Politics
After week of war and political upheaval, Trump remains defiant as ever
In recent days, tensions over the U.S. war in Iran have steadily mounted.
Polls have shown the campaign is widely unpopular. An entire flank of Trump’s MAGA base has criticized it as a clear departure from the “America First” mantra Trump has long espoused. Leaders within the Trump administration have pushed against claims it was about regime change, framing it instead as a necessary response to imminent threats.
Trump, meanwhile, has struck a decidedly defiant tone — offering few of the reassurances or rationalizations that past presidents have offered in the initial stages of war, and sounding more unbothered than embattled.
He has lamented American casualties but also seemed to shrug them off — along with additional deaths he expects to come and potential attacks on the U.S. homeland — as the simple cost of war, saying, “Some people will die.”
He has ignored concerns the war will turn into another unending Middle East quagmire, while openly flirting with taking over Cuba too.
Undermining his administration’s own messaging that the war is not about regime change, Trump wrote in a social media post Friday that there would be “no deal” with Iran without “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” and new Iranian leadership “ACCEPTABLE” to him.
Sticking a thumb in the eye of his “America First” defectors, he said the U.S. and its allies are going to “work tirelessly” to make Iran “economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before,” adding, “MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN (MIGA!)”
In the last week, Trump has instigated or been forced to navigate a stunning cascade of political threats. In addition to attacking Iran, he fired his Homeland Security secretary in charge of his signature immigration campaign, faced newly detailed allegations — which he denied — that he sexually assaulted a child alongside Jeffrey Epstein, saw his attorney general subpoenaed by fellow Republicans in Congress, and watched American jobs numbers drop as gas prices spiked.
And yet, Trump has also managed to avoid complex questions about those issues — the most pressing before his administration — and despite Democrats and some of his own supporters lashing out over them.
“I’ve seen a lot of Presidents fall short of their promises but I’ve never seen any President just doing the opposite of everything promised on purpose. Prices, Epstein, wars. Just absolutely racing to betray his voters,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote on X.
“This is Israel’s war, this is not the United States’ war. This war is not being waged on behalf of American national security objectives, to make the United States safer or richer,” said Tucker Carlson, one of Trump’s longtime allies.
Carlson said Trump committed U.S. forces to fighting in Iran for no other reason than because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “demanded it,” even though it “certainly wasn’t a good idea for the United States” and the Trump administration had “no real plan” for replacing the Iranian leadership it has now toppled.
The White House defended Trump’s actions across the board in statements to The Times on Friday.
On Iran, it said Trump “is courageously protecting the United States from the deadly threat posed by the rogue Iranian regime — and that is as America First as it gets.” On departing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, it said Trump “has assembled the most talented and competent cabinet in history,” and “continues to have faith in his Administration.”
On the economy, they said the Trump administration “is doing its part to unleash robust, private sector-led economic growth with tax cuts and deregulation,” and that Trump “has already initiated robust action” to control oil prices even amid the Iran war. And on the Epstein files, they said the latest claims unveiled “are completely baseless accusations, backed by zero credible evidence.”
Trump has also spoken out in defense of his handling of the various crises facing his administration — but not nearly with the sort of detail and solemnity that wartime presidents usually speak, experts said.
At his only public event on Friday — a nearly two-hour round-table with national leaders and sporting officials about college athletics — he ridiculed members of the media who asked about Iran and Noem.
“What a stupid question that is to be asking at this time,” he said, when asked about reports that Russia was helping Iran target and attack Americans there. “We’re talking about something else.”
When pressed as to why he was spending so much time talking about college sports when so much else is going on in the country and the world, Trump briefly talked about Iran — saying “people are very impressed by our military” and that the U.S. is now “more respected than we’ve ever been” — before concluding the event.
Jennifer Mercieca, a political historian and communications professor at Texas A&M and author of “Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump,” said she was surprised Trump didn’t make a stronger case for going to war in Iran during his recent State of the Union speech, and that he hasn’t been more aggressive about making the case for war since, including by using traditional language about bolstering American values around the world.
“In comparison to other presidents in a similar situation trying to lead a nation into war, that is surprising to me — and unusual,” she said.
Also unusual is the low public support for the war, Mercieca said, given that, since World War II, there has generally been high public approval for U.S. war efforts at their start.
Mercieca said she wonders if there is a correlation between Trump’s not providing a more vigorous rationale for the war and the low public approval for it — or perhaps between the low approval and the brash descriptions of the war as a merciless campaign of destruction and vengeance from others in the administration, such as Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
She said Hegseth and others have shown a “lack of decorum, a lack of honor or dignity [in] their way of behaving, especially when we’re talking about warfare and human lives.”
Jack Rakove, a Stanford University professor emeritus of history and political science, said Trump’s posture is fitting with his character since he first entered politics and before, as he “can never take responsibility for anything that appears to be a mistake” and is “obsessed with the idea of appearing tough and tough-minded.”
Rakove said he does not believe, as some critics have suggested, that Trump launched the war in Iran specifically to distract from the Epstein files, which as of Thursday included newly released FBI descriptions of several interviews in which a woman accused Trump and Epstein of sexual assault in the 1980s when she was a child. Her accusations have not been verified.
But Rakove said he does wonder to what degree Trump is consciously pushing chaos in order to ensure that no one detrimental issue for him politically captures the public’s attention for too long.
Mercieca said Trump has always been “uniquely good at controlling the public conversation,” but that power has been tested recently by the Epstein files — which have held the public’s attention despite his repeatedly saying that “we should move on from that, that we should stop talking about it, that he’s been exonerated.”
She said Trump’s instinct in the current moment to push ahead aggressively despite waning support for his economic policies, his immigration policies and his war in Iran could be related to his desire to return people’s attention to his agenda, but is also in line with his long-held desire to go down in history — including by making big moves.
“I think he’s very much trying to leave his mark on the White House, I think he’s trying to leave his mark on the nation, I think he’s trying to leave his mark on the world, and I think war is a way that leaders have traditionally done that throughout history,” she said.
Politics
Video: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope
new video loaded: Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope
transcript
transcript
Vance Gets Heckled at Turning Point Event and Pushes Back Against Pope
An audience member heckled Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday at a Turning Point USA event. And Vance addressed Pope Leo’s criticism of the war in Iran, saying he should be careful when speaking about theology.
-
[Heckler] “Jesus Christ does not support genocide.” [Vance] “I certainly think the answer is yes, [Vance] and I agree. [Vance] Jesus Christ does not — [Vance] I agree, Jesus Christ certainly does not support genocide, [Vance] whoever yelled that out from the dark.” [Heckler] “You’re involved, JD. You’re killing children.” [Vance] “Right now, you see more humanitarian aid [Vance] coming into Gaza than it has [Vance] any time in the past five years. I recognize that a lot of young voters don’t love the policy that we have in the Middle East.” “I like that the pope is an advocate for peace. I think that’s certainly one of his roles. On the other hand, how can you say that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology. And I think that one of these issues here is that there has been, is — again, hey, random dude screaming, I told you I’d respond to your point.”
By Shawn Paik
April 15, 2026
Politics
Spanberger signs gun bills, makes a proposed gun ban even harsher
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a series of gun-control bills Tuesday, toughening a proposed assault-firearms ban before sending it back to lawmakers, which drew immediate backlash from Republicans and is likely to draw a constitutional objection from the Justice Department.
The Democrat governor’s changes to House Bill 217/Senate Bill 749 remove the word “fixed” from part of the bill’s definition of an assault firearm, which could sharply expand the range of semi-automatic rifles and pistols swept into the ban, Republicans say.
“If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it,” House of Delegates Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, told News WCYB 5 in a statement. “Not only does it keep in place the de facto ban on some of the most common firearms in Virginia, it goes further and appears to create a ban on any firearm that can accept a magazine of more than 15 rounds.
“That includes the vast majority of firearms in Virginia that are in common use for legal purposes.”
ATLANTA TEEN ARRESTED FOR MURDER AFTER FATAL SHOOTING OF 12-YEAR-OLD INSIDE HOME
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger delivers the Democratic response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address on February 24, 2026 in Williamsburg, Virginia. Spanberger is serving in her first year as governor and is the first woman to hold the position in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Getty Images)
The U.S. Department of Justice warned in a letter released Friday that the measure raises constitutional concerns and threatened legal action if the state enforces a ban that infringes on protected firearms.
“This letter provides formal notice that the Civil Rights Division will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon wrote in the letter to Virginia Democrat Attorney General Jay Jones before Spanberger’s moves Tuesday. “Specifically, SB 749, as written, would require Virginia law enforcement agencies to engage in a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.
“The Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes,” she added, citing the unanimous Supreme Court opinion that the AR-15 is “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”
Dhillon said her division “will seek to enjoin any attempt to infringe the right of law-abiding Virginians to acquire constitutional protected arms[.]”
“@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed,” Dhillon wrote Friday on X. “We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia.
DESANTIS URGES FLORIDA LAWMAKERS TO BAN COUSIN MARRIAGES, LINKS PRACTICE TO ‘STEALTH JIHAD’
Harmeet Dhillon announced a new Second Amendment section to protect gun rights and challenge state restrictions. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Undaunted, Spanberger moved forward framing the law as a public-safety push, saying the state is trying to balance Second Amendment rights with efforts to reduce gun violence.
“I grew up in a family where responsible gun ownership was expected, and I carried a firearm every day as a former federal agent,” she wrote in a statement. “I support the Second Amendment. But gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America, and that should motivate all of us to ask ourselves what we can do to mitigate this harm.
“This is why I’ve made amendments to provide clarity for both responsible gun owners and law enforcement, making clear what these changes mean in practice — as Virginians safely purchase and store their firearms,” she continued. “These commonsense steps will help keep our families, our communities, and our law enforcement officers safe.”
GUNS AND GANJA: SUPREME COURT SKEPTICAL OF FEDERAL LAW BANNING FIREARM POSSESSION FOR REGULAR MARIJUANA USERS
The bill would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of covered firearms and magazines over 15 rounds, while exempting firearms legally owned before July 1, 2026. It would create a Class 1 misdemeanor for violations and impose limits on how grandfathered firearms could later be transferred or sold.
The legislation now heads back to the General Assembly, which must decide whether to accept Spanberger’s amendments.
DESANTIS CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE FOR RELEASING SEX OFFENDER WHO THEN ALLEGEDLY KILLED STEPDAUGHTER
Spanberger also signed several other gun-related bills without changes, including House Bill 21, which requires firearm manufacturers, dealers and distributors to adopt “reasonable controls” aimed at preventing illegal sales and misuse. The law also opens the door for civil action by the attorney general, local governments and private individuals if a firearm industry member’s actions or omissions are alleged to have contributed to public harm.
She also signed House Bill 110, which bars leaving a firearm in plain view inside an unattended vehicle, and House Bill 40, which bans the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of unserialized homemade firearms, commonly known as ghost guns.
“In all, the General Assembly has forwarded to you over 20 bills that restrict Second Amendment rights,” Dhillon’s warning to Jones concluded. “I urge you to reconsider allowing any bill that would infringe on the lawful use of protected firearms by law-abiding citizens to become law.
“In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, the Second Amendment Section stands ready to meet and confer with attorneys in the Virginia Attorney General Office.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens shall not be infringed.”
Politics
In 1960, fears over papal influence. In 2026, a president attacks a pope
WASHINGTON — It was hard to miss President Trump’s very public spat with Pope Leo XIV this week.
The split was the first time in modern memory that an American president has so openly badmouthed a sitting pontiff, or, for that matter, distributed an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Critics cried “blasphemy!” even as supporters continued to stand behind the man whose presidency, some argue, was God sent.
Students of American history will recall an earlier incident that pitted papal and presidential authority against each other. The concern: that a president would align himself too closely to the church, or even take orders from the pope.
That anxiety seeped into the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, whose eventual victory would make him the first Catholic president.
Back then, Kennedy was constantly fending off accusations from Protestant ecclesiastic types who were wary that his nomination meant the pontiff, John XXIII, was already packing his bags for a move into the White House.
President John F. Kennedy meets with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican in July 1963, one month after Paul succeeded John XXIII as pontiff.
(Bettmann Archive / Getty Images)
The issue was so pronounced that 150 clergymen and laypeople formed Citizens for Religious Freedom, which in a pamphlet warned, “It is inconceivable to us that a Roman Catholic President would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies and demands.”
One particularly loud voice among the ministers was the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a popular and influential pastor and author. Peale was especially disturbed by Kennedy’s prospects.
“Our American culture is at stake,” he said at a meeting of the ministers. “I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.”
The group asked Kennedy to “drop by Houston” to make clear his views on faith and government. He agreed, making a televised speech at the Rice Hotel, where he famously spelled out his firm opinions on the separation of church and state.
“I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy told the group. “I am the Democratic Party’s nominee for president who happens to be Catholic.”
Time magazine reflected on the address some years later, concluding that the speech had gone so well for Kennedy “that many felt the dramatic moment was an important part of his victory.”
Since then, modern presidents have occasionally found themselves at odds with the Vatican. Typically Republican presidents would hear from the pope about foreign wars, while Democratic presidents were derided over abortion policies.
But such disagreements tended to be handled with the decorous language of diplomacy.
President George W. Bush presents Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rome on June 4 , 2004. The pope reminded Bush of the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Bush praised him as a “devoted servant of God.”
(Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)
Then came Trump, who is now being accused of openly mocking the Catholic faith and the 1st Amendment. He called Leo weak on crime and foreign policy, among other things. A self-described nondenominational Christian who says his favorite book is the Bible, Trump’s hasn’t shied from bashing the pontiff, nor has he hesitated to blur the line separating church and state.
Where Kennedy argued for an absolute separation, Trump has advanced a model of religious resurgence, promising “pews will be fuller, younger and more faithful than they have been in years.” Through initiatives including the “America Prays” program launched last year, the White House has sought to bring “bring back God” by inviting millions of Americans to prayer sessions. The webpage for the program focuses features only Christian Scripture.
“From the earliest days of the republic, faith in God has been the ultimate source of the nation’s strength,” Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in February.
President Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence and faith leaders say a prayer during the signing of a proclamation in the Oval Office on Sept. 1, 2017. .
(Alex Wong / Getty Images)
In the United States, the Catholic Church historically has “loved the 1st Amendment” and its guarantee of religious liberty and, as a result, largely kept some distance from government, according to Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and religious commentator. After its failures attempting to influence monarchs and politicians in Europe, the Catholic Church “didn’t want the government interfering with them and knew that it wasn’t their right to interfere with the government,” Reese said.
Kennedy loved the 1st Amendment too. He put it above his own religious beliefs, and said as much on his way to the White House.
“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty,” he said. “Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.”
Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the community in Algiers at the Basilica of Our Lady of Africa on April 13, 2026.
(Vatican Pool via Getty Images)
-
Ohio22 hours ago‘Little Rascals’ star Bug Hall arrested in Ohio
-
Georgia1 week agoGeorgia House Special Runoff Election 2026 Live Results
-
Arkansas5 days agoArkansas TV meteorologist Melinda Mayo retires after nearly four decades on air
-
Pennsylvania1 week agoParents charged after toddler injured by wolf at Pennsylvania zoo
-
Milwaukee, WI1 week agoPotawatomi Casino Hotel evacuated after fire breaks out in rooftop HVAC system
-
Austin, TX1 week agoABC Kite Fest Returns to Austin for Annual Celebration – Austin Today
-
Culture1 week agoCan You Name These Novels Based on Their Characters?
-
Pittsburg, PA1 week agoPrimanti Bros. closes Monroeville and North Versailles locations