Author

admin

Browsing

Kim Kardashian fans are going to have to wait a little longer for the highly anticipated NikeSKIMS line.

The activewear line will launch later this year instead of in the spring, like the companies had originally announced, because of production delays, according to a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to speak candidly. The person added that the delays are internal and not because of a supplier or shipping issue.

No date has been determined for the new launch date, the person added.

The person also said the relationship with Kardashian and the brand is still strong and that everyone is on the same page, but they want to make sure they take their time and get the products right.

Nike first announced the Skims partnership in February and said it would include apparel, footwear and accessories. Since then, Heidi O’Neill, one of the key leaders behind the partnership, has left the company.

New Nike CEO Elliott Hill has been betting big on the Skims brand as he looks to re-invigorate the company after recent declines in sales and its business. For Skims, which was last valued at $4 billion, the partnership with Nike brings a growth opportunity as it expands into athleisure.

Nike’s stock is down more than 20% year-to-date.

“The origin of NikeSKIMS is rooted in a desire to bring something new and unexpected to an industry that is craving something different, and to invite a new generation of women into fitness with disruptive product designed to meet their needs in both performance and style,” the company said about the line when they introduced it.

The news was first reported by Bloomberg.

Nike and SKIMS collaboration featuring Kim Kardashian, Co-Founder and Chief Creative Officer, SKIMS.Courtesy: Nike Inc.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS

Dow Jones futures dropped sharply on Thursday, with investors growing increasingly uneasy about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran and the possibility of direct US military involvement

At the time of publication, Dow futures were 0.46% down, hovering around 42,000 level. The futures of other indices like S&P 500 and Nasdaq also traded in red on Thursday.

The dip came amid persistent inflation risks in the US and signals from the Federal Reserve that it will keep policy restrictive for longer, adding to the market concerns.

US President Donald Trump made some vague remarks on Wednesday around possible US strikes on Iran, which fed the anxiety of investors and pushed up the uncertainties in the market. 

These developments have triggered a classic flight to safety, with investors pulling back from equities and seeking refuge in assets like the US dollar. 

Fed holds rates, but inflation fears persist

The US Fed’s latest decision has only added to market jitters. In its June 2025 policy meeting, the central bank kept its benchmark interest rate unchanged at 4.25%-4.50%. 

While the decision was widely expected, the Fed’s outlook around inflation didn’t go well with the investors. 

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell called the current policy “modestly restrictive” and stressed the need to keep rates higher until inflation comes back down to target levels. 

The market sentiment may be dampened further as the central bank raised its interest rate forecasts for 2026 and 2027, now projecting rates of 3.6% and 3.4%. 

This seems to be a clear sign that borrowing costs could stay elevated longer than previously thought. 

Holiday closure and thin trading

US stock markets are closed on Thursday for Juneteenth, which meant trading volumes were lighter than usual and price moves in futures were more dramatic.

The investors kept a close watch on global developments, knowing that any major news could set the tone when markets reopen. With fewer traders in the market, any big geopolitical news or economic data may have an even bigger impact, making sharp swings more likely. 

Global ripples: Not just a US story

The risk-off mood wasn’t just limited to the US markets as investors across the world are holding their breath amid developing geopolitical situation. 

Asian markets slipped on Thursday as benchmark indices shed gains accumulated over the week. Japan’s Nikkei slipped 1.02% down while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index dropped 1.48%. 

The traders remained cautious in India as both Sensex and Nifty 50 remained flat throughout the day and ended on a muted note. 

Meanwhile, both oil prices and the US dollar moved higher, reflecting a global rush to safe-haven assets as uncertainty spread across markets. 

With the situation still evolving, investors everywhere remained on high alert, watching closely for any signs of escalation that could ripple through the world economy. 

 

The post Dow Futures tumble as Israel-Iran conflict stirs market jitters appeared first on Invezz

The United States continued to dominate the global wealth rankings in 2024, adding more than 379,000 new millionaires to bring its total to 23.8 million, according to a new report released by UBS.

The country now accounts for nearly 40% of the world’s millionaire population, reinforcing its position as the leading generator of private wealth globally.

UBS said the US surge was supported by a strong 2024 for Wall Street and a stable dollar through most of the year.

The number of American millionaires rose 1.5% year-on-year, with an average of more than 1,000 new millionaires created each day.

Mainland China retained the second spot, registering a 2.3% rise to 6.3 million millionaires.

Turkey posted the highest percentage increase, with its millionaire population rising 8.4% to 87,000.

Overall, the global number of millionaires rose by more than 684,000 to nearly 60 million, aided largely by rising real estate values.

Dollar volatility and trade uncertainty weigh on 2025 outlook for US wealth creation

Despite the gains in 2024, 2025 has begun on shakier footing.

The US dollar has fallen around 9% so far this year, amid concerns over President Donald Trump’s renewed trade wars and fears of a domestic slowdown.

These developments have triggered volatility in financial markets and left economists cautious.

UBS economist James Mazeau told CNBC it’s too early to say whether US household wealth will grow at a slower rate this year. 

A weaker dollar actually lifts wealth in non-dollar countries. The US might not lose wealth in nominal terms, especially if equities recover.

He also noted that US housing prices have remained resilient and stocks could finish 2025 higher than current levels.

“This year could be lower than last year, but it doesn’t mean we’ll have a reversal in fortune and see negative wealth creation,” he said.

I don’t think the engines of growth are dead in the United States — far from it.

Wealth remains concentrated, even among billionaires

While the millionaire class continues to grow, wealth remains heavily concentrated.

UBS found that an estimated 60 million millionaires worldwide hold $226.47 trillion combined, which is nearly half of the world’s global wealth.

Out of these, just 2,860 individuals qualify as billionaires, controlling $15.7 trillion in assets.

The very top 15 centibillionaires, each worth over $100 billion, hold a combined $2.4 trillion.

Even among billionaires, Mazeau said, inequality is notable.

“We do see that there is wealth concentration or, I would say, wealth inequality, even amongst billionaires,” Mazeau said.

He attributed most of the concentration to the outperformance of the tech sector and the rise of “mega tech entrepreneurs.”

Aldo, while the United States accounts for nearly 40% of the world’s millionaires, Luxembourg and Switzerland have a greater density of wealth.

In both nations, more than one in seven adults holds assets worth at least $1 million, according to UBS.

Some regions, including Japan, saw declines in millionaire numbers, with Japan losing 33,000 due to demographic shifts.

Meanwhile, Singapore, Qatar, Greece, and Poland added significantly to their ranks, while billionaire wealth dropped sharply in the Netherlands and Uruguay.

“Everyday millionaires” outpace billionaires in total wealth

UBS emphasized that most of the wealth gains are happening in the middle tiers.

The number of individuals with between $1 million and $5 million—the so-called “everyday millionaires”—has quadrupled since 2000 and now totals about 52 million.

Together, they control more wealth than all the billionaires in the world.

“It is often overlooked how much wealth is rising and going toward the middle of the pack,” said Mazeau.

He added that limited data on those in the $50 million to $1 billion range distorts public perceptions of wealth inequality.

With global wealth expanding and new trends emerging in asset ownership, UBS expects the composition of the world’s wealthy to keep evolving—even if volatility and policy shifts create bumps along the way.

The post Global millionaire count reaches 60 million, UBS reports; US home to 40% appeared first on Invezz

X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, is preparing to allow users to conduct investment and trading activities directly on its app, according to its chief executive, Linda Yaccarino.

Speaking at the Cannes Lions advertising festival, Yaccarino said the company is advancing its ambitions to transform the platform into a comprehensive financial ecosystem, echoing owner Elon Musk’s vision of an “everything app.”

“You’ll be able to come to X and be able to transact your whole financial life on the platform,” Yaccarino told the Financial Times.

“And that’s whether I can pay you for the pizza that we shared last night or make an investment or a trade. So that’s the future.”

Musk’s superapp plans

As part of this expansion, Yaccarino revealed that X is exploring the launch of its own credit or debit card.

While she did not provide a timeline, she indicated that such a product could be introduced as early as this year.

The move is consistent with Musk’s stated aim of replicating aspects of China’s WeChat, a multipurpose platform that integrates messaging, payments, and e-commerce.

Musk acquired Twitter in 2022 for $44 billion and has since been repositioning the company under its new identity, X.

X had earlier announced plans for a peer-to-peer payment service called X Money.

The service is expected to launch first in the United States in partnership with Visa, and later expand to other markets.

Yaccarino said X Money would allow users to store funds, tip content creators, and purchase merchandise directly within the app.

Challenges remain for X

X’s expansion into financial services is likely to trigger significant regulatory scrutiny.

Offering investment and trading capabilities would require compliance with a range of financial regulations, including those governing licensing, anti-money laundering, and consumer protection.

The company has not disclosed how it plans to navigate these challenges or which regulatory bodies it is engaging with.

The push into financial services comes as X continues to grapple with the fallout from Musk’s controversial takeover.

Following the acquisition, many advertisers suspended spending on the platform, citing concerns over content moderation and the risk of their ads appearing next to objectionable material.

Advertising has historically accounted for the bulk of X’s revenues, and the company has struggled to stabilise its financials in the wake of the exodus.

Yaccarino rejected a recent Wall Street Journal report that alleged X threatened to sue brands that did not resume advertising.

The report claimed companies such as Verizon and Ralph Lauren returned to the platform after receiving legal threats.

Yaccarino called the report “hearsay” and questioned its credibility.

“It’s unnamed sources, random third-party commenters,” she said in the interview.

In response to the advertising pullback, X filed a federal antitrust lawsuit last year against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a coalition of brands and advertising agencies.

The suit accuses the group of orchestrating what X described as an “illegal boycott” under the guise of promoting online safety.

X has since amended the lawsuit, removing some companies from the complaint.

Unilever, for instance, was dropped from the case after it resumed advertising on the platform in October 2023.

The post X eyes trading, investment tools in next step toward Musk’s super app vision: report appeared first on Invezz

Berkshire Hathaway shares (BRK.A) have fallen nearly 10% since its CEO, Warren Buffett, announced his decision to step down from the company.

Berkshire tumbles after the announcement

Since May 3, the date when Buffett announced his plans to transition from CEO, the conglomerate’s stock has experienced a decline exceeding 10%. 

This is in contrast to the S&P 500 index, which has gained 5% in the same period. 

Before the announcement, Berkshire Hathaway was outperforming the markets with a 20% gain in the year till then against the S&P 500’s 3% decline. 

Buffett Premium 

Part of this sell-off is attributed to what is often termed the “Buffett premium.” 

This concept refers to the additional value investors have historically been willing to assign to Berkshire Hathaway’s shares, a valuation underpinned by the billionaire’s unparalleled investment track record and his exceptional acumen in capital allocation. 

As the Oracle of Omaha steps away from the company, investors might be fearing the company might be losing its edge.

Although Buffett has said his successor, Greg Abel, would be able to carry on the company’s performance and its culture, investors still have reacted sharply to the announcement. 

Berkshire investors’ reaction to the impact

Berkshire investors had mixed reactions to the development. Investors were surprised by the extent of the fall, however, while some of them think the stock can still maintain momentum till Buffett’s term ends, most are predicting it will decline after his exit.

David Kass, a finance professor at the University of Maryland and a long-standing Berkshire shareholder, expressed surprise at the magnitude of the underperformance, especially given that Buffett is not stepping down as CEO until December 31. 

Kass told CNBC that this relative decline could intensify, potentially approaching 20% in the coming weeks, as some shareholders may react to the stock’s recent price trajectory.

Kevin Heal, a Berkshire analyst at Argus Research, commented on the situation, suggesting that the immediate downturn in the first few days following the announcement was likely connected to the “Buffett premium” and potentially algorithm-driven trading. 

He further posited that subsequent declines in the stock price were more reflective of the performance of Berkshire’s underlying public and private assets.

Meyer Shields, another Berkshire analyst from Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, estimates that a “Buffett premium” of 5% to 10% may still be embedded in the stock. 

This remaining premium, he suggests, reflects the ongoing confidence among some investors in Buffett’s continued presence as chairman of the board. 

Despite the recent dips, Kass indicated that an additional decline in share value might occur after Buffett’s full departure at the end of the year. 

Impact of Q1 results

Beyond the influence of the “Buffett premium,” a contributing factor to the stock’s recent performance appears to be Berkshire Hathaway’s first-quarter earnings report. 

The company’s operating earnings, which encompass its wholly-owned insurance and railroad businesses, saw a 14% decrease, falling to $9.64 billion during the initial three months of the year.

The decline was mainly due to a 48.6% plunge in insurance-underwriting profit. 

The company’s cash pile increased to $348 billion in the quarter. 

The confluence of Buffett’s announced transition, the market’s re-evaluation of the “Buffett premium,” and a dip in first-quarter operating earnings appears to be collectively influencing Berkshire Hathaway’s stock performance. 

While the short-term trajectory remains under scrutiny, the long-term impact of this leadership shift and market recalibration will continue to be a key focus for investors.

The post Will Berkshire Hathaway stock fall more due to Buffett’s retirement? appeared first on Invezz

Circle stock price surged to a new record high after the US Senate passed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS) and the ongoing stablecoin demand. CRCL shares closed at $200, up by over 300% from its listing price.

Cashing in on stablecoin growth

Circle stock price has surged after going public as investors focused on the GENIUS Act, which passed in the Senate this week. There are rising odds that the bill will pass in the House of Representatives since some Senate Democrats supported it.

The GENIUS Act is a bullish catalyst for Circle stock for two main reasons. First, it brings in the regulatory clarity that the stablecoin market needs without adding any undue costs. For example, the bill mandates issuers to hold liquid government bonds and do regular reporting, which Circle does already. 

Second, the GENIUS Act may make USDC gain market share if Tether refuses to comply as it did with MiCA. Such a move will force companies like Coinbase to convert user holdings from USDT to USDC as some European exchanges have done. 

Circle Payments Network is a key catalyst

The other bullish catalyst for the Circle stock price is the Circle Payments Network (CPN), a business that seeks to disrupt the financial services industry. 

CPN partners with banks and payment service companies to offer them a cheaper and faster approach to send money internationally.

Presently, these companies use SWIFT technology, a process that is expensive and slow. That’s because it uses correspondent banks and other processes. As a result, it is normal for a transaction to take a few hours or days to complete. 

The Circle Payment Network avoids this lengthy process by using USDC. In it, a company executes a payment using the stablecoin, which is then completed within a few seconds. USDC transactions cost cents, making them ideal for all parties.

The CPN business model also has a chance to disrupt traditional companies like Visa and Mastercard that make billions of dollars a year in payment transaction costs. 

Indeed, it has been reported that companies like Walmart and Amazon are considering leveraging stablecoins to cut these costs. One way for them to do that would be to partner with Circle, which already runs a popular stablecoin.

Risks for buying Circle stock

There are risks for buying Circle stock at this level. First, there are signs that USDC holdings are not growing. CoinGecko data shows that the stablecoin has a market cap of $61.45 billion, lower than the April high of $62 billion. 

Circle needs its USD supply to continue growing for it to supercharge its growth. Higher stablecoin growth means that it will generate higher investment income. 

The other risk is that the company is now highly valued since its market cap stands at over $33 billion, 54% of its total stablecoin assets. 

Further, the Federal Reserve has signaled that it will execute two interest rate cuts this year and more in 2024 and 2025. Lower rates will impact its revenue and profitability growth. 

Circle stock price will also face risks of a pullback when investors start to take profits. Cathie Wood’s Ark Invest has already dumped shares worth millions of dollars, and more investors will follow. 

The other top risk is that the company’s lockup expiry will happen in the next few months. Historically, recently IPOed companies crash or experience volatility ahead of expiry, letting insiders dump their shares. 

Finally, the ongoing momentum will likely ease now that the Circle stock price has become highly overbought. 

The post Circle stock price forecast: opportunities and risks appeared first on Invezz

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a conservative fiscal hawk who refused to sign onto President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill,’ is building an unlikely bipartisan coalition of lawmakers resisting the United States’ involvement in the conflict between Israel and Iran. 

‘This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,’ Massie said in a social media post announcing the War Powers Resolution that he introduced with Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna of California on Tuesday. 

Massie, whom Trump threatened to primary during the House GOP megabill negotiations, invited ‘all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution.’ By Tuesday night, the bipartisan bill had picked up 27 cosponsors, including progressive ‘Squad’ members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

Across the political aisle, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., signaled her support, writing that Americans want an affordable cost of living, safe communities and quality education ‘not going into another foreign war.’

The bill’s original co-sponsors also include progressive Democrat Reps.Pramila Jayapal, Summer Lee, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, who called it unconstitutional for ‘Trump to go to war without a vote in Congress.’

The War Powers Resolution would ‘remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic State of Iran’ and direct Trump to ‘terminate’ the deployment of American troops against Iran without an ‘authorized declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military forces against Iran.’

Lawmakers who oppose the United States’ joining the escalating conflict in the Middle East have sounded off on the unconstitutionality of Trump striking Iran without congressional approval. Congress has the sole power to declare war under Article I of the Constitution. 

‘The American people do not want to be dragged into another disastrous conflict in the Middle East. I’m proud to lead this bipartisan War Powers Resolution with Rep. Massie to reassert that any military action against Iran must be authorized by Congress,’ Khanna said. 

The president told reporters on Wednesday morning that he is weighing whether to sign off on military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,’ Trump said. 

Trump called for Iran’s ‘UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!’ on Truth Social on Tuesday, and said the United States won’t strike Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ‘at least not for now,’ but signaled America’s ‘patience is wearing thin.’ 

On the sixth consecutive night of strikes between Israel and Iran, Iran warned that the United States joining forces with Israel would mean an ‘all-out war,’ as Israel bombarded sites overnight it says would have allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium, as well as attack Israeli forces.

Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military leaders last week, which the Islamic Republic considered a ‘declaration of war’ and has since launched its own strikes against Israel. 

Thousands of American troops are based in nearby countries within range of Iran’s weapons, but Trump said on Wednesday that ‘we now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.’

The Jewish State targeted Iran’s nuclear capabilities after months of failed negotiations in the region and heightened concern over Iran developing nuclear weapons. 

But Ali Bahreini, Iran’s ambassador to Geneva, said Iran ‘will continue to produce the enriched uranium as far as we need for peaceful purposes,’ as Israel continues to target Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the bill. 

Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Vice President JD Vance insists Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is still an essential team member in Trump’s ‘coalition’ after President Donald Trump said he ‘didn’t care’ what she’d previously told lawmakers about Iran’s nuclear threat. 

‘DNI Gabbard is a veteran, a patriot, a loyal supporter of President Trump and a critical part of the coalition he built in 2024,’ Vance said in a statement Wednesday to Fox News Digital. 

‘She is an essential member of our team, and we’re grateful for her tireless work to keep America safe from foreign threats.’

Vance and Gabbard have both historically been outspoken leaders of the non-interventionist camp making up the Trump administration. Both historically have backeda foreign policy doctrine that supports minimal interference with other nations’ affairs. 

By comparison, other, more hawkish members of Trump’s Cabinet, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have historically backed military intervention in foreign conflicts. 

Vance has publicly supported Trump as the administration contemplates next steps to address Iran, though. Vance said Tuesday that while those worried about foreign intervention are right to be concerned, Trump has ‘earned some trust on this issue.’ 

‘And having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people’s goals,’ Vance said in a Truth Social post Tuesday. ‘Whatever he does, that is his focus.’

Vance’s statement of support for Gabbard comes after Trump appeared to discount Gabbard’s March Senate Intelligence Committee statements, when she said she believed Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. 

Gabbard told lawmakers in March the intelligence community assessed that Iran was ‘not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,’ she said. 

She did add that ‘Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.’

‘Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance,’ she said during the March hearing. 

Additionally, Gabbard released a video June 10 in which she stated the world was ‘on the brink of nuclear annihilation.’ Politico reportedthat Trump told associates at the White House that Gabbard was out of line and believed the video was an attempt to prevent him from endorsing Israel attacking Iran.

Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, said in a post on X Tuesday that Politico’s story was ‘total clickbait.’ 

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One Monday he believed Iran was ‘very close’ to obtaining a nuclear weapon. When asked specifically about Gabbard’s March testimony, Trump stood firm in his assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 

‘I don’t care what she said,’ Trump said. ‘I think they were very close to having one.’

Still, an official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said in a statement to Fox News Digital Wednesday that Gabbard and the president are aligned on Iran. 

‘Just because Iran is not building a nuclear weapon right now doesn’t mean they aren’t ‘very close’ as President Trump said on Air Force One,’ the official said. ‘POTUS and DNI Gabbard’s statements are congruent.’ 

Gabbard wasn’t invited to Camp David in Maryland to convene with other military officials and Cabinet members in June. However, she was in the White House’s Situation Room Tuesday as Trump kept an eye on updates in the Middle East.  

A White House official told Fox News Digital Tuesday that Trump and Gabbard’s views and statements on the matter are consistent with one another, noting that Gabbard said in March that she believed Iran had the capability to build a nuclear weapon. 

Trump told reporters Wednesday at the White House he hadn’t decided yet whether he would engage the U.S. in strikes targeting Iran but said that the coming days or the ‘next week is going to be very big.’ 

‘Yes, I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble, and they want to negotiate,’ Trump told reporters Wednesday. ‘And I said, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn’t you go?’ I said to people, ‘Why didn’t you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country.’ It’s very sad to watch this.’

Fox News’ Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

President Donald Trump appears to be downplaying talk that some of his long-loyal MAGA supporters are breaking with him over the possibility that the president will order a military strike on Iran.

This amid the nearly week-long daily trading of fire between the Islamic State and Israel, America’s top ally in the Middle East.

‘My supporters are more in love with me today, and I’m more in love with them, more than they even were at election time,’ the president said when asked about a GOP rift between some of his most vocal supporters of his America First agenda, and more traditional national security conservatives.

The president, speaking to reporters on Wednesday on the South Lawn of the White House, added: ‘I may have some people that are a little bit unhappy now, but I have some people that are very happy, and I have people outside of the base that can’t believe that this is happening. They’re so happy.’

Asked if he would order an attack on Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the president said, ‘I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble.’

The prospect of Trump jumping into the incredibly volatile situation in the Middle East is causing plenty of consternation among some of his top political and ideological allies, and creating divisions within MAGA – a rare moment for a movement that’s been firmly supportive of Trump since his 2016 White House campaign.

 

Some top MAGA voices over the past week have argued against any kind of U.S. military involvement with Israel against Iran, arguing it would contradict Trump’s America First policy to keep the nation out of foreign wars. And they say it would repeat the move more than two decades ago by then-President George W. Bush to attack Iraq, which Trump had long criticized on the campaign trail.

Among those speaking out have been conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a top Trump House ally.

Also voicing concerns while remaining firmly supportive of the president are Charlie Kirk — the conservative host and MAGA-world figurehead who leads the influential Turning Point USA — and Steve Bannon, a prominent MAGA ally and former top adviser to Trump’s 2016 campaign.

But there’s been plenty of support for Trump, and for attacking Iran, by other top MAGA world voices.

Also defending Trump this week was Vice President JD Vance, who is a top voice in the America First, isolationist wing of the party.

Vance, speaking to both sides, highlighted Tuesday in a social media post that ‘people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy.’

But Vance stressed that Trump ‘has earned some trust on this issue.’ 

And the vice president added that ‘having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using American military to accomplish the American people’s goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus.’

Trump, speaking with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, said: ‘I don’t want to get involved either, but I’ve been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran can not have a nuclear weapon.’

‘My supporters are for me. My supporters are America First and Make America Great Again. My supporters don’t want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon,’ the president added.

The current debate within the Republican Party wouldn’t have happened before Trump shook up and remade the GOP over the past decade.

Wayne Lesperance, a veteran political scientist and the president of New England College, highlighted that ‘the divide in the GOP can be traced to Trump’s promises to pull America back from its entanglements in the world.’

And Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist who served at the State Department during Trump’s first term, noted that ‘Donald Trump changed the direction of the Republican Party’ when it comes to American military engagements around the world. 

‘That gave him a new coalition and new political power. This new war in the Middle East is certainly threatening that coalition. While we are not yet involved in a war, chances of escalation are dramatically increased and that certainly has ramifications with the MAGA coalition,’ Bartlett warned.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Lawmakers are debating what role Congress should play as the White House weighs its options in Iran. 

Does the legislative body have sole power to declare war, or should that power be ceded to the president?

The back and forth comes as President Donald Trump mulls whether to join Israel in its campaign against Iran or continue pushing for a diplomatic end and return to the negotiating table to hammer out a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.

Helping to ignite the arguments on Capitol Hill are a pair of resolutions in the Senate and House that would require debate and a vote before any force is used against Iran. The measures are designed to put a check on Trump’s power and reaffirm Congress’ constitutional authority.

Senators on both sides of the aisle are divided on whether they believe they have sole authority to authorize a strike against Iran or if Trump can do so on his own volition. A predominant argument is that the entire point of supporting Israel is to prevent the Islamic Republic from creating or acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Israel has been successful in taking out a few pieces of infrastructure that were key to that mission but has yet to do real damage to the highly-fortified Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and would likely need help from the U.S. to crack through the layers of rock shielding the site.

‘The Constitution says the prerogative to declare war, the power to declare war, is solely from the Congress,’ Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky, told Fox News Digital. ‘It can’t originate from the White House. There is no constitutional authority for the president to bomb anyone without asking permission first.’

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.

Then came the War Powers Act of 1973, which sought to further define those roles and ensure that the president has to give Congress notice within 48 hours of the deployment of troops who can only be deployed for 60 days. Notably, Congress has not formally declared war since World War II.

‘There’s really no argument for why he couldn’t obey the Constitution,’ Paul said. ‘Now, my hope is that he won’t do it, his instincts for restraint would prevail.’

Fox News reached out to the White House for comment.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., disagreed with Paul and said he believed Trump had the ability to authorize a strike but acknowledged it was ‘mixed’ and ‘clouded’ when factoring in the War Powers Act.

‘It’s clear that both Congress and the president have a role to play,’ he said. ‘But if you’re suggesting, should the president come to Congress first making that decision, it’s conditioned upon what year you want Congress to make a decision. Sometimes it takes us months, even years, to get nothing done.’

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters he believed Trump was ‘perfectly in his right to do what he’s done so far’ and reiterated that the ultimate goal was to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon.

Senate Republicans have found an unlikely ally among Democrats in Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has vehemently advocated for Israel while his party has wavered.

Fetterman told Fox News Digital he did not believe a strike on Iran was ‘starting a war,’ echoing Thune’s sentiment that ‘we have a very specific mission to destroy the nuclear facilities. That’s not a war. That is a necessary military … exercise to destroy a nuclear facility.’

And Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital ‘it’s never been ruled’ whether the War Powers Act was constitutional, but he noted that the act still gave the president the authority to act as commander in chief.

‘I think it’s pretty much an irrelevant point if President Trump decides to aid Israel with some military action with those bunker-busting bombs,’ Johnson said. ‘It’s well within the timeframe of him coming under some kind of congressional action.’

Still, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who introduced his war powers resolution Monday, believed the measure was gaining momentum among his colleagues.

Kaine told Fox News Digital that, as events have developed, it made the ‘urgency’ of his resolution more apparent. He also expected it would get a vote in the Senate sometime next week. He argued that some Republicans would ‘very much want to be in the middle of hostilities with Iran.’

‘But the interesting thing is, they’ve never introduced a war authorization because their constituents would say, ‘Are you nuts?’’ he said. ‘And, so, they would like the president to do it, but they wouldn’t want to do it themselves.’

When asked if that was a move to shift blame elsewhere, Kaine said, ‘They think it will, but it won’t.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS