A growing divide within the conservative movement spilled into public view this weekend as Fox News host Mark Levin launched a blistering attack on President Donald Trump’s Iran strategy, accusing the administration of pressuring Israel while pursuing a diplomatic agreement designed to permanently prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The dispute comes as the Trump administration continues negotiations with Tehran following a series of devastating military strikes that crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, eliminated key regime leaders, and left the Islamic Republic in one of the weakest positions it has faced in decades.

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance have argued that the administration is negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength after demonstrating a willingness to use military force when necessary. Their goal, they say, is simple: ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon while avoiding another endless war in the Middle East.

Levin, however, remains deeply skeptical.

During a fiery monologue that lasted more than 17 minutes on Saturday, the longtime conservative commentator accused members of the administration of unfairly targeting Israel while becoming too optimistic about Iran’s intentions.

“I want to say to people in and out of the administration: stop trashing, smearing, bullying the little state of Israel. Stop cozying up to and telling us that the enemy regime in Iran is now more rational, more moderate, and a regime that we can deal with,” Levin demanded. “When just a few months ago they slaughtered 50,000 people, they’re still hanging young people today and, if they had a nuclear missile today, they’d fire it into our country as sure as I’m alive.”

Levin also rejected any suggestion that Israel should allow outside governments to dictate its security decisions.

“I don’t know what’s going on, but if people think they can bully a little country, Israel — a people that have existed 4,000 years through the Babylonians and the Persians, through the Romans and the Third Reich — into surrendering their defense and their decision on how to secure their country, they get another thing coming,” Levin continued. “I think it’s outrageous.”

The criticism did not stop there.

Levin also used social media to question several administration policies, including reports surrounding a Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar and modified for use supporting presidential airlift operations.

“If it’s legal and other countries do it so be it. Do you think wealthy countries should be able to lavish gifts on our government?” Levin wrote.

His sharpest criticism, however, focused on the administration’s efforts to secure a broader peace agreement with Iran and its proxies.

“Item #1 in the MOU provides there’s an immediate and permanent end to the war and that includes Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran is Hezbollah,” Levin posted. “What’s the enforcement mechanism? Nothing. Israel defends itself after constant attacks from Hezbollah and is admonished for it. Its interests are not aligned with ours, we’re told. It’s endangering the peace deal. This is beyond nuts.”

In another post, Levin argued that current ceasefire efforts were coming at Israel’s expense.

“Apparently as long as Israeli soldiers are killed the ceasefire is holding,” Levin claimed.

The administration has strongly rejected suggestions that it is abandoning Israel or weakening its support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

President Trump responded directly Sunday with a warning aimed squarely at Iran and its regional proxies.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

For supporters of the administration, that message demonstrates exactly why they remain confident in Trump’s approach. They argue that no modern president has shown a greater willingness to confront Iran militarily while simultaneously seeking a diplomatic resolution that serves American interests.

Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both emphasized that any final agreement would require Iran to permanently abandon its nuclear ambitions, submit to extensive inspections, and comply with strict verification requirements before receiving any economic benefits.

Administration officials also note that no sanctions have been lifted, no frozen assets have been released, and no direct payments have been authorized.

Instead, they argue that Trump has successfully put Iran in a position where the regime must choose between compliance and continued isolation.

The disagreement highlights a broader debate that has been developing inside the Republican Party for years.

Traditional foreign-policy hawks often favor maintaining maximum military pressure and remain deeply skeptical of negotiations with hostile regimes.

Trump’s America First coalition generally supports overwhelming military strength but prefers leveraging that strength into favorable deals that avoid long-term military entanglements.

Supporters of the president argue that Trump’s strategy reflects the same formula that has defined much of his foreign policy: peace through strength.

Strike hard when necessary. Demonstrate unquestionable resolve. Negotiate from a position of power. And avoid the costly nation-building efforts and endless conflicts that frustrated many Americans for decades.

As negotiations continue, the debate between Levin and the Trump administration reflects a larger question facing conservatives: how best to secure American interests abroad while staying true to the America First principles that have reshaped the Republican Party.

For now, President Trump appears committed to proving that military strength and diplomacy are not opposing strategies—but complementary tools for achieving lasting peace and protecting America’s national security.

In a rare display of bipartisan cooperation, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the amended 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act this week, advancing a package of reforms designed to tackle America’s housing affordability crisis while delivering on several key priorities championed by President Donald Trump.

The legislation passed by a decisive 396-13 vote, reflecting broad agreement that soaring housing costs, rising rents, and limited inventory have pushed homeownership out of reach for millions of Americans.

Supporters say the bill addresses one of the country’s most pressing economic challenges by cutting red tape, increasing housing supply, strengthening lending opportunities, and helping ensure that American families—not large corporations—have a fair shot at buying homes.

The legislation combines elements of previous House and Senate proposals and seeks to address housing shortages that have contributed to record-high home prices in many parts of the country.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill praised the measure as a practical, results-oriented solution focused on expanding opportunities for working Americans.

“This bill prioritizes American families by expanding homeownership, enhancing affordability, reducing burdensome regulations that drive up costs, and increasing housing supply nationwide,” Chairman Hill stated.

“Importantly, it delivers on President Trump’s call to limit institutional investors from competing with the American people as they seek to purchase a home,” Hill added.

The legislation includes a variety of reforms aimed at accelerating housing construction and reducing barriers that have slowed development for years.

Among its key provisions, the bill streamlines federal permitting requirements, reduces lengthy environmental review processes for certain redevelopment and infill housing projects, and encourages innovative housing solutions such as modular and manufactured homes.

The measure also provides grants to local governments willing to modernize zoning laws and remove restrictions that limit new construction.

Supporters argue that restrictive zoning policies, excessive permitting delays, and government bureaucracy have significantly contributed to America’s housing shortage.

Rather than relying on massive new federal spending programs, the legislation focuses on empowering local communities, encouraging private-sector investment, and removing obstacles that make housing more expensive.

The bill also raises loan limits for multifamily housing developments, creating incentives for apartment construction and expanding options for renters and first-time buyers alike.

Additional provisions strengthen rural housing initiatives, expand support for veterans seeking housing, modernize financing for smaller mortgage loans, and increase the role community banks can play in local lending markets.

Community banks have long argued that excessive regulations have made it more difficult for them to serve homebuyers and construction projects in their local communities.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters acknowledged the seriousness of the housing crisis despite broader political disagreements.

“America is in the middle of a full-blown affordable housing and homelessness crisis, and working families are burdened by skyrocketing rents and a housing market that is pushing homeownership further out of reach,” Waters said.

One of the most notable aspects of the legislation is its effort to curb the growing influence of large institutional investors in the housing market.

For years, investment firms and corporate landlords have purchased thousands of single-family homes, often outbidding families and first-time homebuyers. Critics argue that this trend has driven up prices while transforming communities into rental markets dominated by large corporations.

The legislation includes targeted restrictions designed to discourage large institutional investors from acquiring additional single-family homes.

That approach aligns closely with President Trump’s housing agenda.

Throughout his second administration, Trump has repeatedly argued that homeownership should remain a cornerstone of the American Dream and that government policies should prioritize families over Wall Street investors.

In his National Homeownership Month proclamation earlier this month, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring affordability and expanding opportunities for future homeowners.

“During National Homeownership Month, my Administration recommits to making housing more affordable so that young Americans and hardworking families can raise children, build memories, and create a future in a home of their own,” Trump said.

The president has frequently blamed the housing crisis on “reckless spending, burdensome regulations, and failed housing policies” implemented under previous administrations, as well as “mass illegal immigration and large institutional investors” that have increased pressure on housing supply.

Trump has also taken executive actions aimed at reducing institutional ownership of single-family homes, lowering mortgage costs, and strengthening federal housing programs.

“Under my leadership, America will be a Nation where homes belong to families — not corporations,” Trump said.

At the same time, Trump has emphasized the importance of protecting the value of homes already owned by millions of Americans.

“I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people that own their homes. Existing housing, people who own their homes, we’re going to keep them wealthy. We’re going to keep those prices up. We’re not going to destroy the value of their homes so that somebody that didn’t work very hard can buy a home,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting earlier this year.

He has also repeatedly summarized his housing philosophy with a simple message:

“Homes are built for people, not for corporations, and America will not become a nation of renters.”

With overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and growing concern over affordability nationwide, supporters hope the legislation will mark a significant step toward restoring homeownership opportunities and ensuring that the American Dream remains within reach for future generations.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is facing growing questions about his future leadership prospects as an increasing number of Democratic candidates decline to guarantee their support for him as speaker should Democrats regain control of the House.

What was once considered a nearly unquestioned position atop the Democratic Party’s House leadership structure is now showing signs of strain, with candidates from across the country publicly expressing reservations or refusing to commit to backing Jeffries in a future speaker vote.

The development highlights growing divisions within the Democratic Party as members debate how aggressively party leaders should confront President Donald Trump and the Republican agenda.

For years, Jeffries has enjoyed strong support from House Democrats. His allies point out that he has not lost a single Democratic vote during 20 separate speaker ballots, despite serving in the minority.

However, a new wave of Democratic candidates appears increasingly willing to challenge the status quo.

According to reports, more than 80 Democratic House candidates nationwide have either declined to endorse Jeffries for speaker or indicated they are undecided about whether they would support his leadership.

The issue has become particularly notable in several highly competitive congressional races that Democrats must win if they hope to reclaim the House majority.

In New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District, Democratic nominee Rebecca Bennett refused to commit to supporting Jeffries before winning her primary election. The district is considered one of the party’s most important pickup opportunities.

Similarly, Iowa Democratic candidate Christina Bohannan has remained noncommittal when asked whether she would support Jeffries.

“I don’t know yet. I haven’t made that decision,” Bohannan said.

“I want to get elected first,” she added.

Political analysts have classified both Bohannan’s district and Bennett’s district as toss-up races currently held by Republicans.

In Montana, Democratic nominee Sam Forstag offered a similar response when questioned about House leadership.

“I’m not committing to anyone one way or the other,” Forstag said. “I will stand with whoever will stand with working people in this state.”

Perhaps the sharpest criticism has come from progressive candidates who argue Democratic leadership has failed to effectively oppose President Trump.

Mai Vang, a progressive candidate in California, openly criticized both Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“The Democratic Party and its leadership—Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries—have failed to mobilize meaningful opposition to Trump’s illegal war and their silence as AIPAC and corporations flood Congressional primaries with millions of dollars is deafening,” Vang said.

“I cannot support this kind of leadership,” she added. “If we want to defeat Trump and rebuild trust with working Americans, we need new leadership and a new direction.”

Other candidates have expressed frustration that Democratic leadership has not fought harder against the Trump administration.

“Most Democrats agree that he’s been failing to meet the moment,” said Adam Hamawy, a candidate in New Jersey’s 12th District.

Hamawy said he is “looking for someone that’s gonna stand up to the administration.”

The criticism is notable because it comes not from Republicans, but from within the Democratic Party itself.

Even candidates in safely Democratic districts appear hesitant to automatically embrace Jeffries’ leadership.

Claire Valdez, a New York State Assembly member running to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez, suggested additional discussions would be necessary before she could support Jeffries.

“There would need to be some conversations,” Valdez said.

Utah state Sen. Nate Blouin, another Democratic candidate, noted that he has never even met Jeffries.

“I’ve never met Leader Jeffries, I’ve never had conversations with him,” Blouin said.

He added that he wants leadership that is “committed to fighting for our communities” and aligned with voters on key policy issues.

Not all Democratic candidates are distancing themselves from Jeffries.

New York Assembly member Alex Bores, who is seeking to replace retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler, defended the Democratic leader.

“I’ve seen real fight coming from our caucus, and that matters,” Bores said.

“There’s room to grow, but I’m encouraged,” he added, describing Jeffries as “doing a difficult, thankless job.”

Jeffries’ supporters also credit him with keeping House Democrats largely united through difficult legislative battles and multiple government funding fights.

Still, the growing number of candidates unwilling to automatically support him signals potential turbulence ahead.

The situation underscores a broader identity crisis within the Democratic Party as activists, progressives, and establishment figures continue debating how best to respond to President Trump’s leadership and the Republican agenda.

For Republicans, the emerging fractures offer evidence that Democratic unity may not be as strong as party leaders claim.

For Jeffries, the challenge is clear: if Democrats hope to reclaim the House, he may first have to convince members of his own party that he remains the right person to lead them.