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.

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.’ 

A Senate fiscal hawk doesn’t believe Republicans can hit their own self-imposed timeline to pass President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’

Senate Republicans are racing against the clock to finish work on their version of the president’s colossal bill after the House GOP advanced its offering late last month. 

So far, each of the 10 Senate committees has unveiled a portion of the bill and are fine-tuning each chunk to conform with Senate rules and address concerns among varying factions in the conference.

Republican leaders are gunning to put the package on the floor next week, ahead of a scheduled recess for Independence Day, but Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., believes there is enough resistance against the bill to torpedo that timeline.  

‘I think we have enough people that are saying, ‘No, we’re not going to proceed to the bill prior to July 4.’’ he said. ‘We need more time, but I think our efforts now are concentrated.’

Johnson has long been pushing for far deeper cuts in the package, far beyond the goal of $1.5 trillion set in the House’s offering and the pursuit of $2 trillion in cuts in the Senate’s package to begin putting a major dent in the nation’s deficit.

The lawmaker’s remarks came during a press call where he debuted his 31-page report on the GOP’s quest to ram the president’s agenda through Congress. 

The report offered a variety of scenarios of the deficit and growth impacts the Republicans’ plan could have based on varying levels of compound annual growth rates that varied from over 2%, 3% and 4%. 

The report was meant to be a thumb in the face of the Congressional Budget Office’s findings on the bill and overall state of federal spending and deficits. But it also rejected the arguments made by Republican leaders and the White House in its pursuit of showing the reality of the nation’s fiscal health and the effect the ‘big, beautiful bill’ could have on it. 

Ron Johnson acknowledged the sentiments of House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Trump that the spending cuts achieved in the House product were unprecedented but countered that ‘we’ve faced an unprecedented level of spending increase’ since the pandemic.  

‘You can argue about the twigs and leaves on the forest floor, but I’m forcing everybody to take a step back and look at the look at the forest,’ Ron Johnson said. ‘It’s blazing, and we got to put this forest fire out.’

There are others with varying concerns, including the addition of a debt-ceiling hike and proposed changes to Medicaid, who could form a multi-faceted coalition to tank the bill.

Thune can only afford to lose three votes if he hopes to pass the bill, given that the nature of the budget reconciliation process skirts the filibuster and that Democrats have been iced out of the process thus far.

Ron Johnson noted that he hoped Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., wouldn’t put the full bill on the floor next week because ‘I really think it’ll be voted down.’

‘If we do vote it down, I don’t want anybody to interpret it as a slap in the face of either Leader Thune or President Trump,’ Ron Johnson said. ‘It’s just saying, ‘Guys, we need more time. The ball has been in the Senate court for two weeks.’

Johnson has been a proponent of breaking up the megabill into two or three chunks, rather than tackling it all in ‘one fell swoop.’ However, he acknowledged there would need to be some kind of mechanism that would allow lawmakers to have ‘at least two, if not three, bites at the apple.’

‘I understand this process is to kind of jam everybody, but let’s not do what Nancy Pelosi did and say, ‘Hey, got to pass this bill to figure out what’s in it,’’ he added. ‘Let’s know fully what’s in it. Let’s do as President Trump asked. … He wants the Senate to make a better bill.’