Trump Is Literally Brainstorming Next Steps in Iran as He Goes

Donald Trump declared war against Iran over the weekend, killing dozens of people in the country’s senior leadership in the process, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet Trump still doesn’t have a clear reason for doing so—or a plan for what to do next.

The attack was initially advertised as an attempt at regime change, but the president has reportedly called droves of journalists in the days since in various attempts to revamp his message.

“Trump is basically calling up every journalist in his phone to workshop different timelines and goals for his war,” reported The Economist’s Gregg Carlstrom.

Carlstrom noted that Trump had offered four remarkably different responses to America’s major media companies. He told The Washington Post that the aim of the war would be “freedom for the people” of Iran. Meanwhile, he told The New York Times that he had “three very good choices” for who could take control of Iran. Then, he told ABC News that the “attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates” for leadership.

“It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead,” Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl.

Trump also told the Times that the war might end in “four to five weeks,” though that was way off base from the “two or three days” estimate he offered Axios.

“I can go long and take over the whole thing, or end it in two or three days and tell the Iranians: ‘See you again in a few years if you start rebuilding [your nuclear and missile programs],’” Trump told Axios in a phone interview from Mar-a-Lago, adding that regardless of his decision, it would take the Iranians “several years” to recover from the attack.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump initially stated that the Iranian mission was about “threat reduction,” then about “getting a deal,” then about “regime change” again. “And that was just on Sunday,” reported the paper’s Alex Ward.

“He doesn’t sound convinced by any of it. He’s throwing spaghetti at the wall. Ultimately I suspect he just wants to say he ‘solved’ a problem that has vexed every American president since Jimmy Carter,” wrote Carlstrom. “But there’s no clear idea what that looks like and no plan for how to get there. And there are plenty of possible scenarios in which Trump declares victory and leaves the region with an absolute mess.”

The confusion left even the president’s staunchest allies confused about the purpose of the war.  South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham tried to make sense of the mission in an interview with NBC News’s Meet the Press, though he did not succeed.

“Is hope the plan for the future of Iran?” asked host Kristin Welker on Sunday, quoting one of Trump’s social media posts.

“No, the future of Iran is going to be determined by the Iranian people. The new Iran, whatever it is … our goal is to make sure it cannot become, again, the largest state sponsored terrorism—that’s a win for us,” Graham said.

“But is there a plan, senator? Is there a plan to make sure that happens? Is there a plan—does the president have a plan to make sure that happens?” Welker said.

“No! It’s not his job or my job to do this,” Graham said, audibly distressed. “How many times do I have to tell you?”

So far, four Americans have been killed in the Iranian air strikes, according to U.S. military officials, while several U.S. jets were shot down by Kuwaiti friendly fire.

As of Monday morning, Trump still has yet to address the American people regarding the war—a major departure from his predecessors, who immediately recognized the need to justify the need for military intervention. Woodrow Wilson spoke to the public the same day he asked Congress to declare war against Germany during World War I, while Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a national address hours before the country declared war during World War II.

Even Harry Truman, who proceeded with the Korean War without the authorization of Congress—much like Trump—delivered a radio address to the American public shortly after he ordered U.S. air and naval forces to assist South Korea.

Iran was not planning to attack U.S. military personnel or bases in the Persian Gulf unless Israel struck first, sources in the Pentagon told Congress Sunday.

The revelation undercuts the White House’s claim the day before that Iran was an imminent threat to the U.S. with plans to strike American targets first. Senior Trump administration officials claimed Saturday that Iran was planning to begin attacks against American military bases in the Middle East with many casualties. At the time, CNN reported that this claim had no intelligence basis.

Iran has its own missile program and supports groups outside of the country such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and multiple militias in Iraq. White House officials used these factors to back up its claim, but other sources told the news outlet that this still didn’t justify the U.S. hitting Iran first.

When asked about the Department of Defense contradicting the White House, an administration spokesperson, Dylan Johnson, avoided the question and said that the DOD had “briefed the bipartisan staffs of several national security committees in both chambers for over 90 minutes on the military action in Iran.”

The briefings only discussed Iran’s allied groups in the region and its missile program, and didn’t mention any intelligence about Iran attacking the U.S. first, sources also told Reuters.

All of this shows bungled planning by the Trump administration for its military action against Iran. Four U.S. soldiers have been killed thus far and five seriously wounded, with other military personnel suffering minor shrapnel injuries and concussions. By Trump’s admission, any plans for succession in Iran after its supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed on Saturday were dashed because multiple successors were also killed.

What happens now? Apparently Trump is workshopping possible plans with outside journalists. Meanwhile, countless Iranian civilians are dead, including at least 165 at an elementary school, and the death toll in the region will only increase as this ill-advised, haphazard war continues.

President Donald Trump dodged questions about his illegal war with Iran to praise two new statues in his paved-over Rose Garden.

Arriving back at the White House Sunday evening, Trump was peppered with questions from reporters about his illegal—and sudden—aerial bombing campaign in Iran. But Trump declined to answer, and turned his attention instead to some new statues of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in the Rose Garden, CNN reported.

“What are the objectives for Iran?” asked one reporter.

“Mr. President, who do you want to lead Iran?” asked another.

“Unbelieveable statutes, you see,” Trump mused. “Unbelievable statues.”

Trump then wandered away, as the reporters continued to shout questions after him. “Mr. President, what’s your message to the families of the service members who were killed?”

No response came.

Trump’s refusal to answer questions betrays more than a total lack of leadership—it reveals his complete lack of compassion for the American people, who overwhelmingly disapprove of a war with Iran.

Speaking Sunday in a pretaped video about three U.S. soldiers killed in the attack, Trump said, “Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is.”

U.S. Central Command confirmed Monday that a fourth service member died due to injuries sustained in the operation.

More than 550 people were killed during a series of U.S. and Israeli strikes in Iran, including 150 people, many of whom were children, at a girls’ elementary school.

Anti-voting activists are circulating an unconstitutional executive order draft that they argue could allow Donald Trump to take control over the country’s electoral systems ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The 17-page order, titled “Establishing Security, Integrity, and Transparency for United States Elections with Protections Against Foreign Interference,” was originally penned in April 2025. It argues that Trump could declare a national emergency to circumvent the national security “threats” posed by America’s electoral process.

The pitch appears to be contingent on a new component of MAGA’s 2020 presidential election conspiracy, blaming China for the alleged election interference.

The party, and its leaders, have already baselessly attacked mail-in voting and accused the country’s largest electoral software companies—Smartmatic and Dominion—of rigging their machinery to assist President Joe Biden. Both companies sued the media entities and Trump allies that touted the thoroughly debunked conspiracy, securing enormous financial settlements once it became clear that there was no fodder to fuel the bogus allegations.

“There is now clear and compelling evidence from court cases and forensic analysis that these threats have not been mitigated but instead have intensified,” the order reads. “Persons located, in whole or in part, outside the United States, and assisted by certain domestic accomplices, have exploited unmitigated vulnerabilities through unauthorized remote access to election equipment and related infrastructure despite claims from certain vendors, election officials and media assets that this is not possible.”

The order further blames the “manipulation of tabulated results,” the “casting of illegitimate ballots,” and “ineligible voter registrations” on the creation of the proposed executive order, arguing that the alleged violations constitute “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

That, according to the memo, is apparently enough justification to interfere with the country’s elections—until states comply with a broad list of demands that include requiring all intended voters to provide proof of “identity, U.S. citizenship, and current, permanent residency.”

When pressed about the possibility of actually following through on the MAGA-proposed effort, Trump asked reporters Friday: “Who told you that?”

“No,” Trump continued, noting that he was not looking into the idea. “I’ve never heard about it.”

The Department of Justice unsealed an indictment against an additional 30 protesters who mounted an anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, last month.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced on X Friday that federal agents had already arrested 25 of the 30 new defendants at her direction.

“YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP. If you do so, you cannot hide from us—we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you,” she wrote emphatically. “This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith.”

(It’s worth noting that Donald Trump’s administration is simultaneously facing multiple legal challenges from churchgoers and religious groups alleging that the government has impeded worship by removing restrictions against immigration enforcement near houses of worship.)

Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced that the charges that had been brought were a misdemeanor charge under the FACE Act of 1994 for intimidating or interfering with people exercising their constitutional freedom to practice religion, and a felony charge under the KKK Act of 1871 for conspiring to interfere with individuals’ religious rights. She credited the teamwork of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, as well as Homeland Security Investigations and FBI agents, for making the arrests.

The case’s original nine defendants who were charged similarly in connection with the anti-ICE protest at Cities Church—including Don Lemon—have pleaded not guilty.

Lemon and Georgia Fort, an independent journalist charged in the case, have asked the court to consider disclosing the grand jury transcripts, arguing that the government’s conduct surrounding the case had been “highly unusual, nakedly political, and inconsistent with practice in this District.”

National concern is mounting as the White House mulls over a possible attack on Iran, though JD Vance isn’t worried in the slightest.

The vice president told reporters aboard Air Force Two Thursday that there’s “no chance” the U.S. will get sucked into a long, drawn-out conflict if the White House follows through on military intervention in the Middle East.

Vance said he is not aware of the president’s ultimate decision on the matter, but that the problem could be resolved by military strikes “to ensure Iran isn’t going to get a nuclear weapon,” or through diplomatic means.

“The idea that we’re going to be in a Middle Eastern war for years with no end in sight—there is no chance that will happen,” Vance told The Washington Post.

That’s contrary to what top U.S. military officials and foreign policy experts have cautioned. Earlier this week, reports circulated that Trump’s chief military adviser—Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine—had warned the White House against such an attack, arguing that it could entangle America in a prolonged conflict.

Nonetheless, Caine has acquiesced to the president’s whims with little pushback. Over the last month, he has assembled the largest military presence in the Middle East since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a hardware collection across a web of U.S. bases that includes numerous ships—including naval destroyers and aircraft carriers—and more than a dozen jets in the region, reported CNN.

U.S. officials, including Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—Trump’s son-in-law—met with an Iranian delegation in Geneva early Thursday to discuss the countries’ ongoing standoff. An adviser to Iran’s supreme leader told CNN that an “immediate agreement” could be within reach if the discussions singularly focus on Iran’s “non-production of nuclear weapons.”

The current mobilization would be the Trump administration’s second attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, which the White House has claimed is for weapons development. The first attack took place on June 22.

At the time, Trump celebrated that the strike had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s three nuclear sites, publicly rejecting a battle damage assessment by the Pentagon that determined that the impact of the missile barrage on the larger program was minimal, and had only set Iran’s nuclear program back by a few months. The White House has thus far failed to explain the discrepancy, or why it would need to spend more taxpayer funds attacking a site that has already been eviscerated.

Before the June attack, Iran had argued that it was seeking uranium for peaceful purposes, such as expanding its nuclear energy program. The nation has undergone years of nuclear site inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and mere weeks before the U.S. bomb strike had allowed IAEA inspectors to remain in the country, according to the United Nations entity.

Trump scrapped a potential nuclear deal with Iran during his first term, pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in May 2018.

Fewer than one in three Americans trust Trump a “great deal or quite a bit” to make good decisions with America’s military, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll published Thursday. Just 27 percent said so, while 56 percent of respondents said they trust the president “only a little or not at all.”

House Oversight Democrats believe they have the votes to force Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to testify before the committee regarding his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and the lies he told about it.

“We also need other people, part of the Epstein class, to come before this committee. If President Clinton can answer questions, many others need to as well,” Representative Ro Khanna said on the steps of a performing arts center in Chappaqua, New York, where Bill Clinton was set to testify, just moments after demanding that President Donald Trump also testify before the Oversight Committee about his ties to Epstein.

“I was pleased to see Congresswoman Nancy Mace today calling for Howard Lutnick to come before our committee,” Khanna continued. “I believe we will have the votes to subpoena him, and we will work with ranking member [Robert] Garcia to make sure he comes before our committee next.”

In an interview on the New York Post’s Pod Force One podcast last October, Lutnick told a dramatic story about how an awkward meeting he had with Epstein in 2005 when they were Manhattan neighbors led him to decide he would “never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.”

“I say to him, ‘Massage table in the middle of your house? How often do you have a massage?’” Lutnick said in the interview. “And [Epstein] says, ‘Every day.’ And then he gets, like weirdly close to me, and he says, ‘And the right kind of massage.’ … In the six to eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.”

That turned out to be a huge lie. Files revealed that Lutnick took his entire family to Epstein’s private island seven years after he said he cut off ties with the predator. Now, after going virtually unscathed by what should be a career-ending scandal, Lutnick might have to face the music for it.

Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo had to be reminded that the Second Amendment exists while defending the federal immigration agents who shot and killed American citizens.

Speaking with Bartiromo Friday, Representative Ro Khanna defended his congressional colleagues’ decision not to stand in support for Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement at the State of the Union, arguing that they couldn’t support the ICE that had killed American citizens.

“This requires some context,” Bartiromo replied, launching into a defense of federal agents responding to citizens who interrupted their immigration enforcement operations, referring to Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old ICU nurse who had been filming agents during a protest.

“I think if an ICE agent feels a threat and feels that he or she and his team is under threat by having someone who’s armed, clearly armed with a gun on his belt, interrupt him, then he’s going to shoot,” she said. “And they’re trained to kill.”

Khanna was forced to remind Bartiromo of the existence of the Second Amendment. “You can’t say that any person who shows up with a gun, simply by doing that at an event, can be shot to death,” the California Democrat chided.

Bartiromo struggled to conceal the shock on her face, and stammered as she insisted Pretti had previously been seen “antagonizing” agents. Khanna noted that harassing agents would not require capital punishment.

“I guess I just have such a strong belief in civil liberties and constitutional rights, he’s an American citizen, you don’t kill him,” he added, leaving the conservative news host thoroughly humiliated.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is addressing the affordability crisis by asking Americans to eat more liver and less steak.

“There’s a lot of good food in grocery stores that goes to waste. Most of the cheap cuts of meat are very inexpensive. If you buy a porterhouse steak … it is gonna set you back,” the secretary said as he gave the keynote address at the “Eat Real Food” rally in Austin, Texas, on Thursday. “You can buy liver, or the cheaper cuts of steak that are very very affordable.”

Nothing’s wrong with eating liver. But to put the burden of the affordability crisis on the choices of everyday Americans rather than the administration he works for is woefully out of touch. The liberal rebuke was swift.

“Dear @WhiteHouse: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE SEND @RobertKennedyJr TO EVERY SWING HOUSE DISTRICT WHERE HE CAN TELL AMERICANS TO EAT LIVER OR CHEAP CUTS OF MEAT TO COPE WITH SURGING INFLATION,” Representative Ted Lieu wrote on X. “THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.”

“NEW AD TAGLINE: “Liver. It’s what’s for dinner,” chimed in CNBC reporter Carl Quintanilla.

“A reminder that Trump is hosting a candlelit dinner for his donors at Mar-a-Lago this weekend,” DNC Chair Ken Martin wrote. “I wonder what they’re serving?”

Paramount Skydance successfully outbid Netflix Thursday, paving the way for the media behemoth to merge with its Burbank, California, neighbor, Warner Bros. Discovery—but local officials caution that the acquisition still has a long way to go before it’s official.

“Paramount/Warner Bros is not a done deal,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta told Deadline Thursday evening.

“These two Hollywood titans have not cleared regulatory scrutiny—the California Department of Justice has an open investigation, and we intend to be vigorous in our review,” Bonta added.

Netflix surprised the media landscape when it announced its intention to buy Warner Bros. in late December, though the streaming giant’s celebration was short-lived. Paramount, which completed its merger with Skydance in August in a whopping $8 billion deal, was projected to be the frontrunner in the deal and refused to let go.

The two companies have duked it out in the weeks since, offering successively large bids in order to acquire the media studio. Last week, California’s Department of Justice opened a probe into the bidding war, examining the legality of the deal regardless of the auction’s ultimate victor.

“The film and entertainment industry not only has historical importance to our state, it also is a critical sector that buoys the state’s economy of California and touches the lives of Americans daily,” Bonta said on February 20. “The proposed Warner Bros. transactions must receive a full and robust review, and California is taking a very close look.”

That could cause problems for Paramount Skydance, which won out with a “superior proposal” valued at around $111 billion. The company’s absorption of Warner Bros. Discovery would only further consolidate America’s largest media companies, merging two of the five major Hollywood film studios in what poses the threat of a monopoly on the industry.

Democrats were explicitly critical of Paramount Skydance’s merger last summer, questioning the timing of Paramount’s multimillion legal settlement with Trump and the FCC’s ultimate green stamp on the seismic studio tie-up.

Other California Democrats have taken aim at the Warner Bros. deal, insisting that the purchase must pass through the proper governmental channels without interference from the Trump administration.

“What was true for Netflix is still true now for Paramount,” said Senator Adam Schiff, who earlier this month pressed the companies for a commitment to protect California’s labor market. “The merger of two of Hollywood’s biggest studios must be subject to the highest levels of scrutiny, free from White House political influence, to determine its impact on American jobs, freedom of speech, and the future of one of our nation’s greatest exports.”