Did the War Create a Rift in Trump’s Party?
Signs of a division within President Donald Trump's party over the war have surfaced inside and outside Congress. The rift is no longer confined to the Trump wing, which has been split since the first day of war, but has extended to Republican elites and policymakers.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, one of Trump's strongest allies and a clear supporter of going to war against Iran, publicly criticized the administration after a series of closed-door hearings during which administration officials were expected to answer pressing questions from members of both chambers. "We want to know more about what’s going on, what the options are and why they’re being considered and we’re just not getting enough answers on those questions," Rogers said. He added that he warned the administration that its approach to dealing with Congress would have consequences if left unaddressed.
Perhaps the most significant control Congress holds is the power of the purse, which could mean the legislative branch will refuse to provide the $200 billion in funding requested by the administration to sustain the war.
The issue was not limited to Rogers. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman and Trump ally Roger Wicker appeared to share his view. When asked about his House counterpart's remarks, Wicker said he understood and endorsed Rogers' concerns: “Let me put it this way: I can see why he might have said that.”
Rep. Lauren Boebert, one of Trump's most prominent supporters, said she was tired of spending money overseas. Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposed the war from the start, echoed her sentiment. In the Senate, some Republicans demanded the Pentagon undergo an audit before the funds were allocated, something the Pentagon has avoided for years.
The closed-door hearings appeared to be turbulent. Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, a member of the Armed Services Committee, stormed out, indicating that she left because of talk from Pentagon officials about waging a ground war. She wrote more on the social media platform X, saying the reasons the administration gave for going to war were not the same as the objectives stated in the hearing. She described it as a deeply concerning gap, adding that the longer the war drags on, the more support it will lose from the American people and from Congress.
Outside Congress, party elites are facing a dilemma revealed by their most important annual event. The Conservative Political Action Conference held its annual meeting this year without Trump for the first time in a decade. The conference, launched in 1974, draws thousands of activists and prominent conservative figures to discuss the movement's top priorities.
Since Trump first announced his presidential run in 2015, the conference has become synonymous with him, and the crowd has considered him to be its leader. Trump made a point of attending annually, even during the years he was out of the White House. The absence of Trump and his vice president this year, attributed by the White House to a conflict with the president's schedule regarding pressing issues, comes at a time when the Trump wing is experiencing a clear split over the war. An active faction within the Trump wing considers the war a betrayal of the "America First" principle, under which Trump pledged to avoid engaging in more wars and to focus primarily on the U.S. economy.
However, the religious right played a significant role at the conference. Influential pastor Franklin Graham called for support for Trump, saying the division was not due to an actual disagreement, but because some are trying to sow discord within the president's wing. Prominent figures in conservative media echoed this line, accusing the antiwar faction of representing a regressive right and arguing that the real enemy is domestic: American Marxists and socialists.
Notable at this conference was the gap between the speakers on stage and the audience in the hall, especially among young attendees. When asked by the conference chairman if they would support removing Trump, the hall answered twice in the affirmative. The question remains: Will the division reach a point where it threatens the party's chances in the November congressional elections?
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, one of Trump's strongest allies and a clear supporter of going to war against Iran, publicly criticized the administration after a series of closed-door hearings during which administration officials were expected to answer pressing questions from members of both chambers. "We want to know more about what’s going on, what the options are and why they’re being considered and we’re just not getting enough answers on those questions," Rogers said. He added that he warned the administration that its approach to dealing with Congress would have consequences if left unaddressed.
Perhaps the most significant control Congress holds is the power of the purse, which could mean the legislative branch will refuse to provide the $200 billion in funding requested by the administration to sustain the war.
The issue was not limited to Rogers. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman and Trump ally Roger Wicker appeared to share his view. When asked about his House counterpart's remarks, Wicker said he understood and endorsed Rogers' concerns: “Let me put it this way: I can see why he might have said that.”
Rep. Lauren Boebert, one of Trump's most prominent supporters, said she was tired of spending money overseas. Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposed the war from the start, echoed her sentiment. In the Senate, some Republicans demanded the Pentagon undergo an audit before the funds were allocated, something the Pentagon has avoided for years.
The closed-door hearings appeared to be turbulent. Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, a member of the Armed Services Committee, stormed out, indicating that she left because of talk from Pentagon officials about waging a ground war. She wrote more on the social media platform X, saying the reasons the administration gave for going to war were not the same as the objectives stated in the hearing. She described it as a deeply concerning gap, adding that the longer the war drags on, the more support it will lose from the American people and from Congress.
Outside Congress, party elites are facing a dilemma revealed by their most important annual event. The Conservative Political Action Conference held its annual meeting this year without Trump for the first time in a decade. The conference, launched in 1974, draws thousands of activists and prominent conservative figures to discuss the movement's top priorities.
Since Trump first announced his presidential run in 2015, the conference has become synonymous with him, and the crowd has considered him to be its leader. Trump made a point of attending annually, even during the years he was out of the White House. The absence of Trump and his vice president this year, attributed by the White House to a conflict with the president's schedule regarding pressing issues, comes at a time when the Trump wing is experiencing a clear split over the war. An active faction within the Trump wing considers the war a betrayal of the "America First" principle, under which Trump pledged to avoid engaging in more wars and to focus primarily on the U.S. economy.
However, the religious right played a significant role at the conference. Influential pastor Franklin Graham called for support for Trump, saying the division was not due to an actual disagreement, but because some are trying to sow discord within the president's wing. Prominent figures in conservative media echoed this line, accusing the antiwar faction of representing a regressive right and arguing that the real enemy is domestic: American Marxists and socialists.
Notable at this conference was the gap between the speakers on stage and the audience in the hall, especially among young attendees. When asked by the conference chairman if they would support removing Trump, the hall answered twice in the affirmative. The question remains: Will the division reach a point where it threatens the party's chances in the November congressional elections?
Previous article![]( "The Pentagon’s Internal War")
