A high-stakes political drama unfolded as Republican Representative Thomas Massie found himself in President Donald Trump's crosshairs over Iran policy. The Kentucky congressman's sudden reversal on challenging Trump's war powers came after a barrage of criticism from the president himself.
According to the Daily Mail, Massie withdrew his House resolution aimed at checking Trump's military authority following the announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. The resolution had gained support from 57 cosponsors, including Democratic allies looking to score political points against the administration.
The congressman's decision marks a dramatic shift from his earlier vocal opposition to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Earlier Monday, Massie had confidently declared on social media that Congress would be voting on U.S. military engagement in Iran, positioning himself as a key figure challenging what he termed Trump's "unconstitutional" actions.
President Trump unleashed a blistering attack on Massie, branding him a "BUM" who needed to be removed from office immediately. The president's social media posts questioned Massie's loyalty to the MAGA movement and dismissed him as someone neither known nor respected by Trump supporters.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt joined the fray, suggesting on Fox News that Massie's political alignment was more in tune with Democrats than Republicans. She defended Trump's military actions as fully within his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief.
The administration's unified front against Massie highlighted the growing tension between traditional conservative principles regarding war powers and Trump's more assertive approach to military intervention. The dispute exposed deeper rifts within the Republican Party over foreign policy and executive authority.
Massie's original resolution, co-sponsored with Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, aimed to reassert Congressional oversight of military actions. The Kentucky representative had repeatedly expressed concerns about potential regime change efforts in Iran, stating firmly that such actions did not align with an "America First" policy.
Trump's team maintained that Congressional approval was unnecessary for the Iranian strikes, citing Article 2 of the Constitution. This interpretation of presidential war powers sparked debate among constitutional scholars and lawmakers about the proper balance between executive and legislative authority in military matters.
The administration's position reflected a broader view of presidential authority in military affairs, contrasting with more restrictive interpretations favored by some conservatives and liberals alike. This fundamental disagreement about constitutional powers continues to shape American foreign policy debates.
The public clash between Trump and Massie revealed the complex dynamics within the Republican Party regarding foreign policy and presidential authority. Massie's eventual retreat highlighted the significant influence Trump maintains over GOP lawmakers, even those initially willing to challenge his decisions.
Trump's social media attacks on Massie included accusations that the congressman was enabling Iran's nuclear ambitions while they chanted "Death to America." This messaging strategy effectively painted Massie's constitutional concerns as weakness in the face of national security threats.
The episode demonstrated how quickly internal party disputes can escalate when they intersect with critical foreign policy decisions and presidential authority. It also showed the continuing power of Trump's personal interventions in shaping Republican policy positions.
The resolution's withdrawal following the ceasefire announcement represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate over war powers and congressional oversight. Massie's decision to pull back his challenge reflects the complex political calculations lawmakers must make when questioning presidential authority on military matters.
The incident highlights the delicate balance between constitutional principles and political reality in today's Washington. Despite initial strong statements about congressional authority, Massie ultimately chose a pragmatic retreat in the face of intense pressure from Trump and his allies.
This episode may have lasting implications for future debates about war powers and congressional oversight, potentially discouraging other lawmakers from challenging presidential military decisions. The outcome reinforces Trump's influence over Republican policy positions, particularly in matters of national security and foreign policy.
A 22-year-old with no formal background in national security is now managing a key domestic terror prevention office—and critics are raising alarms.
According to the Daily Mail, Thomas Fugate, a former gardener and campaign staffer for President Donald Trump, is now running a major counterterrorism unit within the Department of Homeland Security. His appointment has triggered scrutiny, especially amid rising fears of retaliation following U.S. airstrikes in Iran.
Fugate was named special assistant at the DHS's Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), an office that oversees efforts to counter domestic terrorism threats through community-based strategies. He was hired in February, just months after graduating from college, and reportedly holds significant influence over how CP3 operates.
Several officials familiar with DHS operations expressed deep concerns about Fugate’s rapid promotion. A former CP3 counterterrorism researcher said the appointment "sounds like putting the intern in charge," pointing to Fugate’s inexperience in the field.
Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, also blasted the hiring decision, calling attention to Fugate’s previous jobs as a landscaper and grocery clerk. “22 years old. Recent work experience: landscaping/grocery clerk. Never worked a day in counter-terrorism,” Murphy said in a social media post. “But he’s a BIG Trump fan. So he got the job.”
Online reaction mirrored those worries, with some commentators suggesting the appointment was more about loyalty than expertise. “Trump didn’t appoint Thomas Fugate to protect Americans from terrorism,” tweeted Steven Hassan, CEO of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center. “He appointed him to ensure loyalty to him.”
While DHS declined to make Fugate available for comment, a department spokesperson defended the move by attacking prior administrations. According to the spokesperson, CP3 had been “weaponized against political opponents” under President Joe Biden, accusing it of funneling funds to progressive groups.
The spokesperson did not directly address Fugate’s qualifications but implied his appointment was part of an effort to reform the agency’s approach to terrorism prevention. “Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, CP3 was weaponized,” the spokesperson said. “We’re focused now on returning the agency to its core mission.”
Despite the backlash, the Trump administration has not walked back the decision. Photographs of Fugate posing in front of Trump’s campaign plane have resurfaced online, highlighting his previous campaign involvement. Critics say this visual reinforces the idea that loyalty to Trump, not experience, was the deciding factor in his appointment.
The controversy over Fugate’s role comes at a sensitive time for national security. Following President Trump’s approval of stealth bomber strikes targeting three nuclear facilities in Iran, DHS issued an alert about possible terror threats to the U.S. homeland.
The department stated there were “no specific credible threats” but cautioned about the likelihood of low-level cyberattacks and the potential activation of so-called “sleeper cells.” That warning has only intensified concerns about placing an inexperienced official at the helm of an office designed to prevent such threats.
Fugate’s office, CP3, is responsible for collaborating with local and state agencies to build community resilience against radicalization. Given the increased tension with Iran, experts argue this work is more important than ever—and requires steady, informed leadership.
Despite bipartisan criticism, the Trump administration has not signaled any intent to reverse the appointment. Officials have maintained that Fugate’s hiring aligns with their larger effort to reshape the federal bureaucracy and prioritize political alignment.
Supporters of the move argue that prior DHS leadership had allowed the CP3 office to become politicized. They view Fugate’s fresh background as a positive, claiming he brings a clean slate unburdened by ties to the “deep state” or Washington establishment.
Still, Fugate’s name is now at the center of a growing debate over qualifications versus loyalty in national security roles. As Iran tensions escalate, the stakes for DHS—and for Fugate—could not be higher.
In a dramatic escalation of Middle East tensions, the Iranian Parliament has made a bold move that could disrupt global oil markets and potentially trigger an international crisis. The decision comes in direct response to unprecedented US military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.
According to The Hill, Iranian lawmakers have approved a measure to close the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz following US airstrikes on three of their nuclear installations. This legislative action represents a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict, though the final decision still requires approval from Iran's Supreme National Security Council.
The Strait of Hormuz, positioned between Iran and Oman, serves as a critical maritime route through which approximately one-fifth of the world's oil supply passes daily. The potential closure of this vital waterway has sent shockwaves through international diplomatic circles and global energy markets, raising concerns about worldwide economic stability.
President Trump's decision to launch strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities marks a significant expansion of US involvement in the region. The operation targeted three specific sites: Natanz, Isfahan, and the mountain-fortified Fordow facility.
The military operation involved an impressive show of force, with six bunker-buster bombs deployed against the Fordow installation and over two dozen Tomahawk missiles targeting the other locations. The Pentagon maintains that these precision strikes were necessary to protect American interests and support their Israeli allies.
US officials assert that the operation achieved its objectives, though specific details about the extent of damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure remain unclear. The administration's position reflects a calculated strategy to demonstrate American military capabilities while attempting to maintain regional stability.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasized the potential economic consequences of Iran's threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz. His statements highlight the complex international dimensions of this crisis, particularly regarding Asian economies' dependence on oil shipments through the strait.
The closure of the Strait would significantly impact global oil prices and international trade routes, potentially triggering a worldwide economic crisis. Energy analysts predict that such an action could lead to immediate price spikes and supply chain disruptions across multiple industries.
The international community, particularly nations heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil, has expressed grave concerns about the potential ramifications of Iran's proposed action. Several countries have already begun exploring alternative shipping routes and energy sources in preparation for possible disruptions.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's strong condemnation of US actions suggests a significant deterioration in diplomatic relations. His statement about the US "blowing up diplomacy" indicates a potentially irreparable breach in international negotiations.
The timing of the US strikes, coming two weeks after Israel initiated military action against Iran, has complicated diplomatic efforts to de-escalate regional tensions. The intervention has effectively transformed what began as a bilateral conflict into a broader international crisis.
Iran's response to the situation appears calculated to maximize pressure on the international community while maintaining some flexibility in its options. The parliamentary vote, while symbolic, sends a clear message about Iran's willingness to use its geographic advantage as leverage.
The current situation represents a critical juncture in Middle East relations, with potential consequences extending far beyond regional boundaries. The combination of military strikes and economic threats has created a volatile environment requiring careful diplomatic navigation.
Multiple stakeholders, including European allies, Arab states, and Asian economic powers, are now actively seeking ways to prevent further escalation. The international community's response in the coming days could prove crucial in determining whether the crisis can be resolved through diplomatic channels.
The outcome of this confrontation could reshape global geopolitical alignments and energy security paradigms for years to come. As world leaders work to prevent further escalation, the decisions made by both Iranian and American authorities in the next few days will be crucial in determining the path forward.
In a dramatic sequence of events, the United States launched airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, a strategy session documented through gripping photos from the White House Situation Room.
Key figures, including President Trump and his top national security advisors, were present during the airstrikes, with notable exclusions in the released photographs, as the New York Post reports.
The operation took place amid escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, with images capturing President Trump and high-level officials monitoring the strike. These officials included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles.
A notable absentee from the photographs, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, was confirmed to have been present in the room during the military action. Her omission from the images raised eyebrows, particularly given her recent public disagreements with President Trump regarding assessments of Iran’s nuclear intentions.
Earlier this year, Gabbard testified before Congress, asserting that Iran was not in the process of developing a nuclear weapon. This stance appeared to conflict with President Trump's comments, in which he articulated a belief that Iran was nearing the point of having such a weapon.
Despite their earlier public dispute, Gabbard has since reported that she and Trump have reconciled their views, maintaining that they are now united on the issue. President Trump and his administration's primary concern was underscored by recent findings from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which pointed to elevated uranium enrichment levels in Iran.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented on the U.S. intelligence assessments, supporting Trump’s more cautious approach. Netanyahu emphasized that Israeli intelligence had indicated Iran's rapid progress toward weaponizing uranium.
Vance expressed strong support for Gabbard, characterizing her as a loyal ally to the president and a dedicated advocate for safeguarding the country. He further praised her contributions to national security initiatives, noting her pivotal role within the Trump administration's defense strategy.
The VP emphasized Gabbard’s commitment to national safety, describing her as an invaluable component of the security team assembled under Trump’s leadership in 2024.
Despite the dramatic developments, the absence of Gabbard in the photographic record raised questions among observers. This highlights the complex dynamics at play within the administration's response to perceived threats from Iran.
In Washington, the events have fueled speculation regarding the decision-making processes within the Trump administration and how internal disagreements are managed. Observers continue to scrutinize these developments, weighing the outcomes of diplomatic communications against the backdrop of preemptive military actions.
The recent airstrikes, while serving as a preventive measure against potential threats, are also a testament to the volatility of the current geopolitical climate. As international focus remains on the strategic maneuvers of the United States, the clarity and consistency of its policy towards Iran remain pivotal.
Overall, the airstrike episode underscores the ongoing pressures faced by American leadership in foreign policy and global security. The presence of seasoned policymakers like Gabbard demonstrates the administration's reliance on experienced figures amidst controversy and complex international tensions.
President Donald Trump has delivered a sharp critique of the U.S. intelligence community, accusing it of underestimating Iran's nuclear potential and suggesting a possible imminent threat from the country's enriched uranium reserves.
Trump has stated that a decision regarding potential military action against Iran will be made in the coming weeks if the country's nuclear activities continue unchecked, as the New York Post reports.
In a bold move, Trump openly contradicted Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's testimony from March, in which she asserted before Congress that Iran was not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. During a press engagement, Trump claimed that Iran possesses a "tremendous amount" of enriched uranium, capable of producing a nuclear bomb in mere weeks. He expressed a lack of confidence in the intelligence community’s current assessments and unequivocally labeled Gabbard's previous statements as erroneous.
Despite these differing viewpoints, Gabbard noted that Iran's uranium stockpiles have reached unprecedented levels for a nation that is not officially recognized as a nuclear power. This acknowledgment of the increased stockpiles comes amid growing concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
In alignment with Trump's stance, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that Iran has essentially all the resources needed to develop a nuclear weapon, contingent on a decision from Iran's Supreme Leader. Trump firmly believes that the timeframe for Iran potentially assembling a nuclear bomb could be as short as a few weeks.
While reiterating that the military option remains on the table, he announced that a resolution about using military force might be made within two weeks if it becomes necessary to prevent further progression of Iran's nuclear initiative.
Yet, Trump has dismissed the idea of deploying U.S. ground forces into Iran. He clarified, “The last thing you want to do is ground force,” underscoring his reluctance to engage in a full-scale land invasion.
This emphasis comes at a time when tensions between Iran and other nations continue to escalate regarding Iran's nuclear activities. In its rejection of a cease-fire, Iran has also maintained its stance amidst a prolonged conflict.
Trump voiced hesitation over making a direct request to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to cease strikes on Iran, describing the situation as complex and noting, “I think it’s very hard to make that request right now.”
European diplomats and Iranian officials have convened in Geneva in attempts to address the nuclear issue diplomatically. However, Trump has viewed these discussions with skepticism, asserting that Iran remains unwilling to negotiate with Europe.
His comments underscore a broader concern that the diplomatic engagements spearheaded by Europeans may not yield substantive progress. Despite the ongoing diplomatic endeavors, Trump remains cautious. He remarked, “We’ve been speaking to Iran, and we’ll see what happens,” indicating a level of direct communication between the U.S. and Iran even as official talks seem to stall.
Still, Trump’s remarks reflect a palpable anxiety that Iran’s nuclear potential could soon outpace the control mechanisms that have been sporadically implemented.
In the broader geopolitical context, Trump's declarations reveal some of the complexities in tackling Iran's nuclear aspirations. With Iran's foreign minister rejecting calls for a cease-fire, it is evident that the path forward remains fraught with challenges. The geopolitical teeter-totter includes balancing diplomacy with Iran while contemplating military options as a last resort.
Trump’s commitment to exploring all avenues -- diplomatic or otherwise -- is evident as he navigates this intricate issue. Consequently, the administration’s decisions in the forthcoming weeks are bound to significantly influence international relations and potentially reshape the Middle East landscape.
Ultimately, the president’s statements and decisions in the near term will not only determine the U.S. approach to Iran but will also resonate through the corridors of global diplomacy, impacting other international actors invested in nuclear non-proliferation. As the world watches, these developments underscore the high stakes and precarious balance of dealing with Iran's nuclear trajectory.
Actress Ellen Barkin ignited social media controversy today with a provocative poem targeting U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, coinciding with news of Noem's hospitalization due to an allergic reaction from which she is now recovering.
As reported by Breitbart News, Ellen Barkin shared a four-line poem on social media, calling Kristi Noem a derogatory name while Noem was handling a medical emergency.
Barkin, an outspoken critic of prominent political figures, posted a provocative poem on X, formerly known as Twitter, in which she referred to Kristi Noem with a derogatory term. She presented the poem as content she discovered on Instagram, signaling her intention to provoke and engage her audience.
Barkin's involvement with social media has been notable for her outspoken critiques of political figures, often drawing attention for her candid expression of opinions. This particular post about Noem marks another chapter in Barkin's contentious online persona, where she has previously marshaled support for boycotts against entities linked to figures she opposes.
In response to one user on X, Barkin replied, “Jane of all trades,” demonstrating her receptivity to engaging in dialogue with her audience. Her response to news about Noem’s hospitalization was a dismissive “Who let the dogs out?”—further indicating her disregard for the gravity of Noem's medical situation.
While Barkin's poem garnered attention, Noem's health has been a concern for her supporters. According to Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary of DHS, Noem was hospitalized as a precaution after experiencing an allergic reaction. Fortunately, official updates indicate that she is on the mend.
The incident serves as both a personal health scare for Noem and an ironic backdrop to Barkin's remarks. The timing of the two events—the release of Barkin's post and Noem's hospitalization—has drawn notable public attention, causing a conflux of discussions around both the health of a public figure and the nature of political discourse.
Kristi Noem, serving as the Secretary of Homeland Security, is responsible for overseeing national efforts related to domestic security and public safety. The demands and pressures associated with her role inevitably place her actions and statements under significant public scrutiny.
Noem’s hospitalization, therefore, comes at a time when her responsibilities require her full attention, making her health condition particularly concerning to those monitoring the national security landscape. However, reassurances from McLaughlin about her recovery provide some relief amidst ongoing public discussions.
Barkin's engagement with her followers reaches beyond mere commentary, often crossing into direct calls for action or criticism against political figures and entities associated with them. Her previous calls for a boycott of Madison Square Garden in the wake of hosting a Trump campaign rally further exemplify her willingness to leverage her platform for political expression.
Reactions to Barkin’s comments have been mixed, with some supporting her outspoken nature, while others criticize the use of such derogatory language, particularly at a time when Noem faced a health crisis. The post invites a broader conversation about the power and responsibility wielded by public figures in shaping political narratives and public perceptions.
Commentators and followers have debated the ethics of public discourse, weighing the balance between free expression and respect for differing viewpoints. The conversation underscores ongoing national discussions around civil discourse, particularly during politically charged moments.
Ultimately, Barkin's interactions on social media reflect a broader trend of celebrities using their platforms to engage with political topics—both prompting discussions among their followers and sparking broader public debates.
This incident involving Barkin and Noem highlights the accelerating pace at which news and opinion intersect on social platforms, influencing both public sentiment and political movements. The dynamics of social media ensure that actions and statements from high-profile individuals can have immediate, far-reaching consequences.
Moving forward, observers will watch closely how such exchanges impact the political landscape, especially as political tensions remain high. The episode emphasizes the ongoing significance of how public figures communicate, interact, and influence their audiences in the digital age.
Progressive New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has made an unexpected political move by joining forces with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie to attempt to prevent President Donald Trump from potentially taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.
According to Daily Mail, Ocasio-Cortez responded to Massie's social media post on Monday evening, agreeing to "sign on" to his bipartisan War Powers Resolution aimed at restricting presidential military authority.
The unlikely alliance comes amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, with Trump unexpectedly leaving the G7 summit in Canada for an "early" meeting in the White House Situation Room. This development has raised concerns about potential U.S. military involvement as Israel continues airstrikes against Iranian targets.
The lawmakers' resolution invokes a Vietnam-era law requiring presidents to withdraw troops 60 days after deployment if military operations lack congressional authorization.
"This is not our war," Massie stated on social media platform X. "But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." His resolution aims to force a congressional vote on whether the U.S. should engage militarily with Iran.
The Constitution explicitly limits presidential war powers, requiring congressional approval for formal declarations of war - a provision both lawmakers cite as justification for their bipartisan effort to potentially restrain Trump's military options.
Israeli officials have reportedly asked Trump to assist with a "bunker buster" bombing campaign against Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, particularly the Fordow site.
According to military analysts, Israel claims that only U.S.-made 30,000-pound bombs delivered by American aircraft can effectively destroy Iran's mountainous nuclear facilities. This specific request puts Trump in a difficult position regarding direct military involvement.
The timing coincides with Trump's urgent warning to Tehran residents to "evacuate" amid intensifying Israeli military actions. Israeli forces have reportedly killed Iranian negotiators, military leaders, and nuclear scientists in recent strikes, significantly escalating regional tensions.
Several prominent Democratic senators have also voiced opposition to potential military action, creating a multi-front challenge to presidential war authority.
Senators Bernie Sanders and Tim Kaine have made public statements against U.S. involvement. Kaine stated, "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict."
Sanders went further, claiming Israel deliberately timed its attacks to derail ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations. This accusation adds another layer of complexity to the already tense diplomatic situation.
The brewing conflict between Congress and the White House highlights longstanding tensions over war powers that have surfaced during previous administrations.
Legal precedent suggests Trump might still find ways to conduct limited military operations despite congressional opposition. During the Obama administration, U.S. operations in Libya continued despite similar war powers concerns, with officials arguing that "sustained hostilities" hadn't occurred - therefore avoiding the 60-day withdrawal requirement.
Congressional action to limit Trump's commander-in-chief powers would likely face significant legal challenges, regardless of bipartisan support. The House of Representatives is currently in recess, while the Senate is focused on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Act, further complicating the timing of any formal resistance.
Donald Trump and prominent MAGA allies are locked in an increasingly public feud over America's stance toward Iran, with the president targeting popular conservative commentator Tucker Carlson with a new nickname. The conflict has exposed growing divisions within the MAGA movement about foreign policy.
According to the Daily Mail, Trump called Carlson "kooky" on social media Monday night after the former Fox News host criticized the president's approach to Iran and suggested Trump had abandoned his "America First" principles.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, typically one of Trump's closest allies in Congress, immediately defended Carlson following the president's comments. She praised the commentator as "one of my favorite people" who "fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country" while arguing against American involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.
Trump's frustration with Carlson became evident during a G7 press conference where he snapped at reporters asking about the commentator's criticism. "I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen," Trump said, dismissing Carlson's current independent media venture.
The president doubled down on Truth Social later, writing in all caps: "Somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON!" He further emphasized his position with another post stating "AMERICA FIRST means many GREAT things, including the fact that, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON."
Carlson has maintained that he "loves" President Trump and wants him to succeed but warned that full-scale war with Iran would "effectively end" Trump's presidency. The media personality has urged the president to prioritize peace rather than allowing Israel to pull America into a broader Middle Eastern conflict.
Greene's defense of Carlson signals a growing rift within Trump's base over foreign policy priorities. The Georgia congresswoman made clear where her loyalties lie in this particular disagreement through her strong social media response.
"Tucker Carlson is one of my favorite people. He fiercely loves his wife, children, and our country," Greene wrote. She pointedly added that her beliefs are "unapologetically" aligned with Carlson's when it comes to avoiding foreign entanglements.
The firebrand representative concluded her defense with a direct reference to Trump's new nickname for Carlson: "That's not kooky. That's what millions of Americans voted for. It's what we believe is America First." DailyMail.com reported that they reached out to the White House for comment on Greene's statement but did not include any response.
The conflict centers around competing interpretations of Trump's signature "America First" foreign policy. During a conversation with The Atlantic, Trump pushed back on Carlson's framing of the Iran issue.
"Well, considering that I'm the one that developed America First, and considering that the term wasn't used until I came along, I think I'm the one that decides that," Trump stated definitively. He characterized Carlson's distinction between "warmongers and peacemakers" as naive.
Trump emphasized that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is central to his vision of American security. "For those people who say they want peace - you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon," he explained, adding that this principle applies "regardless - Israel or not Israel."
The public disagreement highlights growing tensions between isolationist and interventionist factions within Trump's base. Carlson has become increasingly vocal in his criticism of what he views as a shift in Trump's foreign policy priorities.
In a newsletter released Friday, Carlson went so far as to accuse Trump of being "complicit in an act of war" regarding Israel's actions against Iran. The commentator has urged Trump to deliver a "tough" message to Israel, suggesting the president should prioritize American interests over unconditional support for the Middle Eastern ally.
The dispute comes amid escalating tensions in the Middle East, with Trump cutting short his G7 attendance in Calgary on Monday evening to handle the crisis. This public disagreement between high-profile MAGA figures underscores the challenges Trump faces in maintaining unity within his political coalition while navigating complex international situations.