Category: National Security

Trump Administration Limits Congressional Oversight on Military Operations Amidst Iran Nuclear Strike Controversy

President Donald Trump’s administration is set to restrict Congress’s access to classified information following claims of a leak regarding U.S. military actions against Iran. This decision comes after reports indicated that recent airstrikes did not effectively damage Iran’s nuclear capabilities, contradicting Trump’s proclamations of success.

CNN’s report described how the targeted strikes allegedly only delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by several months, a claim firmly rejected by Trump and his administration. They branded the report as “flat-out wrong,” dismissing the purported leaker as a “low-level loser” within the intelligence community. Trump’s aggressive rhetoric highlights the administration’s intent to shape the narrative surrounding military operations.

On social media, Trump extended his outrage to specific journalists. He targeted CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand, demanding her dismissal over what he termed “Fake News.” He insisted that the media’s portrayal of the airstrikes was misleading and asserted that they had achieved “TOTAL OBLITERATION” of the nuclear sites, despite evidence to the contrary.

In an alarming move, reports from Axios reveal that the Trump administration’s restriction on sharing classified information, particularly through the CAPNET system, serves to limit Congressional oversight and scrutiny. This change in policy underscores a dangerous trend of increasing secrecy and a lack of accountability regarding military actions.

The implications of these developments are significant, as limiting access to critical information undermines democratic processes and heightens risks of authoritarian control over military narratives. This shift represents a broader pattern of dismissing dissenting opinions and facts that contradict the administration’s agenda.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-admin-to-limit-sharing-classified-info-to-congress-despite-president-calling-iran-leak-fake-news/)

Bikers for Trump Founder Joins Trump’s Homeland Security Team

President Donald Trump has appointed several of his staunch supporters to the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC), including Chris Cox, the founder of the controversial group Bikers for Trump. This group, known for its aggressive antics at Trump rallies, has a track record of violent confrontations with protestors and members of marginalized communities.

The announcement from the Department of Homeland Security, led by Secretary Kristi Noem, confirms the inclusion of figures such as former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, and Florida State Senator Joseph Gruters. The council’s formation is intended to provide Trump with “real-time, real-world and independent advice” on homeland security matters, further consolidating a connection between Trump’s administration and radical elements within his support base.

The HSAC is expected to align closely with Trump’s right-wing agenda, reflecting the administration’s priorities and utilizing advisory members who share its populist and nationalistic values. Critics have condemned this move, claiming it dangerously allows those with extremist views to influence national security decisions. The inclusion of Cox raises serious concerns, given Bikers for Trump’s violent history and their physical attacks against dissidents during rallies.

This advisory council’s first meeting is scheduled to take place on July 2, where members will likely strategize on how to reinforce Trump’s agenda within the framework of national security. The implications of having individuals tied to violent, ultranationalist groups in such influential positions cannot be understated, as they reinforce a troubling erosion of democratic norms.

Through these appointments, the Trump administration continues to blur the lines between governance and vigilantism, signaling a further descent into a form of governance that is increasingly hostile to dissent and civil society. For anyone concerned about the integrity of democratic institutions, these developments pose significant challenges moving forward.

(h/t: https://www.rawstory.com/homeland-security-bikers-for-trump/)

Trump Strikes Iran

The U.S. military has conducted airstrikes targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities in a critical move authorized by President Donald Trump. This unprecedented escalation of military engagement in the Middle East occurs amid ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.

In a dramatic announcement from the White House, Trump declared the airstrikes a “spectacular military success,” claiming the strikes had “obliterated” key uranium enrichment sites in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. He framed this military action as a necessary response to what he labeled as Iran’s position as the “bully of the Middle East,” emphasizing that the country must seek peace to avert further tragedies. This marked a significant departure from previous diplomatic approaches to Iranian relations, which Trump himself had utilized.

The airstrikes, occurring on the ninth day of violent clashes in the region, pose severe risks of retaliation from Iran. Trump has warned that any attacks on U.S. interests will result in an overwhelming military response, intensifying the conflict’s implications for U.S. forces stationed across the region.

Following the strikes, Trump’s administration, including key officials such as Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has signaled support for Israel’s offensive against Iran, asserting that military tactics were necessary to dismantle perceived nuclear threats. Reports confirm that the U.S. coordinated with Israeli authorities before executing the strikes.

The Iranian government, in response to this military aggression, has vowed retaliation and criticized the U.S. for undermining diplomatic avenues. Iran’s Foreign Minister articulated that the U.S. crossed a “big red line,” indicating a potential shift toward conflict escalation that contradicts international norms of engagement.

(h/t: https://www.axios.com/2025/06/21/us-strike-iran-nuclear-israel-trump)

Trump’s Dangerous Military Plans for Iran Threaten Global Security

President Donald Trump is reportedly deliberating U.S. military options regarding Iran, having approved attack plans presented to him by his advisers. Following discussions in the Situation Room, he has not yet made a final decision on whether to go through with these plans. While the U.S. government prepares a military response, congressional Democrats are calling for legislative oversight before escalating the situation in Iran.

During a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump’s stance that “all options remain on the table” as tensions rise. Trump has shown an unsettling willingness to consider targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, including the underground Fordo site, which is heavily fortified. Sources indicate that Trump is contemplating a sustained military campaign rather than a singular attack, suggesting a serious escalation that could endanger regional stability.

In a revealing press conference, Trump expressed his belief that Iran has made significant advancements toward acquiring nuclear weapons, a notion that contradicts established intelligence assessments. Despite expert warnings, he dismissed the idea that Iran could be moved toward deescalation, insisting, “my patience has already run out.” This dismissive approach to diplomatic solutions reflects a dangerous inclination towards military engagement.

Moreover, Trump’s overtures to his MAGA base regarding potential military interventions raise concerns about his motivations. By drumming up support for military action, he seems more focused on rallying his political base than on exercising responsible leadership. His vague comments about possible strikes against Iran hint at a readiness for conflict that disregards the dire consequences such actions could entail.

Overall, Trump’s handling of the Iranian situation illustrates a troubling disregard for reasoned foreign policy, instead favoring confrontation. His administration’s rhetoric not only escalates tensions in an already volatile region but risks drawing the U.S. into another prolonged conflict, driven by a misguided notion of American exceptionalism.

White House Distorts Gabbard’s Iran Testimony to Align with Trump’s Misleading Narrative

The White House has engaged in deceptive editing of a video featuring Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In the edited clip, Gabbard appears to warn that Iran is nearing the development of nuclear weapons, stating, “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.” However, this alarming statement omits critical context from her preceding remarks, where she clarified that U.S. intelligence does not assess Iran to be building a nuclear weapon.

In her original testimony, Gabbard emphasized that the U.S. intelligence community (IC) has determined that Iran “is not building a nuclear weapon” and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not authorized the resumption of the country’s nuclear weapons program, which was suspended back in 2003. Despite this, the White House chose to selectively showcase her words to paint a picture consistent with Donald Trump’s alarmist positions on Iran.

When questioned about Gabbard’s remarks that directly contradicted his claims, Trump dismissed her statements, stating, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.” This interaction highlights Trump’s disinclination to acknowledge facts that contradict his narratives, reinforcing concerns regarding his potential to mislead the public on critical national security issues.

Gabbard has been vocal in her concerns about escalating tensions and the dangers posed by warmongering rhetoric, warning that such actions bring the world closer to nuclear conflict. Her criticism of the political elite resonates as she asserts that the climate of fear could have dire consequences for global peace.

Despite claiming they are aligned on issues regarding Iran, Gabbard’s recent video has reportedly caused friction with Trump, suggesting that dissent within the Republican ranks is seen as intolerable. This incident underscores the ongoing manipulation of information by the Trump administration and the risks of prioritizing political agendas over accurate intelligence.

(h/t: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/white-house-deceptively-edits-tulsi-gabbards-testimony-to-make-it-look-like-she-was-warning-iran-was-close-to-nukes/)

LAPD Chief Denies Trump on National Guard Necessity in LA

In a recent statement, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell made it clear that he did not request the National Guard to assist with ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles, contradicting President Donald Trump’s portrayal of the situation. Trump’s administration asserted that the deployment was necessary, but McDonnell emphasized that the LAPD had sufficient resources to manage the protests without military intervention.

During an interview on CNN, McDonnell stated, “We’re nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for National Guard at this stage.” His comments directly counter Trump’s claims of impending chaos without federal military presence, reaffirming that local law enforcement was effectively handling the protests.

Moreover, President Trump attempted to use McDonnell’s past statements to justify his decision to bypass California Governor Gavin Newsom, suggesting that if not for military involvement, the city would have faced severe disorder. However, McDonnell reiterated that such a request for National Guard aid was not necessary.

Trump, undeterred, continued to assert on social media that the National Guard’s presence was pivotal in maintaining order, describing Los Angeles as a potentially chaotic crime scene without it. He further criticized Governor Newsom, claiming responsibility for the stability in the city. However, Newsom dismissed Trump’s rhetoric as a “brazen abuse of power,” indicating his frustration with the federal response to local governance.

This incident highlights the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and state officials, as Trump repeatedly attempts to assert control over state matters, reflecting a broader pattern of undermining local governance while emphasizing a narrative of national crisis that bears little resemblance to the reality on the ground.

(h/t: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5346247-lapd-chief-donald-trump-national-guard-la-protests/)

Trump’s Reckless Deployment of 4,000 Troops in Los Angeles Threatens Public Safety and Democracy

President Donald Trump has ordered the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, compounding the initial 2,000 troops dispatched just days prior. California Governor Gavin Newsom made this announcement, criticizing the move as reckless and detrimental to both public safety and the morale of U.S. troops.

According to Newsom, the first contingent of troops was left without proper provisions, as only about 300 ended up in the city, with the remainder stationed in federal buildings. He argues that the deployment is primarily intended to satisfy Trump’s inflated ego rather than to address any real safety concerns.

The deployment escalated tensions in Los Angeles, already heightened by ongoing protests against the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The situation was further aggravated when Trump ordered approximately 700 Marines to assist in protecting federal personnel, a move that Newsom has deemed “un-American.” He emphasized that the esteemed role of the Marines should not be to confront civilians over issues stemming from a malicious and authoritarian political agenda.

Newsom accused Trump of fabricating a crisis, asserting that the National Guard was being misused for political purposes related to recent protests against ICE raids. This militarization of local enforcement has prompted California’s attorney general to file a lawsuit against Trump, arguing that such actions represent an overreach of executive power.

The unrest in Los Angeles and Trump’s harsh military response underscore the growing pattern of authoritarian tactics employed by his administration in dealing with dissent. Instead of fostering dialogue and understanding, Trump resorts to increased military presence to intimidate citizens, further threatening the democratic principles of the nation.

Trump’s Deployment of 500 Marines in LA Escalates Tensions Amid Immigration Protests

President Donald Trump has escalated tensions in Los Angeles by authorizing the deployment of an additional 2,000 National Guard troops amid ongoing protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions. The deployment, which involves about 700 U.S. Marines, aims to protect federal personnel and property in the wake of civil unrest fueled by perceived abuses during immigration enforcement operations. California Governor Gavin Newsom has vehemently opposed this militarized response, declaring it a dangerous attempt to bolster Trump’s fragile ego rather than a genuine concern for public safety.

Newsom, who filed a lawsuit against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier on the same day, criticized the initial deployment of National Guard troops, claiming that most were left idle without adequate provisions. He pointed out that the first batch of National Guard members lacked essential supplies like food and water and were not effectively utilized. Newsom’s tweet highlighted the absurdity of federal troops being stationed without clear orders amid escalating protests that cry out for responsible management.

The deployment reflects a perilous trend, as Trump’s administration utilizes military force to suppress dissent, bringing Marines into domestic situations where their lack of proper training for managing civilian protests can create more chaos than resolution. Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned Trump’s actions as inflammatory, questioning the appropriateness of involving Marines in domestic law enforcement, potentially violating civil rights and constitutional freedoms.

Trump’s Administration has taken a particularly confrontational stance, with Trump even suggesting potential arrests of Newsom for allegedly obstructing federal immigration enforcement. This alarming rhetoric only fuels further conflict between state and federal authorities. Legal experts assert that Trump’s order exceeds his constitutional authority, marking the first time since 1965 that a president unilaterally deployed state National Guard without the governor’s request.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer blasted Trump for using military personnel as a political distraction, asserting it undermines state sovereignty and exacerbates tensions without delivering real solutions. The chaotic situation in Los Angeles encapsulates the broader disdain Trump and his administration exhibit towards democratic norms and the rule of law, choosing instead to wield state power against their opponents in an increasingly authoritarian fashion.

(h/t: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/06/09/trump-sued-national-guard-la-california-newsom.html)

Trump’s New Travel Ban Targets 12 Countries Citing Security

In a recent proclamation, U.S. President Donald Trump has banned nationals from 12 countries, asserting that these measures are essential for national security. The countries affected by this prohibition include Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Additionally, Trump has imposed partial travel restrictions on seven other nations: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. The order goes into effect on June 9, 2025, at 12:01 am EDT, although visas issued prior to this date will not be revoked.

In a video announcing the ban, Trump declared, “We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm.” The newly restricted countries were chosen based on their alleged “large-scale presence of terrorists,” lack of cooperation on visa security, and deficiencies in verifying the identities of travelers. Trump’s rationale reflects a continuity of his administration’s hardline immigration stance, harking back to his earlier bans on travelers from predominantly Muslim countries.

The decision follows a recent incident in Boulder, Colorado, where a gasoline bomb was thrown at pro-Israel demonstrators by an Egyptian national, underscoring Trump’s claim of a national security threat, despite Egypt not being on the restricted list. Trump’s broader immigration policies aim to intensify security vetting of foreigners seeking admission to the U.S. and suggest additional potential restrictions could come in the future.

In response, countries like Somalia and Venezuela have expressed concern. Somalia’s ambassador indicated a desire for dialogue to address the security issues raised by the ban. Conversely, Venezuelan officials accused the U.S. of pursuing a fascistic agenda and warned their citizens of the dangers they could face in the U.S., highlighting the broader implications Trump’s policies have not only on travel and immigration but also on international relations.

This latest prohibition reflects Trump’s ongoing focus on a security-first approach to immigration, a policy style that has been criticized as reactionary and inherently discriminatory. Critics argue that these moves reaffirm a pattern of exclusion and discrimination against countries that do not align with Trump’s political narrative, exacerbating divisions and fostering anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States.

(h/t: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-signs-proclamation-banning-travel-12-countries-cbs-news-reports-2025-06-04/)

Gabbard’s Plans to Tailor Intelligence Briefing to Trump’s Preferences Threatens Objectivity and Integrity

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard is exploring changes to the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) that align more closely with Donald Trump’s preferences, reflecting his ongoing distrust of traditional intelligence assessments. This effort reportedly includes soliciting input from current and former intelligence officials to tailor the briefing’s content and format to fit Trump’s consumption style. One proposal suggests transforming the PDB into a video format reminiscent of a Fox News broadcast, potentially featuring Fox News producers and personalities.

Currently, the PDB is presented as a digital document with written text and graphics, but Trump has historically preferred less formal, more visual methods of information intake. Since taking office, Trump has received the PDB less frequently than his predecessors, indicating a possible disregard for standard intelligence briefings. Trump’s competitive relationship with intelligence officials, underscored by his previous claims of their dishonesty, further complicates this dynamic, creating a challenge for Gabbard’s reform initiative.

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential politicization of intelligence under Gabbard’s direction. Critics argue that the adjustments might serve to validate Trump’s political narratives, especially after recent firings of officials whose assessments conflicted with Trump’s views, particularly regarding Venezuela. This raises ethical questions about whether intelligence analysis is being manipulated for political gain, rather than being presented objectively.

Additionally, Gabbard’s discussions of including specific topics relevant to Trump, such as trade and economy, while downplaying issues like the war in Ukraine, suggest a deliberate customization of the PDB. This represents a shift from impartial reporting to one that aligns with Trump’s interests, thereby undermining the integrity of the intelligence process. Rep. Jim Himes, a prominent Democratic lawmaker, warned that this could foster a culture of bias and intimidation within the intelligence community.

The challenges facing Gabbard in reforming the PDB underscore broader concerns about Trump’s leadership style and his administration’s relationship with factual reporting. By attempting to reshape intelligence gatherings to suit an individual leader’s preferences, the risk of impairing the fundamental principles of democratic governance and integrity in analysis becomes all too real. Together with questions regarding potential influences from Fox News, these developments signal troubling trends toward a politicized and compromised intelligence apparatus.

(h/t: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/gabbard-considering-ways-revamp-trumps-intelligence-briefing-rcna209805)

1 2 3 … 7