News
Trump calls 'obliteration' an accurate description of damage to Iran's nuclear facilities
A satellite image shows the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated June 14, 2025.
Maxar Technologies | Via Reuters
U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday disputed Iranian attempts to downplay the strikes on its nuclear facilities, stressing that “obliteration” was an accurate description, even though the full extent of the damage to Iran’s nuclear capabilities was not immediately clear.
“Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Damaged or destroyed?
The U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said Sunday that there was “severe damage and destruction” to the facilities at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, but did not go so far as to say that Iran’s nuclear capacities had been “obliterated.”
“Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,” Caine said.
A satellite image shows the Fordo nuclear facility in Iran in this handout image dated June 14, 2025.
Maxar Technologies | Via Reuters
Meanwhile, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Sunday that while the damage assessment is ongoing, “all of our precision munitions struck where we wanted them to strike and had the desired effect.”
When asked if Iran still retains any nuclear capability, Caine said that “BDA is still pending, and it would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there.”
Battle Damage Assessment, or BDA, is a military term that refers to the process of evaluating the effects of military operations on a target.
It usually involves a physical or functional check on the extent of damage, beyond visual signs, and whether the target remains operable.
These assessments are usually conducted by intelligence analysts and reconnaissance teams, using data from drones, satellites, radar, or ground reports. It helps commanders decide if the mission achieved its objectives and if follow-up strikes are needed.
The UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi also struck a cautious tone, saying that it was not yet possible to assess the damage done at the Fordo nuclear facility.
Adding to the uncertainty, Reuters reported, citing a senior Iranian source, that most of the highly enriched uranium at Fordo had been moved to an undisclosed location ahead of the U.S. strikes on the enrichment site.
The strikes began early on Saturday, when six U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers dropped six GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) – a 30,000-pound bomb known as the “bunker buster,” – on Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, which is built into the side of a mountain.
A seventh U.S. B‑2 bomber released two GBU‑57 bombs on the Natanz Nuclear Facility, while a U.S. Navy submarine also launched a volley of 30 Tomahawk missiles, targeting Natanz and a third site, Isfahan.
The mission, code named Operation Midnight Hammer, involved more than 125 aircraft in total.
— Erin Doherty contributed to this report
News
A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).
Alex Wong/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wong/Getty Images
As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.
The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.
After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.
What caused the hissy fit? Did Sotomayor really fail to tell him she would have an oral dissent? That really would have been a breach of the court’s practices. A justice typically notifies the chief justice and the author of the majority opinion in writing if there is to be an oral dissent.
In response Friday to an inquiry from NPR came this terse statement from the court’s public information office.
“Justice Alito was notified in advance by Justice Sotomayor’s chambers that she would be reading a dissent from the bench. It was a misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”
News
“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement
The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.
Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years.
Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”
They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010.
Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze.
The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.
Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.
Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”
Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003.
Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife.
Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.”
“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.
For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.
In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”
News
The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center
This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.
-
Lifestyle32 minutes agoFormer Vice President Mike Pence believes Washington is more ‘swampy’ under Trump
-
Technology47 minutes agoPrime Day’s final hours bring rare discounts on Philips Hue smart lights
-
World50 minutes agoVideo shows gaping hole after small plane crashes into towering skyscraper
-
Politics55 minutes agoWarren tells Trump to ‘sign the damn bill’ as bipartisan housing package remains stalled in Washington
-
Health1 hour agoCommon food preservatives may raise blood pressure and heart risks, study suggests
-
Sports1 hour agoWho is Alyssa Thomas? WNBA star suspended for punching Caitlin Clark in the throat
-
Technology1 hour agoFox News AI Newsletter: Waymo’s robotaxi recall
-
Business1 hour ago
Cisco to lay off more than 400 workers in California