MAGA divide over Iran splinters Trump allies
The prospect of U.S. involvement in an increasingly volatile conflict between Israel and Iran has cleaved clear divisions within the MAGA movement – a rarity over the course of President Trump's decade-long political career.
Top Trump allies have pleaded their case in recent weeks directly to the president and on social media for why the U.S. should fully avoid engaging in any dispute between Iran and Israel. On another side, other Trump allies are arguing it is in the president's interest to take a more aggressive posture toward Iran.
Some have suggested the schism could fracture the president's coalition. Sources who spoke with The Hill downplayed that notion, arguing Trump is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes 'America first.'
Here is who falls into each camp.
A vocal group of influential MAGA voices have been banging the drum in recent days to argue against any kind of U.S involvement in a conflict with Iran.
Those figures have made the case that targeting Iran would contradict Trump's 'America First' foreign policy rhetoric and would echo the mistakes of the George W. Bush administration, which Trump has sharply criticized.
'This is exactly the same pitch as the Iraq war,' former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon said on Tucker Carlson's show on X.
Carlson has also been an outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, going as far as to call out by name individuals he claimed were 'warmongers' in the president's ear.
The former Fox News host voiced frustrations after Israel late last week launched missile strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and killed multiple top Iranian military officials. Carlson wrote that Trump was 'complicit in the act of war' and said what occurs next in the region 'will define Donald Trump's presidency.'
Those comments did not sit well with Trump, who derided Carlson as 'kooky' in a social media post.
Coming to Carlson's defense was a typically staunch Trump ally: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). She posted on X that Carlson's opposition to foreign wars did not make him 'kooky.'
'Americans want cheap gas, groceries, bills, and housing. They want affordable insurance, safe communities, and good education for their children. They want a government that works on these issues,' Greene posted on Tuesday.
'Considering Americans pay for the entire government and government salaries with their hard earned tax dollars, this is where our focus should be,' Greene added. 'Not going into another foreign war.'
On the other end of the spectrum are the Trump allies who have advocated for Trump to take an aggressive approach toward Iran.
That has taken on different forms, including those cheering on Israel and urging U.S. support for its ally as Israeli forces strike Iran, as well as those pressing for Trump to more directly go on offense against Tehran.
One of the leading figures in that push has been Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is among Trump's top allies on Capitol Hill. Graham has in recent days made the case that Iran had its opportunity to negotiate with the administration, but that the time for action was now.
Graham late Monday called for Trump to be 'all in,' whether that meant providing bombs to Israel, flying joint operations with the Israeli military or even replacing Iranian leadership.
'Four presidents have promised to make sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. It will be Donald J. Trump who delivers on that promise very soon,' Graham said Tuesday.
Mark Levin, a Fox News host who Trump watches and cites regularly, has also pushed back on the notion that pushing back on Iran amounts to a betrayal of the MAGA movement.
'There's nothing new or good about isolationism, which, in a word, is appeasement,' Levin wrote in a New York Post op-ed published Monday.
'The isolationists tell us that to oppose this is to be a warmonger and anti-MAGA,' Levin added. 'No, they're not MAGA. But we've seen their like before.'
A third category of MAGA voices emerged in the last 48 hours as some influential voices more or less expressed deference to Trump in whatever he decided.
Those figures have essentially made the case that Trump has earned the trust of his supporters, and that even some military action would not amount to a betrayal of the 'America first' movement.
'He may decide he needs to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. That decision ultimately belongs to the president. And of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy,' Vice President Vance wrote in a lengthy social media post on Tuesday.
'But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue,' added Vance, who served in the Marines. 'And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.'
Charlie Kirk, the Turning Point USA founder and a figure with significant influence in Trump's orbit, essentially made the case late Monday that the president knows best and won't alienate his base, whatever he decides.
'He is not an isolationist. He is willing to use violent and precise force against our enemies…if and when necessary,' Kirk told Jesse Waters on Fox News.
'President Trump understands his base extraordinarily well. He knows that his base does not want another Iraq, does not want Libya, does not want a civil war or bedlam where the United States is left carrying the bag,' Kirk added. 'But also President Trump has been morally clear for a decade, Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
The Israel-Iran conflict and the other big thing that drove the stock market this week
It's been a tense and dynamic week for the world at large. The market action on Wall Street over the past four sessions was been anything but that. For the week, the S & P 500 lost 0.15%, the tech-heavy Nasdaq ticked up 0.21%, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average was basically flat, up a mere 0.02%. Beneath the surface, though, there was plenty of news for investors to digest. Here's a closer look at the biggest market themes during the holiday-shortened trading week. 1. Geopolitics: The major news story was — and still is — the intensifying war between Israel and Iran. The big question on everyone's mind is whether the U.S. will get involved. As of Friday, reports indicate that while President Donald Trump is actively reviewing options to attack Iran, nothing has been authorized. The White House has said Trump he will make a decision in the "next two weeks". As a result of the Israel-Iran conflict, investors spent the week keeping an extra close eye on the movement in safe-haven assets like gold and the dollar, as well as risk assets such as oil. Gold prices pulled back this week after their initial spike last Friday, which is when Israel's first attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure jolted markets. The U.S. dollar index , meanwhile, strengthened this week but still remains near multiyear lows. Oil rose again for the week, with international benchmark Brent crude climbing nearly 4%. For those looking to gauge what the market thinks will happen with Iran, look to oil. The commodity is currently acting as something of proxy on the odds of the conflict intensifying and America directly entering the fray. 2. Fed updates: The other big theme of the week centered on the health of the U.S. economy in the lead up to Wednesday afternoon, when we got the Federal Reserve's latest interest rate decision and revised economic projections. Ultimately, the Fed kept its benchmark lending rate unchanged on Wednesday following its two-day policy meeting. The decision followed lackluster updates on the state of the consumer and the housing market , along with lower-than-expected inflation readings the week prior. As we outlined earlier this week , the Fed is in a tough spot when it comes to abiding by its dual mandate of ensuring price stability and low unemployment. The state of play requires nuance. On the one hand, there is evidence in support of rate cuts, namely some cracks in the consumer — even if the consumer has remained largely and impressively resilient — and the Fed's own updated outlook for lower real GDP growth and higher unemployment this year. On the other hand, the Fed is now expecting higher inflation this year than it did in March, which would support the need for higher interest rates. Given these dueling dynamics and the uncertainty around tariff impacts, the central bank's decision to keep interest rates steady makes sense. While the Fed certainly doesn't want to wait too long and make the same mistake we saw coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic, we must acknowledge that the causes of a potential rebound in inflation are different this time around. Tariffs will likely push up prices, but that may be a one-time increase, as opposed to the sustained inflation we saw exiting the pandemic, which was driven by massive supply chain disruptions and shifts in consumer behavior. As a result, we believe the apparent bias to be more worried about the job market and overall economic growth — and therefore cut rates later this year — makes sense, too. Indeed, the Fed's updated projections still pencil in two rate cuts in 2025, the same as in March despite the aforementioned revisions to its inflation and growth outlook. Fed Governor Christopher Waller made the case Friday that the cuts should start as early as July, arguing that the inflation risk posed by tariffs is not significant and ensuring resiliency in the labor market should be a higher priority. Waller's argument is basically that it's better to move now than wait for a jump in unemployment. Our biggest focus at the Club is staying nimble, given the highly volatile nature of geopolitics at the moment. No doubt, rate decisions are important to think about, but they're only one small part of the investing puzzle to navigate each day. For this reason, we continue to focus more on individual company fundamentals and industry trends rather than higher-level dynamics, important as they are to shaping our worldview. Cybersecurity stocks are one example that we highlighted this week. Another example would be the news we got from Club names Meta Platforms and Amazon this week on their artificial intelligence efforts. We think the implications that AI will have on the cost structures, revenue opportunities and efficiency gains should weigh far more heavily in the minds' of long-term investors than whether the Fed will cut in July or September. (Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust is long META, AMZN. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
B-2 bombers head across the Pacific and Trump is scheduled to return to the White House as he considers strike on Iran.
Multiple U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers appeared to be airborne and heading west from the United States across the Pacific, and President Trump is scheduled to return to the White House late on Saturday afternoon from New Jersey as he deliberates about whether to join Israel's efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. Air traffic control communications indicated that several B-2 aircraft — the planes that could be equipped to carry the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs that Mr. Trump is considering deploying against Iran's underground nuclear facilities in Fordo — had taken off from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri. Some flight trackers said on social media that the destination of the aircraft is Guam, the U.S. territory, which has several military installations, although that could not be independently confirmed. The bombers appeared to be accompanied by refueling tankers for portions of the journey, the flight tracking data showed. Moving planes does not mean a final decision has been made about whether to strike. It is not unusual to shift military assets into position to provide options to the president and military commanders even if they are not ultimately deployed. The White House schedule for the weekend said that Mr. Trump would return from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., and would meet with his national security team at 6 p.m. on Saturday and again on Sunday. Mr. Trump typically spends both weekend days out of town at one of his properties. A White House spokeswoman declined to comment. Mr. Trump has made clear he is weighing whether to have the U.S. join Israel's effort to curtail Iran's ability to acquire a nuclear weapon, a line he has drawn repeatedly over the years. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why tariffs are already driving some healthcare premiums higher
Related video above: How patients and doctors can reduce healthcare costs (NEXSTAR) – Despite the focus on the price of cars, iPhones and other consumer goods, the Trump administration's tariffs are starting to drive up prices in an entirely different industry – healthcare. On Monday, Matt McGough, with nonprofit health policy organization KFF, wrote that several individual insurance companies have already notified state regulators that they will be raising premiums to offset the potential impact of tariffs on pharmaceuticals. Trump hasn't yet targeted pharmaceuticals with tariffs, but has repeatedly brought it up, including on Monday aboard Air Force One. 'We're going to be doing pharmaceuticals very soon,' Trump said, according to Reuters. 'That's going to bring all the companies back, into America.' In a May filing, the Independent Health Benefits Corporation (IHBC) said it was submitting a premium rate change of 38.4% for 2026, 'primarily due to increased costs due to inflation and tariffs, and changes in risk adjustment.' An IHBC spokesperson told Axios that roughly 3% of that increase was to directly account for the impact of tariffs, specifically on drug prices. McGough notes that there are other insurers who either haven't specifically mentioned the potential effect of tariffs or who declined to include an offsetting increase in 2026 premium rates. 'A large proportion of medical goods currently comes from international sources, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices and personal protective equipment, as well as other low-margin, high-use essentials like syringes, needles and blood pressure cuffs,' Tina Freese Decker, board chair of the American Hospital Association, wrote in a May post. 'Tariffs on these items could impact patient care by jeopardizing the availability of vital medications and essential health care devices. They also could raise costs for hospitals and heighten shortages and supply chain disruptions.' Meantime, millions of Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollees could see an over 75% average increase in premiums if Biden-era subsidies aren't extended by Congress before they expire at the end of the year, according to KFF estimates. How much tariffs are weighing on the calculations of insurers will become a bit more clear on Aug. 1, Axios notes, when proposed 2026 premium rates are posted.
