Trump Press Secretary Ignores Two Key Questions on Iran Strike Plans

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she wouldn’t “engage in hypotheticals” when asked two major questions on Trump’s plans for Iran.

First, she was asked whether Trump would circumvent Congress to strike Iran.

“[If] the U.S. were to take some type of military action, would the president go to Congress to seek war authority?” a reporter asked Leavitt at her Thursday press conference, referring to the power afforded to Congress by the Constitution.

“I’m not gonna engage in hypotheticals. I gave you the statement from the president, he’ll make a decision in two weeks,” she responded.

Leavitt referred to another valid question as a worthless hypothetical again a minute later, when asked about Iran potentially retaliating with an attempt on the president’s life, as it has been accused of doing in the past.

“As for your question regarding Iranian retaliation, I’m not gonna engage in hypotheticals again. But I can assure the American public and the world that this administration is prepared and ready to defend American interests and assets, not just in the region but here on our homeland as well,” she said.

The Trump administration has already been supporting Israeli intelligence and helped them shoot Iranian missiles down. The United States is already at least tangentially involved, while seeming to inch closer to full participation by the day. These “hypotheticals” that Leavitt shirks are being asked because they appear to be extremely likely outcomes, not just some random scenario that reporters are trying to sensationalize. It’s deeply troubling that the press secretary is dodging questions about whether the president will respect congressional war powers or launch us into another one of Israel’s wars, leaving a massive door open for Trump to avoid future accountability.

The world is on edge waiting for Donald Trump to decide if he will order the U.S. military to attack Iran. And according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, everyone will have to wait a little longer—two weeks, to be exact.

Leavitt revealed Trump’s decision-making timeline during a press briefing at the White House Thursday.

“Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” Leavitt said, reading out a statement from Trump.

A reporter then pointed out that Trump often sets two-week deadlines only to move them to suit his needs, as he has done while tepidly trying to convince Russia to stop its war in Ukraine.

“How can we be sure that he’s going to stick to this one on making the decision on Iran?” asked AFP’s Danny Kemp, referring to a similar two-week deadline Trump has repeatedly given Russia to stop bombing Ukraine (with no tangible results).

Leavitt stammered as she claimed that Iran negotiations and Russia-Ukraine negotiations were completely different before pivoting to a tried-and-true fallback: blaming Joe Biden.

Trump has previously claimed that Iranian officials want to come to Washington and negotiate an end to Israel’s war, which has so far killed at least 639 people in Iran, according to human rights groups.

Tehran, for its part, has said that “no Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House.”

“The only thing more despicable than [Trump’s] lies is his cowardly threat to ‘take out’ Iran’s Supreme Leader,” the Iranian mission to the U.N. wrote on X Wednesday.

Either way, making a people under attack wait two weeks to see if they will face further bombardment is a bonkers decision. It also marks a significant change in tone for Trump, who has so far indicated he is open to attacking Iran and has repeatedly demanded “unconditional surrender” from the Middle Eastern nation. But maybe he’s content to sit back and let Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do all the dirty work.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security have claimed multiple times since May that there’s been a 413 percent increase in assaults against their agents to justify their officers wearing masks and refusing to identify themselves. The data states otherwise. 

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump penned a column asserting the obvious—ICE officers are covering their faces and wearing plainclothes while they kidnap people off the street to “avoid accountability” and make it “harder to say precisely who had plucked up a college student or local mother and sent them to jail in another state.”  

Bump first raised the question in May in an article that had acting ICE Director Todd Lyons so incensed that he wrote a letter to the editor claiming a staggering increase in assaults, writing “officers wear masks for personal protection and to prevent doxing.… Since President Donald Trump returned to office, ICE officers have seen a staggering 413 percent increase in assaults against them.”

The use of a percentage here is very intentional, as it’s easier to inflate and sensationalize. “A 413 percent increase could mean that the number of assaults went from 200 in 2024 to 1,026 in 2025—or that it went from eight to 41.… There’s a big difference between an increase of 826 assaults and an increase of 33—especially if some of those ‘assaults’ are of the Lander variety,” wrote Bump, who dug into the claim in a piece published Thursday.

Bump found that assaults on agents had decreased every month since 2024 and, despite repeated requests to ICE, wasn’t given any proof of ICE agents being doxxed, targeted, or assaulted outside the context of an immigration arrest. 

The organization that has conducted countless raids and crackdowns, kidnapped innocent people off the street, and handcuffed elected officials, is now trying to frame itself as the victim so that its officers can continue to feel big and strong behind the anonymity of their masks. 

“We should not and cannot take ICE’s representations about the need for its officers to obscure their identities at face value. That the organization would not provide evidence for its claims … diminishes the extent to which we should grant ICE the benefit of the doubt,” Bump wrote. “Leaving the question I posed in May: Why are these officers covering their faces if not to avoid accountability?”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants the Pentagon to tone any commemoration of Juneteenth way, way down, in keeping with his anti-diversity crusade.

Hegseth’s office requested the Department of Defense take “a passive approach to Juneteenth messaging,” according to an email obtained by Rolling Stone. The Pentagon’s office of the chief of public affairs also said in the email it won’t publish Juneteenth-related material online on Thursday.

Juneteenth marks the official last day of slavery in the United States. After the Civil War ended, Union soldiers arrived in Galveston Bay, Texas, on June 19, 1865, to free the last enslaved people in the country. President Joe Biden signed a law making Juneteenth a federal holiday in 2021. The bill passed with widespread bipartisan support in the House and a unanimous vote in the Senate.

The White House did not respond to Rolling Stone’s request for comment about Hegseth’s directive. A Pentagon official said the DOD “may engage in the following activities, subject to applicable department guidance: holiday celebrations that build camaraderie and esprit de corps; outreach events (e.g., recruiting engagements with all-male, all-female, or minority-serving academic institutions) where doing so directly supports DOD’s mission; and recognition of historical events and notable figures where such recognition informs strategic thinking, reinforces our unity, and promotes meritocracy and accountability.”

It’s a little surprising that Hegseth didn’t choose to do away with marking Juneteenth altogether. Since being sworn in, the defense secretary has repeatedly stated that “DEI is dead” at the Pentagon.

Hegseth has banned the DOD from marking identity months such as Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, and Pride Month. In February, the Pentagon was directed to scrub its website of all “news and feature articles, photos, and videos that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.” The DOD removed web pages about the Tuskegee Airmen, the World War II accomplishments of Jackie Robinson, and the Navajo Code Talkers, among others—although these were restored after widespread scrutiny.

Hegseth has also insisted on changing the names of military bases that were once named after Confederate figures. The bases were renamed following the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, and Hegseth is now working to revert the base names back to the pro-slavery ones.

Donald Trump insists that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon, despite repeated statements to the contrary from his own intelligence officials. But rather than listen, the U.S. president is twisting reality to suit his plans.

The White House posted a video Wednesday of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March. Gabbard was delivering the Annual Threat Assessment from the U.S. intelligence community.

“In the past year, we’ve seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decision-making apparatus,” Gabbard says in the clip. “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”

But the clip conveniently leaves out what Gabbard said just a few moments before that soundbite. As shown in Gabbard’s full testimony, the text of which is available on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence website, she actually says Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon.

“The [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003,” Gabbard said immediately before the quote posted by the White House.

As Donald Trump seemingly rampages closer to ordering U.S. forces to attack Iran, he has sidelined Gabbard in his decision-making process. Trump has gone so far as to say he “didn’t care” about his own government’s assessment that Iran is still years away from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Instead, Trump says Iran is“very close to having it,” parroting rhetoric from the Israeli government, which has repeatedly insisted on Iran’s burgeoning nuclear capabilities as a flimsy justification for the massive military operation that has already killed at least 639 people, according to human rights activists.

Gabbard, for her part, has caved willingly enough: Gabbard told CNN Tuesday that Trump “was saying the same thing that I said in my annual threat assessment back in March.” So it seems that Trump didn’t need to edit Gabbard’s words, after all—she’s more than happy to lie for him on her own.

To be clear, this entire horrific situation could have been avoided if Trump had kept the U.S. in the Iran nuclear deal. Trump left the agreement in 2018 simply because it had been forged under his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

Two of the highest-ranking military Cabinet members have essentially been cut off as Trump teeters on the edge of joining Israel’s war on Iran, according to a report from The Washington Post.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, two people who you’d expect to be closely involved with the potential wartime situation, have been kicked to the curb in favor of his “tier one” advisory group on Iran, which includes Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine.

While Israel has bombarded Iran based on unsubstantiated nuclear weapons claims, Trump has yet to confirm U.S.-led military strikes on Iran, which could lead to global fallout. Reports Wednesday indicated that Trump has approved strikes but not yet given the final green light.

Hegseth has struggled to establish trust and consistency while leading the Pentagon, a job he was nearly disqualified from in the first place. Now it seems clear that the president does not take him seriously as a leader or confidant. “Nobody is talking to Hegseth,” one official told the Post. “There is no interface operationally between Hegseth and the White House at all.”

Trump has made his distaste for Gabbard much clearer, especially after she posted a three-minute-long X video last week that went mostly unnoticed at the time but now appears to be an obvious rebuke of U.S. support for Israel’s war on Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump stated on Tuesday when asked about Gabbard’s video, on Air Force One. “I think they were very close to having a weapon.”

While Gabbard’s booting from the inner circle seems to be ideology-based, Hegseth’s shunning feels like a competency and trust issue. Either way, the country’s two top defense leaders are not involved in discussions around starting a massive war, which points to a troubling level of internal discord and disunity, especially just months into Trump’s first year as president.

Donald Trump slammed a Fox News poll Thursday on Truth Social, accusing the network’s pollsters of being “always wrong and negative.”

“The Crooked FoxNews Polls got the Election WRONG, I won by much more than they said I would, and have been biased against me for years,” Trump wrote, referring to the 2020 election, which Fox correctly said that he lost. “It’s why MAGA HATES FoxNews, even though their anchors are GREAT.”

“I hate FAKE pollsters, one of the Worst, but Fox will never change their discredited pollster!” he added.

A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that a majority of voters disapprove of Trump’s job performance by an eight-point margin. The poll, regarded as one of the best in the industry, found that a majority of voters are still feeling pessimistic about the state of the economy. 

Just Tuesday, the Federal Reserve forecasted higher inflation as business owners and consumers start to feel the impact of the president’s sweeping tariffs. On inflation specifically, Trump’s job approval is underwater by 30 points, with just 34 percent of voters approving of his performance on the price-level.

When it comes to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” congressional Republicans’ sprawling package of tax cuts and health care “reforms” that the president has put his full weight behind, the poll found Americans oppose the measure by a large margin. According to the poll, nearly three in four independents oppose the measure, as do the vast majority of Democrats. 

The majority of voters across the spectrum disapprove of the president’s job on immigration and foreign policy, as his response to anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles and a collapse in diplomatic negotiations with Iran has dominated headlines.  

Elon Musk thinks White House presidential personnel director Sergio Gor is a “snake.” Gor, who is responsible for picking the approximately 4,000 executive branch staff members, reportedly made sure Musk’s good friend Jared Isaacman got his nomination to lead NASA rescinded.

“He is a snake,” Musk commented on Wednesday under an article describing the lack of vetting that Gor, who vets Trump’s staff, had gone through himself. The rivalry between these two men allegedly started in March when Musk, who was more involved with DOGE at the time, admonished Gor for not filling the Trump administration’s staff quickly enough, “humiliating” him in a Cabinet meeting. Isaacman lost his nomination shortly after, something that infuriated the world’s richest man.

There is obviously still bad blood between Musk and the Trump administration, and comments like these from Musk help illuminate just how and why the beef started. Musk’s flurry of tweets against Trump—claiming he’s in the Epstein files and attacking his One Big Beautiful Bill Act—were directly influenced by the spat between Musk and Gor.

A federal judge just destroyed the Trump administration’s attacks on undocumented immigrants’ habeas corpus rights by upholding a 21-day notice requirement for potential deportees. 

U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, a Trump appointee to the bench in Pennsylvania, ruled that the government could not provide detainees with only seven days to challenge their removal or seek asylum after receiving a deportation order. 

In a 15-page ruling that blocked the expedited deportation of a Venezuelan man, Haines provided a detailed hypothetical to demonstrate exactly why seven days would be insufficient for a detainee to have sufficient time to be heard by a court. 

“Assume that detainee John Doe … receives notice on June 1, 2026 at 12:00 P.M., that he is subject to removal under the [Alien Enemies Act] and the Proclamation. His only recourse is to file with the Judiciary in habeas,” she wrote. 

“Assume that John Doe then begins drafting, through whatever means are available to him, a habeas petition.… Halfway through drafting his petition (or while waiting for a callback from his attorney, or while still looking for one), on June 4 2026, at 5:00 P.M., he is placed on a plane which will arrive in Northern District of Texas” the same day, Haines wrote.  

“He has no opportunity to take his partially drafted petition with him or call his attorney (or find an attorney) before he is transferred,” she wrote. 

Haines imagined that the detainee might take a day to acclimate to his surroundings or find the means to continue working on his petition or hear back from his attorney—and by that time, around noon on June 6, 2026, “he stands to be removed from the country in just two days.”

“Might there not be a significant risk that this individual will not reach the judiciary before his seven days have run their course, meaning that he would be removed without any hearing whatsoever? Might not his movements from one facility to another, his quest to draft a petition, and/or his search for word from an attorney take even longer than the timeframes that the Court has just described?” Haines wrote.

“The Court cannot help but answer those questions in the affirmative,” she concluded. 

In May, Haines upheld Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and his declaration that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was mounting an “incursion” into the United States. In her ruling, though, she rejected the administration’s goal to curb due process for those targeted by the AEA. With the Department of Homeland Security pushed to provide detainees with only 12 to 24 hours, she called for the administration to abide by a three-weeks notice. 

The Federal Reserve is forecasting aggressive stagflation for the remainder of 2025.

Inflation is expected to go up to 3 percent, GDP growth is expected to fall by 1.4 percent, and unemployment will rise to 4.5 percent, the Fed announced Wednesday.

This report comes as the Trump administration weighs further aiding Israel in its war on Iran, a move that could seriously destabilize the region and multiple economies, including our own. There’s also Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which is expected to add $2.8 trillion to the deficit and reward tax cuts to wealthy individuals and corporations while slashing Medicaid and other social welfare programs.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell took to the podium on Wednesday to reaffirm what he’s been saying for months: This economic downturn is a direct result of President Trump’s tariffs.

“Increases in tariffs this year are likely to push up prices and weigh on economic activity. The effects on inflation could be short-lived, reflecting a onetime shift in the price level. It’s also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent,” Powell said. “Avoiding that outcome will depend on the size of the tariff effects, on how long it takes for them to pass through fully into prices, and ultimately, on keeping long-term inflation expectations well-anchored.”

The Fed has refused to cut interest rates as a result of the projected stagflation. Trump has yet to comment on the Fed’s report.