Connect with us

News

Tracking a Single Day at the National Domestic Violence Hotline

Published

on

Tracking a Single Day at the National Domestic Violence Hotline

They call from work, to avoid being overheard, or from home before someone returns.

They reach out because they have decided to leave or need to ask a stranger if they should.

9:01 a.m.

I’m at my wit’s end.

2:14 p.m.

He stalks me outside of work.

Advertisement

3:56 p.m.

I just wanted to know that I’m not crazy.

To listen to the National Domestic Violence Hotline is to witness how a confluence of stressors — high prices, a lack of affordable housing, easy access to firearms and drugs, the ubiquity of technology — can leave a person vulnerable to another’s cruelty and manipulation.

Spikes in calls often align with highly publicized events: natural disasters, recession, quarantine during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, a celebrity’s acknowledgment of being a survivor of domestic abuse.

Advertisement

But in recent years, staff at the hotline said more of the spikes could be traced in part to crucial court rulings, as people press for answers about the impact of the decisions or how they have factored into the violence they have experienced at home.

Already, the number of calls that mention forced unprotected sex or a partner sabotaging birth control — as by puncturing condoms or hiding pills — have nearly doubled in the first year since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, according to an analysis of calls and surveys done by the hotline. And calls mentioning firearms rose 40 percent after an appeals court in New Orleans last February struck down a federal law blocking people subject to a domestic violence protection order from owning a gun.

Staff members had been focused on the outcomes of two cases resting with the nation’s highest court, involving gun access and the availability of a commonly used abortion pill. On Friday, the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court ruling, saying that the government may prohibit people subject to restraining orders from having guns.

But even before the courts took up the gun case, the hotline, understaffed and underfunded, struggled to keep pace with an escalating number of calls over the years. The legal battles have underscored the pervasiveness of domestic violence and the strains on existing support for survivors.

Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times

Advertisement

“That makes me sad that we need lives to be in jeopardy for this to become a national conversation around domestic violence, because it shouldn’t take a Supreme Court case,” said Katie Ray-Jones, the chief executive of the hotline.

To capture a snapshot of the experiences of domestic violence survivors, The New York Times observed some of the calls and messages the hotline received in one day. The Times agreed to only disclose certain nonidentifying details and limited excerpts from the conversations to protect the safety of those who consented to speaking with a reporter present.

Over 24 hours, the hotline received 2,002 incoming calls and messages and answered 1,348. Transcripts of calls to 1-800-799-7233 and website chats, observed with the consent of the caller, have been condensed to ensure anonymity.

Advertisement

0 incoming calls and messages

9:01 AM

Latina, 51, California

I just need to get away. I need to find myself. I’m scared.

You have the power to make that decision. It can be very difficult to know if you want someone to get involved.

You’re being very brave and strong by reaching out.

Advertisement

9:29 AM

A father seeking help for his daughter in New York

It just drove me crazy. She called me on a daily basis crying. I’m starting to cry here. It was just hard for me to see what she was dealing with.

He does have access to a firearm. His father has a handgun.

I would encourage you to validate any feeling she has.

9:58

Woman in a relationship, 52

Advertisement

Is there a way to document physical abuse without involving the police

I want to document it for a restraining order but if I call the police to file a report I’m afraid they will stop by and my husband will hurt me when they leave.

10:09 AM

Young Black woman, the South

Maybe if I sit here and hold my baby, he’ll stop hitting me. He didn’t.

I still sometimes have dreams of that night — hearing the glass shatter and seeing stars

Advertisement

Youre being very empathetic. We are shaped by others, oftentimes, and we are shaped by our experiences, but it is our responsibility to heal.

10:51 AM

White woman, 30s, New England

I’m feeling really confused about it. I don’t know if I’m being abused.

This is a judgment-free space. And we will never pressure you to make any decision.

I feel like I am representing every woman who has ever hurt him when he sees me, but then I wonder if this is gaslighting, which I didn’t think I would ever fall for.

Advertisement

Is this gaslighting? Is this why I feel like I have no idea what is real and what isn’t?

Congress approved creation of a national hotline dedicated to domestic violence in 1994, including it in the landmark Violence Against Women Act. Founded two years later in Texas, the hotline now receives as many as 3,000 calls and messages a day. Everyone is kept anonymous, with the only formal record describing basic demographic and circumstantial categories, often leaving other details unclear.

They are typically women, but their ages, ethnicities and locations vary, as do the circumstances of their relationships. In a single day, those contacting the hotline included a 51-year-old Latina in California; an Asian mother, 38; and a white woman asking how to quietly document her partner’s physical abuse.

Sometimes it is a question of finding housing during a nationwide shortage or seeking protection after leaving. Other times, it is about wrestling with the emotional contradictions of still having love for someone who makes you feel alone.

Advertisement

Working under pseudonyms remotely or at its headquarters in Austin, Texas, staff respondents spend as much as an hour at a time on calls and messages sent through a digital chat that arrive from across the country, at any time of day.

They pose sensitive but probing questions to uncover how a relationship has spiraled into deceit or danger, before connecting the survivor to support nearby. Many of the 158 staff respondents are women and survivors themselves.

Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times

They cannot directly offer legal or medical advice, but give encouragement or recommendations.

Advertisement

On a recent morning, a young Black woman from the South called in, describing the relationship she had recently escaped: “I still sometimes have dreams of that night — hearing the glass shatter and seeing stars.”

Around the same time, another woman wrote from New England, expressing uncertainty. “Is this gaslighting? Is this why I feel like I have no idea what is real and what isn’t?”

0 incoming calls and messages

11:10 AM

Woman, 30s, Michigan

Does he have any tracking devices on your vehicle?

Advertisement

If he does have access to the weapon, that can increase the lethality a lot.

1:19 PM

Woman, 50s, Seattle

I don’t feel like myself anymore.

You have to realize it’s not you. What you’re feeling is very real.

I got pushed out of the way. Things got thrown against the room to me.

Advertisement

It just changed my whole reality, like, am I like that? But I know I’m not.

What you’re feeling is very real. You don’t have to stay there.

Everything is replaceable except your life.

1:40 PM

Woman, 40s, Alabama

I don’t trust him, but he seems to be so hurt when I bring up these trust stuff.

Advertisement

I feel if I don’t send pictures, he will just go to another person for them.

The rise in calls reflects an increased willingness to confront domestic violence, as survivors have publicly shared their experiences and lawmakers have moved to improve support.

It also reflects a deeper understanding of what abuse can be: monitoring someone through their devices, keeping a person financially dependent, twisting emotions to isolate someone from their loved ones.

“Domestic violence is very complex, and I felt like at different stages in my life, the people around me kept trying to simplify it,” said Jose Tobias, 29, who has worked at the hotline for nearly two years. A soft-spoken Mexican immigrant who once enrolled in Catholic seminary, he turned to the hotline in part to more directly counter what he sees as the weaponization of faith and other, more nebulous, forms of abuse.

Advertisement

“It’s never the same, so the solution is never the same,” he added.

“Getting deep into my faith — I saw a big overlap between abuse and spiritual abuse,” said Jose Tobias, a hotline employee.

Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times

Conversations at the hotline take on a new urgency once a caller confirms an instance of strangulation or the presence of a weapon. Research shows that millions of women have been threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.

Advertisement

“If he does have access to the weapon, that can increase the lethality a lot,” Mr. Tobias told one woman, who was unsure whether her former partner had access to a gun.

To a tearful father, who recounted how his daughter’s abuser had access to a gun and already had physically assaulted her, he outlined the heightened risk: “We’ve seen this person weaponize his body. We could see him take it” further.

Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times

And while gun rights groups highlight the experiences of survivors who arm themselves as a means of self-defense and their constitutional right to own a firearm, many domestic violence groups say the presence of a gun exacerbates the psychological trauma of being threatened with one.

Advertisement

If the Supreme Court had upheld the ruling by the appeals court, it would have rolled back a federal law that makes it a felony to possess a gun while under a domestic violence order.

In the three states covered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the increase in calls mentioning a firearm was even more significant after the lower court ruling, the hotline said: 47 percent in Texas, 59 percent in Mississippi and 63 percent in Louisiana. And given how difficult it can be to ensure that any person subject to an order no longer has access to a gun, domestic violence groups fear losing a crucial means of ensuring the safety of survivors.

“One way or another, the survivors are going to be affected — it’s just about to what extent,” Mr. Tobias said.

0 incoming calls and messages

2:14 PM

Woman, 20s, California

Advertisement

He stalks me outside of work.

Do you carry a copy of your protection order wherever you go?

He was punching me in the stomach when I was pregnant.

2:28 PM

White woman, 40s, California

I’m looking for housing that is not a shelter.

Advertisement

Does he know where you are right now?

Focus on your safety. It can feel overwhelming.

3:36 PM

Asian mother, California

Today he discussed with me and used bad words and told me get out.

Now I don’t have income.

Advertisement

3:56 PM

Woman, North Carolina

I feel like I’m losing myself because I’m not that kind of person.

It does more damage than the physical. I’m so disappointed in myself.

Find out who you are as an individual. Find out what your powers are.

I just feel really lost and confused.

Advertisement

Look at the strength you found to get out. You’re a survivor.

The next step is up to you.

Staff members have also struggled with a swiftly moving landscape on abortion laws, as reports of forced acts like unprotected sex have flooded their lines and as the prospect of further limits on abortion access and reproductive care looms.

In an analysis of nearly 3,500 responses to a survey conducted last fall, the hotline found that nearly a quarter of respondents were pressured into becoming pregnant, 20 percent were forcibly prevented from using birth control and nearly 10 percent faced threats of violence over seeking an abortion.

Advertisement

And even as the Supreme Court last week maintained access to a commonly used abortion pill, it did not weigh in on the merits of medication abortion or rule out the possibility of other challenges. On the day of the ruling, hotline employees said calls mentioning interference in reproductive health increased about 75 percent from what had been a daily average of about seven calls this month.

“Thank goodness that I was able to have an abortion because my life — I would not be sitting here,” said Hannah Tucker, 33, an employee with a shock of green hair and an array of colorful tattoos, adding: “I can’t fathom being attached to that person.”

The outcome of the two cases does not eliminate the financial and physical barriers that ensure a person stays in an abusive relationship. It will not change ingrained cultural and societal stigma about leaving, or the fact that certain communities are already more at risk.

And the hotline has only the resources to answer about 53 percent of its calls and messages. Ms. Jones and other staff estimated that it would take at least $20 million a year to fully staff the hotline.

Hannah Tucker, who answers digital messages at the hotline, had an abortion after an abusive relationship. “I can’t fathom being attached to that person,” she said.

Advertisement

Josie Slawik, who began working to support domestic violence survivors after she arrived at an El Paso shelter, was there when the hotline took its first call in 1996.

Isadora Kosofsky for The New York Times

Advertisement

“Domestic violence does not discriminate,” said Josie Slawik, 74. “Domestic violence affects everybody — no matter what race you are, how much money you have, you don’t have, it happens.”

She still remembers what it felt like in 1978, as she fled, her rib broken and two young daughters in tow, to a shelter in El Paso. With a warm personality, bright red curls and gold eye shadow shimmering around her eyes, she was there when the hotline took its first call in 1996.

Like others, she said she still had the capacity to be moved by hope and by horror.

“He was punching me in the stomach when I was pregnant,” a woman told her by phone. She soon hung up, saying she needed to return to work.

Ms. Slawik paused, removing her headset.

Advertisement

“I’m going to take a reset — that was hard for me,” Ms. Slawik said, her voice soft. “This movement has come a long way, but we have a ways to go.”

News

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

Published

on

A New Worry for Republicans: Latino Catholics Offended by Trump

When Stuart Sepulvida arrives at St. Francis de Sales Roman Catholic Parish in Tucson, Ariz., for Mass, which he attends most mornings, he passes a display honoring local soldiers and encouraging parishioners to pray for their safety. Hundreds of small cards record their names: Robles, Arenas, Grajeda. A portrait of Pope Leo XIV hangs across the lobby.

Mr. Sepulvida, 81, is a Vietnam veteran whose patriotism and Catholicism are deeply intertwined. He voted for President Trump three times but has never felt more betrayed by an American president than when Mr. Trump denounced Pope Leo as “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.”

“It was very disturbing to me to hear both of them clashing like they did,” Mr. Sepulvida said, standing outside the church one morning this week. Now, he is reconsidering whether he will vote Republican this year.

The Republican Party is struggling to hold onto the support from Hispanic voters who helped propel Mr. Trump back into the White House in 2024. Yet as many party leaders have acknowledged the urgent need to stop the backsliding among Latinos, the president has enraged many of even his strongest supporters by clashing with the pope.

On Easter Sunday, Pope Leo, the first U.S.-born pontiff, spoke of the need to “abandon every desire for conflict, domination and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars.” Within days, Mr. Trump, who has led the United States into a war with Iran, said the pope was “catering to the radical left” and posted an AI-generated image portraying himself as a Jesus figure. Mr. Trump later deleted the image, saying he thought it depicted him as a doctor.

Advertisement

“It just isn’t what a president should do,” Mr. Sepulvida said. “The pope speaks for his people. He is beyond politics.”

Mr. Trump won 55 percent of Catholic voters in the 2024 election, compared to 43 percent who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to Pew Research Center. The most sizable gains came from Hispanic Catholics. While Joseph R. Biden Jr. won their votes by a 35-point margin in 2020, the Democratic advantage shrunk to 17 points in 2024. Now, just 18 percent of Hispanic Catholics said they support most or all of President Trump’s agenda, according to a poll from Pew released earlier this year.

If the president’s quarrel with the pope sours more Latinos on the Republican Party, it could affect midterm races across the country, including in South Florida and South Texas, where Republicans have notched important victories in predominantly Hispanic districts in recent years.

In Arizona’s Sixth Congressional District, which stretches from north of Tucson to the Mexican border, voters were still grappling with the fallout this week.

The district is roughly evenly divided among Republicans, Democrats and independent voters. Nearly a third of the district is Hispanic, and there is a significant population of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as a large Catholic community with deep history in the region. It also has one of largest numbers of military veterans of all congressional districts in the country.

Advertisement

“The president is looking for a lot of attention from everything,” said Maria Ramos, 60, who regularly attends weekday Mass at St. Francis. A registered independent, she usually votes for Democrats but often declines to cast a ballot if she views a candidate as too liberal. “He believes he can put God in his place. He’s meddling in countries that he’s not in control of — he wants to control the world.”

“It is not just a very serious lack of respect — it is a mortal sin,” she said, shaking her head. One word comes to her mind again and again, she said: disgust.

Like so many others in southern Arizona, Ms. Ramos has several relatives who serve in the military — a path they saw to both serve the country and as an entry into the stable middle class. Many of them, she said, voted for Mr. Trump for president.

The Tucson district is now widely seen as one of the most competitive in the country. Republican Juan Ciscomani narrowly won the district in 2022, in part by emphasizing his biography as a Mexican immigrant and a devoted father of six children. He is also an evangelical Christian, a group that has driven much of the growth among Hispanic Republican voters in recent years.

Mr. Ciscomani declined a request for an interview, but when a local radio host asked Mr. Ciscomani what he thought of Mr. Trump’s comments “as a man of faith,” the congressman declined to criticize the president but said, “You can trust that you won’t see any meme like that coming out of my account.”

Advertisement

JoAnna Mendoza, the Democrat challenging Mr. Ciscomani this fall, has made her 20-year career in the U.S. Navy and Marines a key aspect of her story on the campaign trail. While she rarely speaks about her religious background and no longer considers herself a practicing Catholic, she said she briefly considered becoming a nun as a teenager. She criticized Mr. Ciscomani for not condemning the president’s remarks.

“You can’t make faith a central part of your campaign and then allow this to stand,” she said in an interview.

Across Tucson, Latino Catholics, regardless of their past voting preferences, were similarly quick to condemn the president’s remarks.

When Cecilia Taisipic, 71, heard about it, she said, she winced with shame about her vote for him in 2024.

“I thought he would make the country better, but apparently it’s the opposite,” she said as she left Mass at St. Francis earlier this week. She is so fed up with politics, she said, that she is unlikely to vote at all this year. “When it comes to my faith, I don’t like anybody to challenge it. Now I don’t want to hear anything on the news. I just want to pray.”

Advertisement

Matilde Robinson Bours, 63, teaches a weekly Spanish Bible study class at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish, and like nearly all of the women in her class, she immigrated from Mexico decades ago. She has voted for Republicans in nearly every election since she became a citizen. Though she has never liked President Trump, she said, his comments about the pope enraged her more than anything else he has said or done in the past.

“This surpassed everything, every social and political norm — this is personal to all Catholics,” she said. “The arrogance and ego is disgusting. To think that he is God? The pope has every right and responsibility to talk about peace.”

Still, Ms. Robinson Bours said, nothing will stop her from supporting Republicans again this year. She has been delighted that her adult children have stopped supporting Democrats in recent elections.

“Almost everyone I know thinks the way I do,” she said.

Patricia Martinez, 86, who has attended the same Bible study as Ms. Robinson Bours for years, shook her head in disagreement. She said she cannot imagine voting for a Republican who supports Mr. Trump.

Advertisement

“This is different — this shows he is out of his mind,” said Ms. Martinez. “We have to have basic respect and teach that to people in this country.”

Patrick Robles, a 24-year-old native of Tucson, spent years alienated from the Roman Catholic Church, but returned to his faith more recently. “The craziness of the world sort of caused me to seek some sort of answers,” he said. Now, he attends Mass at the St. Augustine Cathedral in downtown Tucson, a few blocks from the office where he works as an aide to Representative Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat.

Mr. Robles said he saw Mr. Trump’s battle with the pope as both a personal affront and a political opportunity.

“The president is basically trying to draw a line between Catholics and what we perceive to be patriotism,” he said. “I believe we can be both.”

Last week, he texted one of his uncles who has supported Mr. Trump in every election asking him what he thought.

Advertisement

“I’m afraid we need divine intervention,” the uncle replied.

Continue Reading

News

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Published

on

After 2 failed votes, Mike Johnson unveils new plan to extend key U.S. spy powers

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., takes questions at a news conference at the Capitol on Tuesday.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Speaker Mike Johnson, R.-La., is forging ahead with his latest proposal to renew a key American spy power. His bill, revealed Thursday, is largely unchanged from a previous plan which failed in a series of overnight votes earlier this month.

The program at center of the debate, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), is set to expire on April 30.

FISA 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to intercept the electronic communications of foreign nationals located outside of the United States. Some of the nearly 350,000 foreign targets whose communications are collected under the provision are in touch with Americans, whose calls, texts and emails could end up in the trove of information available to the federal government for review.

Advertisement

For almost two decades, privacy-minded lawmakers from both parties have sought to require specific court approval before federal law enforcement can conduct a targeted review of an American’s information gathered through the program. The lack of any such warrant requirement helped sink an effort last week to extend the program for 18 months, as well as a separate vote on a five-year renewal. 

Trump officials, like those in past administrations, have argued that such a warrant requirement would overburden law enforcement and endanger national security. Johnson’s latest proposal would reauthorize the program for three years, but does not include a warrant requirement. Instead, the bill calls for the FBI to submit monthly explanations for reviews of Americans’ information to an oversight official as well as criminal penalties for willful abuse, among other tweaks.

“I am willing to risk the giving up of my Rights and Privileges as a Citizen for our Great Military and Country,” the president wrote on Truth Social last week, advocating for the program to be extended without changes. “I have spoken with many in our Military who say FISA is necessary in order to protect our Troops overseas, as well as our people here at home, from the threat of Foreign Terror Attacks. It has already prevented MANY such Attacks, and it is very important that it remain in full force and effect.”

Glenn Gerstell, who served as general counsel at the National Security Agency during the Obama and first Trump administration, says Johnson’s reforms look like an attempt to find a middle ground.

“There’s not a lot of really substantive changes to the statute, but some gestures are made to people who are worried about privacy and civil liberties,” Gerstell said. “It seems like a pretty reasonable compromise that is going to be satisfactory to the national security agencies and yet at the same time represents some gesture to the privacy advocates.”

Advertisement

“This is not a reform bill and it’s not a compromise,” Elizabeth Goitein, a privacy advocate and senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, wrote on X. “It’s a straight reauthorization with eight pages of words that serve no serious purpose other than to try to convince members that it’s NOT a straight reauthorization.”

A bipartisan reform deal is still out of reach

Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence committee, told NPR on Wednesday, before the release of Johnson’s new proposal, that lawmakers were working on a bipartisan solution. He said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., was in touch with Johnson on the issue.

“There’s a lot of work being done here,” Himes said. “We’re sort of working out a process that will be inclusive rather than exclusive.” Himes said he was negotiating with Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and constitutional law scholar, on a reform proposal they hoped could preserve and reform the program — reauthorizing it with bipartisan support.

But Johnson’s new bill appears to fall short of the inclusive approach Himes hoped for.

NPR obtained a memo written by Raskin to his colleagues urging them to oppose the bill, which he said “continues the disastrous policy of trusting the FBI to self-police and self-report its abuses of Section 702 and backdoor searches of Americans’ data.”

Advertisement

“FBI agents can still collect, search, and review Americans’ communications without any review from a judge,” Raskin wrote.

FBI agents must receive annual training on FISA and are generally barred from searching for information about people in the U.S. if the goal of the search is to investigate general criminal activity, rather than find foreign intelligence information, and those searches need approval from a supervisor or an attorney. 

Republican hardliners — who sunk Johnson’s last reauthorization attempt — also don’t all appear to be on board for Johnson’s latest revision. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, a past chair of the Freedom Caucus, said “we’re not there yet” in a video he shared to X on Thursday.

“I didn’t take an oath to defend FISA, I didn’t take an oath to defend the intelligence community,” Perry said. “We can’t have them spying on American citizens and, when they do, there has to be accountability and I haven’t seen any that I’m satisfied with yet.”

The House Rules committee meets Monday morning, the first step toward advancing the renewal bill toward a vote.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

Published

on

Trump Says Israel and Lebanon Agree to Extend Cease-Fire by Three Weeks

President Trump announced a three-week extension of a cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon that had been set to expire in a few days, after hosting a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats at the White House on Thursday.

Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group that has been attacking Israel from southern Lebanon, did not have representatives at the meeting and did not immediately comment on the announcement. The prime minister of Israel and the president of Lebanon also did not comment.

A successful peace agreement would hinge upon Hezbollah halting attacks, which Lebanon’s government has little power to enforce because it does not control the militia. Lebanon’s military has mostly stayed out of the fighting and is not at war with Israel.

The cease-fire, which was scheduled to end on April 26, would last until May 17 if it takes effect as Mr. Trump described it. Before the cease-fire was brokered last week, nearly 2,300 people were killed in Lebanon and 13 in Israel. Since then, the number of Israeli airstrikes and Hezbollah attacks have been dramatically reduced, though the two sides have continued exchanging fire.

The Lebanese Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadeh, credited Mr. Trump for extending the cease-fire, saying that “with your help and support, we can make Lebanon great again.” Mr. Trump replied, “I like that phrase, it’s a good phrase.”

Advertisement

Asked about the potential of a lasting peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon, Mr. Trump said that “I think there’s a great chance. They are friends about the same things and they are enemies on the same things.”

But Lebanon and Israel have periodically been at war since Israel’s founding in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon for the fifth time since 1978, incursions that have destabilized the country and the delicate balance of power between Muslim, Christian and Druze communities.

In the hours before the president’s announcement on social media, Israel and Hezbollah were trading attacks in southern Lebanon, testing the existing cease-fire.

Mr. Trump said the meeting at the White House had been attended by high-ranking U.S. officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the U.S. ambassadors to Israel and Lebanon.

Earlier on Thursday, an Israeli strike near the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh killed three people, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Hezbollah claimed three separate attacks on Israeli troops who are occupying southern Lebanon, though none were wounded or killed.

Advertisement

Hezbollah set off the latest round of fighting last month by attacking Israel soon after the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran. Israel responded to Hezbollah’s attacks by launching airstrikes across Lebanon and widening a ground invasion of the country’s south.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending