“This guy should not have any authority at all”: Trump under fire from multiple fronts as Nobel laureate backs concerns first raised by Texas Republican

Texas – Criticism intensifies across both political and academic circles over the president’s rhetoric and handling of the escalating Iran conflict.

A growing chorus of concern has emerged, spanning from within Republican ranks to outside voices in the academic world, all pointing to what they describe as troubling signs in both tone and decision-making. What began as a rare break from a Texas Republican congressman has now expanded into a broader wave of alarm, with a Nobel Prize-winning economist calling for extraordinary constitutional action.

Paul Krugman, writing in a recent post, delivered one of the most severe critiques yet, suggesting that President Donald Trump is aware that the situation in Iran has deteriorated significantly but may still refuse to step back. According to Krugman, the stakes are no longer just political—they are deeply tied to global stability and leadership. “This is really bad. It’s hard to see what happens in 48 hours. It’s clear that Trump, for all his pretense of, ‘I’m always winning,’ is aware of how completely he screwed things up, that he’s aware that he has basically led America into an epic strategic defeat.”

Krugman argued that the president’s awareness of the situation does not necessarily translate into restraint. Instead, he warned of the possibility that Trump could attempt drastic actions in an effort to recover from what he views as a major failure. “If we had a functioning democracy, this would be 25th Amendment time. This guy should not have any authority at all. Finger on the button, although I don’t think we’re talking about nukes, but he shouldn’t have any authority on matters of state violence when this is the kind of mood he’s in.”

Republican divide deepens as criticism grows

Krugman’s remarks come shortly after U.S. Rep. Nathaniel Moran of Texas publicly broke with Trump over his rhetoric toward Iran, marking a notable moment of internal disagreement within the Republican Party.

Moran responded to Trump’s warning that the United States could wipe out the “whole civilization” of Iran, drawing a firm line between strong defense and what he described as unacceptable language. “So, let me be clear: I do not support the destruction of a “whole civilization.” That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America.”

While Moran had previously supported military actions tied to the conflict, he emphasized that those actions must remain grounded in constitutional authority and long-standing values. “The United States of America must always be prepared to use overwhelming military force when necessary to defend our national security interests and protect Americans at home and abroad,” he said, before stressing limits tied to law and principle. “What sets America apart is not only our strength, but how we use it,” Moran added, underscoring a central theme of his criticism.

His remarks signaled a deeper concern about how far rhetoric and potential action might go. He warned that abandoning ethical standards could damage the country’s standing in the world. “Our nation has always conducted military operations for just causes and through just and moral means. This must continue in the future; otherwise we forfeit our legitimacy to lead the world.”

Mounting concern across political spectrum

Moran’s stance did not stand alone. Other lawmakers also expressed unease, highlighting a widening divide over Trump’s approach.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski rejected the idea that the president’s comments could be dismissed as negotiation tactics, stating the rhetoric “cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations with Iran..” and warning, “This type of rhetoric is an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years.”

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley echoed that concern, stating, “The United States does not destroy civilizations. Nor do we threaten to do so as some sort of negotiating tactic.”

At the same time, some Republicans have continued to support Trump’s posture. U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington praised the president’s actions, saying, “thank God we have a commander in chief who is not full of empty rhetoric.”

Still, the divide reflects a growing tension over how the United States should use its power, especially during a volatile conflict.

Fears over leadership and next steps

Krugman’s warning went beyond policy disagreements, focusing instead on what he described as troubling signs in Trump’s behavior and communication. “On Wednesday, Trump gave a speech, which was… pretty depressing. He was low energy, listless, and seemed to be disconnected from reality, insisting that everything is going great in this war and everything is going great across the board.”

He concluded with a stark expression of concern about what may come next. “Anyway, I’m scared. I wonder very much what the next few days will bring because this is looking like basically a president who is losing it and unfortunately losing it in a way that can really make the world a much worse place very fast.”

Together, these voices—from within the Republican Party and beyond—point to a moment of growing uncertainty. What began as isolated criticism has now evolved into a broader debate about leadership, limits, and the risks tied to decisions made at the highest level of power.