By

Steve Contorno

Updated 2 hr agoDonald TrumpThe Middle East

See all topics

President Donald Trump stands in the Blue Room before walking out onto the balcony to address the crowd during the annual Easter Egg Roll, on the South Lawn of the White House on April 6. Brendam Smialowski/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

The right-wing media ecosystem that has long served as a useful bullhorn for President Donald Trump unraveled into disarray this week, as deepening fears over his management of the war — and fragile ceasefire — with Iran spilled into public infighting among some of his most prominent allies.

From its start, the Iran war has divided prominent MAGA figures, with many supporting the president’s military push and others arguing it betrayed his avowed “America First” foreign policy. That split has grown sharper in recent days, as Trump’s erratic swings — from bellicose threats of sweeping destruction early in the week to an abrupt search for an off-ramp days later — have drawn sharp backlash from longtime conservative voices.

Tucker Carlson encouraged US officials to resist Trump’s orders if it stopped nuclear war, Megyn Kelly effectively accused Trump of gaslighting Americans to “save face” for an unpopular conflict and Candace Owens has called for Trump to be removed from office via the 25th Amendment.

Trump responded to the criticism Thursday in a 482-word social media screed calling Carlson, Kelly and Owens “stupid people,” and “troublemakers” who “will say anything necessary for some ‘free’ and cheap publicity.”

“They’re not ‘MAGA,’” Trump wrote. “They’re losers, just trying to latch on to MAGA.”

Tucker Carlson attends President Donald Trump’s meeting with an oil industry executives, held at the White House on January 9. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

CNN has reached out to Carlson, Kelly and Owens for comment. Responding on X, Owens wrote: “It may be time to put Grandpa up in a home.”

The dissent has extended to figures central to Trump’s past outreach to younger and male audiences. Podcasters like Joe Rogan and Tim Dillon have grown increasingly exasperated with the administration and its close alliance with Israel. Comedian Theo Von drew widespread attention this week for likening Israeli leaders to “terrorists.”

At the same time, Trump stalwarts online have stepped up to counter the criticism, fueling an escalating series of online feuds. Alex Jones, the far-right conspiratorial broadcaster who opposed the war, is now at odds with Laura Loomer, the conspiratorial Trump loyalist who supports it — and who is also openly sparring with Roger Stone, the conspiratorial Trump political operative.

One faction of Trump’s online stalwarts has accused rival conservative influencers who support the war and object to a peace deal of acting as foreign proxies and have called for federal investigations into their finances.

Public polling has consistently shown Trump’s war with Iran is backed by a large majority of Republican voters and has even more support from those who consider themselves MAGA-aligned. Nevertheless, the administration and allies have scrambled to contain the fallout. Speaking this week from Hungary, Vice President JD Vance discouraged people from disengaging from politics because they don’t agree with the administration.

First responders inspect a residential building hit in an earlier US-Israeli strike in Tehran, on March 27. Vahid Salemi/AP

“If we do something you don’t like, the response should be to get more involved, to make your voice heard,” Vance said, “and to try to push things in the direction that you want them to be pushed.”

The fissures are emerging at a precarious time for Trump and Republicans as they confront a challenging midterm environment. The president’s decision to thrust the US into an undefined, high-risk conflict has compounded those concerns, particularly as American voters grow increasingly uneasy with his close alliance with Israel.

Until recently, Republicans had counted on a distinct advantage in their fight to hold onto their congressional majorities this November: a vast and highly effective network of conservative media personalities and digital influencers. That ecosystem — encompassing staunch MAGA allies, established conservative figures and a growing universe of right-leaning, male-dominated podcasts — spanned traditional outlets and newer platforms and had entered Trump’s second term largely aligned behind him.

Fractures, though, have since emerged, largely tied to Trump’s military movements abroad and an affordability crisis that has persisted despite his campaign pledge for a quick resolution. The divisions have pronounced themselves on X, the social media site owned by billionaire Elon Musk, but also at public conservative gatherings. Last month, at the annual conservative gathering known as CPAC, attendees and speakers clashed on and off the stage over Trump’s war with Iran.

People wave a pre-Islamic Revolution flag of Iran, at CPAC 2026 in Grapevine, Texas on March 28. Laura Brett/Sipa USA/AP

Those tensions erupted in response to Trump’s profanity laden Easter Sunday threat to strike Iranian infrastructure sites if the country’s leaders didn’t “Open the Fuckin’ Strait” of Hormuz by Tuesday night. He followed it up Monday with a threat to wipe out an entire civilization “never to be brought back again” if Iran didn’t comply.

Carlson called Trump threatening Iran’s civilian infrastructure “a war crime” and said his message on Sunday was “vile on every level.” Kelly on her SiriusXM show said she was “sick of this shit.”

“Can’t he just behave like a normal human?” she said Tuesday.

The opposition further intensified in the wake of a New York Times report that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressed his case for military action against Iran to Trump in a February meeting in the White House Situation Room — using arguments that, according to the report, were met with skepticism from US intelligence agencies and senior Cabinet members. Critics of the war on the right have seized on it as evidence that Trump was drawn into the conflict by Netanyahu and not American interests. Even some MAGA stalwarts, like the conservative influencer Benny Johnson, have expressed alarm over the dynamics described in the report.

A ceasefire deal Trump announced ahead of Tuesday’s deadline has done little to appease these objections — and has sparked new fury from those who initially defended Trump’s war. Longtime Iran hardliners on the right, including Fox News’ Mark Levin, are lamenting that Trump appears willing to back away from military action that could further cripple the country.

“Everybody says no regime change,” Levin said. “Then the regime survives in one form or another. The fundamentalists survive. … But if we can’t do (regime change) because of the political winds, if we cannot do it for other reasons, then how are we going to keep them in a box?”

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist and skeptic of the war, mocked Levin’s objections during Wednesday’s broadcast of his popular television show and podcast, “War Room.” But he also acknowledged that the ceasefire agreement appeared flimsy and exceedingly deferential to Iran, a prime concern of Levin.

Later, he lamented that the events playing out this week served as a distraction from the issues that he said Trump’s supporters expected him to solve.

“All this is going to do at the end of this,” Bannon said, “is make this nation more populist and more nationalistic.”

Updated 12 hr agoReligionFederal agencies

See all topics

By

René Marsh

US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins attends the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord Texan Resort and Convention Center in Grapevine, Texas, on March 28, 2026. Callaghan O’Hare/Reuters

A “Christ is Risen” Easter message sent by the secretary of agriculture has sparked backlash inside the department, angering some of its nearly 100,000 employees and prompting a formal complaint against the secretary for the religious message.

Employees at the department’s 4,500 offices across the country received an email From Secretary Brooke Rollins on Sunday: “Happy Easter — He is Risen indeed!”

Rollins told all department staff it was a day to celebrate “the foundation of our faith.”

“From the foot of the Cross on Good Friday to the stone rolled away from the now empty tomb, sin has been destroyed. Jesus has been raised from the dead. And God has granted each of us victory and new life,” the email read.

The complaint, obtained by CNN, was filed with the Office of Special Counsel by Ethan Roberts, the president of a local union for federal employees who is also an employee at USDA. The OSC is an independent federal investigative agency that investigates whistleblower complaints from federal employees with claims of violations of laws, rules or regulations.

In his complaint, Roberts said the email was a “pro-Christianity sermon” sent to all USDA employees on Easter Day, claiming it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Roberts added that the email “eroded the separation of church and state.”

Roberts told CNN the secretary’s email speaking of “sin” and “Hell” made him “feel as if that was my fate if I did not treat Easter as holy as Secretary Rollins does.”

The complaint calls for the retraction of the Easter email and a stop to any further department emails that celebrate or endorse religious holidays.

A USDA spokesperson told CNN in a statement, “The Secretary is within her rights to send a message to employees and the public on the Easter holiday. Just like Secretaries of Agriculture and Presidents have in the past.”

Another USDA employee who requested anonymity to speak freely told CNN they were upset when they got the email.

“Using government resources to promote one religion contradicts what I learned about how America was founded on separation of church and state,” the employee said. “Even though many of my coworkers were also celebrating Passover, the email didn’t address any other religious traditions.”

The Freedom from Religion Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for the separation of church and state told CNN it fielded complaints about Rollins’ Easter message from nearly 30 USDA employees who expressed outrage, describing the message as “inappropriate and insulting.” The organization said it sent a formal letter to the secretary demanding she stop “promoting your personal religious beliefs through official communications.”

Under President Donald Trump, moments like this, rare in recent administrations, are becoming commonplace. Americans have been encouraged to pray for an hour each week. Some government agencies have opened their meetings with prayer or hosted regular faith services. Bible verses and Christian imagery now appear on official government social media accounts.

A series of faith initiatives championed by the White House have led to a systematic religious revival within the government’s operations, culture and policy.

This story has been updated with additional details.

By

Stephanie Yang

7 hr ago

Bulk carriers anchored at Muscat Anchorage in Muscat, Oman, on March 25. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which conveys about 20% of the world’s oil and gas, remains highly restricted during the ongoing ceasefire. Elke Scholiers/Getty Images/FileThe Middle EastOil & gasAsiaChina

See all topics

The US has negotiated a fragile ceasefire that could reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but Asian allies that depend on the waterway are already being forced to rely on others for energy security– to the benefit of America’s top adversaries.

After the initial airstrikes by the US and Israel in February, Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil flows.

Allies in Europe and Asia were not informed in advance of the war or asked to take part from the outset. Nonetheless as the price of crude oil surged, US President Donald Trump lambasted other nations for not sending military support and said those that need it should “take the lead” and “go get your own oil.”

They now seem to be heeding his words, particularly in the Asia-Pacific, whose economies suddenly lost their biggest source of energy imports and have been hit first by the historic global oil crisis.

US allies Japan, Thailand, South Korea and the Philippines have looked to broker deals with Iran to ensure the safe delivery of oil and natural gas. Asian countries are also buying up more natural resources from US rival Russia, while China has signaled its willingness to help alleviate fuel shortages and deepen energy collaboration with nearby economies such as Australia, the Philippines, and even Taiwan.

On Tuesday, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire under the condition that the Strait of Hormuz be reopened, providing a reprieve from climbing crude prices. However, the material impact of the agreement remained unclear.

While the US touted its success in reopening the strait, Iran said the country’s military would continue to coordinate the passage of vessels during the ceasefire, and warned that the war was not over. Since the ceasefire announcement, only a trickle of tankers have passed through the narrow passage which, before the war began, was a free and open international waterway.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of peace talks, Trump’s decision to go to war has reshuffled energy trade and partnerships in the region, with long-term implications for the US and the nature of its alliances in Asia.

An oil tanker is docked unloading crude oil at the port in Qingdao, in China’s eastern Shandong province, on April 7, 2026. Stringer/AFP/Getty Images

“The crisis has exposed a hard truth about US power,” said Roc Shi, a professor at the University of Technology Sydney whose research focuses on energy issues in Asia and Australia. “Despite decades of security guarantees, the US was unable to prevent the closure of the world’s most critical energy chokepoint. Asian allies are now quietly asking whether the US security umbrella extends to energy supply routes.”

Shi said governments in Asia will prioritize diversifying their energy sources, which includes purchasing more oil and natural gas from both the US, the world’s largest producer on both counts, as well as its rivals.

“The crisis is simultaneously strengthening and straining the US‑Asia alliance,” said Shi. “Allies will now hedge – buying more from America, but also building their own resilience.”

Challenged allies

The war in Iran has had a particularly pronounced effect in Asia, where countries have been trying to conserve energy while rushing to secure more supplies. But the differing responses highlight a broad range of vulnerability among Asian nations, researchers said, prompting those most exposed to the oil crisis to seek their own solutions, even at the risk of alienating the US.

The Philippines was the first country to declare a state of national energy emergency. It is now buying Russian oil for the first time in five years, has negotiated with Iran to assure safe transport of its own vessels through the strait and resumed diplomatic talks with China over energy cooperation, despite the two sides’ heated territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Japan, which holds one of the world’s largest strategic petroleum reserves, released a historic amount of emergency stockpiles last month to cushion the blow of higher oil prices. However, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi said this week that she was working to arrange talks with Iran’s president, while Japan’s public broadcaster NHK reported that a handful of Japan-linked ships have recently passed through the Strait of Hormuz.

Oil storage tanks at Fuji Oil Nakasode Crude Storage Base, one of the sites designated for releasing Japan’s national oil reserves, in Sodegaura, Chiba prefecture, on March 25. Yuichi Yamakazi/AFP/Getty Images

People refill their vehicles with fuel at a petrol station, following the arrival of Russian crude in the country amid a global energy crisis, in Limay, Bataan Province, Philippines, on April 2. Daniel Ceng/Anadolu/Getty Images

South Korea, another US ally, said Friday it would send a special envoy to Iran to discuss the safe passage of its vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. It has already sent envoys to Kazakhstan, Oman and Saudi Arabia to secure supplies of crude oil and naphtha, a petroleum byproduct needed for producing petrochemicals like plastic and gasoline. The country has also taken advantage of a temporary waiver on US sanctions to buy naphtha from Russia for the first time in four years.

“The approach of each country will represent a combination of leverage, capability, and urgency,” said Robert Walker, an economist with the Indo-Pacific Development Centre at the Sydney-based Lowy Institute. China, which could quickly liaise with Iran, was one of the first to see its own cargo safely through the strait. “Diplomatic capability and access matters in a crisis,” Walker added.

John Coyne, director of the National Security Program at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said that while the energy crisis will likely spur greater regional collaboration, it could also strain US bilateral relationships.

“The struggle point will be how the US responds if there’s a move to take more Russian oil, or those negotiations of what countries are allowed to take crude oil from the strait and from Iran,” Coyne said. “There’s a number of unknowns here. Will Iran be happy for that crude oil to be refined and sent to, say, Australia? And how will the Americans respond to that?”

The pressure on American allies is not limited to Asia. France and Italy are also negotiating directly with Iran to allow their ships through the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran has launched airstrikes against US Gulf allies including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain in retaliation, targeting US military bases and energy infrastructure.

Rocket trails are seen in the sky above the Israeli center coastal city of Netanya amid a fresh barrage of Iranian missile attacks on March 9. Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images

Smoke rises from a high-rise building following an Iranian drone attack in Kuwait City on March 8. AFP/Getty Images

Material advantage

For Russia and Iran, major economies’ desperate search for fuel has resulted in an inadvertent windfall.

Those oil industries had been sanctioned by the US in an attempt to stymie military and nuclear development. But as gas prices rose at home, the Trump administration waived sanctions through mid-April on products that were already loaded onto vessels.

That decision could have brought Russia between $3.3 billion and $5 billion in additional oil revenue in March, according to a post by Roxanna Vigil, an international affairs fellow in national security for the Council on Foreign Relations.

A separate analysis by Louis-Vincent Gave, founding partner at the research firm Gavekal, said that Iran had gone from exporting about 1 million barrels per day for $40 to $45 a barrel before the war, to about 1.7 million barrels for over $100 a barrel. If Iran is charging ships $2 million to pass through the strait as some reports suggest, that could bring in another $60 million per week, Gave noted.

“The White House is caught in a trap of its own making if the April expiration dates arrive without lower oil prices,” Vigil wrote. “The Trump administration will soon face a difficult choice that will now be scrutinized by both sides of the aisle: double down by renewing the waivers that benefit US adversaries or reimpose sanctions on a market the United States helped destabilize.”

President Donald Trump stands in the Blue Room of the White House on April 6. Brendam Smialowski/Pool/AFP/Getty Images

Another country that could indirectly benefit from the oil supply shock is China.

With inroads among major oil producers, large crude stockpiles and an extensive renewable energy sector, China is better positioned to weather the energy crisis than its Asian neighbors. That has afforded the country more geopolitical leverage at a time when the US is actively looking to counter its influence in the region.

In order to protect its domestic industries, China has imposed controls on fuel exports but said it would work with Southeast Asian nations to address energy shortages. China also offered energy security to Taiwan, which it claims as part of its territory, if the island democracy agreed to peaceful unification. And on Tuesday, Chinese Premier Li Qiang discussed deepening cooperation on clean energy and electric vehicles in a phone call with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

“China has the reserves and the overland pipelines to be Asia’s energy anchor,” said Shi from the University of Technology Sydney. “So far, it has not articulated its plan. If it does properly, the region’s geopolitical map will shift with it.”

Analysis by

Stephen Collinson

Apr 8, 2026The Middle EastDonald Trump

See all topics

President Donald Trump, accompanied by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine, speaks with reporters at the White House on Monday. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

The day began with Donald Trump warning a “whole civilization” of 90 million Iranians could die.

It ended with the world — after tense hours fearfully hanging on his every outburst — trying to understand his climbdown.

One extraordinary by-product of the 40-day war is the difficulty in judging the relative credibility of statements not just from Iran’s brutal rulers, but, at times, also from the president of the United States. The fog descended again Tuesday, about 80 minutes before Trump’s deadline to destroy every Iranian bridge and power plant, when he claimed a win on Truth Social and postponed a new escalation.

“A double-sided CEASEFIRE!” Trump proclaimed, adding that in return for his two-week halt to bombing, Iran agreed to the “COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz.”

If hundreds of stranded oil tankers can soon escape the Persian Gulf, cataclysmic damage to the global economy — an issue that has already helped tank Trump’s approval ratings — might be averted. Stock futures immediately spiked on the hopeful news. “It is an Honor to have this Longterm problem close to resolution,” Trump wrote.

That’s not how the Iranians see it. In a 10-point plan described by the country’s Supreme National Security Council, Tehran demanded the right to coordinate all cross-strait traffic to secure “unique economic and geopolitical standing” over a critical oil choke point.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also made clear Iran won’t relax any of its leverage even during the two-week ceasefire. “For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations,” he wrote on X. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency, meanwhile, reported that Iran and Oman plan to charge transit fees for ships passing through the strait during the ceasefire.

Trump derided the Supreme National Security Council statement as a fraud and attacked CNN for reporting it.

It will be up to Pakistan, which brokered an agreement for the US and Iran to hold talks starting Friday, to clear this up — if the deal lasts that long. The Islamabad government, which has shrewdly used its friendships in Tehran and Washington, must fashion off-ramps neither Trump nor Iran could find themselves.

The great contradiction lurking in Trump’s claimed triumph

Even the possibility that many lives can be saved — those of Iranians, US service personnel and civilians caught in the crossfire throughout the Middle East — is a blessing. The prospect that the grave global consequences of the war could be mitigated will also alleviate the gloom of six alarming weeks.

But Tuesday’s first details of the diplomacy offer reasons for pessimism.

Any outcome, temporary or permanent, that handed Iran control of the strait would mean the most lasting result of Trump’s war would be leverage it could use to hold the global economy hostage at any time. While the US and Israel say, probably correctly, that their joint attacks have demolished most of Iran’s missile programs and military forces, ending the war with an Iranian chokehold over the strait would be a strategic disaster and a defeat for Trump.

It is too early to tell whether the fearsome joint air assault has loosened the control of the Iranian clerical regime — or just handed power to more ruthless leaders.

President Donald Trump departs after speaking with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on Monday. Alex Brandon/AP/File

As always with Trump, reactions to Tuesday’s ceasefire agreement were conditioned by the highly emotional and polarized emotions that he inspires.

Some critics lampooned another TACO (“Trump always chickens out”) moment. On the surface, the president’s decision is just another where he adopted a maximalist position only to back down in a way that erased his red lines and raised doubts about his credibility. If Iran does indeed get to control access to the strait during the two-week ceasefire, it would underscore perceptions that Trump has no good options in a war that slipped out of his control and that he is desperate to end.

Trump fans, however, will credit the president with snatching yet another win with the shock negotiating tactics of a real estate shark. Conservative media quickly swung into action to spin up a Trumpian triumph. The implication is that Trump’s unorthodox threats drove Iran to the negotiating table.

But the reverberations of a scary day Tuesday went beyond the critical details of who will control the strait, which was open to free navigation before the war.

On one level, Trump was in his element. He was the critical actor in a storm of his own making, spinning the planet around his own axis.

“Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said, as the hours dragged in a countdown to doom.

Yet Trump’s chilling threat, delivered over social media, that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” crossed a line that no American president had previously dared or wanted to approach. His qualifier that “I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will” did little to calm nerves.

The comment, which seemed barely believable at first, posed the most acute issues yet about 79-year-old Trump’s temperament and judgment. It might have reflected only the president’s frustration over the war — one of those reflexes that his supporters say should be taken seriously but not literally.

But the words of presidents matter. Even publicly speculating about the mass killing of civilians is dangerous and inappropriate. The threat raised an implicit question for those around Trump and the country: Is this acceptable conduct for the commander in chief of the world’s most lethal superpower?

Notwithstanding his decision not to carry out the escalation, his words suggested the president has crossed moral and behavioral thresholds never approached by his modern predecessors. They underscored how the US, for decades regarded as a pillar of stability, is now — as personified by its president — the world’s most volatile force.

Trump’s threat to Iran sent shock waves through across the political spectrum, drawing condemnation from MAGA personalities and demands from Democrats for the invoking of the 25th Amendment to remove him from office.

Even some Republicans pushed back. “This type of rhetoric is an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, wrote on X. And Wisconsin GOP Sen. Ron Johnson, normally a strong Trump supporter, said the president would lose him if he attacked civilian targets in Iran.

Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned in a statement that Trump had “become as fanatical as the regime leaders in Tehran.”

Demonstrators gather near the White House to protest the war in Iran on Tuesday in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty Images

The constitutional questions raised by a scary day

Trump’s day on the brink also raised grave constitutional questions exemplified by Leavitt’s statement that “only the President knows … what he will do.”

This is not how the American system of checks and balances and divided power is supposed to work. For many hours, a president who believes he has unrestrained authority was credibly believed to be on the verge of killing millions of foreign civilians in a war for which he sought no congressional authorization; which has been plagued by vague, contradictory rationales; and for which he has no apparent exit strategy.

In years to come, Trump’s vise in Iran may be seen as a cautionary tale of what happens when a president appoints a pliant Cabinet and when a one-party Congress abdicates its duties of oversight.

A traumatic day underscored the perils inherent in the president’s erratic, unorthodox leadership style.

His tendency to personalize every clash, to over-invest US strategic prestige and to adopt extreme positions pushed the latest crisis to a dangerous precipice.

His decision to step back — while welcome, in averting greater human tragedy — left the United States and its global allies that rely on an uninterrupted flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz in potentially worse positions.

Trump may also have reinforced impressions among adversaries that he’ll always back off and that his severe threats are not serious.

But one day, he may confront an enemy with the capacity to do far more immediate damage to the United States. In such a scenario, careless escalations and mixed signals could prove catastrophic.