Trump gets divergent guidance from a party that's split over Iran
President Donald Trump is receiving wildly divergent guidance from a splintered Republican Party as he weighs a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Sen. Lindsey Graham and other hawks have told Trump to 'finish the job,' even if it means the US taking military action against nuclear facilities, according to the South Carolina Republican.
Then there's the more nuanced view of Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., a former Navy SEAL who likened the current moment to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. He wants to prevent Iran from gaining access to a nuclear weapon but said it's 'completely unrealistic' for Republicans to argue the US can bomb Tehran's enrichment facilities at Fordow and call it a day.
'Wars are messy. They're long and they're unclear. Rarely will one single action spell the end of a conflict. Us taking out the nuclear capability, I don't think it's the endgame,' Sheehy told Semafor moments after sparring with a protester. 'As the president said, as pretty much everyone agrees — even that crazy Code Pink lady — I don't want them to have nuclear weapons.'
Though he stands nearly alone, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is sending a harsher warning: that a pre-emptive strike would be unconstitutional and could draw the US or its allies into a messy war.
The cacophony of voices reflects a Republican Party that's fractured over how closely to align with a president who has reshaped its ideology in his image. Even as the GOP divides over potential entanglement in the Middle East, the decision to more fully join Israel's campaign in Iran is Trump's alone. And most of the party will follow him, whatever he chooses.
He insisted Wednesday afternoon that he wants to avoid 'long-term war' and seems unconcerned about those who might be 'a little bit unhappy now' over the possibility of the US getting more directly engaged.
'I only want one thing: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's it,' Trump told reporters Wednesday.
One Pentagon official told Semafor that there was 'no indication' bombing action was close as of Wednesday, pointing to low US critical munitions reserves as 'a significant, even primary concern' that could deter a quick strike in the end.
Meanwhile, his White House is seeking counsel from a wide range of advisers, and senators like Graham and Sheehy, as he considers a move that could reshape the course of his presidency. They're also hearing from what one Republican lawmaker called 'so-called influencers who have no influence.'
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and The War Room's Steve Bannon are making clear that they're against direct US military involvement against Iran (Trump said Carlson called him to apologize).
But other pundits who have the president's ear, like radio host Mark Levin and Fox News' Sean Hannity, are more on the side of US involvement, to say nothing of GOP hawks in Congress who have long doubted that diplomacy with Iran can work.
In fact, Trump's sheer openness to striking Iran shows how far his version of 'America First' has come from its non-interventionist origins. There are plenty of signs that Trump is listening to GOP hawks more than one might assume for someone who selected JD Vance as his vice president.
Trump 'carries great respect' for the likes of older-lines Republican pundits like Levin and Fox News' Sean Hannity, 'perhaps more so' than more non-interventionist types like Charlie Kirk and his vice president, said a person close to the administration.
The president is seeking to 'maintain flexibility, freedom of action. And I think now he realizes the costs for a strike are lower than they ever have been,' the Republican lawmaker said.
'If he wants, he can order strikes on Fordow, be sure that he's caved it all in — and at the end of it say: 'I consider the matter closed, we're done with offensive operations in Iran,'' the lawmaker added.
Inside the administration, officials aren't completely aligned about next steps and what the broader implications might be.
A sign of that debate: Trump held a Situation Room meeting on Tuesday afternoon that lasted just under an hour and a half, and came and went without any apparent final decisions on further US involvement.
A second Situation Room meeting was planned for later Wednesday; Trump said he'd made no final decision but 'has ideas of what to do.'
In between, Trump's gotten plenty of advice.
'If we have capability, Israel doesn't have to finish the job; we should finish the job. Diplomacy was offered; it didn't work,' Graham said. 'I've encouraged the president to provide Israel with what they need to finish the job. And if we need to fly as part of it, fly.'
Many aides are very wary of getting ahead of Trump given his unpredictability. And plenty of senators are signaling they'd be happy to back him if he decides to get in deeper — even as far as the regime change he says he doesn't want.
'If this is the opportunity to do it and the best military advice recommended to the president is to bust those bunkers, then bust those bunkers and get the leadership out of Tehran. And give the Iranian people a chance to be free,' said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C.
Sheehy said he sees the US as already engaged in conflict with Iran, given its constant presence in other military conflicts on the opposing side and its stated goal of destroying America.
No matter which way Trump falls on the weighty decision, Sheehy added, 'based on what he's done so far, I'll support him 100 percent either way.'
'What I don't want to see us do is see Israel get to 90 or 95% of the job done, and then the last piece that could probably end all of this doesn't happen, because we're not willing to engage a country that's said they want to destroy us,' added Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D.
Trump would have at least one prominent Democratic backer if he attacks Iran: Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who's unabashed in his support for a pre-emptive strike on nuclear facilities.
The president might have more, depending on his sales job. An all-senators briefing is now scheduled for next week, according to an aide to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
'This is a momentous decision, and I don't begrudge him taking the time to figure it out. I share the goal of making sure that Iran never possesses a nuclear program,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. 'We're getting conflicting views on that from Tulsi Gabbard and the president; it's difficult to know who to believe.'
He coined his own term for Trump's position, calling it 'unstrategic ambiguity.'
For the few overt non-interventionists like Paul in the GOP, the risks of striking Iran are clear. The Kentuckian warned it could lead to more entanglement, whether the president likes it or not.
'Who's going to occupy Iran? You think the Israelis will be welcome occupiers in Iran? Do you think Americans would be welcome occupiers of Iran? Nobody would be,' Paul said.
Forecasting Trump's decisions is always a fool's errand, and his public statements on Wednesday only underscored his opaque approach. Summing up his will-he-or-won't he sentiment, he said Wednesday: 'I may do it. I may not do it. No one knows what I'm going to do.'
If Trump does strike Iran, the vast majority of his party in Congress is going to support the initial effort to cripple nuclear capability. Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., are certain to dissent, but that otherwise will be a fairly limited crew of Republicans.
Trump's support in both parties — and his presidency — could hinge on what happens next. There are few signs of support for a spiraling war in the Middle East after Iraq and Afghanistan, even as Republicans circulate polls showing their supporters want the US to support Israel.
Steve Bannon that if Trump does decide to strike Iran, the MAGA wing opposing it will ultimately 'get on board.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON (AP) — House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees. ___
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Democrats want new leaders, focus on pocketbook issues, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
By James Oliphant and Jason Lange WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Democrats want new leaders for their party, which many feel isn't focusing enough on economic issues and is over-emphasizing issues like transgender rights and electric vehicles, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The poll identified a deep disconnect between what Democrats say their priorities are and the issues they believe party leaders care about most ahead of next year's midterm elections, when they hope to crack Republican control of Congress. They see their elected officials as not focused on helping families make ends meet and reducing corporate influence. Democrat Kamala Harris' November loss to Republican Donald Trump has left the party rudderless and sparked a round of soul-searching about the path forward. The poll shows that party leaders have work to do in recruiting candidates for Congress in 2026 -- and for the White House in 2028. Some 62% of self-identified Democrats in the poll agreed with a statement that "the leadership of the Democratic Party should be replaced with new people." Only 24% disagreed and the rest said they weren't sure or didn't answer. Just 30% of Republicans polled said they thought their party leadership should be replaced. Democrats' dissatisfaction is also playing out in leadership changes, including this week's resignation of Randi Weingarten, the influential president of the American Federation of Teachers, from the Democratic National Committee -- which followed the ouster of progressive activist David Hogg. The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 4,258 people nationwide and online June 11 through 16, including 1,293 Democrats. It had a margin of error of about 3 percentage points for Democrats. It found that Democrats want the party to focus on their day-to-day needs and want wealthier Americans to pay more in taxes. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is viewed as a potential Democratic presidential candidate in 2028, agrees. "People don't trust us, they don't think we have their backs on issues that are core to them, which are these kitchen table issues," Newsom said on his podcast in April. DEMOCRATS 'IMPATIENT' Democratic strategists who reviewed the poll's findings said they send a clear message. "Voters are very impatient right now," said Mark Riddle, who heads Future Majority, a Democratic research firm. "They want elected officials at all levels to address the cost of living, kitchen-table issues and affordability." The poll found a gap between what voters say they care about and what they think the party's leaders prioritize. It was particularly wide on the issue of reducing corporate spending in political campaigns, where 73% of Democrats said they viewed putting limits on contributions to political groups like Super PACs a priority, but only 58% believed party leaders prioritize that. That issue matters to Sam Boland, 29, a Democrat in Minneapolis, who views Super PAC money as a way to 'legally bribe' candidates. 'Politicians want to keep their jobs and are afraid of the impact that publicly funded elections might have,' Boland said. Along that line, 86% of Democrats said changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority, more than the 72% of those surveyed think party leaders make it a top concern. The Republican-controlled Congress is currently pushing forward with Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill that would provide greater benefits to the wealthy than working-class Americans. Anthony Rentsch, 29, of Baltimore, said he believes Democratic leaders are afraid to embrace more progressive policies such as higher taxes on the wealthy. 'A lot of Trump's success has been with populist messages, and I think there's similar populist message Democrats can have,' Rentsch said. Democrats' own priorities appeared more in line with party leaders on abortion rights - which 77% cited as a priority. NEW BLOOD Dissatisfaction over the party's priorities on several economic policies was stronger among younger Democrats like Boland and Rentsch. For example, only 55% of Democrats aged 18-39 thought the party prioritized paid family leave that would allow workers to care for sick family members and bond with a new baby, but 73% said it was a priority for them. Among older Democrats, the same share - 68% - that said the issue was a priority for them said it was a priority for party leaders. Rentsch said that criticizing Trump over his conduct won't be enough to win over skeptical voters. 'That can't be it,' Rentsch said. 'It has to be owning those issues that have an impact on their economic well-being and their physical and mental well-being.' Democratic respondents said the party should be doing more to promote affordable childcare, reduce the price of prescription drugs, make health insurance more readily available and support mass transit. They view party leaders as less passionate about those issues than they are, the poll found. Even so, some Democrats argue the party also needs to stand toe-to-toe with Trump. 'They gotta get mean,' said Dave Silvester, 37, of Phoenix. Other Democrats said the party sometimes over-emphasizes issues that they view as less critical such as transgender rights. Just 17% of Democrats said allowing transgender people to compete in women and girls' sports should be a priority, but 28% of Democrats think party leaders see it as such. Benjamin Villagomez, 33, of Austin, Texas said that while trans rights are important, the issue too easily lends itself to Republican attacks. 'There are more important things to be moving the needle on,' said Villagomez, who is trans. 'There are more pressing issues, things that actually matter to people's livelihoods.' Democratic strategists say that if Trump's trade and tax policies lead to higher prices and an increased budget deficit, the party needs to be ready to take full advantage in next year's elections, which will decide control of Congress. 'This recent polling data indicates Democrats have room for improvement on criticizing Trump on the economy and making it clear to voters that Democrats are the ones standing up for working people,' said Ben Tulchin, who served as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' pollster for his two presidential campaigns. The party needs to get beyond portraying itself 'as the lesser of two evils," Boland, the Minneapolis Democrat, said. 'It needs to transform itself into a party that everyday people can get excited about,' he said. 'That requires a changing of the guard.'
31 minutes ago
How Senate Republicans want to change the tax breaks in Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- House and Senate Republicans are taking slightly different approaches when it comes to the tax cuts that lawmakers are looking to include in their massive tax and spending cuts bill. Republicans in the two chambers don't agree on the size of a deduction for state and local taxes. And they are at odds on such things as allowing people to use their health savings accounts to help pay for their gym membership, or whether electric vehicle and hybrid owners should have to pay an annual fee. The House passed its version shortly before Memorial Day. Now the Senate is looking to pass its version. While the two bills are similar on the major tax provisions, how they work out their differences in the coming weeks will determine how quickly they can get a final product over the finish line. President Donald Trump is pushing to have the legislation on his desk by July 4th. Here's a look at some of the key differences between the two bills: The child tax credit currently stands at $2,000 per child. The House bill temporarily boosts the child tax credit to $2,500 for the 2025 through 2028 tax years, roughly the length of President Donald Trump's second term. It also indexes the credit amount for inflation beginning in 2027. The Senate bill provides a smaller, initial bump-up to $2,200, but the bump is permanent, with the credit amount indexed for inflation beginning next year. Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would seek to end income taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security benefits. Also, he would give car buyers a new tax break by allowing them to deduct the interest paid on auto loans. The House and Senate bills incorporate those promises with temporary deductions lasting from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, but with some differences. The House bill creates a deduction on tips for those working in jobs that have customarily received tips. The House also provides for a deduction for overtime that's equal to the amount of OT a worker has earned. The Senate bill comes with more restrictions. The deduction for tips is limited to $25,000 per taxpayer and the deduction for overtime is limited to $12,500 per taxpayer. The House and Senate bills both provide a deduction of up to $10,000 for interest paid on loans for vehicles made in the United States. And on Social Security, the bills don't directly touch the program. Instead, they grant a larger tax deduction for Americans age 65 and older. The House sets the deduction at $4,000. The Senate sets it at $6,000. Both chambers include income limits over which the new deductions begin to phase out. The caps on state and local tax deductions, known in Washington as the SALT cap, now stand at $10,000. The House bill, in a bid to win over Republicans from New York, California and New Jersey, lifts the cap to $40,000 per household with incomes of less than $500,000. The credit phases down for households earning more than $500,000. The Senate bill keeps the cap at $10,000. That's a non-starter in the House, but Republicans in the two chambers will look to negotiate a final number over the coming weeks that both sides can accept. The House bill prohibits states from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing taxes. These are taxes that Medicaid providers, such as hospitals, pay to help states finance their share of Medicaid costs. In turn, the taxes allow states to receive increased federal matching funds while generally holding providers harmless through higher reimbursements that offset the taxes paid. Such taxes now are effectively capped at 6%. The Senate looks to gradually lower that threshold for states that have expanded their Medicaid populations under the Affordable Care Act, or 'Obamacare,' until it reaches 3.5% in 2031, with exceptions for nursing homes and intermediate care facilities. Industry groups have warned that limiting the ability of states to tax providers may lead to some states making significant cuts to their Medicaid programs as they make up for the lost revenue in other ways. The Medicaid provision could be a flashpoint in the coming House and Senate negotiations. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., was highly critical of the proposed Senate changes. 'This needs a lot of work. It's really concerning and I'm really surprised by it,' he said. 'Rural hospitals are going to be in bad shape.' The House bill would allow companies for five years to fully deduct equipment purchases and domestic research and development expenses. The Senate bill includes no sunset, making the tax breaks permanent, which was a key priority of powerful trade groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Republicans in both chambers are looking to scale back the clean energy tax credits enacted through then-President Joe Biden's climate law. It aimed to boost the nation's transition away from planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions toward renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Under the Senate bill, the tax credits for clean energy and home energy efficiency would still be phased out, but less quickly than under the House bill. Still, advocacy groups fear that the final measure will threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up household energy costs. The House bill would allow millions of Americans to use their health savings accounts to pay for gym memberships, with a cap of $500 for single taxpayers and $1,000 for joint filers. The Senate bill doesn't include such a provision. The House reinstates a charitable deduction for non-itemizers of $150 per taxpayer. The Senate bill increases that deduction for donations to $1,000 per taxpayer. Republicans in the House bill included a new annual fee of $250 for EV owners and $100 for hybrid owners that would be collected by state motor vehicle departments. The Senate bill excludes the proposed fees.
