Wholesale inflation

Wholesale inflation rose in March to three year-high

By Alicia Wallace

Fast-rising oil prices sent US businesses’ costs higher in March, lifting wholesale inflation to 4%, the highest annual rate in three years, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released Tuesday.

The Producer Price Index, which measures the average change in prices received by producers of goods and services, rose 0.5% from February, the same pace seen the month before. A 15.7% rise in gasoline prices accounted for nearly half of last month’s increase.

“The quickening can be attributed to energy inflation, or the oil shock associated with the war in Iran; but wholesale inflation was on a bit of a tear before the conflict in Iran began, rising month over month since November,” Elizabeth Renter, senior economist at NerdWallet, wrote in commentary issued Tuesday.

She added: “Inflation wasn’t fully under control before the war began, and it’s certainly not contained now.”

Still, despite wholesale inflation hitting a three-year high, the March PPI report fared better than economists had expected. They estimated that the war-driven energy shock would cause prices to jump 1.1% from February, driving the annual rate to 4.6%, according to FactSet consensus estimates.

Instead, Tuesday’s report showed that falling food prices and flat services prices helped to blunt some of the blow from the rapidly rising oil prices.

Another likely factor in the tamer-than-expected numbers was the report’s timing: The BLS asked businesses to provide pricing data as of Tuesday of the week containing the 13th. In this case, that would be March 10, which was just two weeks after the US-Israeli strikes in Iran began.

When excluding the volatile categories of food and energy, core PPI rose just 0.1% for the month, holding the annual rate steady at 3.8%.

The weekslong war in the Middle East has amplified the significance of inflation gauges like PPI, which could indicate how deeply spiking energy costs are rippling through the economy.

The PPI report comes just days after the Consumer Price Index showed Americans are already paying significantly more for a range of goods. The latest CPI report, which captures prices throughout the month and not for any specific data, showed prices rose 0.9% on a monthly basis and 3.3% annually.

PPI serves as a potential bellwether for what consumers could experience in the months to come. Some of the PPI data also feeds into the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, which is what the Federal Reserve uses for its 2% target rate.

PPI categories that feed into the Fed’s preferred gauge showed firmer increases in March, RSM US economist Tuan Nguyen said, noting a 4.1% increase in airfare prices.

“That suggests PCE inflation – particularly the core measure – could accelerate more than the PPI data alone would indicate,” he wrote in note to investors Tuesday.

Nguyen, in an email to CNN, said his firm now expects PCE inflation to rise 0.7% on a monthly basis, bringing the annual rate to 3.5% (versus a 0.4% and 2.8% increase reported for February). Core PCE could rise 0.4% from February, which would keep the annual rate steady at 3%, he wrote.

Pushes back

Top GOP lawmaker pushes back on NASA’s budget cuts

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said it would be a “mistake” to fund exploration while gutting funding for science missions.

By Audrey Decker

A key Republican in charge of funding NASA opposes Trump administration plans to slash the agency’s budget — and signaled that lawmakers plan to reverse those cuts in annual appropriations.

The White House released a budget framework earlier this month that would cut the agency’s current 2026 spending by 23 percent, axing science missions while maintaining funding for its moon landing efforts.

But it would be a “mistake” to fund exploration while gutting funding for science missions, Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) said Sunday on the sidelines of the annual Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Moran said he would try to fund NASA at a similar level to 2026. Last year, the Trump administration also tried to gut NASA’s science programs, but Congress reversed those cuts and handed the agency a $24.4 billion budget in 2026.

“I’m going to try to lead the subcommittee and the whole committee to put us in a position where we are funding NASA, NOAA and our other agencies in a way that is pretty similar to what we did last year,” said Moran, who serves at the chair of the Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice and Science subcommittee which oversees NASA.

The 2027 budget request came just weeks after NASA administrator Jared Isaacman unveiled ambitious plans for the agency — including a $30 billion outpost on the moon.

But Moran said NASA may need a budget boost to fund all of Isaacman’s ambitions.

“One would think if you’re doing things faster and doing big things faster, it would require more resources… I’m open to the conversation about the needed resources, and then make the attempt to achieve that goal,” Moran said.

Moran’s comments came after a roundtable with officials from industry, NASA and Space Force, who lauded the massive increase in military space funding in the 2027 budget, while largely avoiding talking about the proposed cuts to NASA.

Isaacman has since defended the 2027 budget request, and said in a note to employees viewed by POLITICO that the “requested funding levels are sufficient for NASA to meet the nation’s high expectations and deliver on all mission priorities.”

The budget request isn’t “wrong in every way,” Moran said, but he cautioned against “the premise that exploration is the only important aspect.”

Moran’s subcommittee is waiting for more details after receiving NASA’s “skinny budget” and said they don’t have a schedule yet for constructing the CJS appropriations bill. Moran said there is a budget hearing scheduled with Isaacman, but didn’t give a specific date.

Not a Pretty Picture

The War With Iran Offers a Snapshot of Trump World. It’s Not a Pretty Picture.

In a roundtable discussion, POLITICO reporters detail how the war in Iran pulled back the curtain on the Trump administration.

By Ian Ward

As the U.S. and Iran meet over the negotiating table in Pakistan this weekend, the outcome of Operation Epic Fury remains deeply uncertain. But one thing is clear: The war with Iran has offered a remarkably revealing snapshot of how the Trump administration really operates — inside the West Wing, across Washington and around the world.

The picture that emerges is not a pretty one for President Donald Trump.

The conflict has proved messier and more complex than Trump expected. The resulting energy shocks have damaged the domestic economy and alienated allies. The already-limited political support for the war at home has rapidly eroded, even among some of Trump’s erstwhile supporters. And the prospects for reaching a negotiated resolution that could satisfy both parties’ demands are far from certain.

To help decipher this moment, we convened a roundtable of POLITICO reporters who have been closely covering the conflict: White House reporter Diana Nerozzi, senior Congress reporter Meredith Lee Hill, defense reporter Jack Detsch, national security reporter Daniella Cheslow, White House energy reporter Scott Waldman and senior politics reporter Liz Crampton.

Here’s what our reporters have learned about Trump just over a month into the conflict — and what it suggests about where the conflict and the MAGA movement might go from here.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Our panelists

Diana Nerozzi

White House reporter, POLITICO

Liz Crampton

Senior politics reporter, POLITICO

Jack Detsch

Defense reporter, POLITICO

Daniella Cheslow

National security reporter, POLITICO

Scott Waldman

White House energy reporter, POLITICO’s E&E News

Meredith Lee Hill

Senior Congress reporter, POLITICO

Let’s start with some top-line takeaways from everyone: Briefly, what’s the most important thing that we’ve learned about President Donald Trump and/or MAGA from the war with Iran?

Daniella Cheslow: TACO Tuesday lives on! We learned that while he has the stomach for short, targeted operations in Venezuela and last year, in Iran, he does not have the appetite for long-term intervention in Iran. That’s certainly not something MAGA would be interested in — although I was surprised that some of his supporters were OK with him striking Iran alongside Israel in the first days and weeks of this operation.

Diana Nerozzi: We’ve learned just how deep the fissures are in the MAGA movement on foreign conflicts. Some, like former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent, quit the administration, while other previous loyalists like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens got into a fiery exchange with Trump, worse than we’ve ever seen before. This shows that a faction of the GOP is realigning itself, or at least is wavering, and that may have consequences for the future of the party.

Jack Detsch: We learned that despite the “no foreign wars” pledge, this is a hard-power president who is keen to use the tactical power of the U.S. military to go after tough targets that have vexed other presidents. He’s willing to buck the MAGA movement — or bet the farm that they’ll ride along. Whether Trump can tie together military campaigns in Iran and Venezuela into larger U.S. strategic objectives, that’s another problem.

Liz Crampton: In terms of politics, Republicans should not bank on the 2024 coalition that brought Trump back to the White House being permanent: Important blocs are angry with the GOP, particularly young men, and that makes it harder to keep them in the fold in the midterms and in 2028. There’s a much bigger appetite for anti-interventionism in the GOP, and that will determine which candidates will be able to surge in the next presidential election.

Scott Waldman: For years, Trump has tied the success of his policies to gas prices and cutting energy costs. He’s learning now that one quick way to start splintering the coalition that carried you back to the Oval Office is to take actions that cause those prices to spike. Gas prices still have more climbing to do, particularly diesel, which is already near its record high set under Biden. Even the MAGA coalition is reeling from this energy shock and appears to be staying home in some recent primary and special elections.

Meredith Lee Hill: We learned that the vast majority of Republicans in Congress will continue to show deference to Trump on the war and have no interest in serving as a check on Trump’s use of military force abroad. Most publicly argue he’s within his rights as commander-in-chief.

Fascinating — let’s dig into some of this. Diana, it’s been reported that Trump was persuaded to join the war by several figures outside the White House — chiefly Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose case for the war was apparently decisive in persuading Trump to act. Does that align with what you’re hearing?

Nerozzi: The White House has tried to keep the influences under wraps, but reporting suggests that there were voices either pushing or putting doubt on the strikes. Trump himself has said Joint Chiefs chair Gen. Dan Caine and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were more in favor, while Vice President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were more skeptical. The New York Times had a lengthy report showing that Netanyahu was a leading figure, as he was in the Situation Room and told Trump about the positives of the strikes, as well as the feasibility and wins it would bring the U.S. — everything Trump likes.

What about Marco Rubio?

Nerozzi: Rubio’s domain has been mostly in the Western Hemisphere, and we’ve seen him less on Iran. He was definitely one of the people advising Trump, and from my sense, gave a more down-the-middle assessment on what would happen if Trump went ahead with the strikes. He is not going to Pakistan for the peace talks despite being Secretary of State, showing again that he’s not at the forefront of those trying to get in the mix on the war.

Meredith — as you mentioned, congressional Republicans seemed largely content to let Trump do Trump here. What are you hearing about the mood among Republicans now? Is there any second-guessing of Trump’s instincts?

Lee Hill: We’ve seen some reticence from a sliver of Hill Republicans, including some younger GOP lawmakers who have served in the military and campaigned on the promise that Republicans wouldn’tpursue endless wars. Rep. Eli Crane, a Republican from Arizona who is deeply MAGA-aligned, told me his biggest concern is this turning into another long Middle Eastern war. He’s a former Navy SEAL who served five wartime deployments. And he noted that a lot of supporters and members of Congress are concerned about the idea of troops on the ground in the region. A lot of these younger Republicans, especially those who are at risk of losing their seats this fall, came to power raging against the war machine — and now I think they’re grappling with the fear that they’re becoming part of it.

Other concerns I’ve started to hear is over the ceasefire negotiations — and how worried some Hill Republicans are if Iran starts tolling oil and fertilizer shipments long-term, which would be a “worst-case” scenario, one House Republican told us.

Are there any signs that those younger, war-wary Republicans are prepared to act on their concerns in any way?

Lee Hill: I think we’d only see those wary Republicans break with Trump if he deployed troops on the ground in Iran or in a significant way nearby. The real deadline for many of them is not for several more weeks — when the conflict hits the 60-day mark. That’s when at least a small group of them have said they would consider making the rare break with Trump to defy him on a war powers vote.

What about the Democrats, Meredith? Are they unified in pushing back against the war, or are we seeing divisions in their response? If so, who has the upper hand? 

Lee Hill: Democrats now are pretty unified in their pushback of the war. We did see some early splintering among a group of moderate House Democrats who opposed an earlier war powers resolution to rebuke Trump’s initial strikes against Iran. But now that the war is lasting longer than they expected, those Democrats are now backing an effort by Rep. Gregory Meeks, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffriesand others to force another war powers vote in the House next week.

Scott, the severity of the energy shock from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz seems to have caught the administration on the back foot. What does your reporting indicate about how prepared, or not, they were for the consequences of closing the strait?

Waldman: The administration has consistently said for the last month that they were prepared for all possible outcomes and, in particular, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. The military has conducted exercises wargaming the potential closure of Hormuz for many years, across different administrations. Before the war, Caine did warn the president about the likelihood that Hormuz would be closed.

But we’re clearly seeing that the Iranians are now using control of Hormuz as their primary lever of power. All the experts I’ve talked to have said that Iran didn’t fully appreciate how much global economic pain they could cause by closing the strait, and they expect that this will be Iran’s main deterrent going forward rather than nuclear weapons.

While the administration insists that they were fully prepared to deal with the closure of the strait, the fact remains that it’s basically still fully closed and there’s no clear indication as to when it will reopen despite the fragile ceasefire. Iran has stated that they will enact a toll going forward. Trump has urged the owners of oil tankers and other countries to use the strait, but has thus far refused to send any U.S. vessels through it as a demonstration of its openness.

Pentagon team — any thoughts on this?

Cheslow: This brings us to one of the major tension points between Trump and NATO allies. Trump has urged these allies to use force to open the Strait. But this is not something they are interested in. We have been seeing some very sharp words from France and from Spain, for instance, on the closure of the strait. By and large, European countries don’t want to secure the strait during active conflict. You do see some eastern European countries being more open to helping the U.S., but the three largest European economies — the UK, Germany, France — have been a lot colder. 

Scott, there seems to be a real possibility that the war will backfire on Trump’s anti-renewable energy agenda by convincing other countries that they need to transition even faster away from oil and gas. Are you seeing any preliminary indications of that happening?

Waldman: The shift to more clean energy is already being talked about by a number of world leaders, particularly in Asia and Europe, where the government is asking people to work from home in some countries and gas stations are running out of fuel. The Philippines is fast-tracking 1.4 gigawatts of renewables, which is a roughly 40 percent increase in the country’s wind and solar capacity. Some European leaders are calling for the need to ramp up nuclear energy as well as solar and wind. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said recently that relying too much on fossil fuels puts the country at risk.

Last year, Trump told world leaders gathered at the United Nations that their countries would be ruined by what he calls “the green new scam” of more clean energy. The war in Iran is proving him wrong in the eyes of a growing number of world leaders.

Jack, what has this taught us about where power really resides in the Pentagon?

Detsch: Hegseth is running the show, but he has typically been deferential in administration debates and has never bucked the president. Caine has been somewhat skeptical of U.S. interventions in the Middle East  — he also pushed back about the adverse impacts that last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer would have on air defenses and munitions stockpiles — but he’s not a chair of the Joint Chiefs that’s going to stand in the way of Trump, especially after what happened to Mark Milley.

It’s been striking the degree to which it’s been business as usual for Hegseth. He’s still purging top officers of the military — he fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George last week and two of his top aides — and the Pentagon is continuing to push back against a U.S. court ruling that would curb his press restrictions, all in the middle of the largest American war in more than two decades.

Cheslow: What I’m hearing from an administration official was that what bent Trump toward a ceasefire was the realization that maybe the war aims wouldn’t be as easy as he thought. The rescue of the downed weapons systems officer last weekend was “messy,” the official told me. The U.S. lost a lot of aircraft. Iran kept firing missiles. Trump realized that maybe he was getting an overly optimistic picture of this war from the DoD than the reality on the ground.

Daniella, which of America’s international partners, aside from Israel, are flexing their muscle here? As you’ve reported, Pakistan in particular seems to be asserting itself in the current negotiations.

Cheslow: It’s a moment for Pakistan. I spoke to a journalist based in Karachi, and I’m told the mood there is jubilation — there’s a sense of Pakistan being upgraded. And there’s many reasons for that, from Pakistan catching the suspect in the 2021 “Abbey Gate” bombing in Afghanistan that killed 13 Americans, to them nominating Trump for a Nobel, to the recent crypto deals they’ve signed with a firm that Trump’s family and special envoy Steve Witkoff’s son are involved with.

It’s not clear if Pakistan can deliver. But even having these talks in Islamabad over the weekend is a major step forward.

Do you think that Trump and his diplomatic team have a firm grasp on the domestic political considerations driving the Iranians’ stance in the ongoing negotiations?

Cheslow: I spoke to Hamidreza Azizi, who is a sharp observer of Iranian internal dynamics. His view is that the very fact that Trump believed he could initiate regime change revealed a huge gap in his understanding.

There are countervailing pressures in Iran, from the hardliners who want Iran to break the ceasefire and back up Hezbollah in Lebanon against Israeli strikes, and the majority of the population that wants a ceasefire so they can live their lives. Now we have Vance playing a higher-profile role in these negotiations, adding another person to the Steve Witkoff-Jared Kushner duo that was negotiating before the strikes. Perhaps Vance and Pakistan — especially the influential army chief Asim Munir — can change the trajectory. But they’re going to be working through a weekend where we’re likely to see many challenges to the ceasefire, including Israel continuing to pound Lebanon even as it has agreed to talk directly with Lebanon in Washington next week.

Liz, let’s talk a bit about the politics. You went to CPAC recently to report on how the war was playing with the base. What was the reaction like among Trump’s supporters, especially the young men who loom so large in the MAGA imagination?

Crampton: The diehard MAGA base is with Trump no matter what. But even at CPAC, some Republicans voiced concerns about the war being a betrayal of Trump’s America First promises, and the reason whyyoung voters are growing disaffected with Republican leaders. One CPAC attendee who voted for Trump in 2024 told me that MAGA is now the party of boomers.  Republicans are well aware that they’re in a difficult spot with this demographic, and the longer this conflict lasts, the more trouble Trump and those who went along with it are in.

What have you been hearing at CPAC or elsewhere about how various 2028 contenders like Vance and Rubio are weathering the storm? Is one benefiting more than the other?

Crampton: Both Vance and Rubio will be saddled with the legacy of this war. As an outspoken America First voice, Vance especially is in a tricky spot: He’s risking losing the trust of Republicans who latched onto that message, but he can’t cross the president. The upcoming talks will be a huge test of his leadership and whether he can credibly maintain that reputation.

Detsch: Yep, I have been hearing the same from the restrainer camp, Liz. Vance may have resisted going to war behind the scenes, but he was with Trump on Iran 100 percent when the attacks started. It’s left MAGA restrainers asking themselves who will have the credibility to carry the torch for them going forward, and that might not be Vance.

As a parting thought, I wonder if each of you could finish this sentence in a few words: “As a result of the war in Iran, MAGA is ______.”

Nerozzi: Uneasy.

Cheslow: Disoriented.

Waldman: Reckoning with a more expensive cost of living that likely hasn’t peaked.

Crampton: A tenuous coalition.

Lee Hill: Still publicly behind Trump from Capitol Hill.

Detsch: Feeling whiplash. Former administration officials who came in under the MAGA banner thought the gameplan was “peace through strength” and Trump going to war as a last resort. Now we’vewatched the largest U.S. military campaign since the Iraq War, and it’s not clear the forecast for U.S. foreign policy in the region — or the world — is much better now than it was a month ago.

Surprised by the autocrat’s defeat

Vance, after rallying in Hungary for Orban, says he wasn’t surprised by the autocrat’s defeat

The vice president’s comments Monday evening marked the administration’s first acknowledgment of the disappointing election result.

By Eli Stokols

Vice President JD Vance said Monday evening that he was “sad” but not all that surprised that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban lost his bid for reelection, asserting that his decision to campaign alongside the autocrat in Budapest last week was more about showing up for a loyal ally than lifting him to victory.

“We didn’t go because we expected Viktor Orban to cruise to an election victory,” Vance said during an interview on Fox News. “We went because it was the right thing to do to stand behind a person who had stood by us for a very long time.”

The comments marked the first acknowledgment by the White House of Hungary’s sweeping rejection of Orban, which put an end to a 16-year run that served as inspiration for President Donald Trump, Vance and countless MAGA allies. Orban, in many ways, had been a model of governance for many in the MAGA movement who championed his advocacy for illiberal democracy abroad and sought to emulate it at home. Orban also took hardline stances against immigration and decried rights for those who identify as LGBTQ+.

“His legacy in Hungary is transformational — 16 years, fundamentally changing that country,” Vance said, explaining that his decision to stump with Orban last week was “not because we can’t read polls. We certainly knew there was a very good chance that Viktor would lose that election. We did it because he’s one of the few European leaders we’ve seen who has been willing to stand up to the bureaucracy in Brussels.”

Still, Vance’s inability to help Orban avoid a crushing loss opens the administration up to criticism that its ideas and officials are not the draw they hoped — and deeper existential questions about the future of populist nationalism.

“It’s embarrassing for them, and shattering in a way,” said Johan Norberg, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. “Much of the temptation of this whole populist right movement has been [the idea] that ‘we have people, real people, on our side — we have the future.’ Orban being re-elected again and again was a very powerful sign of that to them. So his suddenly being voted out with the largest majority ever in a democratic Hungarian election is a devastating blow to that whole narrative.”

Steve Bannon, a senior White House counselor to Trump during his first term, said in a text message that Orban’s defeat “better be a warning flare for November” and the looming midterm elections.

Trump, who has twice taken questions from reporters over the last 24 hours, has yet to make a public statement about the defeat of his closest political ally in Europe.

Inside the White House on Monday, aides suggested there were far more pressing matters being tended to, mostly the increasingly fragile ceasefire with Iran and new U.S. blockade in the Strait of Hormuz that Trump announced Sunday after direct talks in Pakistan sputtered.

But the Hungarian election had been a major priority just days earlier. Vance had traveled to Budapest last week and while Trump didn’t make the trip himself, he did call into the rally. And that eleventh hour campaign push came weeks after another visit by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Trump, in his remarks via telephone during Orban’s rally aside Vance last week, credited the autocrat for his strict immigration policy in particular, stating that he “kept your country strong, and he kept your country good, and you don’t have problems with all of the problems that so many other countries have.”

Beyond his own immigration crackdown with an expanded and hyper-aggressive core of immigration agents deployed in dozens of American cities, Trump has modeled other aspects of his governance on Orban’s own actions, be it vociferously attacking judges, bullying the media into greater submission or hollowing out the government by firing career civil servants.

But in Hungary, voters revolted amid a heightened focus on Orban’s endemic corruption during a period of economic stagnation.

“This is quite the blow to the administration and MAGA ideology, because they thought of Orban as not just a great friend and ally in Europe, but also as the laboratory, someone who’s been in charge for 16 years doing what they wanted to do,” Norberg said. “You can see that in everything from Project 2025 and how they wanted to dismantle checks and balances according to a Hungarian script.”

A political ally of Vance, the de facto 2028 GOP frontrunner who has long been a fan of Orban, said that the vice president “has to be aware of the parallels” between the circumstances that led to the dictator’s ouster and an America where Trump’s poll numbers have dropped in recent weeks as the Iran war has driven energy prices higher.

“It’s a setback for JD having just gone there right before the vote, and it’s a setback for a leader they really thought would be there for a long time,” the Vance ally said. “But I don’t see them rethinking the philosophical underpinnings that are at the core of the [National Security Strategy]. Euro-scepticism isn’t going anywhere.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ripped Orban over his “fealty to Moscow” and the administration for backing Orban so intensely — questioning both the political logic and national interests served.

“It is hard to understand how some on the American right thought that staking U.S. influence on the outcome of a parliamentary election in a small, central European country was putting America’s interests first,” McConnell wrote in an Op-Ed for Fox News’ website. “To the extent that what happens in Hungary matters to America, it is a question of whether its actions on the world stage — not its social policies — align with America’s strategic interests.”

Several more mainstream European leaders have openly celebrated Orban’s defeat, many of them relieved about the ouster of the one individual who had been blocking a major EU loan to provide additional defense aid for Ukraine.

One of them, Finnish President Alex Stubb, spoke carefully about the matter during an appearance Monday at The Brookings Institution, a non-partisan Washington think tank focused on foreign policy.

After asserting that the fate of nationalist populism varies from country to country, Stubb was asked if he had any advice for countries like Germany that have seen a rise in support for far-right parties. He seemed to demur, but the subtext was unmissable.

“You can take this as you wish,” he told his questioner. “It’s quite often not very helpful for your own goals to meddle in the politics of another country.”

Defiant World

Trump Is Facing an Increasingly Defiant World

The Iran standoff shows the mistake the president and his team make in acting as if the world is full of passive characters.

By Nahal Toosi

For months and months, President Donald Trump has bullied other countries on everything from trade to how they govern themselves.

In just the last few days, however, a handful of global players have defied him, showing the limits of his influence.

Iran’s Islamist leaders abandoned peace talks with the U.S., choosing to keep waging war instead. Hungary’s voters tossed out one of Trump’s closest European allies, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Then there’s Pope Leo, who presumably answers to a higher power, saying he has “no fear” of Trump after the president taunted him.

Trump and his aides often appear to operate as if most other people on the planet are “non-player characters” in a video game. They believe, with few exceptions, that America can use threats, economic muscle and military action to bend other capitals to its will.

But foreign policy has some basic laws. One of them, similar to physics, is that every action has a reaction. It may not be equal or opposite, but it also may not be what the Trump team wants.

So far, the Trump administration does not appear to be adjusting well to the reality that more international players are willing to buck the American superpower.

“If there were an appreciation that bullying was no longer a likely to succeed tactic you’d see a move away from it,” but there’s no real sign that Trump is doing so, said Richard Haass, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

More than ever, I’m hearing concerns from foreign officials that critical information about geopolitical dynamics is simply not reaching the president because his aides won’t tell him hard truths. A New York Times rundown of his decision to go to war with Iran has fueled this worry.

“He is surrounded by ‘yes’ people,” one senior European diplomat fumed to me.

The Trump administration’s brash style came across in Vice President JD Vance’s comments after he held 21-hours worth of peace talks with Iranian officials over the weekend.

Iran, Vance said, had “chosen not to accept our terms.”

Such a statement, which Vance gave some version of twice, implied that the U.S. was dictating, not negotiating, despite Vance adding that the U.S. was “quite accommodating.” It did not go over well with supporters of the Islamist regime, while many in other countries saw the whole drama as a missed opportunity to deescalate tensions.

“If you want something from somebody you have to give them something, unless like in World War II they’ve truly surrendered,” said a Western diplomat based in the Middle East. “It can’t just be ‘we’re going to keep beating you.’”

The Trump administration, naturally, rejected my suggestion that its hardline approach is counterproductive.

“Previous administrations, for decades, stood idle while the American people were being ripped off — on imbalanced trade, inequitable defense spending and burden-sharing, uncontrolled illegal mass immigration, anti-American bias in international organizations, and the list goes on. President Trump said ‘no longer,’” Tommy Pigott, a spokesperson for the State Department, told me.

To date, there’s little evidence that Trump or his deputies understand the chain reactions they set off when issuing diktats or that they have learned lessons from past instances of blowback. Or maybe they don’t care?

Sure, Trump may retreat here and there on an issue (the so-called TACO phenomenon), but that is often followed by him later making another push on the same issue.

Take Trump’s insistence that Denmark hand over Greenland.

That was a red line for much of Europe, whose leaders had largely cozied up to Trump during his first year back in office. In January, as Trump ratcheted up his demands for Greenland, European leaders made clear to Trump that he couldn’t have it, then used NATO to promise the U.S. more military access to the island.

Trump backed down, but the damage was done. His Greenland gambit and his constant threats to pull out of NATO have added urgency to European efforts to reduce reliance on the U.S. security apparatus.

As these countries grow less dependent on the U.S., they’re likely to grow more willing to defy Trump.

Rather than responding to that risk, Trump recently signaled he’s not done with Greenland. On April 8, fuming over Europeans’ unwillingness to team up with the U.S. against Iran, Trump vented on social media: “REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”

Sometimes, it’s anyone’s guess what Trump knows about the second- or third-order effects of his menacing moves.

Trump’s tariffs, for instance, are leading other countries to find new trading partners beyond the U.S., reducing their economic reliance on America. Similar to countries reducing their military dependence, nations with less economic dependence on America are less likely to listen to the U.S. in the future.

Many in the foreign affairs establishment have long fretted that Trump and his team approach the world as if it’s all about making real estate deals the way the president once did in New York. But treating Russia’s war in Ukraine or the Palestinians’ claims on Gaza as being merely about land misses out on how identity, politics and the desire to simply survive as a people is what fuels many conflicts.

Trump and his team often “fail to realize that people tend to fight for what gives their life meaning beyond the purely rational or material cost-benefit analysis,” a former Latin American official told me, having been granted anonymity to talk candidly about a sensitive topic.

There are times when Trump is responsive to the negative impact of his strong-arming.

When China stood up to him on trade — imposing massive retaliatory tariffs and restricting rare earth mineral exports — he essentially called a truce. Still, Trump has always paid closer attention to heavyweight global players such as Beijing or Moscow than he has to ones he dismisses as weaker entities. Besides, it’s hard not to notice blowback from China when it affects stock markets.

A White House official defended Trump’s trade moves, noting that the European Union, Japan, India, South Korea, and the U.K. have lowered trade barriers against U.S. exports and continue to pay tariffs — “proof that the president successfully leveraged America’s economic dominance with respect to our trading partners.”

Haass said Trump could be helping lead the U.S. into a “post-American world” where it is no longer the center of gravity. That is certainly what Beijing wants.

It could be a world in which the U.S. must regularly plead for help instead of knowing it can count on friends who instinctively trust and support it.

“Look, the U.S. is powerful and we have a lot of influence, but we don’t have infinite influence,” said Dan Shapiro, who dealt with the Middle East as a Biden administration official. “Even the best need allies, friends, partners.”

Problem from hell

Donald Trump gives Giorgia Meloni a problem from hell

The Italian prime minister was caught on Monday between loyalty to the U.S. president and risking her political capital with conservative Catholic voters.

By Hannah Roberts

Donald Trump put Giorgia Meloni in another tight spot on Monday, but this time she hit back.

The Italian prime minister and longtime Trump ally issued her first direct criticism of the U.S. president since he was reelected in 2024, in an attempt to keep her traditionally Catholic voter base on side.

The American leader over the weekend attacked Pope Leo XIV — who has emerged as a forceful moral critic of the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran, denouncing it as senseless and urging peace — bringing months of simmering tensions between the White House and the pontiff into the open.

“I find President Trump’s remarks about the Holy Father unacceptable,” Meloni said in a statement on Monday. “The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and it is right and proper that he call for peace and condemn all forms of war.”

Trump’s outburst has left Italian right-wing politicians under pressure to defend the Holy Father, given that their voters straddle nationalist conservatism and a strong attachment to Catholic tradition. Deputy Prime Minister and far-right League leader Matteo Salvini — also a longtime supporter of Trump — was particularly vocal on Monday, telling local TV station Telelombardia that “if anyone is working hard on the issue of peace and resolving the conflict, it’s Pope Leo.”

“Attacking the pope, a symbol of peace and spiritual guide for billions of Catholics, doesn’t seem like a useful or intelligent thing to do,” he added.

Meloni was initially more cautious, caught between loyalty to Trump on the global political stage and deference to a religious leader with moral authority among conservative voters as she looks toward an election in 2027. But she was forced to take a stand as pressure from the public and criticism from the opposition mounted on Monday.

5Star Movement President Giuseppe Conte condemned Trump’s “unspeakable” attacks on Facebook and mocked Meloni for refusing to take a clear position despite her self-professed Christian identity, recalling her stance on the Iran war as “neither condemn nor support.”

Carlo Calenda, leader of the opposition centrist party Azione, called the prime minister’s failure to defend the pope “embarrassing.” He said it had exposed Meloni’s political weakness and branded the prime minister as subservient to Trump while claiming the relationship has brought no benefits to Italy.

“The government has not yet understood that the pro-Russian, pro-Trump right has become toxic and is destined to lose,” Calenda told POLITICO.

Trump has been a dominant force shaping the tone and direction of global right-wing politics for over a decade. But since the war in Iran his perceived influence has become increasingly toxic.

Meloni’s allies acknowledge that the relationship with the U.S. president and the Iran war played a decisive role in the defeat of her referendum on constitutional reforms last month, while Viktor Orbán suffered a landslide loss in Hungary despite backing from the Trump administration.

In a speech to parliament last week the Italian prime minister attempted to reset her premiership by distancing herself from the American leader, listing instances where she claimed to have disagreed with him, from Greenland to tariffs and Iran. In practice, however, she has often aligned with Trump’s diplomatic initiatives and even backed him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Leo Goretti, of the Italian Institute for International Affairs, told POLITICO the political cost for Meloni may be hard to contain. “Meloni’s strategy is part of a pattern of hedging between Trump and Italian public opinion, which is increasingly dissatisfied with the government’s perceived closeness to the Trump administration,” he said.

Italy is already feeling the economic effects of Trump’s policies, and his attack on the pope — “a symbol of Italian culture and identity, untouchable for most Italians,” as Goretti put it — will only intensify scrutiny of her alignment with Washington.

“This is a very difficult moment for the government, and there is no way it comes out of this unscathed in the eyes of public opinion,” he said.

And with the war in Iran shrinking the space for ambiguity and making Meloni’s balancing act far more precarious, the Italian leader was finally forced to draw a line on Monday.

It may prove too little, too late.

Drunk again....

Hegseth again skipping Ukraine meeting, will send top lieutenant instead

As the U.S. continues to look away from Europe, fewer top officials are visiting longtime allies.

By Paul McLeary

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will again skip the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting this week, making the U.S. one of the few countries that won’t send a top civilian defense official to the critical gathering of Ukrainian allies.

Instead, the Pentagon’s policy chief Elbridge Colby will attend the virtual meeting just as he did for the last meeting in February, according to two U.S. officials who, like others in this story, were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

Hegseth has only sporadically attended the meetings over the past year — a sign that the Trump administration has other priorities and increasingly expects Europe to shoulder the burden of supplying weapons to Kyiv.

Over 50 defense ministers from countries committed to supporting Ukraine will gather virtually on Wednesday. The meeting will be led by German defense minister Boris Pistorius and U.K. defense chief John Healey, who have taken over coordinating the group after the Trump administration gave up its leadership position soon after taking office.

The leader of NATO forces, American Gen. Alexus Grynkewich is unable to attend. But his deputy, U.K. Air Chief Marshal Sir Johnny Stringer, and the German Maj. Gen. Ulf Häussler, deputy commander of the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine, will log on to the meeting instead.

“NATO continues to deliver crucial support” to Ukraine, Grynkewich’s spokesperson, Col. Martin O’Donnell said in a statement. “The involvement of these two leaders in this meeting ensures it.”

The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration has publicly and privately told allies that it is focusing on homeland security and the Western hemisphere, and expects Europe to provide for its own defense. The shift was spelled out in the White House National Security Security Strategy and Pentagon National Defense Strategy, which bumped Europe down the list of American concerns below the Western hemisphere, homeland defense and the Asia Pacific.

At the same time, administration officials have also berated NATO allies for not buying enough American weapons, indicating a one-way street approach to the alliance that has rankled longtime allies.

The relationship has been further damaged by the Trump administration’s anger over Europe’s refusal to join in the Iran war. Some allies, such as Spain, have shut down their airspace to U.S. warplanes involved in the conflict.

While President Donald Trump has demanded that NATO countries send ships to help re-open the Strait of Hormuz, the U.K. has called together meetings of dozens of allies in an attempt to coordinate some sort of response, but so far none has been announced.

The Trump administration halted new military assistance for Kyiv upon entering office, but kept up shipments of previously pledged weapons and equipment that was granted under the Biden administration. Through it all, the U.S. has continued to share battlefield intelligence with Ukraine, however, and a new program was implemented to allow European allies to purchase U.S.-made arms for shipment to Kyiv.

The Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List, or PURL, has become the focus of the Ukraine Contact Group meetings, and it has already put billions worth of equipment under contract. But Trump administration officials have begun warning countries that U.S. weapons supplies to Ukraine may be interrupted in the coming months as the Pentagon prioritizes their use for the war in Iran.

A U.S. official and European diplomat with knowledge of the PURL initiative said that shipments are continuing unabated, however.

There is also renewed hope in the European Union that a stalled 90 billion euro military loan for Ukraine could move now that Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban lost his re-election bid on Sunday to Peter Magyar, who has pledged to renew aid for Kyiv.

No FEAR!

Pope Leo: “I Have No Fear” of Trump

The president issued a disturbing, insult-driven attack against the pope, labeling the Catholic leader “weak” and “terrible.”

Inae Oh

Following an extraordinary attack against Pope Leo XIV that featured President Trump insulting the Catholic leader as “weak on crime” and “terrible,” Leo told reporters on Monday that he was not afraid of the Trump administration.

“I have no fear of the Trump administration, or speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do,” Leo said en route to Algeria for a papal visit to Africa.

“We are not politicians,” he continued. “We don’t deal with foreign policy with the same perspective he might understand it. But I do believe in the message of the Gospel, as a peacemaker.”

When asked about the Truth Social attack, Leo said, “It’s ironic, the name of the site itself. Say no more.”

Leo’s defiant message came after Trump issued a lengthy, ego-driven rant against the pope on Sunday, claiming that Leo would not have been elected had it not been for Trump’s presidency. “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” he wrote.

Elsewhere in the post, Trump complained: “I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE.”

The president then posted a bizarre image that appeared to portray him as a Jesus-like figure healing the sick while surrounded by patriotic imagery. The image prompted rare disapproval among some of MAGA’s most faithful, including the anti-trans activist Riley Gaines, who wrote on social media: “Seriously, I cannot understand why he’d post this. Is he looking for a response? Does he actually think this?”

Though Leo has generally avoided mentioning Trump by name, the pope has been increasingly vocal in his criticism of Trump’s war in Iran, telling reporters as recently as last week that the president’s threat to destroy “a whole civilization” was “truly unacceptable.”

In a late March sermon widely viewed as a rebuke of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s framing of the war as divinely sanctioned, Leo condemned leaders who have “hands full of blood.”

Just fucking insane........

Trump deletes social media post depicting him as Jesus but refuses to apologize amid tension with pope

By Adam Cancryn

President Donald Trump is backing away from a social media post depicting himself as Jesus — but not from the broader war of words he’s still waging against Pope Leo XIV.

Trump on Monday deleted an image of him as Jesus from his Truth Social account amid intense backlash, telling reporters that he thought it was meant to portray him as a doctor.

“I thought it was me as a doctor and had to do with Red Cross,” he said outside the West Wing. “It’s supposed to be me as a doctor making people better. And I do make people better.”

Yet pressed on whether he also disavowed a separate post in which he slammed the pope as “WEAK on Crime” and accused him of “catering to the Radical Left,” Trump stood his ground.

“Pope Leo said things that are wrong,” Trump said, adding that he wouldn’t apologize for his social media post. “We believe strongly in law and order, and he seemed to have a problem with that, so there’s nothing to apologize for.”

The pope first earned Trump’s ire last year over comments seen as critical of the administration’s mass deportation policies. Leo has since clashed with Trump over the US and Israel’s war with Iran, urging the sides to seek a peaceful resolution and then more explicitly rejecting the president’s threats to wipe out “a whole civilization” if Tehran didn’t bend to his demands.

Trump’s tensions with the papacy come despite the president surrounding himself with several prominent Catholics, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and first lady Melania Trump. Vance and Rubio met with the pope last year but have not taken any public steps to ease relations between Trump and the Vatican in recent days.

Sunday — went too far. The image showing him in white and red robes and composed in the style of religious art prompted criticism from several Republicans and conservative commentators who saw it as anti-Christian.

“I cannot understand why he’d post this,” Riley Gaines, a conservative activist who has served as a key cheerleader for the administration’s restrictive policies on transgender athletes, wrote on X. “Either way, two things are true. 1) a little humility would serve him well 2) God shall not be mocked.”

The post was gone by Monday morning, with the president later telling reporters that “I just heard” about the controversy and acknowledging that he made the initial decision to put up the post. It was a comparatively rare and rapid walkback for Trump, who frequently reposts a range of AI-generated videos and images to his Truth Social platform and has previously dodged responsibility for their content.

In February, for instance, Trump shared a racist video depicting former President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama as apes, which remained online for nearly 12 hours before it was deleted. The White House ultimately blamed a staffer for the post and Trump declined to apologize.

Tosses another one.........

Judge tosses Trump’s Wall Street Journal defamation lawsuit, gives him chance to refile

By Brian Stelter, Andrew Kirell

A federal judge on Monday dismissed President Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal over its reporting on a lewd birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein bearing Trump’s name.

US District Judge Darrin P. Gayles ruled that Trump failed to plausibly allege the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper acted with “actual malice” when it reported the story.

Gayles dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning the saga is not over: Trump’s camp now has until April 27 to file an amended complaint addressing the judge’s concerns.

In order to proceed, Gayles wrote, Trump must adequately allege that the Journal knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

But Gayles said the original complaint instead relied on “formulaic” claims about malice and how the newspaper “knew or should have known” the story was false — coming “nowhere close” to the court’s standards for claiming defamation for a public figure such as Trump.

The judge also pointed to the Journal’s reporting process, noting that the article included Trump’s denial and reflected its efforts to seek comment from the White House, the Justice Department and the FBI.

“President Trump will follow Judge Gayles’s ruling and guidance to refile this powerhouse lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and all of the other Defendants,” a spokesman for Trump’s legal team told CNN in a statement. “The President will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in Fake News to mislead the American People.”

Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit, filed last summer, was an extraordinary escalation of his ongoing legal campaign against media companies he views as opponents.

Legal experts consulted by CNN said they could not recall any past instances of a sitting president suing a news outlet over a story.

For Trump, though, it was a continuation of a pattern that dates back decades. He has frequently garnered publicity for filing lawsuits that ultimately fall apart in court.

After targeting the Journal last July, he filed suit against The New York Times last September, claiming The Times defamed him and unfairly questioned his success. That suit was almost immediately dismissed by a judge who called it “improper and impermissible” and gave him a chance to refile.

Trump’s lawyers did, indeed, file a revised complaint against The Times, and the parties have been ordered to pursue mediation before the case moves forward. Trump has also lodged a defamation lawsuit against the BBC, which has said it will defend itself.

Analysts speculated that Trump might have filed suit against the Journal to muddy the waters about the Epstein birthday book; to pressure Journal parent News Corp into a settlement payment; or to goad Murdoch in other ways.

Trump struck settlement deals with several other media companies after winning reelection. Murdoch’s camp, however, said it would not go the settlement route and has vigorously contested Trump’s claims in court.

At the same time, the 95-year-old Murdoch has maintained a cozy if complicated relationship with the president, including multiple meetings at the White House in recent months.

The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.