Bank

The Donald Trump White House is bracing for impact from a potentially devastating new book set to publish mid-June. New York Times correspondents Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan — two of the most wired reporters in Washington with a proven track record of explosive Trump administration disclosures — have spent a lot of time investigating Trump's presidency, and the results are causing "high anxiety" in Trumpworld.

According to Axios founder Mike Allen, Trump's vicious mid-March attack on Haberman finally revealed what he was so desperate to suppress: the announcement of the book, titled "Regime Change," which examines Trump's "Imperial Presidency."

Trump's rage was unhinged. "Maggot Hagerman, just another SLEAZEBAG writer for The Failing New York Times, insists on writing false stories about me," Trump posted on Truth Social, threatening to add Haberman and her "associates" to his Florida lawsuit against the Times.

The timing wasn't coincidental. Allen noted that Trump's post lined up perfectly with an Oval Office interview Haberman and Swan conducted with the president in March — suggesting Trump was already aware of the book project.

The White House is now in full damage-control mode. Over the past few weeks, senior administration officials have been privately discussing leaks from Oval Office and Situation Room meetings to Haberman and Swan — including recent 2026 discussions — signaling panic about what explosive information might be contained in the forthcoming book.

The parallels to Trump's first term are unmistakable: previous bombshell book disclosures had his inner circle pointing fingers at each other in mutual suspicion and paranoia.

The publisher's description hints at the book's scope and ambition: "Regime Change" takes you inside secret deliberations of a president "who has fundamentally altered the nature of the office he holds — and, with it, how the rest of the world understands American power."

For a president obsessed with controlling his media narrative, the prospect of two supremely connected Times reporters publishing an in-depth examination of his presidency represents more chaos for an embattled White House.

Donald Trump's apocalyptic threat — "A whole civilization will die tonight" — if Iran doesn't reopen the Strait of Hormuz is facing a different kind of pressure: his own party is running out of patience and preparing to invoke constitutional limits on his war powers.

According to The Hill, GOP lawmakers are increasingly restless as the conflict drags on, and Trump faces a critical 6-day window before Congress could force a showdown vote on war powers authority.

The political ground is shifting beneath Trump's feet. The Iran operation is unfolding at a precarious moment for Republicans, as the midterm election season intensifies and segments of the MAGA base grow increasingly angry over perceived abandonment of the "America First" agenda. Trump promised this would last four to five weeks. Instead, he has escalated tensions, threatened strikes on Iran's infrastructure, and hasn't ruled out U.S. ground troops — moves that risk entrenching America in a prolonged conflict.

GOP lawmakers are now falling out of "lockstep" with Trump and are now drawing a line in the sand: 60 days.

"Constitutional limits are in place to temper the president from unilateral authority. I support the president's actions taken in defense of American lives and interests. However, I will not support ongoing military action beyond a 60-day window without congressional approval," Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) wrote in an op-ed on April 1.

Curtis invoked the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which "limits the president's period of time to respond to 'emerging threats.'" A 60-day window, he argued, "is a fully sufficient window for presidents to take emergency measures in response to a national threat and then remit a decision to the duly elected representatives of the people as to whether a state of war should in fact be declared and continued."

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) signaled he'd consider voting on a war powers resolution if the conflict extends beyond 60 days. "I do think Iran has been a threat for 47 years, and they've killed roughly a thousand Americans. But I'd consider the resolution," Bacon told The Hill. He added that he hopes the conflict ends quickly, but "the enemy has a vote."

Public opinion is overwhelmingly against continuation. In a CNN poll released last week, 66 percent of respondents said they either "somewhat disapprove" or "strongly disapprove" of the U.S. military action in Iran.

Frustration is mounting across the GOP conference. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) has already declared she won't support Trump's requested $200 billion supplemental funding package for the Pentagon.

"I've already told leadership, 'I am a no on any war supplementals,'" Boebert told CNN's Manu Raju. "I am so tired of spending money elsewhere. I am tired of the industrial war complex getting all of our hard-earned tax dollars. I have folks in Colorado who can't afford to live."