Trump Now Has a Giant, Crusty Rash on His Neck

President Donald Trump appeared to have a large red rash on the back of his neck Monday.

While speaking at the White House about his illegal war with Iran, Trump was spotted with a dark red patch of skin peeking out from under his collar. In a photograph taken by AFP photographer Saul Loeb, a large scab is visible.

It wasn’t immediately clear what caused the red mark. Possible causes of a red rash could include contact or atopic dermatitis—also known as eczema—psoriasis, or heat rash. It could also be caused by shingles.

A statement from Captain Sean Barbarella, a Navy emergency physician serving as the president’s doctor, claimed that Trump was using a “very common cream on the right side of his neck, which is a preventative skin treatment prescribed by the White House doctor.”

“The president is using this treatment for one week, and the redness is expected to last for a few weeks,” he said.

Trump’s right hand also appeared discolored in another photograph by Loeb.

Since July, Trump has been repeatedly spotted with a large bruise on the back of his right hand—except for a few instances when it inexplicably switched to his left hand. The president has gotten good at hiding it from the public—either with makeup or careful hand placement—but the 79-year-old president can’t hide everything, and cameras don’t lie.

The White House has claimed that his seemingly permanent injuries are the result of Trump shaking too many hands and taking too much aspirin. But doctors have theorized that the president’s discolored hands could be a sign of something much worse.

Now it seems the president is suffering from yet another physical ailment.

This story has been updated.

President Donald Trump began raving about curtains and his new ballroom while talking about his war plans for Iran on Monday.

At a ceremony to award the Congressional Medal of Honor to three U.S. military service members, Trump discussed how his attacks on Iran are going, saying that he doesn’t “get bored.” But then the president quickly went off topic to talk about the curtains and his ballroom project in the White House, making it the second time in one day he’s pivoted from Iran to renovations.

“See that nice drape? When that comes down right now you see a very, very deep hole, but in about a year and half from now, you’re gonna see a very, very beautiful building. And there’s your entrance to it right there,” Trump said, pointing to gold curtains behind him. “In fact, I think I’ll even, I’ll save money on the doors because you can’t get more beautiful than that. I picked those drapes in my first term. I always liked gold, but I think we can save a lot of money. I just saved, I just saved curtains.

“It’ll be spectacular, it’ll be the most beautiful ballroom. I believe it’s because I’ve built many a ballroom. I believe it’s going to be the most beautiful ballroom anywhere in the world,” Trump said, before going on to rant about how his wife, Melania, doesn’t like the construction.

It’s clear that Trump doesn’t take his job seriously, even after countless Iranian civilians and at least three U.S. service members have been killed in this war he decided to start, with many more likely to follow. Somehow, he still is devoting a ton of attention and energy to the pointless ballroom that he demolished the White House’s East Wing to build. Meanwhile, there appears to be no plan for what to do with Iran after killing its leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, and no clear end to the war in sight. But hey, at least we’re getting a nice questionably funded ballroom, right?

Iran had to be attacked because the U.S. was “very nearly under threat” by its advanced weapons systems, according to the president.

Addressing the war for the first time during a Medal of Honor ceremony on Monday, Donald Trump claimed that Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons” posed an immediate threat to the American public—even though he declared last year that his June attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities had “completely and totally obliterated” the country’s nuclear program.

“The United States military continues to carry out large-scale combat operations in Iran to eliminate the grave threats posed to America by this terrible, terrorist regime,” Trump said Monday.

“In addition, the regime’s conventional ballistic missile program was growing rapidly and dramatically, and this posed a very clear, colossal threat to America and our forces stationed overseas. The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America.

“An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people,” Trump continued. “Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat.”

So far, four American soldiers have been killed in the conflict, as have more than 20 Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Trump has yet to formally speak to the American people about the war—a major departure from his predecessors, who almost universally recognized the need to justify the need for military intervention with an immediate speech to the public. Woodrow Wilson did so 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.

The current Middle East mobilization is 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 eviscerated Iran’s nuclear program, 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 needs to spend more taxpayer funds attacking a site that purportedly has already been demolished.

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 the agency’s inspectors to remain in the country, according to the U.N. 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.

President Donald Trump is warning that “the big one” is still coming for Iran.

CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday recounted a nine-minute phone call with Trump, including a chilling message from the president for the people of Iran.

“Right now we want everyone staying inside, it’s not safe out there,” Tapper quoted Trump as saying. “And then the president said, ‘It’s about to get even less safe.’”

“We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon,” Tapper quoted Trump as saying.

Trump’s statement indicates that he intends to escalate the conflict, not de-escalate, and suggests he intends to do so without congressional authorization, let alone any semblance of popular support.

Tapper’s reporting comes as U.S. officials announced that their illegal war in Iran was only in its nascent stage, having already claimed the lives of more than 550 people, including dozens of school-age girls.

U.S. Central Command confirmed Monday that a fourth U.S. service member died due to injuries sustained in the operation. In a prerecorded video posted Sunday 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.”

Speaking to Tapper, Trump reportedly posed yet another made-up timeline for the military campaign: four weeks. But the U.S. was already ahead of schedule, he claimed.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bragged Monday that the United States and Israel would not be bound by the rules of engagement, and did not comment on how long the campaign would last.

President Trump wants to use his kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as a template for his current plan for regime change in Iran.

Fox News’s Brett Baier reported this development after speaking with the president on Monday morning.

“He said there is a plan. He points to Venezuela as a template,” Baier said. “Which means to me that, going in, they had some sense on the ground of what was coming next.”

These situations are already quite different, with the U.S. and Israeli bombing campaign in Iran having continued for more than 48 hours. And Venezuela didn’t strike back. Moreover, the only semblance of a plan in Venezuela has been a plug-and-play regime change, the success of which has yet to be determined. And what happened to “freeing” Iranians?

“This makes no sense. It is actually insane. Did we bomb Venezuela for days? Weeks? What parts of the Iranian dictatorship does he plan on keeping in control of Iran—as per the Venezuela template??? Let me repeat: Insane,” one X user commented.

Another massive difference here is that Maduro’s government was left largely intact in Venezuela, in the hands of second-in-command Delcy Rodríguez.

“So the plan is: Regime change, by keeping regime in place. Admin told Trump this won’t work in Iran given 3 pronged regime: religious, military & administrative. Killing Supreme Leader to just replace him with tougher hardliner won’t work,” wrote another X user. “One size fits all isn’t a policy. It leads to quagmires.”

“Begs the question: Who is the Delcy Rodríguez of Iran and are they still alive?” MSNOW’s Jesse Rodriguez posited. Probably not.

“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump said to ABC News’s Jonathan Karl on Sunday. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”

Attacking Iran has severely diminished America’s air defense supplies, a predictable outcome that has Pentagon officials panicking mere days into the conflict.

Donald Trump declared war on Iran without congressional approval early Saturday. He has so far failed to provide a timeline—or clear reason—for U.S. involvement, stressing military leadership in the process.

“The mood here is intense and paranoid,” one person familiar with the situation told The Washington Post Monday.

In the weeks leading up to the explosive hostilities, Trump’s top military adviser—Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine—warned the White House against such an attack, arguing that it could entangle America in a prolonged conflict.

“There is concern about this lasting more than a few days,” another source told the Post, adding that it often takes several air defense interceptors to stop an incoming missile. “I don’t think people have fully absorbed yet, like, what that has done with stockpiles.”

Representative Adam Smith, the House Armed Services Committee’s ranking member, warned that the war would only serve to further strain U.S. munitions supplies.

“At this point, it’s on. It’s not like we can say: ‘Hey, Iran, we’re out of missile defense systems now so we’re going to pause for a moment. Is that OK?’ It will stretch our ability to defend everything that we need to defend,” Smith told the Post, describing the American resources as “stretched thin.”

Despite his criticism of the offensive, Caine acquiesced to the president’s whims. Over the last month, he assembled the largest military presence in the Middle East since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, 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.

So far, four American soldiers have been killed in the conflict, as have more than 20 Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The current mobilization is 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 needs to spend more taxpayer funds attacking a site that has already been eviscerated. In fact, 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 case for military intervention.

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 the agency’s inspectors to remain in the country, according to the U.N. 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.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth basically admitted during a press conference Monday that he doesn’t care about military rules of engagement, and is grateful that Israel doesn’t either.

“Israel has clear missions as well for which we are grateful. Capable partners, as we’ve said since the beginning, capable partners are good partners, unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force,” Hegseth said, scoffing at America’s allies in Europe as well as international law meant to minimize civilian casualties and prevent war crimes.

“America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise airpower campaign in history. B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and, of course, classified effects, all on our terms, with maximum authorities,” Hegseth added. “No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don’t waste time, or lives.”

Hegseth is spitting in the face of not only the U.N. but any restraints or checks on targets. He also seems to be disregarding the need to plan the aftermath of a wanton war, making America’s botched Iraq reconstruction look almost quaint. It’s quite evident that the lives he is referring to aren’t the civilians in Iran or the rest of the region.

Invoking Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity from the International Criminal Court over the country’s massacre in Gaza, further shows that Hegseth is happy to bomb Iran with impunity, regardless of the human cost.

For the last three years, Israel has reduced much of Gaza to rubble, wiped out entire families, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians across Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. Now Hegseth is willing to enlist the U.S. to follow the same playbook. Israel used artificial intelligence in its mass, reckless targeting in Gaza. Hegseth doesn’t care about the consequences if the U.S. does the same, or perhaps even worse.

Did President Donald Trump order a deadly military strike on a girls’ elementary school in Iran because the Pentagon was using an out-of-date map?

At least 175 people were killed Saturday in an attack on Shajarah Tayyebeh, a girls’ primary school in Minab, a southern town miles from Tehran. Among the dead were dozens of young girls between the ages of 7 and 12, according to the public prosecutor in Minab. It appeared to be the deadliest attack of the U.S. and Israel’s blatantly illegal bombing campaign in Iran.

It was not immediately clear why the school was targeted, but satellite images from 2013 showed that the school was previously connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, naval base. More recent satellite images from 2016 showed that the school had been separated from the naval base by a wall, according to The New York Times.

Video footage of the area appeared to show that the IRGC base was also struck as part of the attack.

Captain Tim Hawkins, a spokesperson for U.S. Central Command, said Saturday that the military was “looking into” reports of civilian casualties. The search for survivors trapped under the rubble ended Sunday, according to Minab’s governor.

In a statement Sunday, UNESCO condemned the attack on Shajarah Tayyebeh as a grave violation of international law, which prohibits attacks on schools. But the strike on the girls’ primary school was one of two deadly strikes that appeared to hit schools in Iran: two students were also killed at Hedayat High School in Tehran.

Three U.S. fighter jets were shot down over Kuwait in what the U.S. Central Command described as a “friendly fire incident.” Each pilot involved reportedly ejected from their jet and survived.

“At 11:03 p.m. ET, March 1, three U.S. F-15E Strike Eagles flying in support of Operation Epic Fury went down over Kuwait due to an apparent friendly fire incident. During active combat—that included attacks from Iranian aircraft, ballistic missiles, and drones—the U.S. Air Force fighter jets were mistakenly shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses,” CENTCOM wrote in a statement. “All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation.”

The news immediately raised both skepticism and concern for competency.

“Friendly fire does happen. But three F-15Es? Downstream effects of ops tempo + lack of training + faulty mission planning + panic,” Air Force veteran and former Representative Denver Lee Riggleman III wrote on X. “I mission planned F-15Es for a living in the USAF.… Our military is IN Kuwait on permanent station in multiple locations. This is operational incompetence.”

“‘Friendly fire’ shooting down, not one, but three US F15 jets is an insane way to say you got fu€ked by Iran,” Lebanese activist Hadi Nasrallah claimed.

“The claim all three US warplanes were brought down by ‘friendly fire’ deserves further scrutiny,” Drop Site News’s Jeremy Scahill said. “CENTCOM also noted that the planes went down ‘During active combat—that included attacks from Iranian aircraft, ballistic missiles, and drones.’”

Whether claims of friendly fire are true or an attempt to cover up devastating incompetence, it’s clear that the Trump administration is moving wastefully and recklessly in its war on Iran. It has already killed hundreds of innocent Iranian men, women, and children, and the war has also resulted in four U.S. troop deaths.

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.