morally paralysed at the thought of armed conflict, it ought to be Israel. Perhaps in this contradiction lies an answer. Israel's is a drafted army because the threats the country faces are existential. As October 7 confirmed, it is not only possible but relatively easy to murder large numbers of Israelis in a short space of time. Americans are insulated by oceans and land mass and awesome firepower, whereas Israeli security is a much more fragile thing, not a definite but something that must be won and guarded every single day. American isolationists object to what they regard as foreign wars but for Israel, regardless of the theatre of engagement, every war takes place at home. The prospect of defeat, and the unbearable price that would come with it, does not grip Israeli leaders with the same paralysing pessimism as afflicts their US counterparts. When the next battle could be your last, wallowing in military or strategic inadequacies is an indulgence that can ill be afforded. The ability to win might well be downstream of the will to survive.
