Trump’s bombing of a Syrian airbase on Thursday night has cable news all excited. Neocons in the Senate are suitably impressed. Even the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill is cautiously supportive, though they’re calling for consultation with Congress on any future military action. By Friday morning, the biggest backlash to Trump’s strike was coming from some of his strongest supporters—voices on the nationalist right who worry their president is abandoning his “America first” posture.

“It’s not something I expected. I’ll be honest with you,” Chris Buskirk, publisher of the pro-Trump website American Greatness, told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep on NPR. “It is something that the president and his administration needs to take the time to explain to the American people in general, to his voters in particular. I don’t think this is what a lot of people, both on the left and the right, expected from this administration, which was a quick jump into military action in Syria of all places.” Buskirk stressed that he wanted to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, but noted that further intervention in Syria would be “radically different than what he has talked about in the past—namely, not focusing on ISIS but focusing on the Assad regime itself.”

While Buskirk was skeptical about Trump’s strike, other prominent Trump supporters were even more critical. According to Politico, white nationalist Richard Spencer called the move “sad, shocking and deeply frustrating” while disgraced alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos described it as “FAKE and GAY.”

Plenty of Trump supporters are getting behind the president’s action. But a divide among his base, coming as Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner go to war with each other, will be another test of where his true loyalties lie.

The media has fallen over itself to praise the U.S. attack’s against Syria last night, with many mainstream pundits proclaiming that Donald Trump has finally “become president.” But perhaps the most egregious example of this rosy coverage came from the Times, which claimed, in a piece headlined “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First,” that Trump was primarily motivated by his great sympathy for the Syrian people. Trump’s decision to drop 59 missiles on Syria, Mark Landler writes, was “an emotional act by a man suddenly aware that the world’s problems were now his—and that turning away, to him, was not an option.”

It’s true that Trump claimed that the images of Syrian children killed by chemical weapons had a “big impact” on him. But this is exactly the kind of boilerplate that leaders of all kinds use when they launch attacks against other countries. The reasons we go to war are always humanitarian. This is the oldest trick in the book. That Landler is so credulous is especially unbelievable when you consider that Trump tried to ban Syrian refugees—very much including children—from entering the United States. If his heart was full for the children of Syria, Trump could have, I don’t know, taken them in?

Worse still, there is zero proof that Trump actually believes this, other than what he has said publicly. It seems to have come solely from Landler’s imagination. In fact, the administration denies Landler’s interpretation of how things went down. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the Times, “I do not view it as an emotional reaction at all.” This is, of course, an attempt to build a narrative that Trump is steely, presidential, in control. (Axios Presented By Raytheon reports that the strikes are part of Trump’s “leadership week,” the aim of which is to prove that he is a leader.) But thanks to the Times, Trumps gets to have it both ways: He is in control and his heart bleeds.

Congressman Trey Gowdy is very unhappy with all the unsubstantiated accusations of criminal activity emanating from Congress and the White House, where people aren’t tasked with investigating crimes.

“Congress doesn’t investigate crime,” he told Greta Van Susteren. “I don’t like it when anybody accuses other people of committing crimes.... When you accuse people of committing crimes, that’s serious and it’s not Congress’ job to investigate that.”

This will come as a tremendous surprise to anyone who was alive six months ago, when Gowdy was the chairman of the House Benghazi Committee and issued this statement about Hillary Clinton and her private email server: “There is sufficient evidence, both direct and circumstantial, upon which a jury could conclude an intent to violate the law.”

In case you were not already convinced that GOP conduct during the last election was grosser than normal campaign-season hardball politics.

Whether the president and congressional Republicans will intentionally sabotage the Affordable Care Act remains an open question, weeks after Trumpcare failed. But Trump really does seem to have convinced himself that intentionally creating a health insurance market failure will be good politics for him somehow. In an interview with New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush, Trump explained his reasoning.

“Obamacare is not sustainable. It’s over. It will be anywhere from six months to a year. It’s over. It’s over. Now, if I want to deal with Democrats, Glenn, if I want to deal with Democrats, all I have to do is let it go a little further. You know, you have many states now, you have many states coming up where they’re going to have no insurance company. O.K.? It’s already happened in Tennessee. It’s happening in Kentucky. Tennessee only has half coverage. Half the state is gone. They left. But I’d rather solve it in a much better way for the country.”

Let’s take Trump’s two examples as illustrative. Between Tennessee and Kentucky, there are three Democratic Congressmen (out of 15 total) and zero Democratic senators. His theory of politics follows underpants gnome logic.

1. Kick rural, near-poor GOP voters off of their health insurance.

2. ???

3. Cut a deal with Democrats and win re-election on the issue of health care.

Needless to say, polls show this theory of politics is a bit like using a suicide vest to rob a bank. Everyone would be better off if he just reconsidered.

In Fast Five, the characters steal millions of dollars from a Brazilian crime lord by dragging a giant metal safe out of a police station with two cars. In Fast & Furious 6, they steal a computer chip by driving into the world’s largest plane as it takes off from a runway. In Furious 7, they steal a flash drive from a really nice car by driving it through three skyscrapers in Abu Dhabi. The GOP’s heist to take back Antonin Scalia’s seat is even more incredible and convoluted than any of the heists in these very good movies.

It all started in February 2016 in a ranch in west Texas, where Scalia was found dead, clutching pages of the U.S. Constitution in his cold fingers (okay, not really). Barack Obama then moved to fill Scalia’s seat by nominating Merrick Garland, one of those normcore white guys respected by both sides of the aisle. Republicans responded by refusing to even hold a hearing, citing a non-existent precedent that presidents can’t nominate Supreme Court justices in election years.

Then, the GOP used the threat of a liberal taking Scalia’s Supreme Court seat to help get a crazy old man who watches Fox News all day elected as the president of the United States. (For a moment, when it looked like Trump would not be elected, the GOP hinted they would prefer to confirm Garland instead of another, possibly more liberal judge nominated by Hillary Clinton.) Though Trump lost the popular vote by three million ballots, the GOP took his victory as a mandate to nominate an arch-conservative, Neil Gorsuch, to Scalia’s seat.

Senate Democrats protested the blatant theft of what was rightfully theirs by filibustering Gorsuch. Dungeon master Mitch McConnell, who led the way in the Obama years by violating norm after norm in the Senate, then made good on his threats to do away with the filibuster altogether, dropping a nuclear bomb on it. By Friday night, Neil Gorsuch will be be confirmed to the Supreme Court, completing the greatest political heist of our time. Cue Don Omar’s “Danza Kuduro” featuring Lucenzo.

Well, this is awkward. On Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency sent out a press release honoring the winners of the annual “Energy Star Partner of the Year Award,” given to businesses and organizations that excel in energy efficiency. In the release, which previews a gala for award winners later this month, the EPA praised the Energy Star program as “America’s resource for saving energy and protecting the environment.”

President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating the program, which sets voluntary efficiency standards for various products like electronics and buildings. If businesses choose to have their products meet those standards, they get Energy Star certified. The Environmental Defense Fund has called Energy Star “one of the most successful and noncontroversial energy-related programs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ever managed.”

The EPA seems to agree. In its press release, it said the program not only helps the environment, but saves consumers money. “In 2015 alone, Energy Star and all of its partners saved American families and businesses $34 billion on energy bills, while helping states achieve their air quality goals,” the EPA said.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA administrator, should expect an angry call from the White House any minute now.

Update: EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman says in an email: “We are still working through future plans for the Energy Star program. The Annual Gala this year was planned long before the release of the President’s Blueprint for the Budget. EPA will continue to find ways to partner with stakeholders in the private sector to innovate, improve our environment, and strengthen our economy.”

In an interview with The New York Times published on Wednesday, Trump made a highly suspect claim about Cummings, the longtime Democratic congressman from Maryland. Trump claimed that Cummings told him last month, “You will go down as one of the great presidents in the history of our country.”

That wasn’t quite true. “During my meeting with the president and on several occasions since then,” Cummings explained to The Baltimore Sun, “I have said repeatedly that he could be a great president if—if—he takes steps to truly represent all Americans rather than continuing on the divisive and harmful path he is currently on.” In other words, he said Trump could be a great president if he were somehow totally transformed, bearing no resemblance to the man he is today.

Appealing to Trump’s deep desire to be great wasn’t a crazy strategy for Cummings, but the results are telling. Not only did Trump ignore the conditional—the fact that achieving greatness would require serious changes—he tried to exploit this private conversation with Cummings for some cheap congrats.

You can’t blame Cummings for trying. His early words of encouragement were classy and aimed at redirecting Trump. But as America keeps learning—and re-learning—this is an impossible task. When there’s never any pivot, there’s never any point.

Since taking office, the president has proposed massive cuts to federally funded climate research, issued an executive order to repeal Obama-era climate regulations, and vowed to revitalize the coal industry. Turns out, the vast majority of voters don’t like any of those decisions, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-two percent of all voters disapprove of Trump’s rollback of federal regulations intended to fight global warming. Seventy-two percent say it’s a “bad idea” to slash funding for scientific research on climate change and environmental issues. And 56 percent say coal use in America should be discouraged because of its negative environmental impacts.

Among Republicans, 54 percent believe climate regulations should be squashed, and only 19 percent want to discourage the use of coal. But they’re almost evenly divided when it comes to Trump’s war on government-funded environmental research. Fifty percent of GOP voters agree with slashing it, and 45 percent don’t.

Americans as a whole still largely trust scientists, who, according to a separate poll from Pew Research released Thursday, remain the most widely trusted profession aside from military officials. On the issue of climate change, even many of Trump’s own supporters trust scientists over him: The Quinnipiac poll found that only 19 percent of voters agree that climate science is a “hoax.”

Nunes—living proof that the French accent is what makes Inspector Clouseau funny, not the idiocy and incompetence—made the surprise announcement on Thursday that he was stepping down from the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He is doing so because he is now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for improperly sharing intelligence information, but also because he is terrible.

Nunes, you may recall, made an ass of himself and the Intelligence Committee’s investigation when he conducted what may have been the most misguided press conference in recent history, all but declaring that he was working with the White House to provide cover for Donald Trump, whose campaign team was suspiciously close to the Russians. With his departure, Nunes’s own goal-ing is now finally complete. “The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power,” Nunes said in a statement. Nunes also claimed that left-wing groups were responsible for filing the ethics complaints against him, but that does not seem to be the case.

This is probably a blessing for Trump and Republicans in Congress. Nunes’s inept handling of the investigation had become a distraction, and now steadier hands seem to be in control. Mike Conway will lead the investigation with assistance from Tom Rooney and Trey Gowdy. Gowdy hasn’t figured out how to cut his hair so his face looks less weird, but he does know his way around a political investigation from his time in the Benghazi trenches. During James Comey and Mike Rogers’s testimony before the Intelligence Committee, Gowdy was the shrewdest Republican, steering the investigation away from the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. Instead, he focused on leaks from within the administration, which is the White House’s preferred line.

In other words, the House’s investigation into Russia won’t get more credible. But at least its attempts to change the subject will be less laughably obvious. Furthermore, Nunes’s continued involvement was the strongest argument for an independent investigation. In the end, this is probably bad news for Democrats.