Connect with us

News

Donald Trump’s anti-war pledge tested as Israel’s attack on Iran splits Maga base

Published

on

Donald Trump’s anti-war pledge tested as Israel’s attack on Iran splits Maga base

Donald Trump won last year’s US election promising to be a president of peace. With America now at risk of being dragged into a new war between Israel and Iran, that pledge is looking increasingly hollow.

Trump said on the campaign trail that he could easily resolve the conflict in Gaza, use diplomacy to halt Iran’s nuclear programme and end the war between Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office.

In his victory speech in November, he said: “They said, ‘he will start a war’. I’m not going to start a war, I’m going to stop wars.”

It was a message that held huge appeal for American voters tired of decades of US military interventions in the Middle East and Afghanistan — the seemingly interminable engagements Trump frequently referred to as America’s “forever wars”.

Yet the fear is growing among Trump’s loyal Maga base that Israel’s strikes against Iran on Thursday night will embroil an anti-war president in another foreign military entanglement — this time between the two biggest military powers in the Middle East.

Advertisement
Donald Trump at Fort Bragg on Tuesday. The president on Friday said the Iranians officials the US had been dealing with in the nuclear negotiations were ‘all dead’ following Israel’s strike on the Middle Eastern country © Stan Gilliland/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist in his first term, said US and Israeli interests were not necessarily identical in the current crisis.

“They [the Israelis] are Israel First, we need to always be America First,” he said. “And in Jerusalem they should reflect on the message of Christ: live by the sword, die by the sword.”

Asked by the Financial Times whether he feared the US would be dragged into a war with Iran, he replied: “Very much.”

It is a fear that is widely shared among Trump’s supporters, as concerns grow that beyond the missile attacks on Israel on Friday afternoon, Tehran might also hit at US military assets in the region. “Israel is trying to get Iran to attack us just like your bitchy ex who tried goading some dude in a bar to fight you,” Tim Pool, the popular rightwing podcaster, wrote on X.

“Is the United States about to be sucked into yet another war in the Middle East?” said Jack Posobiec, an far-right media personality. “Because that’s exactly the opposite of what . . . President Trump campaigned for back in Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin.”

Advertisement
Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist in his first term
Steve Bannon said he feared the US would be dragged into a war with Iran © Al Drago/Bloomberg

Posobiec was speaking on Thoughtcrime, a video roundtable hosted by rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk, just as details of the Israeli strikes were coming in. Both indicated the Israeli action would set alarm bells ringing among Trump’s base.

“This is going to schism Maga terribly online,” Kirk said. “You’re going to see — I don’t want to say a Maga civil war, but it’s going to be a Maga online food fight [which] is going to be very hard to navigate.”

Kirk later posted hawks would be urging the US to “finish off the mullahs”. But he warned: “America’s interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were all easy at the start. It was in the months and years afterwards that they became costly, wasteful quagmires. None of them were worth it.”

On the same podcast, Tyler Bowyer, an activist at conservative non-profit Turning Point USA said: “If you could probably sum up President Trump’s campaign from 2024, it was that electing me is going to prevent world war three.”

“One of Trump’s biggest promises was ‘with me you’ll get less war — I’m the anti-war president’,” Bowyer added.

rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk
Rightwing influencer Charlie Kirk said the hawks would be urging the US to ‘finish off the mullahs’ © Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Matthew Boyle, Washington bureau chief of rightwing populist news website Breitbart, said Trump faces a precarious balancing act, keeping the US out of a wider war while continuing to back Israel, one of America’s closest allies, and ensuring Iran never gets a nuclear bomb.

“What he does from here could define his presidency,” he said. “But if there’s anyone who can handle such a perilous situation, it’s President Trump.”

Advertisement

Complicating matters for the president’s Maga supporters was the fog of uncertainty over Trump’s real position on the Israeli attack. In late May, he said he had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to attack Iran while Washington was negotiating with Tehran over a nuclear deal.

That initially led some observers to speculate that Netanyahu had gone against US wishes in launching its attack, an impression enhanced by secretary of state Marco Rubio who said the US had not been involved and described the strikes as a “unilateral action” by Israel.

 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, and Donald Trump in April. The US president on Friday said Washington had known about Israel’s attack on Iran in advance © Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

But on Friday Trump came out in support of the Israeli strikes, telling the Wall Street Journal that Washington had known about them in advance. He called them the “greatest thing ever for the market” because they would stop Iran developing “a nuclear weapon that was a great threat to humanity”.

“Trump has now praised Israel’s strike, affirmed US material support, and Israeli media is reporting his public opposition was a disinformation campaign to mislead Iran,” said Saagar Enjeti, rightwing co-host of the podcast Breaking Points. “So in other words Trump, not Israel, has made a mockery of all of us [who] wanted to avoid this war.”

But Breitbart’s Boyle said he firmly believed Trump’s goal of a historic deal to end Iran’s nuclear programme could still be in reach, despite the Israeli assault — and that the chances of it happening had now increased.

“If anything, what Israel did strengthens Trump’s hand in negotiations with the Iranians,” he said. “It might create leverage that didn’t exist before.”

Advertisement

This echoed Trump’s comments. In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash on Friday he said the Iranian “hardliners” the US had been dealing with in the nuclear negotiations were “all dead”.

Asked by Bash if Israel had killed them, he replied: “They didn’t die of the flu.”

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

on

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

on

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

Advertisement

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

Advertisement

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

Advertisement

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

Published

on

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

On the night of her resounding win in last fall’s election for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger told her supporters that they had sent a message to the world. “Virginia,” she said in the opening lines of her victory speech, “chose pragmatism over partisanship.”

But even then it was clear that the first big issue of her term would be as partisan as it gets: a proposed amendment by her fellow Democrats to allow them to gerrymander the state’s 11 congressional districts.

The push to redraw the Virginia map was another salvo in a barrage of redistricting spurred by President Trump in a bid to keep Republicans in control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.

Virginians vote on Tuesday on whether to adopt the proposed map, and if the “Yes” vote wins, Democrats could end up with as many as 10 seats, up from the six they hold now. The redistricting battles of the last year would end up in something of a draw, with gains for Democrats in California and Virginia offsetting gains for Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina — unless Florida lawmakers decide in the coming weeks to draw a new, more Republican-friendly map.

Historically, redrawing of congressional maps has been done each decade after the U.S. census. But with Republicans holding such a slim majority in the House, Mr. Trump began by pressing Texas to redraw its maps, touching off the wave of gerrymandering

Advertisement

Virginia Democratic legislators rolled out their redistricting plan last October, setting in motion the state’s lengthy amendment process just as the campaign for governor was entering its final weeks. At the time, Ms. Spanberger expressed support for the plan, though she emphasized that its passage was up to the legislature and then to the voters.

But even if her formal role in the process was relatively minor — Ms. Spanberger signed the bill setting the date for the referendum — the politics of the effort has loomed over the first few months of her term. Her support for the amendment has drawn accusations of hypocrisy from the right and complaints from some on the left that she has not been outspoken enough in her advocacy.

“There’s always going to be somebody who wants me to do something differently,” the governor said in an interview on Saturday at a rally in support of the amendment outside a home in Northern Virginia. “I will always make someone unhappy, and I will always make someone happy.”

Ms. Spanberger, a former C.I.A. officer and three-term congresswoman, won a 15-point victory in 2025 after running on a campaign focused on pocketbook issues. Centrism has been her political brand since she was first elected to the House in 2018, flipping a district that had long leaned to the right.

Now Republicans campaigning against the amendment have made Ms. Spanberger a prime target, deriding her as “Governor Bait-and-Switch” and highlighting an interview in August 2025 in which she said she had “no plans to redistrict Virginia.”

Advertisement

“This was the perfect opportunity for her to show that she is the middle-of-the-road suburban mom that she portrayed herself as,” said Glen Sturtevant, a Republican state senator. He dismissed the notion that this was an effort that had been thrust upon her, pointing out that she had signed the bill setting the date for the referendum. “She is certainly an active participant in this whole process,” he said.

Republicans have eagerly highlighted recent polls suggesting that Ms. Spanberger’s honeymoon is over, though because governors in Virginia cannot serve two consecutive terms, public approval is less of a pressure point than it might be elsewhere. Some of her political adversaries have tied the drop in her ratings to her involvement in the campaign for the amendment.

But a number of factors are at play in those sagging poll numbers. Some on the right are irked by her support of standard Democratic priorities like gun control measures and limits to cooperation with federal immigration agents.

But some of the most vociferous criticism of her from Republicans, up to and including the president, has been for a host of proposed taxes and tax hikes in the legislature — on everything from dog grooming to dry cleaning — that she in fact had nothing do with. Most of those taxes, which were floated by various lawmakers, never even came up for a vote.

But Ms. Spanberger did not publicly hit back against these attacks until recent days, a delay that some Democrats say was costly.

Advertisement

“She let other people define her,” said Scott Surovell, the State Senate majority leader.

Mr. Surovell’s frustration echoed a growing discontent among Democrats about the governor’s recent moves. For all the Republican criticism of her, some operatives and lawmakers said, Ms. Spanberger has not been aggressive enough in pushing for Democratic priorities, redistricting among them.

This criticism broke out into the open in recent days, after the governor made scores of amendments to bills that had passed the General Assembly. Some lawmakers and Democratic allies accused her of unexpectedly diluting long-sought goals like expanded public sector unions and a legal retail marketplace for cannabis.

“Our party base is looking for us to stand up and fight and advocate and deliver,” said Mr. Surovell, who represents a solidly Democratic district in Northern Virginia. “It’s hard to deliver when you’re standing in the middle of the road.”

In the interview, Ms. Spanberger insisted that she supported the purpose of many of the bills but had to make amendments to ensure that her administration could implement them.

Advertisement

And she said she had been explicit in her support of the redistricting effort, appearing in statewide TV ads encouraging people to vote “Yes” even as an anti-amendment campaign has sent out mailers suggesting that the governor opposes the effort.

But she said she had never been in a position to barnstorm the state as Gov. Gavin Newsom did in the months leading up to the redistricting referendum that passed in California. Mr. Newsom is a second-term governor in a much bluer state, she said, while she only recently took office and has been “in the crush of their legislative session,” with hundreds of bills to read and examine in a short period.

“Those who may not be focused on the governing and only on the politics, they’re going to want me to do politics 100 percent of the time,” she said. “And for people who care about the governing and not the politics, they’re going to want me to do governing 100 percent of the time.”

Her preference, as she has often made apparent, is for the governing over the politicking. But she acknowledged that it is all part of the job.

Asked if she lamented that the highest-profile issue of her term so far was such a polarizing matter, rather than the cost-of-living policies she emphasized on the campaign trail, she said: “Any person in elected office wants to talk about the thing they want to talk about all the time, and that’s it. So I won’t say ‘No’ to that question.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending