The Army is investigating a video that appears to show an Apache attack helicopter flying low outside singer Kid Rock’s Nashville residence, a spokesperson confirmed.

Two videos, posted by Kid Rock to social media on Saturday, show the country rock artist applauding and saluting an Apache helicopter as it hovers close to his outdoor pool before flying off.

Maj. Montrell Russell, a spokesperson for the Army, said in a statement that the Army had begun an administrative review “to assess the mission and verify compliance with regulations and airspace requirements.” The Army will take “appropriate action” if it finds any violations took place, he said.

“The Army is aware of a video circulating online that appears to show AH‑64 Apache helicopters operating in the vicinity of a private residence in the Nashville area,” Russell said. “Army aviators must adhere to strict safety standards, professionalism, and established flight regulations.”

Kid Rock’s manager did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the video.

The artist, whose real name is Robert Ritchie, is a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump and has aligned himself closely with the MAGA movement in recent years. He performed at the 2024 Republican National Convention and at Turning Point USA’s “All-American Halftime Show,” an alternative performance to Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny’s official NFL halftime show at the 2026 Super Bowl.

Kid Rock captioned his Saturday post on X: “This is a level of respect that shit for brains Governor of California will never know. God Bless America and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.”

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, responded to Kid Rock’s comments in a brief statement: “Waste, fraud, abuse!”

The two have clashed before, with Newsom writing on social media in February that he was “banning” the artist from California in response to an exercise video he appeared in with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this year.

Kid Rock also flirted with a Senate run in 2017, launching a campaign website and fueling speculation that he intended to challenge former Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), but he later dismissed the stunt as a “joke.”

When the U.S.-Israel war with Iran began a month ago, the tragic potential reverberations of past conflicts echoed quickly for Virginia state Del. Dan Helmer, who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and is now running for Congress as a Democrat.

“In 2002, a president lied to the American people and sent my friends to die in a war of choice,” he told POLITICO in an interview, noting that next month marks the 22nd anniversary of his first friend’s death in combat. “And once again, President [Donald] Trump has circumvented the democratic process to launch a war of choice without strategic insight in Iran. … The consequences of reckless military intervention are pretty clear. And the challenges in enacting regime change to get a predictable outcome have defined my experience in the military.”

Michael Bouchard sees things differently. The Michigan Republican House candidate and Bronze Star recipient served in the Army and National Guard, including a counter-ISIS deployment in Iraq for most of 2025 — which encompassed the last Israel-Iran war. Bouchard thinks the current conflict is a necessary, limited mission against a regional menace that has endangered and targeted U.S. service members for decades.

“I’ve seen peace through strength save my friends’ lives, and that’s what this is,” he said. “No one wants to go to war less than somebody who’s been to it. But we can’t just put our heads in the sand and hope things don’t happen.”

Dozens of military veterans running for Congress across the country, both Democrats and Republicans, have now adapted their campaign messaging to befit a nation at war. In a rapidly changing landscape — with ceasefire talks, military escalation and global energy crisis all on the table on any given day — candidates from each party have starkly opposed perspectives on the conflict. But for many of them, the costs and the imperatives of war feel deeply personal.

New York Assemblymember Robert Smullen, who spent 24 years in the Marine Corps and is campaigning in an Upstate GOP House primary, has done multiple Strait of Hormuz transits and studied the enrichment process as a White House fellow at the Energy Department. Montana Democrat Matt Rains, who flew Black Hawks in South Korea and Iraq, is also a rancher watching crucial diesel costs rise. Zach Dembo, a former Navy JAG officer running as a Democrat in Kentucky, has been on two of the aircraft carriers now deployed to the Middle East.

All of that intimate knowledge leads them to some pretty different conclusions.

What they agree on: More than half a dozen Democratic and Republican veteran candidates who spoke with POLITICO said they oppose the autocratic Iranian government and wouldn’t be sorry to see it go.

Beyond that — and respect for the troops — there’s little consensus across the partisan divide.

Democrats are fuming that Trump didn’t make the case for war and get buy-in from the American public, Congress and foreign allies. They argue that the U.S. approach has lacked clear plans and strategic goals. And they deeply fear that what they see as Trump’s recklessness will lead to another forever war, needlessly sacrificing soldiers’ lives without achieving any big-picture goals.

“I don’t see an endgame here, and it makes me really worried,” Dembo said.

“This idea that you can just briefly drop bombs on a nation … and they’ll just like raise the white flag and beg for us to come put a new government in there, I mean, is asinine,” Rains said.

Many Democrats also see the war as a costly distraction from Americans’ economic struggles. “The amount of money we are spending on this war and on this conflict right now, when we have so many issues here at home that are not being addressed … that’s where the real disconnect is,” said Jessica Killin, an Army veteran running in Colorado.

GOP veterans say they oppose endless wars, too. But that’s not how they see this one. Hewing closely to Trump’s messaging, Republicans told POLITICO that Iran has been the real belligerent for 47 years. They agree with their Democratic counterparts that the U.S. needs to have a clear plan and not let the conflict drag out for too long — but they have much greater trust in Trump to achieve those goals, principally stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

“I understand veterans’ issues. I understand the cost of what they’ve given, their families have given,” said Oregon Republican Monique DeSpain, an Air Force veteran and JAG who’s worked with veterans for 30 years. “That’s why I feel strongly [about] swift removal of any threats to our country … Congress needs to understand national security: The cost of delay and inaction is irreversible.”

It remains to be seen how voters during wartime will receive these and other veterans running for Congress, many of them in crowded primaries or swing districts. Those who spoke with POLITICO said they think they’re uniquely positioned to speak with authority: Democrats pitching their national security expertise to lay bare the war’s flaws, and Republicans reassuring skittish voters about why the U.S. strikes can succeed and bolster American security.

“I’ve been in their shoes, and I actually know what they’re doing and what they’re facing, because I dealt with the same thing after September 11th,” Smullen said of the troops currently being deployed. “It’s a mission that needs to be done. It’s about time that we did it.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook PM newsletter.

Former Republican Rep. Mark Sanford is set to make a run for his former congressional seat, according to paperwork filed with South Carolina’s elections commission.

Sanford is a fixture in South Carolina politics, known nationally for his high-profile extramarital affair while serving as governor, his sharp criticism of President Donald Trump while serving in Congress and his quixotic 2020 presidential run against Trump.

He submitted paperwork recently to run in the already-crowded Republican primary in the first congressional district stretching from the Charleston area down the coast to Hilton Head Island, vacated by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) as she mounts a bid for governor. The election commission’s website shows Sanford as an “active” candidate.

The former Palmetto State politician — who slammed Trump for his brash personality and conduct during his first term — is seeking to reenter Republican politics even as Trump maintains his ironclad grip on the party.

Sanford did not respond to a call and text message from POLITICO, but he told the Post & Courier on Monday that “people have been telling me it’s time to get off the bleachers” and promised to focus his campaign on his longtime top issue: the national debt.

The former governor and member of Congress has a long record in state and national politics — and a history of making remarkable political comebacks. First elected to Congress in 1994, Sanford served in the seat he is once again seeking for nearly a decade before mounting a successful bid for governor in 2002. He also received early buzz as a potential 2012 presidential candidate.

But his political fortunes came to a crashing halt in 2009 when he disappeared from the state under the auspices of hiking on the Appalachian Trail — only later admitting he had taken part in an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina. Sanford declined to resign from his post, but ceded his chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association and quietly left office at the end of his second term.

He reentered politics just a few years later, announcing a bid for the first congressional district, winning a crowded primary and holding the seat until he lost to a Trump-backed primary challenger in 2018, only for a Democrat to go on to flip the seat in the 2018 midterms.

Sanford later launched a longshot presidential primary bid against Trump. He dropped out in November of 2019.

The South Carolina Republican is set to face off against several candidates in this June’s primary, including a popular state representative, a local Charleston county councilmember, and a retired lieutenant colonel who commanded the final flight of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan in 2021.

Republicans hope the Make America Healthy Again movement becomes a permanent fixture of a big GOP tent. But the party can’t count on its support heading into midterm elections this November.

New results from The POLITICO Poll show both broad frustration and dissatisfaction with the Trump administration on health priorities and opportunities for Democrats to make inroads with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA supporters.

A majority of Americans associate MAHA with the Republican Party, but not overwhelmingly, and most believe the Trump administration has not done enough to “Make America Healthy Again” — including a 41 percent plurality of Trump’s own 2024 voters.

The burgeoning political movement that officials in both parties credit with helping President Donald Trump win in 2024 has already begun to reshape how the GOP approaches health policy — driving everything from a redesign of the food pyramid to a rollback in vaccine recommendations.

At the same time, however, many poll respondents view Democrats as better positioned on the movement’s key health priorities. They were more likely, for example, to say the Democratic Party can be trusted to make the country healthier and are more eager to improve health in America, while fewer said the same of Republicans. The GOP, on the other hand, is seen as more likely to be influenced than Democrats by lobbyists for the food and pesticide industries, who rank among the MAHA movement’s top enemies.

These views could have real consequences in a midterm election year when razor-thin differences in turnout could determine control of Congress. And Democrats are bullish about channeling voters’ frustration with the Trump administration’s policies into a blue wave this cycle.

“The MAHA movement in the [2024] campaign cycle started with a lot of energy, and did create more energy for these types of issues that previously wouldn’t have been associated with the GOP,” said Abby McCloskey, a GOP policy adviser who has warned that Republicans are “squandering their MAHA moment.”

“Since then, I think the energy has trickled off from the perspective of, what is the federal government going to do about this?” she said.

Overall, 47 percent of poll respondents say they support the MAHA movement, including roughly a third of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 and about a third of Americans who plan to vote for Democrats this November. By comparison, 70 percent of Trump 2024 voters say they support the MAHA movement.

However, Americans don’t consider the nation’s health a top issue; It saw the same level of prioritization as “wokeism” and opioid abuse. When asked to choose between priorities for the U.S. government, a majority placed improving Americans’ health above stopping illegal immigration or cutting down on crime — but below affordability and concerns with cost of living.

And there are still widespread misconceptions about what MAHA is and what it does — even among people who self-identify with the movement. Just a third of Americans say they have heard of the MAHA movement and could explain what it is. Another third say they have heard of MAHA but could not explain it, including 31 percent of people who identify as part of the movement. One in four Americans had not heard of the movement at all.

The poll points to an opening for Democrats if they can effectively speak to the movement’s most popular issues and highlights that Republicans’ advantage with MAHA is far from guaranteed.

“People that we would call a ‘MAHA’ voter, they're not partisans. They really are up for grabs,” Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) told reporters on a recent call organized by the progressive advocacy group 314 Action, which is working to elect people with a health and science background to public office. “[Republicans] have really taken actions to alienate those folks, to break the promises that they made. They are no longer focusing on the core tenets of that Make America Healthy Again platform in order to continue to please Donald Trump, and also to advance their policy agenda.”

The Trump administration has largely pushed a deregulatory agenda, despite pressure from its MAHA supporters to crack down on pesticide companies, food manufacturers and drugmakers. Its recent choice to make it easier for Bayer to increase production of its weed killer Roundup has especially enraged MAHA supporters, who have said the move made it harder for them to continue supporting GOP candidates in the November midterms.

Kennedy’s own allies have warned Republicans that they cannot take MAHA voters for granted heading into November. Tony Lyons, the president of the MAHA Action, a political advocacy group that supports Kennedy’s agenda, said last month in a memo obtained by POLITICO that the GOP is merely “renting MAHA voters” but hasn’t been able to “purchase” them.

The POLITICO Poll also finds that the issues self-identified MAHA supporters rank as most important are ones Democrats have championed more often than Republicans, such as halting the spread of infectious diseases, stricter regulation of “forever chemicals,” and expanding access to reproductive health care.

This is not necessarily surprising, since many voters who support MAHA’s goals have typically been Democrats, said Rodney Whitlock, a longtime GOP congressional aide turned health care strategist.

Some of the policies less popular among MAHA respondents, meanwhile, are ones the GOP has embraced: restricting abortion access and reducing the number of vaccines Americans receive.

Yet the movement still lines up with, and supports, some Republican food policies and initiatives. For example, 80 percent of MAHA respondents support removing artificial dyes from food and 72 percent support restricting junk food purchases in federal nutrition programs, both priorities the Trump administration has tackled.

Lyons has urged Republicans to talk more about Kennedy’s policy goals, including discouraging Americans from eating ultraprocessed food, on the campaign trail. If they fail to do so and disgruntled MAHA voters peel off or stay home in November, he has warned, Democrats could take control of Congress, subject Kennedy to oversight hearings, and block his policy and regulatory efforts from going forward.

Lyons did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The POLITICO Poll results — along with other recent polling showing declining trust in the Trump administration’s health recommendations — reveal a potential vulnerability for Republicans.

House Majority Forward, a nonprofit allied with House Democratic leadership, surveyed voters in February and March across several battleground districts the party is hoping to flip this fall. The group’s polls, shared first with POLITICO, found that more voters in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey and Pennsylvania disapprove of Kennedy and his performance as health secretary than view him favorably.

“There’s this opportunity for Democrats to just start talking about making foods healthier and reducing the chemicals in the food that we're giving them, … you know, limiting pesticide use, getting physical activity, removing artificial dyes,” said Carly Cooperman, a Democratic pollster and CEO of Schoen Cooperman Research.

A growing number of House and Senate Democrats — challengers and incumbents — are taking this advice to heart.

They’re beginning by focusing on pesticide use, which has become a political tension point for Trump’s GOP coalition, pitting the MAHA movement against powerful farm industry interests that have long been loyal to Republicans and hold significant sway with the administration.

Democratic lawmakers have railed against the Trump administration in social media posts, floor speeches and hearings for signing an executive order boosting domestic production of the pesticide glyphosate and siding with Bayer in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could shield the company from liability for the health impacts of its products. Democratic lawmakers, joined by a handful of Republicans, are also introducing bills and amendments that would undo or overturn these actions.

The POLITICO Poll found that limiting pesticide use is broadly popular, with more than two-thirds of respondents in support of doing so. And MAHA’s dissatisfaction with the Trump administration’s stance has led to some leaders within the movement threatening to primary farm-state Republicans as early as August of last year — yet another opportunity Democrats can exploit.

“We're not even sure that we even have a path forward in this administration when it comes to pesticides, because it's very clear that they are entirely owned by Bayer and the chemical companies,” said Kelly Ryerson, a MAHA influencer who goes by the moniker Glyphosate Girl online and has publicly backed Kennedy.

Progressive advocates also say Democrats would be wise to seize on MAHA voters’ simmering frustration.

“There is a genuine concern that there is unhealthy food in our food supply, and this administration is making it worse,” said 314 Action President Shaughnessy Naughton, whose group is backing Democratic challengers around the country.

Yet even as a segment of MAHA appears to sour on the GOP — and Kennedy — some of his agenda garnered widespread support among poll respondents, from removing artificial food dyes to offering whole milk in schools. Though MAHA respondents didn’t rank Kennedy’s stances on vaccines high on their list of importance, a notable chunk of Americans are highly skeptical of existing requirements.

The POLITICO Poll found that 41 percent of respondents across party lines support reducing how many vaccines Americans receive, with Republicans significantly more likely to hold that view. Fifty-eight percent of Trump 2024 voters support reducing how many vaccines Americans receive, compared to 29 percent of Harris 2024 voters.

Broad support for some of the key positions of MAHA — especially among Trump 2024 voters — and approval of some of the administration’s actions on health, suggest that Republicans may still be able to leverage the popular elements of the platform to win over voters in November.

Because health ranks so far down the list of Americans’ concerns, it’s unlikely to be a decisive factor in how they vote this midterm. Still, that doesn’t mean Republicans should be complacent and assume MAHA priorities won’t matter at all, Republican strategist Whitlock warned.

“Republicans have to be working from the perspective of ‘everything matters,’” he said. “To do differently is political suicide.”

Two years after a high-profile primary defeat that sent shockwaves through the progressive Squad, Cori Bush wants to go back to Washington.

But as the activist-turned-politician seeks to reclaim her seat, she must also contend with the changed landscape of the Beltway — including a Democratic Party engaged in fierce infighting over the country’s support for Israel that has only intensified since her ousting from Congress, which she argues will fuel her comeback bid.

“I need to go back. I didn't finish the work that I was doing,” Bush said in a recent interview. “It was interrupted by big money. It was interrupted by AIPAC and their allies who made the decision that they didn't want this activist, this advocate, who had been speaking out against war and imperialism, that had been speaking out against a genocide in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli government.”

The fight over the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its political arm’s support for candidates has reached a fever pitch among Democrats this election cycle. More and more Democrats have denounced the organization’s influence and, some 2028 presidential contenders have vowed to not accept funding from the organization.

The race in Missouri’s 1st District — a plurality Black district anchored in St. Louis — two years ago was one of the highest-profile fights between critics and supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party, occurring as activists pressured then-candidate Joe Biden over his stance in the raging Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

Then-county prosecutor Wesley Bell — backed by more than $8.5 million in outside spending from the AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project — beat Bush by about 5 points in the primary before easily winning the seat in November. AIPAC’s political arm has yet to spend in the district this year, but they endorsed Bell once again in the 2026 cycle.

“Cori Bush was a disastrously ineffective Member of Congress who didn’t deliver for her constituents,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s United Democracy Project, said in a statement. “When voters are reminded of that record of non-accomplishment, they will be no more likely to elect Cori Bush to Congress than they were to re-elect her two years ago. She was a terrible Member of Congress that didn't [do] anything for St. Louis.”

Usamah Andrabi of Justice Democrats, a progressive organization that endorsed Bush this cycle and last, argued Bell’s history of accepting AIPAC support may now be his downfall.

“Voters are waking up to [AIPAC’s] influence, and that is why you are now seeing AIPAC’s endorsement becoming, I think, a death for so many candidates and incumbents across the country,” said Andrabi.

AIPAC has had a mixed record in Democratic primary contests this year, including a faceplant in New Jersey and a split decision in Illinois, as progressive candidates more outwardly attack the organization.

Dorton highlighted Bush’s missed votes and her vote against Biden’s infrastructure bill as the reason she lost to Bell. For his part, Bell appeared unconcerned about the impact that AIPAC’s past support could have on his reelection bid, calling it nothing more than a “headline” for his opponent.

“Folks in my district, money in politics doesn't impact whether they can get gas in their car and pay for food and the price of eggs and bringing jobs into our district,” Bell said in an interview. “And so that is a headline that my opponent likes to play into.”

Antjuan Seawright — a longtime Democratic strategist and adviser to top Democratic campaign committees — also argued that a focus on AIPAC won’t motivate most primary voters.

“I know there are some in and outside of our party who want to make the conversations about the type of money folks may or may not receive, but I tend to think it's more important about the type of services we provide,” Seawright said. “As long as the people feel like you're representing them, then why should the race be about the type of money instead of about the services you provide to the district?”

But the divide in the Democratic Party over support for Israel has only grown since Bush’s 2024 defeat, particularly amid the war in Iran launched by President Donald Trump and Israeli leaders.

Sixty-seven percent of registered Democrats said in an NBC News poll this month that they sympathized more with Palestinians rather than Israelis in “the Middle East situation.” And a recent Quinnipiac poll found that 53 percent of voters, including 89 percent of Democrats, oppose the U.S-Israel military action against Iran.

A similar division is playing out among Republicans. Most self-described MAGA voters firmly back the president’s actions, but prominent members of the conservative movement like Tucker Carlson have criticized the conflict, and Joe Kent, who was serving in a senior intelligence role, quit the administration.

“Without a doubt, the fact that Wesley Bell is historically one of the largest recipients of AIPAC money ever is a massive albatross around his neck that should be hit on consistently,” Andrabi said.

And he argued that primary voters are now rewarding Democrats willing to buck party leadership.

“Voters are looking for leaders who are willing to call out their own party when they are failing communities, call out their own party when they are too beholden to corporate lobbies like AIPAC,” he said. “Cori has done that her entire time [in Congress].”

AIPAC-backed groups two years ago broadly did not focus on Israel in contests across the country. They instead targeted Bush’s vote against Biden’s crowning infrastructure bill and missed House votes — a strategy the organization has continued in early primaries this year — and something that Bell amplified.

“I don't want to hear about someone who claims to fight but won't show up to do the job,” Bell said.

Bush was among six progressive Democrats who voted against Biden’s infrastructure bill. The group argued that the bill was incomplete without the separate economic package, known as the Build Back Better Act.

But Bush argues her activism — including pushing party leaders from the left — is where the base of the Democratic Party now is.

“The thing is, people are moving toward the things that I was speaking about,” Bush said. “I called it a genocide before many others did. I spoke up for Medicare For All before others did. I pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment in a way that hadn't been done in a very long time, and I created a caucus to stand for the Equal Rights Amendment.”

The tensions between Bell and Bush are a stark difference from their relationship pre-2024. According to Bush, the two had been friends — until Bell launched his campaign against her without a heads up. Bush said the two haven’t talked since, and she didn’t let him know when she decided to run against him this year “the same way he didn't reach out to me to tell me he was going to run against me.”

Still, Bell already has a few advantages in the race: Not only is he the incumbent, but he secured the endorsement of the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, one of the most influential Black political organizations. And Bell’s campaign war chest is much larger than hers: He has nearly $850,000 on hand as of the end of 2025, according to campaign finance records, compared to just over $200,000 for Bush.

Bell has pitched himself as a pragmatist, saying that voters in the district don’t actually think about many of the issues that Bush pushes for.

“She wasn't present in St. Louis. She didn't meet with stakeholders; she didn't meet with constituents,” he said, highlighting the money he brought to district businesses over the last two years. “The MO in Missouri does not stand for Middle East. It stands for Missouri.”

Bush, meanwhile, has signaled she will lean into her progressive activism for her comeback bid. She said she still speaks regularly with members of the Squad: Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. None of the members responded to a request for comment.

Seawright, the Democratic strategist, said the back-and-forth between the two candidates exemplifies the party’s “growing pains.”

“The primaries, hopefully, will do what they're supposed to do and settle whatever differences and disputes we may appear to have, but also change the direction of how we move forward,” he said. “No matter the differences we may appear to have amongst each other, they do not compare to the differences we have with the other side.”

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.

In Nevada, a gallon of gas is approaching $5. In Pennsylvania, farmers are fretting about the prices of fertilizer. And in Michigan, supply chain woes are throwing a wrench into the manufacturing and auto industry operations.

One month into the war in Iran, a new political reality is sinking in for Republicans in these and other battlegrounds: The war may not end as quickly as they initially hoped, and the literal and figurative costs keep rising.

Each week the war drags on prolongs the pain Americans feel. Economists have warned gas prices could continue to remain high for months even if the U.S. immediately de-escalates in Iran. Extended conflict also raises the risk of increased casualties, especially if U.S. servicemembers are deployed to on-the-ground combat. And it could sour MAGA voters whose support of President Donald Trump hinged, in part, on their opposition to “forever wars” and foreign regime change.

Some Republicans worry the war will depress turnout among staunch “America First” proponents ahead of a crucial midterm election. It’s not yet a political crisis, GOP strategists and county chairs across the country said. They’re still willing to trust the president — for now.

But they’re also finding it harder to brush off the consequences.

“What’s the end game? I don’t think the president has been clear about that,” said Todd Gillman, chair of the Monroe County Republican Party in Michigan. “The gas prices are a problem. We’re concerned how this might affect the midterms.”

A POLITICO poll this month found the president’s most loyal voters continue to back his decision to attack Iran, even though some say it violates MAGA principles or even breaks his campaign promise not to start new wars. But it also revealed real political risk if more U.S. troops are killed or the conflict extends much longer than the promised four to six weeks.

“I don't think it's going to impact Republicans’ desire to vote Republican, but I do believe that that turnout will be an issue,” said Craig Berland, chair of the Maricopa County, Arizona, Republican Party. “If the war drags on, that is going to impact the turnout, unless we are very, very successful in communicating and educating. And that's our plan, to do that.”

The situation in Iran remains in flux, and Trump could choose to withdraw U.S. support and end the country’s involvement at any moment.

Until then, the prolonged conflict is complicating the White House’s cost-of-living message, which voters consistently say is their top concern. In recent months, Trump and Vice President JD Vance embarked on an affordability messaging tour, dotting the country to deliver speeches about the administration’s wins in lowering costs and providing relief for working-class families.

But the affordability road show has screeched to a halt in the month since the U.S. launched its war in Iran.

“These types of major events can become all-consuming,” said Buzz Jacobs, a GOP strategist and White House official under George W. Bush. “They certainly suck up political capital, and they make it very difficult for the most senior officials, particularly the President, to focus on any other strategic objective.”

After Bush invaded Iraq, Jacobs recalled, a digital board outside the Situation Room listed the same meeting topics for weeks: “Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, something else, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq,” Jacobs said.

The White House pointed to polling that shows a majority of Republican voters back the Iran war.

“The President has been clear that, while there may be some short-term disruptions as a result of Operation Epic Fury, ultimately oil prices will quickly drop once the operation’s clear objectives have been achieved and America will be back on its solid trajectory of cooling inflation and robust growth thanks to this Administration’s proven economic agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and energy abundance,” spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement.

In several battleground counties, GOP chairs are holding out hope that the impact will be temporary even as the reality of the war sets in and gas prices creep toward a national average of $4 per gallon.

“Yes, it's painful now. We all realize that it's painful, with the gas prices,” said Carson City, Nevada GOP chair Susan Ruch. “I know prices are going to go up — but I do know this is short term compared to World War III.”

That optimism is shared by Decatur County, Georgia, GOP Vice Chair Jesse Williard, who also believes gas prices will plummet quickly after the war ends, setting up Republicans to buck historic midterms trends and post a strong showing in November.

“The economy, I think between now and then, is going to be great,” he said. “If it goes the other direction, it may be horrible, but I anticipate it's going to be a red wave.”

But other GOP county chairs see early fractures ahead of November’s election, driven by surging costs that are already causing pain for businesses and consumers. In the Phoenix metro area, Berland, the Maricopa County chair, said door-to-door canvassing has become more difficult since the onset of the war.

“We're even going around canvassing neighborhoods and registered Republicans are yelling out the door, ‘go away, or I'm calling the police,’” Berland said. “I find that very discouraging.”

Voters’ frustrations, he said, stem from “the war or the economy. And the economy is defined largely by energy prices.”

Across Rural America, the pain is even more acute.

Farmers in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and other agriculture-heavy states are feeling the impact of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which sent fertilizer prices skyrocketing just ahead of planting season. Some producers have had to shake up their plans last minute and plant new crops that are less reliant on fertilizer.

The scramble could lead to lower crop yields, which potentially means higher food prices this summer, North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue said.

Farmers have long been loyal to the GOP and Trump. But the war now poses another massive financial headache on top of the tariffs that have increased their production costs and evaporated markets abroad where they could sell their crops.

“We've had just a pile of uncertainty, a pile of volatility in the markets that we buy from and sell to and we're just creating more volatility, more uncertainty as we move ahead,” Perdue said.

A chorus of farm groups — including the often Trump-aligned American Farm Bureau — petitioned the White House for a bailout last week. And the agriculture lobby is requesting an ad hoc aid package from Congress to cover the mounting fertilizer costs.

Monroe County, Pennsylvania, GOP chair Pete Begley acknowledged that supply chain woes and high prices are pinching some in his community. But he’s willing to offer Trump a long runway before he gets worried.

“If it turns into six months later, we're still there, and the Ayatollah's son is still supposedly in charge, that I think will cause concern,” Begley said. “But for now, I think people are standing by the president.”