The top priority of progressive politics may be slipping out of reach forever

is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine.
A protester wearing a Trump paper mâché head stands in front of a barricade and holds a sign that reads, 'Death and taxes' in New York in 2019.Four years ago, America was on the cusp of the largest expansion of its welfare state since the 1960s.
Under Joe Biden in 2021, House Democrats passed legislation that would have established a monthly child allowance for most families, an expansion of Medicaid's elder care services, federal child care subsidies, universal prekindergarten, and a paid family leave program, among other new social benefits.
But that bill failed — and then, so did Biden's presidency.
Now, Republicans are on the brink of enacting the largest cut to public health insurance in American history. And the outlook for future expansions of the safety net looks dimmer than at any time in recent memory.
There are two primary reasons why progressives' prospects for growing the welfare state have darkened.
This story was first featured in The Rebuild.
Sign up here for more stories on the lessons liberals should take away from their election defeat — and a closer look at where they should go next. From senior correspondent Eric Levitz.
First (and most straightforwardly), the Democrats are not well-positioned to win full control of the federal government anytime soon. To win a Senate majority in 2026, the party would need to win multiple states that Trump carried by double digits last year. And the 2028 map isn't that much better. The basic problem is that Democrats have built a coalition that's heavily concentrated on the coasts and thus, systematically underrepresented in the Senate. To win the robust congressional majorities typically necessary for enacting large social programs, Democrats would likely need to transform their party's brand.
Second, although Democrats developed grander ambitions for social spending over the past decade, they simultaneously grew more averse to raising taxes on anyone but the super-rich. In the 2010s, when inflation and interest rates were persistently low, the party could paper over this tension with deficit spending. But Biden-era inflation revealed the limits of this strategy.
And if Congress passes President Donald Trump's tax cut plan, then interest rates and inflationary risk are likely to remain elevated for years, while the cost of servicing America's debts will soar. Add to this the impending exhaustion of Social Security's trust fund, and space for new welfare programs is likely to be scant, unless Democrats find a way to enact broad-based tax increases.
Liberals could respond to all this by paring back their ambitions for the welfare state, while seeking to advance progressive goals through regulatory policy. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the two most prominent policy movements in Democratic circles today — the anti-monopoly and 'abundance' crusades — are both principally concerned with reforms that require no new tax revenue (antitrust enforcement in the former case, zoning liberalization in the latter).
But expanding America's safety net remains a moral imperative. In the long-term, Democrats must therefore strive to build the electoral power and political will necessary for raising taxes on the middle-class (or at least, on its upper reaches).
Related The US government has to start paying for things again
Democrats like social welfare programs. But they like low taxes on the upper middle-class even more.
Over the course of the 2010s, the Democratic leadership's appetite for new social spending grew. Bernie Sanders's insurgent campaigns in 2016 and 2020 put Medicare-for-All at the center of the party's discourse, and moved its consensus on the welfare state sharply leftward. In the latter primary, even the Democrats' most moderate contender — Joe Biden — vowed to establish a public option for health insurance and tuition-free community colleges, among other social programs.
Biden's agenda only grew more ambitious upon taking office. No president since Lyndon B. Johnson had proposed a more sweeping expansion of social welfare than the Build Back Better Act.
And yet, while Democrats' aspirations for social spending had become historically bold, the party's position on taxes had grown exceptionally timid. In 2016, Hillary Clinton had promised not to raise taxes on any American family earning less than $250,000. Four years later, Biden vowed to spare all households earning less than $400,000 – despite the fact that tax rates on upper middle-class families had fallen during Trump's first term.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' congressional leadership was actually pushing to cut taxes on rich blue state homeowners by increasing the state and local income tax deduction.
In other words: In 2021, Democrats were promising to establish an unprecedentedly large welfare state, while keeping taxes on 98 percent of households historically low.
Officially, the party believed that it could square this circle by soaking the super-rich. After all, America's highest-earning 1 percent had commandeered more than 20 percent of the nation's annual income. The government could therefore extract a lot of revenue by merely shaking down the upper class.
In reality, though, Biden's vision was also premised on the assumption that America could deficit-finance new spending with little risk of sparking inflation or high interest rates.
The Build Back Better Act did not actually raise taxes on the rich by enough to offset its social spending. Instead, Democrats leaned on budget gimmicks to 'pay for' its agenda: Although the party intended the law's new programs to be permanent, it scheduled many of them to expire after just a few years, so as to make the policies look cheaper over a decade-long budget window. Absent these arbitrary expiration dates, the bill would have added $2.8 trillion to the deficit over a decade. Even as written, the law would have increased deficits by $749 billion in its first five years.
More fundamentally, Biden's basic fiscal objective — to establish wide-ranging social benefits through taxes on the super rich alone — only made sense in a world of low inflation.
Western Europe's robust welfare states are all funded through broad-based taxation. This is partly because administering a large safety net requires managing economic demand. When the government expands its provision of elder care, social housing, child care, and pre-K, it increases overall demand for workers and resources in the economy. And if the supply of labor and materials doesn't rise in line with this new demand, then inflation can ensue.
Taxes effectively 'pay for' new spending by freeing up such resources. When households see their post-tax income decline, they're often forced to make fewer discretionary purchases. Raise taxes on an upper middle-class family and it might need to postpone its dreams of a lake house. That in turn frees up labor for public programs: The fewer construction workers needed to build vacation homes, the more that will be available to build affordable housing.
But soaking the extremely rich does less to dampen demand than taxing the upper middle-class does. Even if you increase Elon Musk's tax rate by 50 percent, he won't actually need to reduce his consumption at all — the billionaire will still have more money than he can spend in a lifetime.
The same general principle applies to multimillionaires, albeit to a lesser extent: Raise their taxes, and they're liable to save less money, but won't necessarily consume fewer resources. And if they do not curb their consumption in response to a tax hike, then that tax hike will not actually free up resources.
In 2021, Democrats felt no obligation to sweat these details. For nearly a decade after the Great Recession, economic demand had been too low. Workers and materials had stood idle on the economy's sidelines, as there wasn't enough spending to catalyze their employment. In that context, unfunded welfare benefits can boost growth without generating inflation.
But as Democrats moved Build Back Better through Congress, the macroeconomic terrain shifted beneath their feet. Biden likely would have struggled to get his social agenda through the Senate (where Democrats held only 50 votes) even in the absence of 2022's inflation. But that surge in prices all but guaranteed the legislation's defeat: Suddenly, it became clear that the government could not increase economic demand without pushing up inflation and interest rates. America had returned to a world of fiscal constraints.
Unfortunately, those constraints could prove lasting, especially if Donald Trump's tax agenda makes it into law.
Related The reconciliation bill is Republicans doing what they do best
Building a comprehensive welfare state is about to get harder
The most lamentable aspect of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' are its cuts to healthcare and food assistance for the poor. Yet even as it takes health insurance from 10 million Americans and reduces food assistance to low-income families by about $100 a month, the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the coming decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Yet the actual cost of the GOP's fiscal vision is even larger. To reduce their bill's price tag, Republicans' set some of their tax cuts to arbitrarily expire. Were these tax cuts made permanent, the bill would add roughly $5 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.
This is likely to render the US economy more vulnerable to inflation and high interest rates in the future.
Thus, the next Democratic government probably won't have much freedom to deficit spend without increasing Americans' borrowing costs or bills. Meanwhile, if that administration holds power after 2032, it will also need to find a ton of new revenue, just to maintain America's existing welfare state.
Social Security currently pays out more in benefits than it takes in through payroll taxes. For now, the program's dedicated trust fund fills in the gap. But in 2033, that fund will likely be exhausted, according to government projections. At that point, the government will need to find upward of $414.5 billion in new revenue, each year, to maintain existing Social Security benefits without increasing the deficit.
Given Democrats' current stance on taxes, the imperative to keep Social Security funded would likely crowd out the rest of the party's social welfare agenda. Indeed, merely sustaining Americans' existing retirement benefits would almost certainly require raising taxes on households earning less than $400,000. Maintaining such benefits while also creating new welfare programs — in a context of structurally high deficits and interest rates — would plausibly entail large, broad-based tax increases, the likes of which today's Democrats scarcely dare to contemplate.
Granted, the robots could solve all this
To be sure, it is possible that technological progress could render this entire analysis obsolete. Some analysts expect artificial intelligence to radically increase productivity over the next decade, while devaluing white-collar labor. This could slow the pace of wage and price growth, while turbo-charging income inequality.
In a world where robots can instantly perform work that presently requires millions of humans, America could plausibly finance a vast social welfare state solely through taxes on capital.
But until AI actually yields a discernible leap in productivity, I don't think it is safe to take an impending robo-utopia as a given.
Democrats eventually need to sell Americans on higher taxes
Democrats probably can't escape the tension between their commitments on taxation and social spending. But they can seek to mitigate it in a few different ways.
One is to scale down the party's ambitions for the welfare state, while seeking to advance progressive economic goals through other means.
Such a retreat would be understandable. The party's fear of raising taxes is not baseless. In a 2021 Gallup poll, only 19 percent of Americans said they would like to have more government services in exchange for higher taxes, while 50 percent said they'd prefer lower taxes in exchange for fewer services.
Meanwhile, Democrats have grown increasingly reliant on the support of upper middle-class voters. In 2024, the highest-earning 5 percent of white voters were more than 10 percentage points more Democratic than America as a whole. The lowest earning two-thirds of whites, by contrast, were more Republican than the nation writ large.
In this political environment, calling for large middle-class tax hikes could well ensure perpetual Republican rule.
In the short term then, Democrats might therefore be wise to narrow their agenda for social welfare, focusing on modest programs that can be funded exclusively with taxes on the rich.
At the same time, the party could seek to better working people's lot through regulatory policy. You don't need to raise middle-class taxes to expand collective bargaining rights, guarantee worker representation on corporate boards, or raise the minimum wage. And the same can be said of relaxing regulatory barriers to housing construction and energy infrastructure. (Of course, achieving any of these goals federally would require Democrats to win a robust Senate majority — one sufficiently large and progressive enough to abolish the legislative filibuster, which currently establishes a 60-vote threshold for enacting new, non-budgetary legislation.)
In the long run though, Democrats must not forfeit the pursuit of a comprehensive welfare state. America lets more of its children suffer poverty — and more of its adults go without health insurance — than similarly rich countries. These deprivations are largely attributable to our nation's comparatively threadbare safety net. And they can only be fully eliminated through redistributive policy. A higher minimum wage will not ensure that children with unemployed parents never go hungry, or that every worker with cancer can afford treatment.
Furthermore, as technological progress threatens to rapidly disemploy large segments of the public, robust unemployment insurance is as important as ever. And as the population ages, increasing investment in eldercare will be increasingly imperative.
Democrats should seek to make incremental progress on all these fronts as soon as possible. Even if the party is only willing to tax the rich, it can still finance targeted anti-poverty spending. But absent an AI-induced productivity revolution, building a holistic welfare state will require persuading the middle-class to accept higher taxes.
How this can be done is not clear. But part of the solution is surely to demonstrate that Democratic governments can spend taxpayer funds efficiently and effectively. So long as blue areas struggle to build a single public toilet for less than $1.7 million — or a high-speed rail line in less than 17 years — it will be hard to persuade ordinary Americans to forfeit a larger chunk of their paychecks to Uncle Sam.
All this said, Democrats have plenty of time to debate the future of fiscal policy. In the immediate term, the party's task is plain: to do everything in its power to prevent Trump's cuts to Medicaid and food assistance from becoming law.
The path to a comprehensive welfare state won't be easy to traverse. Better then not to begin the journey toward it by taking several steps backward.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Axios

17 minutes ago

• Axios

Trump admin shortens ACA enrollment window

The Trump administration on Friday narrowed the period to sign up for Affordable Care Act coverage and imposed other restrictions aimed at rolling back Biden-era flexibilities for the program. Why it matters: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expects the new policies to lower marketplace premiums by about 5% on average, and save taxpayers $12 billion next year. But between 725,000 and 1.8 million people are expected to lose coverage, per CMS's projections. The big picture: Congress is considering codifying many of the same provisions in the massive GOP budget bill that's now in the Senate. That would make them much harder for a future administration to undo. State of play: CMS is shortening the period for enrolling in marketplace insurance by two weeks, starting for plan year 2027. Federal exchanges will then be open for sign-ups from Nov. 1 through Dec. 31 of each year. It's also repealing the monthly opportunity started under the Biden administration for lower-income people to get marketplace coverage. The new rule limits plans' ability to cover gender-affirming care beginning next year. It also excludes Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients from obtaining ACA coverage. CMS said the policies will ensure federal subsidies to offset the cost of ACA coverage only support statutory goals of the law. Yes, but: In response to public comments, CMS is making several of its changes temporary. For plan year 2026 only, CMS will begin charging a $5 monthly premium for consumers who are automatically reenrolled in an ACA plan from one year to the next and would otherwise have fully subsidized coverage. Other changes concerning income verification for enrollees will also end after 2026. Between the lines: Insurance losses from the new policy will be felt hardest in states where "erroneous and improper enrollment is most noticeable," including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, CMS said.

Politico

23 minutes ago

• Politico

Bush 43 alum joins ‘shadow' RNC

With Daniel Lippman FIRST IN PI: Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor and RNC chair, is joining Our Republican Legacy as chair, lending his voice to the organization as it expands efforts to grow grassroots support for the pre-MAGA era of the GOP ahead of the midterms next year and presidential election in 2028. — Racicot joins former Sens. John Danforth and William Cohen, two founding chairs of the nonprofit that bills itself as the inheritor of true Republican Party values. Former Reps. Charlie Dent and Barbara Comstock are also being elevated to chairs as the organization seeks to grow its foothold in all 50 states. — 'There are a lot of good people that can come back into the fold, we just have to have the time and the messaging to work with them and show them what's going on,' Racicot told PI. — Racicot, who left public service after successfully managing President George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, went on to spend four years as the president of the American Insurance Association (now known as the American Property Casualty Insurance Association). — 'We're building a 50-state national committee, basically a shadow version of the party,' Our Republican Legacy senior adviser Chris Vance told PI, while emphasizing that the organization is not a PAC and will not be endorsing specific candidates or making donations. — 'Maybe we, at some point, will form a PAC,' Vance said. 'But right now we are an advocacy group, like the NRA is an advocacy group, the Sierra Club, all these different organizations. They can't say the magic words — elect, donate, that sort of thing — but they still have a very big political impact by fighting for their ideas.' Happy first Friday of Summer and welcome to PI. This is Daniel (no, not that one) and I'm your guest host today. Send tips and recommendations on how to beat the heat this weekend to dbarnes@ or ping me on Signal. And follow me on X: @dnlbrns. Caitlin will be back on Monday. You can always reach her on Signal, email her at coprysko@ and follow her on X: @caitlinoprysko. BURR LOBBYING FOR BIOTECH: Former Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) will represent the Biotechnology Innovation Organization on issues related to drug pricing and supply chains, Medicare and Medicaid and reauthorization of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, POLITICO's Amanda Chu reports. Burr is currently health policy chair at DLA Piper. FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES: Gaurav Srivastava, the Indian American businessperson who last year had major donations to Democrats frozen or returned after allegations he had posed as a spy for the CIA, now appears to be trying to curry favor with top Republicans, Daniel L. reports. — Srivastava on Thursday posted a photo he recently took with Vice President JD Vance, adding in a caption, 'Pleasure seeing Vice President @JDVance during last week's event in #WashingtonDC as we work towards strengthening America's future!' — The photo was taken at the performance of 'Les Misérables' at the Kennedy Center that President Donald Trump and Vance attended along with a slew of other senior administration and Republican figures. — 'Thousands of people were at the Kennedy Center that evening, and the Vice President took photos with many of them,' a spokesperson for Vance said in a statement to PI. A spokesperson for Srivastava did not provide a comment. Srivastava has disputed the 'fake spy' allegations in the past. — Earlier this year, Srivastava also had lunch with Hunter Biden, according to photos the Daily Mail snapped. — In 2023, the FBI reportedly began investigating Srivastava and where he got his money. Srivastava has been engaged in a long-running battle with Dutch oil trader Niels Troost after their business relationship went sour. An FBI spokesperson declined to comment on the status of the investigation. FOUL-MOUTH FAIN: 'In a scathing report from a court-appointed union watchdog, UAW President Shawn Fain is depicted as a foul-mouthed, hotheaded leader,' Liam Rappleye reports in the Detroit Free Press. — The 93-page report makes several references to 'a moment where Fain told hundreds of UAW members at a large staff meeting that he would 'slit' or 'cut' their throats if they messed with his closest aides.' — 'In another anecdote — which Fain admitted to be true — the UAW president confronted a print shop employee and launched into a 'tirade' upon hearing that [UAW Secretary-Treasurer Margaret Mock] wanted a photo of herself to appear alongside Fain on a pamphlet outlining details of an ongoing bargaining campaign.' — 'Fain reportedly confronted the Head of the Print Shop in a tirade, demanding, among other things, that she tell him, 'Who told you to put [Mock's] motherf------ photo on there? This is my motherf------ membership.'' SPOTTED at the Rainey Center's 'Tea Party Revival: Don't Tax the Light' at Butterworth's on Wednesday night: Citizen Solutions Inc.'s Tomer Kagan, National Nuclear Security Administration's Charles Moran, RNC's CJ Pearson, Log Cabin Republicans' Ed Williams, Andre Soriano, TSG Advocates' Chase Kroll, Rainey Center's Sarah Hunt, Chet Love and Connor Sandagata, Foundation for American Innovation's Zach Graves, Latinos for America First's Bianca Gracia, HHS' Gregory Angelo, Fox News' Ryan Schmelz, Treasury's Shane Shannon and Dean Ball of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Jobs report — The Modular Building Institute has added Alex Carmack as government affairs director, Andrew Muchnick as government affairs manager and Chastity Meade as communications manager. Carmack joins from the United Network for Organ Sharing where he worked as a policy analyst. Muchnick was previously a senior director in Bullpen Strategy Group's media intelligence practice. Meade was a community manager and social media manager for the MIT Sloan CIO Symposium. — Mike Spratt has joined the Investment Company Institute as an associate general counsel from the SEC where he previously was assistant director in the division of investment management disclosure review. — The American Land Title Association has promoted three members of their government relations staff. Elizabeth Blosser has been appointed chief strategy, communications and innovation officer. She was previously vice president of government affairs overseeing state advocacy. Emily Tryon has been promoted to chief advocacy officer. She was previously vice president of government affairs managing federal advocacy. Kevin Cameron takes on a new title as vice president, head of federal government affairs. He was previously senior director of federal government affairs. — Gregory Cox is the new executive director of the office of government relations at Texas Christian University. He was most recently an attorney in private practice and is a Greg Abbott alum. — Brett Tolman is the new chair for law and justice at America First Policy Institute. He previously served as chair of AFPI's weaponization of government initiative. — CropLife America has added Tonya Parish as senior manager of communications and government relations. Parish was previously communications manager for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. She is joined at CropLife by Jay Ivey, new manager of government relations. He was previously state outreach and public affairs coordinator at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. New Joint Fundraisers Blue Dog Victory Fund (Cooke for Congress, Rep. Jared Golden, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, Rep. Lou Correa, Rep. Adam Gray, Rep. Sanford Bishop, Rep. Jim Costa, Rep. Henry Cuellar, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, Rep. Mike Thompson) New PACs American Fidelity PAC (Super PAC) BDA PAC (Hybrid PAC) Founding Father's Vision PAC (Hybrid PAC) DraftKings Inc. Political Action Committee DBA DraftKings PAC (PAC) Fire Fetterman (Super PAC) Archer Aviation Inc. Political Action Committee (AKA Archer PAC) (PAC) MAGA KY (Super PAC) Lunatic Fringe Political Action Committee (PAC) New Lobbying REGISTRATIONS Axadvocacy Government Relations: 503 Capital Partners Ballard Partners: Transportation Management Services Boundary Stone Partners: Mantel Capture, Inc Boundary Stone Partners: National Carbon Technologies, LLC Brightspring Health Services: Brightspring Health Services Continental Strategy, LLC: Cm Consortium LLC Covenant Government Affairs, LLC: Auto-Mark, Inc. Dba Sea Foam Sales Company Covenant Government Affairs, LLC: Royal Engineering And Consulting, LLC. Cruce Capitol Consulting LLC: American Sugar Cane League Of The USa, Inc. Dga Group Government Relations LLC: Kyowa Kirin Inc, USa DLA Piper LLP (US): Biotechnology Innovation Organization Ervin Graves Strategy Group, LLC: Hereford Ethanol Partners, L.P. Hogan Lovells US LLP: Artanis Capital, LLC J.A. Green And Company (Formerly LLC): Aimpoint US J.A. Green And Company (Formerly LLC): American Center For Manufacturing & Innovation Federal General LLC Javelin Advisors LLC: Fred Daibes Lilette Advisors: Rf Catalytic Capital Lilette Advisors: Vale USa LLC Mercury Public Affairs, LLC: Sentinelone Inc. Michael Best Strategies LLC: Charter Casting Michael Best Strategies LLC: Dairyland Power Cooperative Michael Best Strategies LLC: Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. (Kkr) Michael Best Strategies LLC: Maxar Intelligence Michael Best Strategies LLC: Tricolor Holdings Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough: United Opticians Association Park Strategies, LLC: Global Dairy Distributors LLC Steptoe LLP: Lake Charles Methanol Ii, LLC The Mckeon Group, Inc.: Momentum Solutions The Mckeon Group, Inc.: Sunation Energy The Mckeon Group, Inc.: Umo & National Association Of Ukrainian Defense Industries (Naudi) The Vogel Group: Allentown, Inc The Vogel Group: Auto Approve The Vogel Group: Canadian National Railway The Vogel Group: Contingency Capital The Vogel Group: Graftech International Ltd. The Vogel Group: William Tierney Venn Strategies: Ohio Coating Company New Lobbying Terminations Accelerate Strategies: Sports And Fitness Industry Association Cgcn Group, LLC: National Oilseed Processors Association Ess Tech, Inc.: Ess Tech, Inc. Forbes-Tate: Crestview Strategies Obo Teknion Forbes-Tate: Ginkgo Bioworks Forbes-Tate: Lykos Therapeutics Lot Sixteen LLC: North Star Manganese, Inc. Ms. Virginia Ainslie: American Geophysical Union

Boston Globe

27 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

A potential strike on Iran tests Trump's propensity to play to both sides

Since his first campaign for president 10 years ago, Trump has excelled at appearing to favor both sides of the same issue, allowing supporters to hear what they want to hear, whether he's talking about tariffs, TikTok, abortion, tax cuts, or more. But the prospect that the United States might join Israel in bombing Iran is testing his ability to embrace dueling positions with little to no political cost. Some of Trump's most ardent supporters — those who defended him during multiple investigations and ultimately returned him to the White House — are ripping one another to shreds over the idea and at times lashing out at Trump as well. Advertisement The war in Iran is exactly the kind of Middle East entanglement that Trump's anti-interventionist base believed he was bitterly opposed to, because he repeatedly said he was. But he is also the same president who, in his first term, authorized missile strikes in Syria, after its leadership used chemical weapons on citizens, and the assassination of a top Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani — two actions he took pride in. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up To Trump, the contradictions are not actually contradictions. 'I think I'm the one that decides that,' he told The Atlantic recently in response to criticism from one of his most vocal anti-interventionist supporters, Tucker Carlson, who said the president's support for Israel's fight in Iran ran against his 'America First' message. Trump was propelled to victory in the Republican primary in 2016 as an outsider, in part because he forcefully condemned the invasion of Iraq, authorized by the last Republican president more than a decade before, and the seemingly endless war that followed. Yet he said the United States should have taken the country's oil, and ran radio ads saying he would 'bomb the hell' out of the Islamic State group. Advertisement He has said he wants to renew the tax cuts he put into effect in his first term, which saved some of the wealthiest earners millions, while also suggesting that congressional Republicans should implement a new tax on the wealthiest. He has said he supports businesses and also wants to deport the immigrant workforce that fuels parts of the economy. He wants to engage in mass deportation and also wants to sell visas for $5 million. He has celebrated the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a point of pride while also condemning Republican governors who signed bills banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. He has both celebrated and criticized his own criminal justice reform bill of 2018. Despite the contradictions, Republicans for years have been united in support of Trump and what he says he wants, giving him a benefit of the doubt that few, if any, career politicians have ever received. Even when most elected Republicans held Trump at a distance after the deadly attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump still had a tight grip on Republican primary voters. Trump, a celebrity known to the electorate for decades, has obscured long-standing and unresolved foreign policy divisions within the party dating back to the aftermath of President George W. Bush's push to invade Iraq. Advertisement But as Trump decides whether to plunge the United States into the heart of the Israel-Iran conflict, his core supporters are splintering. Trump's announcement Thursday that he could take up to two weeks to decide did not sit well with some of his most hawkish supporters. On social media, Fox News host Mark Levin began a lengthy post by suggesting that the president was being pulled back from what he actually wants to do. 'LET TRUMP BE TRUMP!' Levin wrote. 'We got our answer. Iran says no unconditional surrender. Again. And again. And again. They cheat and lie and kill. They're TERRORISTS!' His anti-interventionist supporters, meanwhile, have been equally alarmed by what he might decide to do. 'Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA,' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, posted on social media over the weekend. Trump's advisers say that on the Israel-Iran conflict in particular, the president is dealing with a fast-moving, complicated situation that does not lend itself to simple, black-and-white solutions, despite the fact that he has consistently campaigned that way. 'President Trump considers the nuances of every issue but ultimately takes decisive action to directly benefit American families,' said Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson. 'The American people trust this president to make the right decisions,' she said, adding that he 'started the Make America Great Again movement because he represents a new leadership that puts Americans first.' But in 2025, Trump is not the only one who can command media attention. Carlson is no longer on Fox News, but he has a show that streams on the social platform X and is a leading voice among foreign policy 'restrainers' who have argued that Trump would be acting against his own movement should he strike Iran. Advertisement Steve Bannon, an adviser who was exiled from the White House in the first year of Trump's first term, has become one of the dominant voices among the MAGA faithful with his 'War Room' podcast, delivering the same message as Carlson. Yet Trump has found that many of his allies will ultimately come back to him, despite unhappiness with some of his decisions.