Trump should listen to America First and avoid the Israel-Iran war! Robby Soave
Trump should listen to America First and avoid the Israel-Iran war! Robby Soave | RISING
Robby Soave delivers radar on what, 'America First,' means and how President Trump is applying it to foreign policy amid the Iran attack against Israel.
Minnesota lawmaker shooting suspect arrested after largest manhunt in state history | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger give updates on the shooting of two Minnesota lawmakers, including the arrest of the suspected shooter.
John Fetterman praises Trump's Army parade; Rand Paul slams 'display of weapons' | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger discuss the military parade held in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary.
'No Kings' protests attract millions; deadly shooting takes place | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger weigh in on the anti-Trump 'No Kings' parade that took place nationwide on the same day as the military parade.
Trump orders deportation crackdown in 'Democrat-run' sanctuary cities | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger react to President Trump directing ICE to pause most immigration raids on farms, hotels, restaurants and meatpacking plants.
AOC blasts Andrew Cuomo during Mamdani rally: 'Unconscionable' | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger react to NYC Mayor Eric Adams smoking a cigar with anti-Semitic influencer Sneako.
Randi Weingarten out at DNC over dispute with leadership | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger react to teachers union leader Randi Weingarten stepping down.
Padilla denies Noem presser clash was a 'stunt' after getting called out | RISING
Robby Soave and Lindsey Granger react to Sen. Alex Padilla's (D-Calif.) response to criticism that he 'manufactured' the now-viral moment in which he got arrested during a DHS Secretary Kristi Noem press conference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
NY reps warn Senate version of ‘big, beautiful' bill will be ‘dead on arrival' if SALT cap lowered to $10K
They're getting SALT-y. Blue state Republican reps railed against rumored Senate plans to lower the state and local tax deduction (SALT) cap back down from the House-negotiated level of $40,000 to its current $10,000 threshold — vowing that it will be 'dead on arrival.' Ahead of the Senate Finance Committee's release of its text for its modifications to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, reporting from Punchbowl News indicated that the panel planned to chop down the SALT increase as a placeholder while negotiations play out. The official text is slated to drop Monday evening, but multiple New York reps preemptively dubbed SALT pareback a dealbreaker. 'I have been clear since Day One: sufficiently lifting the SALT Cap to deliver tax fairness to New Yorkers has been my top priority in Congress,' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said in a statement. 4 Rep. Mike Lawler had emerged as one of the top hardliners in the SALT negotiations. Getty Images 'After engaging in good faith negotiations, we were able to increase the cap on SALT from $10,000 to $40,000. That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less. If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Lawler doubled down on X, writing, 'Consider this the response to the Senate's 'negotiating mark': DEAD ON ARRIVAL' with a meme of Steve Carell as Michael Scott from 'The Office' shaking his head. The House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last month, but the megabill next needs to clear the Senate and then survive the House again before it can get to President Trump's desk. Unlike the House, the Senate does not have any Republicans elected from high-taxed blue states where SALT is a pressing issue. Many Senate Republicans have openly grumbled over the inclusion of a SALT hike. 4 President Trump has been prodding congressional Republicans to send him the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to sign. Getty Images 'I think at the end of the day, we'll find a landing spot. Hopefully that will get the votes we need in the House, a compromise position on the SALT issue,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) told 'Fox News Sunday,' indicating that there isn't an appetite in the upper chamber for a large SALT cap hike. The House is home to the SALT Caucus, which includes blue state Republicans who have conditioned their support of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on a SALT cap hike. 'The $40,000 SALT deduction was carefully negotiated,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) said in a statement. 'For the Senate to leave the SALT deduction capped at $10,000 is not only insulting but a slap in the face to the Republican districts that delivered our majority and trifecta,' she added. 'We have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country.' 4 Rep. Nicole Malliotakis is the sole Republican congresswoman who represents part of New York City. Getty Images Republican SALT Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Young Kim (Calif.) and Andrew Garbarino (NY) also warned that the leaked draft is 'putting the entire bill at risk.' 'We have been crystal clear that the SALT deal we negotiated in good faith with the Speaker and the White House must remain in the final bill,' they said in a joint statement. 'The Senate should work with us.' Given the narrow 220 to 212 House GOP majority, leadership in the lower chamber cannot afford SALT-related defections. At most, House leadership can only afford three defections if there's full attendance. Meanwhile, passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in the Senate has been complicated by fiscal hawks who have demanded that the megabill have less of an impact on the deficit. 4 Senate committees are starting to roll out their revisions to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. AP The megabill is projected to increase the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade, according to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Senate Republicans are also keen on exploring ways of making certain temporary business tax cuts in the package permanent. SALT emerged as a problem for blue state lawmakers after Republicans imposed a $10,000 cap on it in 2017 as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The cap was intended to help pay for other provisions of the bill. A spokesperson for the Senate Finance Committee declined to confirm whether or not the lowered SALT cap is in the panel's draft of the megabill. 'Everyone will get accurate info when bill text is released,' the spokesperson said.
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
Most Americans view Supreme Court as partisan: Poll
While Americans have conflicting opinions on the Supreme Court, a majority agree that the Trump administration must comply with federal court orders, two recent polls found. The big picture: The high court is slated to make a slew of rulings in coming weeks on issues Americans remained deeply divided on, including on judicial power, birthright citizenship and gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Zoom in: Americans are divided on their views of the Supreme Court: 55% have a strongly or somewhat favorable view of the high court, while 45% have a somewhat or strongly unfavorable view, an NBC News Decision Desk Poll poll found. There's a partisan divide in how Americans view the judicial body, per a separate Reuters-Ipsos poll: 67% of Republicans viewing the high court favorably, compared to only 26% of Democrats. Something that both sides agree on: Neither Republicans nor Democrats see the court as politically neutral, according to the Reuters poll. Between the lines: The Supreme Court in recent months has been clearing away many of the hurdles lower courts have put in President Trump's path. The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has three justices appointed by Trump during his first term. Still, legal battles over many aspects of his second-term agenda remain. Zoom out: The Trump administration has defied a number of court orders, particularly related to immigration policies. Americans are not on board, a NBC News Decision Desk Poll found. 81% of respondents believe the administration must follow federal court rulings and stop actions deemed illegal. Meanwhile, 19% believe the administration can ignore court rulings. Details: The Reuters-Ipsos poll, conducted June 11-12, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The NBC News Decision Desk Poll was conducted from May 30-June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults aged 18 and over. The error estimate is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
