
Trump's blistering response to Tucker Carlson's claims he abandoned 'America First'
Donald Trump made it clear who the leader of the MAGA movement still is after Tucker Carlson suggested he's abandoned 'America First' principles to support Israel.
'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,' he said.
The former Fox News host has poked at conservatives of late for pushing Americans to follow Israel in their preemptive strikes against Iran into what Carlson describes as an 'all out war.'
In a newsletter sent out Friday, Carlson called his long-time ally Trump 'complicit in an act of war,' while he slammed conservatives close to the president as 'warmongers' in a social media post the same day.
Trump told The Atlantic he was not familiar with Carlson's comments but said the framing he used of 'warmongers and peacemakers' as naive.
'For those people who say they want peace - you can't have peace if Iran has a nuclear weapon. So for all of those wonderful people who don't want to do anything about Iran having a nuclear weapon - that's not peace.'
'Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, very simple. Regardless - Israel or not Israel - Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb,' the president added.
In a sensational development Sunday, two US officials revealed that the president vetoed an Israeli plan this week to kill Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The plot signals the intent and velocity with which Israel is moving to dismantle Iran's leadership amid fears it is deliberately fomenting regime change.
The president is now facing calls from Iran hawks in the GOP to join Israel 's bombing campaign.
Any military action in the region threatens to put Trump at odds with major allies in the MAGA movement, not least Carlson, who has accused the commander-in-chief of being 'complicit' in Israel's strikes.
Trump heavily campaigned last year as the man who would keep America out of foreign wars, while at the same time projecting 'peace through strenght.'
Earlier this week, Carlson cautioned the Trump administration publicly on social media after he learned that Levin had visited the White House.
'Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran,' Carlson wrote in a social media post.
'To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He's demanding that American troops do it.'
Carlson wrote that Levin's 'hyperventilating' about Iran's nuclear plans was a distraction from the dangers of sending American troops back into the Middle East.
In a newsletter sent out Friday, Carlson called his long-time ally Trump 'complicit in an act of war,' while he slammed conservatives close to the president as 'warmongers' in a social media post the same day
'A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters. It would end his presidency. That may explain why so many of Trump's enemies are advocating for it,' he wrote.
Levin responded to the Politico report on his radio show Tuesday evening telling his listeners that he met with President Trump last week after he was invited to the White House.
'He and I are very close friends,' Levin said, adding that 'the president knows exactly where I stand on Iran and he told me he knows exactly where I stand on Iran because he watches my shows on Fox.'
He described the Politico report as sourced by 'a group of people who were pushing propaganda.'
'What I am not doing and what I would not do to Donald Trump is lead a lobbying campaign of hawks,' he said.
It comes as Trump this morning refused to rule out involvement in the conflict, while at the same time denying any American participation to this point.
Speaking with ABC News Sunday morning, Trump addressed reports that Israel was encouraging Administration to join the conflict with Iran to eliminate its nuclear program.
"We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president said.
'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,' the president wrote on Truth Social in the early hours of Sunday morning.
Trump vetoed an Israeli plan in recent days to kill Iran's Khamenei, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Sunday.
"Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do we're not even talking about going after the political leadership," said one of the sources, a senior U.S. administration official.
Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion" with a surprise attack on Friday morning that wiped out the top echelon of Iran's military command and damaged its nuclear sites, and says the campaign will continue to escalate in coming days. Iran has vowed to "open the gates of hell" in retaliation.
Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other overnight into Sunday, killing scores and raising fears of a wider conflict.
Israeli rescue teams combed through rubble of residential buildings destroyed by Iranian missiles, using sniffer dogs and heavy excavators to look for survivors after at least 10 people, including children, were killed, raising the two-day toll to 13.
Sirens rang out across Israel after 4 p.m. on Sunday in the first such daylight alert, and fresh explosions could be heard in Tel Aviv.
In Iran, images from the capital showed the night sky lit up by a huge blaze at a fuel depot after Israel began strikes against Iran's oil and gas sector - raising the stakes for the global economy and the functioning of the Iranian state.
Iran has not given a full death toll but said 78 people were killed on Friday and scores more have died since, including in a single attack that killed 60 on Saturday, half of them children, in a 14-storey apartment block flattened in Tehran.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to hear dispute involving anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center
June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider reviving a New Jersey crisis pregnancy center operator's bid to block the Democratic-led state's attorney general from investigating whether it deceived women into believing it offered abortions. The justices took up an appeal by First Choice Women's Resource Center of a lower court's ruling that the crisis pregnancy center must first contest Attorney General Matthew Platkin's subpoena in state court before bringing a federal lawsuit challenging it. The justices are expected to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. Crisis pregnancy centers provide services to pregnant women with the goal of preventing them from having abortions. Such centers do not advertise their anti-abortion stance, and abortion rights advocates have called them deceptive. The case provides a test of the ability of state authorities to regulate these businesses. First Choice, which has five locations in New Jersey, has argued that it has a right to bring its case in federal court because it was alleging a violation of its federal rights to free speech and free association under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. First Choice is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has brought other cases on behalf of anti-abortion plaintiffs including an effort to restrict distribution of the abortion pill that has since been taken over by Republican states. First Choice sued Platkin in New Jersey federal court in 2023 after the attorney general issued a subpoena seeking internal records including the names of its doctors and donors as part of an investigation into potentially unlawful practices. First Choice argued that there was no good cause for the subpoena, which it said chilled its First Amendment rights. Platkin moved to enforce the subpoena in state court. Essex County Superior Court Judge Lisa Adubato granted that motion, finding that First Choice had not shown that the subpoena should be quashed at the outset of the investigation, but ordered the parties to negotiate a narrower subpoena and said that the constitutional issues could be litigated further going forward. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp then dismissed the federal case, finding that First Choice's federal claim was not ripe because it could continue to make its constitutional claims in the state court and did not face any immediate threat of contempt. The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling in December 2024 upheld Shipp's ruling, prompting First Choice to appeal to the justices. In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, First Choice argued that federal civil rights law is intended to guarantee parties a federal forum to assert their constitutional rights. It said that forcing it to litigate in state court would effectively deny it that forum, since the constitutional claims would be decided before a federal court could ever hear them. Crisis pregnancy centers have also drawn the attention of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who in 2024 sued 11 centers for advertising abortion pill reversal, a treatment whose safety and effectiveness is unproven. That case remains pending. Several New York crisis pregnancy centers sued James and in August won an order allowing them to continue touting abortion pill reversal.


Reuters
25 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court to hear Chevron, Exxon appeal over Louisiana coastal damage
June 16 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a bid by Chevron (CVX.N), opens new tab, Exxon Mobil (XOM.N), opens new tab and other oil and gas companies to have lawsuits brought by two Louisiana localities accusing them of harming the state's coast over a period of decades moved out of state court and into federal court. The justices took up an appeal by the companies of a lower court's ruling rejecting their claims that the lawsuits belong in federal court because the parishes of Plaquemines and Cameron were suing over oil production activities undertaken to fulfill U.S. government refinery contracts during World War Two. Federal court is considered a friendlier venue for businesses in such litigation. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which begins in October. Beginning in 2013, six Louisiana parishes along the coast filed 42 lawsuits accusing the oil and gas companies of violating Louisiana's State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978, a state permitting law. In the first of those to go to trial, a jury in April found that Chevron must pay Plaquemines Parish $744.6 million. The appeal by the companies to the U.S. Supreme Court concerned the suit by Plaquemines and one by Cameron parish, both of which raised jurisdictional issues common to a subset of the 42 cases. The various parishes accused the companies of damaging coastal marshlands through dredging and pipeline development and have sought billions of dollars in damages to fund land restoration and storm protection efforts to mitigate erosion. The companies have long argued those cases have no business being in state court, a venue considered more favorable to plaintiffs. They pointed to the April verdict to underscore the stakes in the litigation in asking the Supreme Court to take up their appeal. The justices in 2023 declined to hear an appeal of an earlier ruling sending the cases back to state court on different grounds. The latest appeal was based on a U.S. law that authorizes federal officers and contractors acting under them who are facing litigation in state court involving their official duties to move the matter to federal court, with the goal of avoiding local interests prejudicing the proceedings. The companies said the cases belonged in federal court because the companies had federal contracts to supply the U.S. government with refined petroleum products during World War Two and produced oil to fulfill the contracts. But the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld decisions by lower courts remanding the cases back to state court, saying the exploration and production activities at issue were unrelated to the companies' contracted refining operations.


The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Police use tear gas on anti-Trump protesters in LA
Tensions rose at "No Kings" protests against Donald Trump in downtown Los Angeles on the weekend. Law enforcement used officers on horseback, flash bangs, and tear gas to push back and clear out protesters after the formal event concluded. Millions participated in protests against Trump's agenda in more than 2,000 communities, coinciding with a military parade in Washington, D.C., for the Army's 250th anniversary and the president's birthday. The demonstrations were organised to protest against what organisers termed President Trump's authoritarian agenda, including recent immigration raids. Watch the video in full above.