How Steve Bannon thinks MAGA will respond if Trump strikes Iran
WASHINGTON – The 'vast majority' of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement 'will get on board' with strikes on Iran, if the two-term Republican goes ahead with military action, his former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon says.
Should he decide there's no diplomatic solution to be had, Trump will need to walk the American people and MAGA through his thinking, Bannon told reporters at a June 18 breakfast hosted by Christian Science Monitor. But Trump is also likely to win most of his naysaying supporters over.
'There will be some, but the vast majority of the MAGA movement will go, 'look, we trust your judgement, you've walked us through this, we don't like it, in fact maybe we hate it, but we'll get on board,'' Bannon said.
More: 'It's blowing up': The Iran conflict is sparking a MAGA civil war
Bannon is one of a number of MAGA stars who's come out against the U.S. actively aiding Israel in ongoing airstrikes on Iranian uranium enrichment and military sites. He said that U.S. military involvement could 'blow up the coalition' during a June 16 appearance on Tucker Carlson's show.
Bannon at the breakfast railed against 'old Republican Party' members and media personalities, who he said are 'forever war types' who supported the Iraq invasion and other conflicts the MAGA movement opposes.
US involvement? Israel wants to demolish Iran's nuclear facilities. Does it need help?
Bannon also chided Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for trying to present strikes on Iran as consistent with 'America First' values during a recent interview with a United States broadcaster.
'I do believe that even as we speak that President Trump is looking for potential alternatives,' Bannon said, telling reporters that Trump prefers 'optionality' in his decision-making process.
Minutes later at the White House, Trump told reporters that he had not made a decision about U.S. military strikes on Iran's uranium enrichment sites. 'I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do," he said.
Asked directly about the schism in MAGA, Trump responded in the Oval Office later in the day: 'My supporters are for me. My supporters are 'America first' and 'Make America great again.'"
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: How Steve Bannon thinks MAGA will respond if Trump bombs Iran
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘This presidency is a brand-franchise': Trump has taken the commercialization of politics to a new level
'I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.' Those were Donald Trump's words to writer Tony Schwartz in the Art of the Deal. In his second term, Trump has been thinking big about making money. Since his reelection campaign began, Trump is estimated to have more than doubled his net worth to $5.4bn. A sizeable chunk of that cash has come from the launch of Trump-branded products. This week the Trump Organization entered the mobile phone business with a Trump-branded service that will include a 'sleek gold' phone, which costs $499, that is 'made in America'. Maybe? Never to miss a patriotic marketing moment, they launched Trump Mobile at Trump Tower in New York on the 10-year anniversary of their father's announcement at the top of a gold escalator, to the sound of Neil Young's Rockin' in the Free World, that he would run for president. The premium tier of service would be dubbed the 47 Plan, priced at $47.45 a month. Donald Trump Jr said the brothers had partnered with 'some of the greatest people in the industry to make sure that real Americans get true value from their mobile carriers'. 'Celebrity' phone launches are hardly new. The launch announcement came days after the actor-hosts of the popular SmartLess podcast – Will Arnett, Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes – announced their own cut price phone plan, and more than two years since actor Ryan Reynolds profited from his stake in Mint Mobile, sold to T-Mobile for $1.35bn. So was Trump – or the Trumps – thinking big or just following a pattern of seemingly random licensing deals that renew concerns about the president's business enterprises? After all, if Trump is really concerned about phone prices, he could – as president – push for legislative change. 'There was a lot of dialog when Trump returned to power that we would see in this term a particularly interesting residency in the White House about how much money would be made,' says marketing-PR guru Mark Borkowski, 'and this is a typical Trump side-hustle playing off Maga patriotism.' The blurred lines between business and politics, impacting how candidates are portrayed, policies are shaped and voters engage with the political process – commonly referred to as the commercialization of politics – may not be Trump's to own exclusively, but he's taken it to a new level. 'It is troubling, and more than in jest, that this is now a political economy and he's actually saying this presidency is a brand-franchise,' says Borkowski. 'There is no separation between power and profit. He's redrawn the boundaries between commerce and the office of the president, and he's accelerated the notion of post-ethical politics.' The gold phone and patriotically-priced phone plan – '47' referring to Trump's current term, and '45' referring to the previous – is only the latest ask of the Maga (Make America Great Again) faithful, otherwise known as ultra-Magas, to show their commitment in dollar terms. 'The Trumps' continued business expansion often serves to reinforce Trump's political persona rather than distract from it. For Maga supporters, his business ventures are interpreted as proof of his self-made success and outsider status – both key pillars of his political brand,' says Zak Revskyi at the New York brand management consultancy Baden Bower. 'These business moves don't just coexist with his political identity – they actively feed into it. They help sustain the image of Trump as a results-oriented executive who blends capitalism with populism,' Revskyi adds. On Thursday, Bloomberg revealed that investment bank Dominari Holdings, where Donald Jr and Eric work as advisers, helped an obscure toymaker selling Smurf-branded tumblers, koala backpacks and plush sea turtles, pivot into crypto this week, sending its shares up more than 500%. The outlet noted that there was no sign in regulatory filings that Trump family members were involved in this or previous crypto-related transactions through the bank – which is based in Trump Tower – but noted that 'the gain added to the windfalls of executives orbiting the president's family'. Aside from the Trump's well-publicized (and profitable) adventures in crypto – his ownership stake in World Liberty Financial produced $57,355,532 in income since it was launched last year – the family brand has upped by 20 its Trump-branded real-estate projects around the globe, calculated Citizens for Ethics, including an 80-storey skyscraper in Dubai, and plans for branded hotels in Riyadh and Jeddah, and a golf course in Qatar, to an estimated value of $10bn. A 234-page financial disclosure form released by the Office of Government Ethics this month showed 145 pages of stock and bond investments. The disclosure showed that 2024 was a very good year for royalty payments from products featuring his name and likeness. Among them, calculated NBC News, was $3m from a Save America coffee table book; $2.5m from Trump sneakers and fragrances; $2.8m from Trump watches; $1.3m from a Trump-endorsed Bible; and just over $1m each from '45' guitars and non-fungible token (NFT) sales. Most have at least some aspect of gold-coloring, according to a review of the 'Golden Age of America' Trump collection. Many of the assets are held in a revocable trust overseen by Donald Jr, including more than 100,000 shares, or 53%, of Trump Media and Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, valued at 5.15bn, or held in partnerships that do not require divestment under conflict of interest laws. The business of selling the family name hums along despite, or because of, the on-the-fly dramas that envelope the White House from week to week. The White House claims that the president 'has been the most transparent president in history in all respects, including when it comes to his finances', noting that Trump handed over 'his multibillion-dollar empire in order to serve our country, and he has sacrificed greatly'. The Trump phone, which analysts doubt can be 'made in America', as promotional materials assert, is merely an add-on to a thriving political-business operation. Democrats have found it hard to find a footing in calling out the interplay, in part because Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, was similarly accused of allowing a family business of influence peddling to evolve around him and issued a pre-emptive pardon of family members before he left office. 'I don't do it for the money. I've got enough, much more than I'll ever need. I do it to do it,' Trump wrote in the opening lines of in the Art of the Deal, published in 1987. 'Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That's how I get my kicks.' But under Trump politics and business have become melded as never before. 'It's a new hyper-reality that exists in America,' says Borkowski. 'It's about turning political fandom into money, and he's laughing all the way to the bank. He's doing exactly what was expected. Nobody in Trump's heartland sees this as damaging – it's what they expect a deal-maker to do. The absurdity of everything Trump does is the point.'
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts
Social Security privatization would shift retirement funding from the government to individual Americans. Proponents of privatization believe it can lead to higher investment returns, thus providing retirees with more money in retirement. For some, the focus on personal responsibility is key. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › If you want to get people worked up, ask a small group of friends what they think of Social Security privatization. Privatization refers to the idea of shifting the management and funding of retirement from the government to individuals. In other words, rather than paying Social Security taxes as part of FICA, you would keep the money and invest for retirement on your own. Experts have dramatically different opinions on privatization, with some fearing that it will lead to more people entering retirement with little to no financial resources. Those arguing in favor of privatizing the program take a completely different view. Here's how they believe the change would benefit the average American worker. Imagine that a portion of your Social Security taxes were invested in a personal account rather than used to fund current retirees' benefits. You could invest in stocks and bonds to your heart's content. In fact, you could invest in any vehicle you believe will provide a strong return. One of the beauties of investing is the way compound interest can significantly increase your retirement savings over time. As long as you begin investing early and are consistent, proponents of privatization believe you're in a position to build up more money than you could ever collect through Social Security payments. Proponents believe that Americans will appreciate the ability to invest their retirement savings where they want. Rather than paying it into a program supporting current retirees, they can choose where their money will go. However, the open question becomes: What happens to the millions of current retirees when workers stop paying into the system? Read any message board, and you're likely to find plenty of people with an opinion about Social Security privatization. It's been a hot-button topic since President George W. Bush first suggested it in his 1978 Congressional race, then pushed for it again following his successful 2004 presidential campaign. Since that time, the subject has been supported by a rotating cast of politicians, who claim it will put the responsibility for saving on individuals rather than allowing them to depend on the government to provide a safety net. While this reasoning overlooks the fact that Americans spend decades contributing to the system and Social Security has never been a public assistance program, it does appeal to the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" crowd. Proponents believe that pushing Americans to invest on their own means greater financial literacy among the masses. It's also believed that it will foster a culture of savings and investment. While this may be true for some, it's fair to imagine that wealthier Americans can afford to pay financial planners to help them make the most of their investments, while workers living paycheck to paycheck may have trouble saving the funds at all. It's likely that most people would like to save for retirement, but not everyone can afford to do so. The good news is that plenty of people are actively involved in seeking a solution to potential Social Security shortages. It may turn out that some form of Social Security privatization -- such as a hybrid system that allows you to continue paying into the current system while setting aside some money to make your own investments -- will be the answer. Or, it may be something entirely different. While proponents of Social Security privatization offer numerous potential advantages, it's yet to be seen if anyone will come up with a better solution. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Advantages of Social Security Privatization, According to Experts was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California will do anything to protect immigrants — except build them housing
Over the past several weeks, hundreds of thousands of Californians have taken to the streets to protest the Trump administration's increasingly authoritarian efforts to deport the state's undocumented population. There's a moral imperative behind these protests; the vast majority of the people being targeted by federal agents are law-abiding workers with no criminal records. There's a practical one, too: This state cannot function without its migrant workers, particularly our agricultural sector. It isn't just that undocumented workers will accept lower wages than their American counterparts. Farming is hard, skilled labor. Absent changes to federal immigration policy that would allow and incentivize more migrants to come here legally, California doesn't have the trained workforce it needs to feed itself and the nation. (We accounted for 41% of the country's vegetable sales in 2022.) And so, Californians and our politicians have rightly gone to battle with President Donald Trump. Yet as supportive as this editorial board is of these efforts, we'd be remiss if we didn't call something out: This state needs to become as passionate about housing our essential workers as it is about fighting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's been just over two and a half years since the deadly shootings in Half Moon Bay put the Dickensian living conditions of California's farmworkers — the vast majority of whom are undocumented — on the national radar. For decades, California had allowed its migrant workers to live in overcrowded, mold-filled housing with bacteria-ridden drinking water. That's if it housed them at all. What's changed? Not nearly enough, according to San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, whose district includes the site of the 2023 massacre. Building housing on farmland in his district has proven to be a logistical challenge amid drainage issues, sewage concerns and access to drinkable water. Yet trying to build worker housing off-site hits an even more intractable roadblock. 'The coastal community is, by a large majority, supportive of farmworkers,' he said. 'The opposition you run into is around density.' San Mateo County is hardly unique in this regard. In Marin County, for instance, an effort to build housing for the workers, many undocumented, being displaced by the closure of ranches in the Point Reyes National Seashore has been met with a lawsuit by NIMBY groups. This is, of course, unacceptable. And yet, state and local rules still too often empower obstructionism. Mueller said the arduous progress San Mateo County has made in building farmworker housing was mostly achieved using emergency powers that streamlined the usual permitting processes. 'The state was wonderful in getting our project moving,' Mueller said. 'We just need to do that at scale across the state.' We're nowhere close. In 2024, California lawmakers passed a measure to exempt farmworker housing up to 150 units from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. However, this streamlining applied to only two counties: Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. A bill in the state Legislature, AB457 from Assembly Member Esmerelda Soria, D-Merced, would expand those streamlining measures to Fresno, Madera and Merced counties. Over 40% of the state's land is used for agriculture. We're never going to get anywhere with a drip-drop of county-by-county CEQA carve-outs. Assembly Member Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, told the editorial board he'd be supportive of an effort to expand CEQA streamlining to his district and perhaps even statewide. But even that wouldn't be enough, Mueller said. For many Bay Area farming communities, the California Coastal Commission has its own separate and arduous permitting process. Without streamlining bills to cover this and CEQA, little progress will be made. And now an even greater challenge comes from the Trump administration. Farmworker-specific housing makes easy pickings for federal raids. Mueller says he fears his efforts to build new farmworker housing may have inadvertently 'put a target on the back' of the people he's spent years trying to help. This fear isn't theoretical. Gov. Gavin Newsom's office recently issued a press release saying that federal deportation authorities requested and received the addresses and immigration status of Medi-Cal recipients after the state expanded health insurance benefits to low-income undocumented workers. Tailored government efforts for the undocumented risk creating a paper trail that puts them in danger. 'It is clear that we must reassess our programs to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the personal information of our community,' incoming state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, told the editorial board. We don't have the answer to this quandary on the health care front. But California can do something for migrant workers as it relates to housing — something Limón and too many other California politicians have been reluctant to do. Make it easier to build. AB457 is an admission from legislators that CEQA creates onerous and unnecessary impediments to development. Yet housing streamlining bills such as SB79 from San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener, which would exempt developments near transit from CEQA review, provided they comply with local affordable housing mandates and other criteria, are receiving immense political pushback. Undocumented renters in California have virtually the same rights as everyone else in the private rental market under the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act. And landlords are prohibited from disclosing, or typically even asking about, immigration status. But without an adequate housing supply, those protections go to waste. Can most undocumented workers afford to buy a shiny new condo? Almost certainly not. But they could potentially move into older units that open up when other renters decide to buy. And they certainly could benefit from the development of new mother-in-law units — such as those that might have been built had cities like San Diego not just rolled back their accessory dwelling unit laws in the face of community opposition. If California is willing to fight the federal government to keep its undocumented residents here, it should also be willing to fight to ensure they don't live in squalor.
