President Donald Trump's frustration boiled over on Tuesday morning as he used explicit language to criticize both Israel and Iran for violating the ceasefire agreement he had brokered just hours earlier.
According to the Daily Mail, the president's outburst came before boarding Marine One en route to the NATO Summit.
The president did not mince words when expressing his disappointment, stating that the two nations "don't know what the f*** they're doing" after both sides continued military operations despite agreeing to halt hostilities. Trump had announced the ceasefire deal Monday evening following a weekend of heightened tensions that included U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
The road to the failed ceasefire began when Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend. Iran retaliated by targeting America's largest Middle East military base near Doha, Qatar, though Trump initially chose not to respond militarily to that action. Instead, he worked to broker what he hoped would be a 24-hour ceasefire agreement between the two nations.
Trump used his Truth Social platform to announce the deal Monday evening, congratulating both sides and urging them to remain "peaceful and respectful." The ceasefire was meant to take effect in stages, with Iran initiating the pause followed by Israel, ultimately leading to what Trump dubbed "THE 12 DAY WAR."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement confirming that Israel had conducted "powerful strikes in the heart of Tehran" just before the ceasefire was to begin. This action resulted in significant Iranian casualties among security forces and militia members.
Israeli forces launched additional attacks targeting radar installations near Tehran, even after the ceasefire was supposed to take effect. Iran responded by firing multiple missiles at Israel, resulting in four Israeli civilian casualties. The back-and-forth continued despite Trump's efforts to maintain the peace agreement.
Trump reportedly called Netanyahu from Air Force One, successfully convincing him to recall Israeli aircraft and cease further military action. The Israeli Prime Minister's statement acknowledged Trump's role in helping achieve Israel's military objectives while also expressing confidence in the ceasefire's stability.
The situation highlighted the complex dynamics between Trump and Netanyahu, with the president openly expressing his disappointment in Israel's actions. Trump emphasized the need for Israel to "calm down," particularly regarding their response to what he characterized as a possibly mistaken rocket launch.
Trump's unusually frank language on the South Lawn reflected his growing frustration with both nations' inability to maintain the negotiated peace. He specifically criticized Israel's decision to launch massive strikes just as the ceasefire agreement was being finalized.
The president's efforts to maintain diplomatic channels remained evident as he continued working to stabilize the situation from Air Force One. His conversation with Netanyahu appeared to have some success in preventing further escalation, though tensions remained high.
Trump expressed cautious optimism that the ceasefire would hold, suggesting both sides were "tired of it." He also emphasized his belief that Iran's nuclear ambitions had been curtailed, stating it was "the last thing on their mind right now."
The dramatic breakdown of the ceasefire agreement has left both regional and international stakeholders concerned about potential further escalation. Trump's explicit criticism of both nations marked a significant shift in diplomatic tone, reflecting the gravity of the situation.
Despite the initial failure of the ceasefire, Trump's intervention appears to have prevented immediate further escalation. His direct communication with Netanyahu proved crucial in halting additional Israeli strikes, though the long-term stability of the region remains uncertain.
The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, as the potential for renewed conflict remains high. Trump's unusually candid remarks about both allies and adversaries highlight the complex diplomatic challenges facing his administration in maintaining peace in the Middle East.
California insiders are buzzing over a familiar name cropping up in talks of the state’s next top office. Kamala Harris’s potential entry into the gubernatorial contest has sparked both excitement and skepticism across party lines.
According to Breitbart News, the former vice president is seriously weighing a bid for governor of California, though no final decision has been made.
Sources close to Harris say she’s given herself a self-imposed deadline at the end of summer to decide whether to launch a campaign. Supporters argue her national profile and fundraising prowess could reshape the race, while skeptics question whether she can navigate a sprawling primary field.
Insiders report Harris “hasn’t made a final decision yet and is still considering all her options,” according to the outlet. That uncertainty has given her team the urgency to weigh pros and cons before the self-imposed deadline.
One source added that talks of her candidacy have “given her a renewed sense of excitement,” noting “a glimmer in her eyes” when discussing public service. These comments suggest Harris views a potential campaign as more than just another run for office.
Another confidant cautioned against reading too much into early chatter, insisting some advisers have “pushed back on the idea” that she is “inclined to enter the contest.” That pushback highlights internal debate over her next political move.
Among Democratic activists, Harris’s possible bid has drawn applause for her proven fundraising network. Many believe she can quickly outpace opponents in early money and endorsements.
Conversely, some party strategists worry her national ambitions could overshadow local issues. They argue California voters may prefer candidates with deeper state experience or fresh perspectives over a high-profile national figure.
Critics also note the crowded Democratic field already includes figures like former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, raising concerns about vote splitting and potential runoff complications.
A February survey by Emerson College Polling, Inside California Politics, and The Hill placed Harris at 57 percent support among Democratic primary voters. That lead dwarfed former Rep. Katie Porter’s nine percent and Villaraigosa’s four percent.
California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis matched Villaraigosa at four percent in the same poll, while Xavier Becerra trailed further behind. These numbers suggest Harris’s name recognition gives her a substantial early edge.
However, pollsters caution that early surveys often shift once campaigns launch and candidates begin advertising. Voter preferences can change significantly once debates and primary campaigns intensify.
Should Harris decide to enter the race, her Senate term would overlap with a gubernatorial run, prompting coordination with state officials on campaign logistics. California’s primary is scheduled for March 2026, with the general election in November.
A formal announcement before her end-of-summer deadline would allow Harris ample time to build a statewide campaign infrastructure, secure endorsements, and finalize her platform on issues like housing, climate and public safety.
Kamala Harris, former vice president and U.S. senator, is weighing a run for California governor, with an end-of-summer decision looming. She’s drawn support for her fundraising strengths but faces questions over her state experience and a crowded Democratic field. Her campaign calculus will hinge on whether advisers’ optimism outweighs internal doubts and if early polls sustain her front-runner status. Should she move forward, Harris must navigate primary deadlines, build a campaign team, and present a clear agenda to voters.
The growing tension between President Trump and congressional leaders reached a boiling point Saturday after he ordered military strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities without prior congressional approval. The controversial move has ignited fierce debate about presidential war powers and constitutional limits.
According to the New York Post, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leading calls for Trump's impeachment, declaring the strikes "unconstitutional" and a "grave violation" of congressional war powers.
Trump announced that U.S. forces had successfully targeted Iran's Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan nuclear sites, with all American aircraft safely returning from the mission. The president's decision has sparked intense criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, though only Democratic lawmakers have explicitly called for impeachment proceedings.
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley pointed out that previous presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, had conducted similar military operations without explicit congressional approval. He emphasized that critics would need to prove the strikes constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" under Article Two of the Constitution to pursue impeachment.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries demanded immediate classified briefings for Congress, insisting that Trump must explain his rationale to the American people. The New York Democrat stressed that Trump bears "complete and total responsibility" for any consequences stemming from the unilateral action.
Top Intelligence Committee Democrat Jim Himes expressed outrage at not receiving advance notice of the strikes, despite his position in the Gang of Eight. He argued that constitutional requirements mandate congressional consultation before military action.
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie broke ranks with his party by declaring the strikes unconstitutional, though he stopped short of calling for impeachment. His stance highlighted the growing rift within the GOP over Trump's foreign policy decisions.
House Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republican leaders had reportedly received advance notice of the military operation, according to sources familiar with the situation. This selective notification has further intensified Democratic criticism of the administration's approach.
Sen. Bernie Sanders condemned the strikes during an Oklahoma rally, emphasizing that only Congress has the constitutional authority to take the country to war. The Independent senator's remarks reflected growing progressive opposition to unilateral military actions.
Democratic Senator John Fetterman notably supported Trump's decision, praising it as "the correct move" and citing Iran's status as a leading sponsor of terrorism. His position demonstrated that not all Democrats opposed the military action.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham enthusiastically endorsed the strikes, praising the U.S. Air Force and congratulating Trump on the decision. His response typified the strong support from Trump's traditional allies in Congress.
New York Representative Mike Lawler defended the strikes by comparing them to similar actions taken by President Obama in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen under existing Authorization for Use of Military Force agreements.
The situation threatens to escalate dramatically, with Iran already issuing warnings of retaliation against U.S. interests. This development has raised concerns about potential triggers for NATO's Article Five, which considers an attack on one member nation an attack on all.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, typically a strong Trump supporter, called for peace and expressed concern about potential terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Her response reflected growing anxiety about the broader implications of the military action.
Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities has created unprecedented political tension in Washington, with Democrats pursuing impeachment while Republicans remain divided. The constitutional debate over presidential war powers continues to intensify as the world watches for Iran's response.
In a surprising move over the weekend, President Donald Trump ordered strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, catching global observers off-guard.
The military operation, involving U.S. Air Force B-2 bombers, came on the heels of Trump's earlier indication of a two-week decision window, allowing for potential diplomatic talks with Iran, as the New York Post reports.
Trump’s order for an attack on the Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan came right after he returned from a weekend golf trip in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The wider world was led to believe that any military action was at least two weeks away. Trump had previously mentioned the possibility of waiting before making any decisions about military action, citing ongoing negotiations with Iran.
The surprise was compounded by the fact that six B-2 stealth bombers capable of delivering 30,000-pound bombs were seen leaving Missouri early on Saturday. These aircraft are known for their long-range capabilities and stealth technology, which allowed them to conduct the operation without detection until after it had been completed. However, publicly available flight schedules suggested these aircraft were unlikely to arrive in Iran until late Sunday, enhancing the unexpected nature of the strikes.
Previously, Israel had been using jets for striking nuclear facilities using less powerful, 2,000-pound bombs, lacking the capacity to deliver the heavy payloads that the B-2 bombers are capable of. The United States’ decision to employ B-2 bombers underscored the significant escalation, reflecting a capability that no other military possesses.
After the operation, President Trump publicized the success of the mission. “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” he stated. This announcement confirmed the exit of all aircraft from Iranian airspace safely, ensuring the mission concluded without loss.
The president’s decision has surprised many given his earlier statements that he would spend “the next two weeks” considering whether or not to proceed with military action. This period was perceived as a potential opportunity for diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Trump had indicated he could decide soon based on how these talks evolved, creating an air of uncertainty around U.S. intentions.
The strikes have been framed as a preventative measure aimed at mitigating the nuclear threat posed by Iran. Significant pressure has been mounting over recent years regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with various parties advocating differing solutions. However, the sudden nature of these strikes has generated discussion about the potential for escalating tensions in the region.
In his address following the attack, Trump praised the U.S. military’s execution of the plan, stating, “A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.” His statement highlighted the complex logistics and precision required for such a military maneuver and acknowledged the skill and bravery of American service members.
The impact of these strikes on future diplomatic efforts with Iran remains to be seen. While the primary intention was to prevent further nuclear developments, the attack may alter the dynamics of any forthcoming talks. The President concluded his announcement urging peace, adding, “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” underscoring a preference for resolution despite the aggressive stance.
Global reactions have been mixed as nations assess the implications of this sudden escalation. The unexpected attack raises questions about the broader geopolitical strategy of the United States and its willingness to use force as a tool of foreign policy.
Observers will now watch closely for Iran’s response to the attack and any consequent developments in U.S.-Iranian relations. The situation presents a challenging landscape, where diplomatic avenues could be both fraught with difficulty and urgently necessary. The coming weeks will provide insight into whether the path towards peace or further conflict will prevail.
The phasing out of existing green energy incentives leftover from the Biden administration is stirring debate among Senate Republicans, revealing divisions within the party.
This disagreement comes to light as Republicans deliberate over a new version of their legislative proposal, termed the "big, beautiful bill," as the Daily Caller reports.
The center of this conflict revolves around the proposed reductions in climate-friendly tax credits. These credits were established during Biden's administration to promote green energy projects. While some Republicans push for a considerable rollback, others advocate for less extreme measures.
The push to alter these incentives has not only highlighted policy differences but also hinted at financial motivations. Some party members are financially invested in preserving these credits for the green industry.
While crafting their latest legislative framework, titled the “big, beautiful bill,” these varied perspectives have surfaced, further complicating the party's unified front. This bill seeks to address existing energy policies.
The draft in the Senate proposes a significant reduction in climate-friendly incentives favoring green projects. However, the degree of reduction proposed is a point of contention within the party. Some Republicans argue that the current proposal is too severe compared to what their colleagues in the House are suggesting.
The differences in opinion among Senate Republicans reflect a broader debate concerning the future of energy policy in the country. There is an ongoing conversation about balancing economic interests with environmental concerns.
Attempting to finalize this legislative proposal, GOP members are seeking common ground. They aim to introduce a bill that addresses conflicting concerns about energy resources.
Some Republicans' advocacy for maintaining green energy tax credits is suggested to align with financial interests in the industry. This financial tie to the energy sector adds another layer to the party's internal debate.
These considerations are significant against the backdrop of intense lobbying efforts from stakeholders in the energy sector. Many of these stakeholders have a vested interest in preserving existing incentives.
The ongoing discussions in the Senate highlight the complexity of navigating policy decisions that have far-reaching economic and environmental impacts.
The draft proposal aims at reducing the existing green energy tax credits, viewed as crucial by many stakeholders. While some in the party favor a substantial reduction, others are interested in a more measured approach. This internal debate is occurring amid a backdrop of recent efforts by some Senate Republicans to introduce a less drastic compromise.
This reflects a broader effort to align the unified legislative strategy with various policy goals. As Republicans continue to refine their legislative agenda, the divisions within the party depict the challenges of formulating a cohesive energy policy. The balance of economic and environmental interests remains at the forefront of this dialogue.
As discussions continue, the future of energy policy in the Senate remains uncertain. The debate underscores the party's challenge in reconciling differing perspectives. The resolution of these debates will undoubtedly shape the legislative direction of the Republican Party on energy issues.
Critical decisions on the extent of the rollback of Biden-era incentives loom large over their agenda. With the legislative process ongoing, attention remains on the ultimate form of the "big, beautiful bill." This bill has the potential to decisively impact the trajectory of the United States' energy policy.
President Trump issued a stark warning to American workers during Juneteenth celebrations, claiming that federal holidays are costing the nation billions of dollars in lost productivity. The president's comments came as millions across the country commemorated the emancipation of enslaved people.
According to the Daily Mail, Trump took to Truth Social on Thursday night to express his concerns about what he perceives as too many non-working holidays. His post notably lacked any specific reference to Juneteenth itself, despite his previous history of acknowledging the significance of the day.
The president's message was clear and direct: "Too many non-working holidays in America. It is costing our Country $BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to keep all of these businesses closed. The workers don't want it either!" He went on to suggest that if the trend continues, "Soon we'll end up having a holiday for every once working day of the year."
This year's comments mark a significant departure from Trump's previous approach to Juneteenth. During his first term in office, he regularly issued statements commemorating the holiday and its historical significance for Black Americans.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the absence of any official presidential proclamation for Juneteenth this year. When questioned by reporters, she simply stated, "I'm not tracking his signature on a proclamation today. I know this is a federal holiday. I want to thank all of you for showing up to work."
The president's critique of federal holidays came on the same day businesses nationwide closed to observe Juneteenth, which became a federal holiday in 2021. While Trump claims workers don't want these holidays, many Americans embrace the opportunity to commemorate significant historical events like the emancipation of enslaved people.
In previous years, Trump consistently recognized Juneteenth with formal statements that acknowledged its importance in American history. His proclamations often highlighted the contributions of African Americans to the nation.
His 2018 statement declared, "Together, we honor the unbreakable spirit and countless contributions of generations of African Americans to the story of American greatness." The following year, he noted that "Across our country, the contributions of African Americans continue to enrich every facet of American life."
In 2020, Trump's Juneteenth message took on a more reflective tone: "June reminds us of both the unimaginable injustice of slavery and the incomparable joy that must have attended emancipation. It is both a remembrance of a blight on our history and a celebration of our Nation's unsurpassed ability to triumph over darkness."
Trump once claimed personal credit for making Juneteenth "very famous" following controversy over his 2020 campaign rally scheduled in Tulsa, Oklahoma on the holiday. The location choice sparked significant backlash given Tulsa's history of racial violence.
In 1921, Tulsa's Greenwood district, known as "Black Wall Street," was devastated by white mobs. Approximately 300 Black residents were killed, and thousands were temporarily placed in internment camps overseen by the National Guard, making Trump's initial decision to hold a rally there on Juneteenth particularly controversial.
After facing criticism, Trump rescheduled the rally and attempted to frame the situation positively, saying, "I did something good. I made it famous. I made Juneteenth very famous. It's actually an important event, it's an important time. But nobody had heard of it. Very few people have heard of it."
President Trump's latest comments about federal holidays appear focused primarily on economic considerations rather than historical or cultural significance. His claim that these observances cost the country "billions of dollars" comes without specific data to support the assertion.
The United States currently recognizes 11 federal holidays, including New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday, Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Trump has recently acknowledged other observances like Father's Day and Flag Day, though these are not federal holidays.
Trump has also taken significant steps to roll back diversity initiatives across the federal government, issuing sweeping orders to end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which he has characterized as "illegal and immoral discrimination programs."
Carson Hocevar has landed himself in hot water after making disparaging remarks about Mexico prior to NASCAR's Cup Series race in Mexico City. The 22-year-old Michigan native faced swift punishment from his team after describing the host city as a "s**thole" during a live stream before even setting foot on the track.
According to the Daily Mail, Hocevar made the controversial comments while discussing the upcoming race at Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez. His remarks came before NASCAR's first-ever Cup Series event at the venue, which is primarily known for hosting Formula One's Mexico City Grand Prix.
The young driver complained about various aspects of the experience, from travel difficulties to safety concerns, before using the derogatory term to describe the location. His comments sparked immediate backlash and prompted his team, Spire Motorsports, to take disciplinary action.
Spire Motorsports responded to Hocevar's comments by issuing a $50,000 fine and requiring him to complete cultural-sensitivity and bias-awareness training. The team emphasized that their actions aligned with their core value of respect, which they proudly display across their equipment and digital platforms.
"Respect is not a slogan. It is a daily expectation that we 'walk the walk' in how we speak, compete, and serve the communities that welcome our sport," stated Spire Motorsports in their official response. The team made it clear that Hocevar's livestream comments failed to meet their standards.
The disciplinary measures were communicated to NASCAR, which reportedly did not impose any additional punishment beyond what the team had already implemented. The fine will not go to waste, with Spire announcing the funds will be distributed to several Mexican charities.
Following his 34th-place finish out of 37 drivers at the Mexico City race, Hocevar has publicly apologized multiple times for his pre-race comments. The driver acknowledged that his opinion had changed after experiencing the event firsthand.
"My opinion has changed. I am embarrassed by my comments," Hocevar stated in his initial apology on Sunday. However, as criticism continued to mount, he issued a more comprehensive statement acknowledging his mistake and accepting full responsibility for his actions.
Hocevar later wrote: "Whoa everybody, the truth is the truth. I said something that not only was wrong, I said it without even laying my own two eyes on CDMX or turning one lap in an actual race at an amazing facility that welcomed me with open arms and I go and say that?"
The substantial fine levied against Hocevar will serve a meaningful purpose in the very country he insulted. Spire Motorsports announced that the $50,000 penalty will be distributed to three Mexican charitable organizations.
The Mexican Red Cross, Mexican United Way, and Un Kilo de Ayuda will all receive portions of the fine. The latter organization focuses specifically on combating childhood malnutrition and supporting early-childhood development initiatives throughout Mexico.
This approach turns the negative incident into an opportunity to provide support for important causes in Mexico. The distribution of funds represents a tangible way for both Hocevar and his team to make amends for the harmful comments.
Hocevar's controversial remarks and subsequent fine come at a critical time in his racing career. Currently sitting 20th in the NASCAR Drivers' Championship standings, the young driver has shown promise with second-place finishes at both Atlanta and Nashville this season.
The incident adds an unfortunate chapter to what had been shaping up as a solid rookie season for the 22-year-old. NASCAR's Cup Series continues this weekend at Pocono Raceway in Pennsylvania, where Hocevar will likely face increased scrutiny from fans and media alike.
Following his public apologies, Hocevar thanked supporters but clarified that he wasn't looking for defense of his remarks. "Thank you for the support but I'm not sure we're on the same page. You guys want me to be me? It was me who said it and it was me who apologized after actually taking the time to explore the city and feel the passion of every fan in attendance," he wrote.
President Donald Trump has indicated he will "probably" extend the looming deadline for ByteDance to sell TikTok's U.S. operations, potentially preventing the popular app from going dark for American users this Thursday. The Chinese-owned social media platform faces its third reprieve as negotiations for its sale continue.
According to a Reuters report, Trump made these remarks Tuesday while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One. The current June 19 deadline would otherwise force TikTok to shut down its U.S. services for the second time this year.
President Trump expressed optimism that a deal will eventually materialize, saying he believes Chinese President Xi Jinping will ultimately approve the sale. "Probably have to get China approval but I think we'll get it. I think President Xi will ultimately approve it," Trump stated.
TikTok's relationship with the U.S. government has been turbulent since concerns about the app's Chinese ownership emerged. The platform briefly went offline for American users on January 19, just one day before Trump's inauguration for his second term, after ByteDance failed to meet sale requirements under U.S. law.
Upon taking office, Trump granted ByteDance a 75-day extension, setting a new deadline of April 5. When that deadline passed without a sale, the president extended it again until June 19, which is now approaching without a resolution to the situation.
This potential third extension demonstrates the complex nature of forcing the sale of a global technology platform with deep ties to both American users and Chinese ownership. The stakes remain high as TikTok serves approximately 170 million Americans.
U.S. lawmakers continue to express significant concerns about TikTok's Chinese ownership, pointing to ByteDance's legal obligations to the Chinese Communist Party as a primary security issue. These worries have fueled bipartisan support for either selling the app to non-Chinese owners or banning it entirely.
The app's massive user base and influence have complicated efforts to enforce a hard deadline. With 170 million American users, any ban would create significant disruption to both consumers and creators who rely on the platform.
Trump has acknowledged having "a little sweet spot in my heart" for TikTok, crediting the platform with helping him reach younger voters during his successful 2024 presidential campaign. This personal sentiment may be influencing his willingness to grant additional time for negotiations.
The TikTok situation represents a complex intersection of technology, national security, and international relations between the world's two largest economies. President Trump must balance security concerns with the political consequences of shutting down a widely used social platform.
ByteDance faces significant challenges in finalizing any deal, as it needs approval from both U.S. regulators and Chinese authorities. The Chinese government has historically resisted forced technology transfers, viewing them as economic coercion.
Trump's comments suggest he believes the Chinese leadership will eventually relent and approve a sale, though he offered no specific timeline or reasoning for this optimism. "I think President Xi will ultimately approve it," he remarked during Tuesday's conversation with reporters.
The TikTok saga continues to evolve as the deadline approaches with no apparent immediate resolution. The pattern of extensions suggests the complex negotiations require more time than initially anticipated when the original deadline was established.
If President Trump follows through on his indication to extend the deadline, ByteDance will receive unprecedented breathing room in its efforts to satisfy U.S. requirements. This would mark the third such extension since Trump took office in January 2025.
The fate of TikTok remains uncertain as ByteDance navigates competing demands from two global superpowers. For the 170 million American users who regularly engage with the platform, the president's decision could determine whether they retain access to an app that has become deeply integrated into American digital culture.
President Donald Trump issued a stark warning Monday, calling for the immediate evacuation of Tehran as tensions between Iran and Israel continue to escalate. The declaration came days after Israel launched military strikes against key Iranian targets, raising concerns about potential further escalation in the volatile region.
According to Breitbart, Trump took to Truth Social to make his dramatic announcement, emphasizing his long-standing position that "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon" while urging residents to leave the Iranian capital.
The president's statement followed Israel's recent bombing of key military sites in Iran. In his social media post, Trump expressed regret over Iran's failure to sign a deal he had proposed, describing the situation as "a shame, and waste of human life."
The Trump administration has consistently demanded that Iran completely halt its uranium enrichment activities rather than simply agreeing to monitoring measures. This hardline stance has created significant friction in international diplomatic efforts.
At the recent G7 summit, President Trump rejected a proposed statement on Iran because it only called for monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities instead of demanding a complete stop to enrichment. The administration maintains that enrichment beyond certain levels serves no purpose except developing materials for nuclear weapons.
This rejection highlights the administration's unwavering position on Iranian nuclear capabilities. Trump has repeatedly insisted on a complete halt to Iran's uranium enrichment program, viewing it as the only acceptable outcome of negotiations.
Israel's military campaign against Iran has intensified in recent days, with Israeli fighters reportedly achieving "total dominance" of Iranian airspace. The operations have expanded to include strikes on regime institutions in Tehran.
Among the targets hit by Israeli forces was Iran's state broadcaster, indicating a shift from purely military objectives to wider governmental infrastructure. These developments mark a significant escalation in the conflict that began with Israel's initial attacks on military targets.
The Israeli Defense Forces claim to have destroyed approximately one-third of Iran's missile launchers, substantially degrading Iran's offensive capabilities. This military success appears to have strengthened Israel's position in the ongoing conflict.
In a dramatic turn of events, Iran has reportedly sent messages to both Israel and the United States expressing a desire to end the conflict. These communications suggest Iran might be willing to abandon its nuclear enrichment program to preserve the regime.
Reports indicate Iran's eagerness to negotiate directly with President Trump, potentially marking a significant shift in the Islamic Republic's position. This apparent willingness to compromise comes as Israeli forces continue to demonstrate military superiority in the region.
The timing of Iran's outreach coincides with increasing pressure from Israeli military operations and the firm stance taken by the Trump administration regarding nuclear enrichment. This combination appears to have pushed Iranian leadership toward seeking diplomatic solutions.
President Trump's evacuation warning represents one of the most direct American interventions in the escalating conflict. His statement that "IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON" underscores the administration's primary concern in the ongoing crisis.
The situation remains highly volatile, with Israeli forces continuing operations while Iran signals a potential willingness to negotiate. The Trump administration's rejection of monitoring-only proposals at the G7 summit reinforces its position that nothing short of a complete cessation of nuclear enrichment will be acceptable.
As tensions continue to rise in the region, the international community watches closely to see whether diplomatic channels will prevail or if further military escalation will occur. The outcome could significantly reshape power dynamics throughout the Middle East for years to come.
President Donald Trump has officially thrown his support behind Arizona Congressman Abe Hamadeh, endorsing the freshman representative for reelection just months after he began his first term in the House.
According to Fox News, Trump issued a "Complete and Total Endorsement" for Hamadeh on his Truth Social platform, describing the Arizona Republican as "an America First Patriot" who "WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!"
The endorsement comes less than six months into Hamadeh's congressional tenure, signaling early support from the president for the lawmaker's future political aspirations. Trump previously endorsed Hamadeh in December 2023 ahead of the 2024 GOP primary for Arizona's 8th Congressional District.
Trump's relationship with Hamadeh has evolved since the 2024 election cycle when the president initially backed the freshman lawmaker for his first congressional run.
In an unusual political move before the 2024 contest, Trump issued a dual endorsement for both Hamadeh and another Republican primary candidate, Blake Masters. Despite sharing Trump's endorsement with another contender, Hamadeh ultimately prevailed in the primary and went on to win the general election.
The president's renewed and exclusive endorsement now solidifies Hamadeh's position as Trump's preferred candidate in the district. This early support could discourage potential primary challengers and help Hamadeh secure his position in a traditionally Republican-leaning district.
Since taking office, Hamadeh has worked to establish himself as an outspoken conservative aligned with Trump's agenda in the House.
In February, the Arizona Republican introduced a resolution aimed at limiting the types of flags that may be displayed in House facilities. The measure would restrict displays to the American flag and select others, including state flags of represented districts and flags of visiting foreign dignitaries during official visits.
Hamadeh defended his proposal earlier this month on social media, writing: "Congress is supposed to embody the AMERICAN people. That's why I've introduced a resolution to ban foreign and ideological flags in the Halls of Congress. It's pathetic that I even have to introduce this resolution."
The freshman congressman's flag resolution has gained traction among his Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives.
Six House Republicans have signed on as cosponsors of the measure according to congress.gov, with three joining as original cosponsors and three more adding their support this month. The growing list of supporters suggests Hamadeh's position is resonating with at least some members of the GOP conference.
Hamadeh recently expressed his admiration for President Trump in a June 14 letter marking both Trump's 79th birthday and the Army's 250th anniversary. In the message, he credited Trump with inspiring "young men and women to fearlessly serve our country in our nation's Armed Services and the halls of Congress."
Trump's endorsement of Hamadeh reinforces the president's focus on maintaining Republican control in key congressional districts.
The early and emphatic support for Hamadeh demonstrates Trump's continued influence within the Republican Party and his direct involvement in shaping congressional races ahead of the next election cycle. By issuing endorsements well before campaign season begins in earnest, Trump is working to solidify his preferred candidates across the electoral map.
Hamadeh, who won his seat in the 2024 election cycle, represents Arizona's 8th Congressional District, covering parts of Maricopa County. His alignment with Trump on policy issues and his public displays of loyalty to the president likely factored into securing this early endorsement.