Trump backtracks on ‘regime change' talk in Iran
President Donald Trump said Tuesday he doesn't want to see regime change in Iran, two days after he floated the idea on social media.
'I don't want it. I'd like to see everything calm down as quickly as possible,' Trump said to reporters aboard Air Force One on his way to the NATO summit.
'Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don't want to see so much chaos, so we'll see how it does.'
Some of Trump's long-time supporters, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Steve Bannon, criticized the earlier suggestion of regime change, worried the effort would bog down Americans in another costly Middle East expedition.
Right-wing influencers on Tuesday were quick to cheer the president's apparent pivot.
'Trump is the peace president,' Charlie Kirk, MAGA media personality posted on X.
But in a sign of how the issue still divides the GOP, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R. S.C.,), a longtime Iran hawk and ally of Trump, said during a hearing on Tuesday that 'the only way you're really going to have peace is for the regime to change its behavior, either through personnel or ideology.'
'And I just want to say this very clearly, until Iran renounces their regime goal of destroying the Jewish state, until Iran recognizes the right of Israel to exist as a nation and the Jews to exist as a people, we're nowhere closer to peace than we were before the capability of Iran to enact their agenda has been greatly reduced,' he said. 'Hats off to President Trump and our military, but until their desire changes, we need to stick with Israel and understand who we're dealing with.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac privatization: What it means for homebuyers
When it comes to housing finance reform, few if any topics are more important than the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs – which underpin nearly half of all U.S. mortgage loans – have long been the silent engines driving mortgage accessibility, affordability and market stability. Now, as the current administration revisits privatizing these institutions, the conversation is no longer theoretical and the implications for buyers, sellers and homeowners are impossible to ignore. Established by Congress, Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) were created to promote liquidity and stability in the mortgage market. They purchase home loans from lenders, bundle them into securities, and sell them to investors, providing capital that allows lenders to issue more mortgages. This framework has helped make 30-year fixed-rate mortgages a standard and has supported affordable lending for millions of Americans. During the financial crisis, both entities were placed under federal conservatorship with the government investing almost $200 million in the form of preferred shares to provide needed liquidity. Since that time, the GSEs have generated dividends to the treasury far exceeding that amount, leading to the public/private debate. Some suggest taxpayers, having saved the entities, should continue to benefit from the GSE's activities, while others believe the debt is more than fully repaid, thus they should become private once again. Although technically shareholder-owned, the GSEs remain tightly controlled by the government with an implicit guarantee. Shareholders, some which are hedge funds, consider their investment compromised. Home ownership in America: Mortgage rates keep rising. Home sales keep falling. Now, with recent remarks from President Trump and reports from Bloomberg, J.P. Morgan and others indicating a renewed push for privatization, the landscape is shifting again. The proposed goal suggests the administration is exploring several options to return the GSEs to the public market, potentially with an Initial Public Offering (IPO) to bridge the gap in required capital funds while they remain under conservatorship. Supporters argue that returning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private ownership could reduce the government's footprint in the housing market and foster innovation, allowing the GSEs to develop more flexible mortgage products. The change could also reduce taxpayer risk, free up capital for other public priorities, and boost market confidence. Critics, however, recognize that real-world implications for homebuyers are complex. Without the government's implicit backing, investors might perceive greater risk in mortgage securities, which could lead to higher costs passed on to homebuyers. That could result in interest rates rising, placing a heavier burden on borrowers, and potentially pushing homeownership further out of reach for many. Privatization may also come with tighter lending standards, making it more difficult for those with modest incomes and limited credit histories to secure loans. Across the country, homebuyers may face elevated interest rates and more stringent loan qualifications. Those looking to refinance could find higher rates and fewer options. Popular loan products, such as the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, may become less common or more expensive if no longer backed by GSEs. Recognizing these stakes, some within the housing industry are advocating for a balanced approach. Rather than full privatization or continued conservatorship, a hybrid model has been proposed – one that maintains a limited federal guarantee while granting the GSEs greater autonomy. The Mortgage Bankers Association, for example, supports preserving investor confidence and protecting market liquidity without placing the full weight of the mortgage system on the government's shoulders. The conversation surrounding the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is as complex as it is consequential, and the journey toward privatization, if undertaken, will be gradual. The privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac comes with risks and benefits. No matter where you stand on this issue, caution is the word. Budge Huskey is chief executive officer of Premier Sotheby's International Realty. This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac privatization: What it means for homebuyers Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 million people could have their salaries garnished by the government this summer over student loans
Two million people could see their wages garnished this summer, TransUnion predicts. That's 800,000 more than it predicted last month. The collection enforcement is likely to put a further strain on the economy and comes as the Trump administration reverses Biden-era loan forgiveness programs. While the economy is still on shaky ground and the shadow of tariff-caused price increase continues to loom, nearly 2 million Americans could see their paychecks garnished by the government this summer. A TransUnion study suggest that many borrowers with federal student loans could see their accounts cross 270 days past due this July, putting them in default. That would open up the possibility of garnishment, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Just last month, the estimated number was 1.2 million. It could be much worse by the end of summer, also. TransUnion, the Journal reports, estimates another 1 million borrowers could default by August, followed by another 2 million in September. (Not all of those people will reach that state, as some are in the process of working out deals with their lenders.) The Education Department, which began debt collection on defaulted loans last month, has warned that wage garnishment on loans in default will begin once more this summer after a five-year pause. That could automatically deduct 15% of the paychecks of people who have overdue student loans. Federal officials have already warned people who have nor or are unable to make payments that, starting this month, they could see their tax refunds and any federal benefits withheld. Prior to this, the government has not collected on defaulted loans since March 2020. In that time, borrowers have seen policy changes, inaccurate payment information, and unfulfilled promises of loan forgiveness. Many are also seeing their payments spike and their credit scores crater. The Federal Reserve has said that more than 9 million borrowers 'will face significant drops in credit score once delinquencies appear on credit reports in the first half of 2025.' This story was originally featured on
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
Dem senator plows ahead with war powers resolution despite ceasefire
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to move full steam ahead with his war powers resolution, despite a fragile ceasefire reached Tuesday between Israel and Iran. The fresh ceasefire deal between the warring countries faced early hiccups, with President Donald Trump accusing both sides of breaking the truce, but it has so far held, despite widespread skepticism over its longevity on Capitol Hill. And Kaine argued that the halt in fighting actually gave his resolution more credence. "I think the ceasefire actually gives us the ability to have the conversation without the pressure of like, 'Oh, you know, [Trump's] got to do a bombing run tomorrow night,'" he said. "The combination of the ceasefire and the Israelis saying that the nuclear program has been sent back at least two or three years opens up — you can really have the deliberate discussion that this merits," Kaine continued. Kaine's war powers resolution is designed to both put a check on Trump's power and reaffirm Congress' constitutional authority to declare war. However, whether a strike like the one over the weekend constituted an act of war that required congressional approval was a hot topic of debate among lawmakers last week. The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the White House, giving lawmakers the sole power to declare war, while the president acts as the commander-in-chief directing the military. A similar bipartisan resolution cropped up in the House, too, but one of its co-sponsors, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., told Fox News Digital that he is ready to stand down if the ceasefire lasts. "If the ceasefire becomes a truce and holds, we won't press for the vote," he said. "We need to hear from Iran and Israel, and also whether our own president is satisfied that the predicate for his first attack, nuclear weapons, no longer exists." Kaine's bill could hit the floor by Friday in the Senate, but whether it survives is another question. "Bring it up. Let's vote it down," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital. The resolution does have the backing of Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who told Fox News Digital that before the strikes there were up to eight Republicans that supported it. "I support Tim," Durbin said. "His approach to this is entirely consistent with the Constitution, and I wish the Senate would stand up as a body for its own rights and authority under the Constitution."
