Category: News Feeds

President Donald Trump’s Iran strikes are forcing a hypothetical debate into reality.

And a president with extraordinary control over his party’s base will test how far his supporters will follow him on an issue that polling showed divided his coalition.

Just half of 2024 Trump voters, 50 percent, supported military action in a POLITICO poll last month — but 30 percent opposed it. Those fractures, combined with largely unified opposition from Democrats, meant Americans broadly did not want an attack on Iran.

In the January POLITICO poll, nearly half of Americans, 45 percent, said the United States should not take military action in Iran; fewer than one-third, 31 percent, said it should. An Economist/YouGov poll conducted last weekend similarly found broad public opposition to military action in Iran.

The stakes are particularly high for a Republican Party already staring down a difficult midterm landscape, where even small defections from their winning 2024 coalition could carry outsized consequences.

Part of the challenge for Trump is that support for military intervention in Iran was strongest among Trump’s base — and far weaker outside of it. A 61 percent majority of Trump voters who self-identified as “MAGA Republicans” said they support military action, according to The POLITICO Poll conducted Jan. 16 to 19, when Trump was ramping up his rhetoric against Iran but an outright attack remained hypothetical. That’s much higher than the 42 percent of Trump voters who do not identify as “MAGA” who said the same.

That leaves Trump navigating an evolving issue where support within his coalition — at least before the strikes — was real but not overwhelming and where overall public opposition outweighed support.

Democrats were largely unified. Two-thirds of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 said the U.S. should not intervene in Iran, while just 18 percent said it should, the POLITICO survey conducted by Public First found. The Economist/YouGov found 76 percent of Democrats opposed an attack. That Democratic unity is a warning sign for the GOP: It means that before the strikes, there were not enough pro-intervention Democrats to offset the anti-intervention Republicans.

Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to reshape Republican public opinion, bringing his voters along on issues including trade and foreign policy. Whether that pattern holds here may depend on how the conflict unfolds.

“The political risk depends on the outcome,” Michigan-based Republican strategist Jason Roe told POLITICO. “If we break Iran without terrorist attacks coming to America or harm coming to allies in the region, it will be a political win for Trump. … If this expands into a protracted conflict, or ends up with troops on the ground, it will be a liability.”

That dynamic underscores the broader tension inside the modern GOP — a party base deeply loyal to the president and largely unified around an “America First” prerogative, now being tested by his own foreign policy decisions.

The divide also illustrates the longtime debate within the Republican Party between the hawks favoring a more aggressive posture on the world stage and those skeptical of intervention.

Mercedes Schlapp, a senior fellow at the Conservative Political Action Conference, said the length and severity of conflict could determine how Trump’s MAGA base responds.

“I think that the MAGA base will make it very loud and clear to the President that they will not necessarily agree, if it becomes a situation that it becomes a prolonged war,” she said on C-SPAN’s Ceasefire earlier this week.

Polling was already showing early signs of skepticism about overseas entanglements, including among Republicans. A February POLITICO Poll found that 47 percent of Americans said the U.S. government is too focused on international issues and not focused enough on domestic ones, while roughly one-quarter said it is striking the right balance.

The question did not reference Trump directly. Even so, 41 percent of his 2024 voters said the U.S. government is too focused on international issues, including about half — 49 percent — of Trump voters who do not consider themselves MAGA Republicans.

Those non-MAGA Trump voters are especially important for the GOP heading into November, and the president’s ability to overcome their initial opposition could prove crucial to maintaining control of Congress. Otherwise, if they swing back to Democrats — or sit out the midterms — Trump’s base alone is not enough to carry his party to midterm successes.

​Politics

Democrats of all stripes quickly accused President Donald Trump of starting another prolonged conflict in the Middle East on Saturday and demanded limits to his war powers.

That’s where their agreement ended.

Progressives castigated the president for pursuing “dangerously illegal,” “totally unnecessary” and potentially “catastrophic” military action when diplomacy was still on the table. Some, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), declared “no war with Iran.”

But several lawmakers from battleground districts adopted a more cautious tone, calling for Trump to justify his actions to Congress but stopping short of demanding an end to the operation.

And moderate Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), both staunch supporters of Israel, which aided the U.S. in the strikes, praised Trump for defending national security and being “willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region.” Gottheimer also requested a classified briefing and said he expects Trump to “comply with the War Powers Act.”

The breaks in their responses reveal the underlying divisions that have shadowed the party for two decades, and the challenge Democrats face in presenting a unified foreign policy message ahead of the midterms, where Trump’s aggressive use of the military could become a defining flashpoint.

“There’s always been a peace wing to the Democratic Party and there’s always been a more interventionist wing to the party. That has narrowed over time, but it is still there,” said veteran Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh.

Democratic lawmakers split over the Iraq vote in 2002, the Yemen war powers vote in 2019 and the first Trump administration’s strike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020.

Now they will have to navigate yet another politically thorny foreign policy vote — one that is playing out against the backdrop of a yearslong intraparty struggle over Israel as public support for the longtime U.S. ally slides.

Congress is set to vote next week on ending Trump’s military campaign in Iran through a pair of resolutions Democrats are pushing alongside GOP Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Fetterman has said he’ll oppose the effort. A spokesperson for Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said he would as well. And House Democratic leaders believe moderates in their caucus could join them.

Many Democrats opted for careful messaging as the situation unfolded on Saturday, attempting to strike a balance between the need to crack down on Iran and the desire to denounce Trump’s unilateral action and its potentially deadly consequences.

Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries both focused on the process Trump should follow: Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, they said, but lawmakers need to be briefed and vote on further action.

Schumer said in a statement he had urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next,” adding that the Senate “should return to session to pass a war powers resolution.”

Jeffries similarly pressed for classified briefings and a vote.

“Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region,” Jeffries said in a statement. But, he added, “The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East.”

Neither leader is expected to break ranks with the majority of their fellow Democrats, who plan to vote to bar Trump from taking further military action against Iran without congressional approval.

Still other members, including lawmakers in battleground districts or with military and national security backgrounds, stopped short of explicitly calling for the operation to end.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) slammed Trump on X for not providing justification for “committing our nation to war” and said Congress “should come back to Washington to debate these issues.” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said the administration “must immediately brief the full Congress and clearly explain the scope, strategy, and expected duration of this operation.”

Rep. Tom Suozzi, a swing-seat New York Democrat, even appeared to defend Trump, saying the president briefed appropriate leadership ahead of the attack — though he still called for Trump to seek congressional authorization going forward.

“I agree with the President’s objectives that Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities,” Suozzi wrote on X. “The President must now clearly define the national security objective and articulate his plan to avoid another costly, prolonged war in the Middle East.”

But progressives — including possible 2028 contenders Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) — were adamant about drawing a red line, saying that Trump was steering the U.S. toward another “disaster” in the region.

They found a surprising ally in former Vice President Kamala Harris.

“I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran,” Harris said in a statement. “I know the threat that Iran poses, and they must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but this is not the way to dismantle that threat.”

Where Democrats did find more uniformity on Saturday was in their attempts to turn Trump’s strike on Iran into a campaign cudgel, accusing the president of again violating his “America First” doctrine and breaking the compact he made with voters to end “endless wars.” Some began circulating Trump allies’ past comments denouncing the notion of war with Iran and other prolonged conflicts in the Middle East.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) relayed the party’s message bluntly, rejecting the war in Iran as “wrong.”

“Trump ran on exposing the pedophiles and stopping wars,” he wrote on X. “Trump is now protecting pedophiles and starting wars.”

​Politics