Connect with us

Politics

New revelations in Florida documents trial put Trump on offense against 'deranged' special counsel

Published

on

New revelations in Florida documents trial put Trump on offense against 'deranged' special counsel

Former President Trump is calling for Special Counsel Jack Smith’s arrest after the prosecutors handling the 45th president’s classified documents case admitted seized documents are no longer in their original order and sequence.  

“Now, Deranged Jack has admitted in a filing in front of Judge Cannon to what I have been saying happened since the Illegal RAID on my home, Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida – That he and his team committed blatant Evidence Tampering by mishandling the very Boxes they used as a pretext to bring this Fake Case,” Trump posted to Truth Social on Friday. “These deeply Illegal actions by the Politicized ‘Persecutors’ mandate that this whole Witch Hunt be DROPPED IMMEDIATELY. END THE ‘BOXES HOAXES.’ MAGA2024!”

“ARREST DERANGED JACK SMITH. HE IS A CRIMINAL!” Trump added in a follow-up post. 

Prosecutors admitted in a court filing on Friday that “there are some boxes where the order of items within that box is not the same as in the associated scans.” The prosecutors had previously told the court that the documents were “in their original, intact form as seized.” 

JUDGE UNSEALS FBI FILES IN TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE, INCLUDING DETAILED TIMELINE OF MAR-A-LAGO RAID

Advertisement

Former President Trump returns to Trump Tower, New York City, Monday, April 15, 2024. Trump was in Manhattan Criminal Court today for jury selection in the so-called “hush-money” case. (Probe-Media for Fox New Digital)

“The Government acknowledges that this is inconsistent with what Government counsel previously understood and represented to the Court,” a footnote in the filing reads. 

The filing comes after one of Trump’s co-defendants in the case asked for a delay as lawyers were having trouble figuring out the origin of some of the documents in the evidence boxes. 

The FBI agents seized 33 boxes of documents in August 2022 from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, spurring another legal battle that Trump has called a “scam.” The investigation is overseen by special prosecutor Smith, who Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed to the job, and has charged Trump with 40 felony counts, including allegedly violating the Espionage Act, making false statements to investigators and conspiracy to obstruct justice. 

GOP SLAMS ‘WEAPONIZATION’ OF DOJ AFTER TRUMP’S MAR-A-LAGO RAIDED BY FBI; DEMS CALL IT ‘ACCOUNTABILITY’

Advertisement

Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and slammed the case as an “Election Inference Scam” promoted by the Biden administration and “Deranged Jack Smith.”

Special Counsel Jack Smith arrives to give remarks on a recently unsealed indictment, including four felony counts, against former President Trump on Aug. 1, 2023, in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The case is slated to head to trial on May 20, though the date may change, with presiding Judge Aileen Cannon underacting a trove of documents in the lead-up to the trial that have provided notable updates to the case. 

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION INVOLVEMENT

Judge Cannon recently unredacted more than 300 pages of evidence in the case, including emails and conversations related to the Biden administration’s contact with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) the year prior to the documents’ seizure from Trump’s home, Real Clear Investigations recently reported. Biden has previously publicly said he was not involved in the case, though the filings show other White House officials were involved in the early stages of the investigation. 

TRUMP SAYS MAR-A-LAGO HOME IN FLORIDA ‘UNDER SIEGE’ BY FBI AGENTS

Advertisement

The unredacted documents allege that just weeks after Trump left office in 2021, the White House Office of Records Management under the Biden administration began working with NARA “on exaggerated claims related to records handling under the Presidential Records Act,” Trump’s attorney wrote in a court filing to compel discovery.  

The Archives’ general counsel, Gary Stern, sent a letter to Trump’s Presidential Records Act representatives in May 2021 asking the whereabouts of “roughly two dozen boxes of original Presidential records [that] have not been transferred to NARA.” Stern explained that he “had several conversations” with White House Office of Records Management officials where they discussed “concerns” regarding Trump’s possession of the documents, according to Real Clear Investigations. 

President Biden speaks at Abbotts Creek Community Center during an event to promote his economic agenda in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Jan. 18, 2024. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

Stern’s letter detailed that the team was looking for “original correspondence between President Trump and North Korean Leader Kim Jung-un” and “the letter that President Obama left for President Trump on his first day in office,” Real Clear reported.

TRUMP’S LAWYERS PUSH FOR DISMISSAL OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE, ARGUING ‘PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY’

Advertisement

He added that he understood that transitioning administrations was “very chaotic” and that it could take “several more months” to transfer the documents, The Federalist reported. By June of that year, a national archivist appointed by former President Obama, David Ferriero, told the Trump team he was running “out of patience,” unredacted filings show. The filing states that Ferriero dismissed “good-faith efforts by President Trump’s PRA representatives to address issues raised by NARA.” 

This view shows former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on Aug. 10, 2022, in Palm Beach, Florida. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

The filing continued that Ferriero allegedly “threatened” a PRA representative for Trump in August 2021, saying he presumed 24 boxes of “alleged – and non-existent” documents were “destroyed” and that he was taking the issue to the DOJ. Ferriero and Stern contacted DOJ officials and Deputy White House Counsel Jonathan Su. Stern met with Su at the White House, according to White House logs reported by Real Clear Investigations. 

“At this point, I am assuming [the boxes] have been destroyed. In which case, I am obligated to report it to the Hill, the DOJ, and the White House,” Ferriero wrote in a warning to Trump’s team in August 2021, according to the documents. 

“To my knowledge, nothing has been destroyed,” a Trump representative responded.

Advertisement

TRUMP DEMANDS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ‘IMMEDIATELY’ DROP CHARGES AGAINST HIM IN CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE AFTER BIDEN DECISION 

The unredacted filing states that in September, Stern emailed Ferriero and a deputy archivist that he had “reached out to DOJ counsel about this issue” and that “WH Counsel is now aware of the issue.”

Another email, sent on Sept. 15, details that Stern reportedly spoke with Su to “get him up to speed on the issue and the dispute whether there are 12 or 24 missing boxes,” which was followed by another email that “[White House counsel] is ready to set up a call to discuss the Trump boxes.”

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment Sunday but did not immediately receive a reply.

DOJ INSTRUCTS NARA HOW TO PROCEED

Trump’s team delivered 15 boxes of documents to NARA in January 2022, with the Archives’ White House liaison director reporting back to Ferriero and another archivist that the boxes mostly contained newspaper clippings and magazines, in addition to “lots of classified records,” according to court filings. 

Advertisement

Unsealed documents show that following the review of the returned boxes, Su urged Stern to contact Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. Monaco’s office subsequently “instructed” how Stern could proceed with the matter, including contacting the inspectors general for the Archives and intelligence community, and DOJ National Security Division Chief Jay Bratt, court filings reported by Real Clear show.

This image, contained in the indictment against former President Trump, shows boxes of records stored in a bathroom and shower in the Lake Room at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida. (Justice Department via AP)

Stern complied with the instructions, and a criminal referral was sent to the DOJ on Feb. 9. 

News of the criminal referral sparked condemnation from Republicans that it was spurred by political spite at the hands of Democrats against Trump. 

TRUMP EXPECTED BACK IN COURT FOR CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS HEARING IN SPECIAL SECURE FLORIDA FACILITY

Advertisement

“At no time and under no circumstances were NARA officials pressured or influenced by Committee Democrats or anyone else,” Acting National Archivist Debra Steidel Wall wrote in a letter to congressional Republicans in 2022. 

ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER ATTEMPTS TO INFLUENCE WALT NAUTA’S COUNSEL

Trump was charged alongside his personal aide and valet, Walt Nauta, as well as Mar-a-Lago maintenance chief Carlos De Oliveira. Unredacted court filings show Nauta’s attorney was allegedly threatened he could lose a shot at becoming a federal judge if Nauta didn’t flip on Trump. 

A motion filed in June 2023, and recently unredacted, reported that Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, met with DOJ National Security Division Chief Jay Bratt just weeks after the raid on Mar-a-Lago and “was led to a conference room where Mr. Bratt awaited with what appeared to be a folder containing information about Mr. Woodward,” The Federalist reported. 

This view shows former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, on March 31, 2023. (Reuters/Ricardo Arduengo)

“Mr. Bratt thereupon told Mr. Woodward he didn’t consider him to be a ‘Trump lawyer,’ and he further said that he was aware that Mr. Woodward had been recommended to President Biden for an appointment to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia,” the motion stated, the Federalist reported. “Mr. Bratt followed up with words to the effect of ‘I wouldn’t want you to do anything to mess that up.’ Thereafter, Mr. Bratt advised Mr. Woodward that ‘one way or the other’ his client, Walt Nauta, would be giving up his lavish lifestyle of ‘private planes and golf clubs’ and he encouraged Mr. Woodward to persuade Mr. Nauta to cooperate with the government’s investigation (this was prior to the appointment of the Special Counsel).”

Advertisement

Bratt was later appointed lead prosecutor to Jack Smith’s case. 

The DOJ argued that “at no point during the meeting did Woodward suggest that any of the prosecutors’ comments were improper.” 

TRUMP FLORIDA JUDGE CANNON DENIES TRUMP DISMISSAL ON ‘UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS’

Legal experts, including James Trusty, Trump attorney and former chief of the Justice Department’s organized crime unit, have said the allegations in the filing amount to “extortion.” 

“You had a high-level DOJ official – according to a statement submitted as an officer-to-the-court, to a federal judge – told Stanley Woodward, a defense attorney representing Walt Nauta that it would be a shame, essentially, if he endangered his pending judgeship by not flipping Nauta against President Trump,” Trusty said last year in comment to Fox News’ Mark Levin. 

Advertisement

‘PLASMIC ECHO’

Newly unredacted filings reveal that the FBI investigation into Trump, which officially began in March 2022 following the president and his team voluntarily handing over boxes of documents, was dubbed “Plasmic Echo.” 

“This document contains information that is restricted to case participants,” documents unsealed last month show, Fox News Digital previously reported. It added, “PLASMIC ECHO; Mishandling Classified or National Defense Information, Unknown Subject; Sensitive Investigation Matter.”

TRUMP’S SECURITY CLEARANCE WAS ALLEGEDLY RETROACTIVELY REVOKED

Earlier this year, Trump’s legal team indicated they might use evidence showing Trump acted in “good-faith and non-criminal states of mind” when he took classified documents home to Florida due to a high-level security clearance granted by the Department of Energy. 

Unsealed, unredacted filings assert Trump had the high-level “Q clearance” granted by the DOE until last year, but that it was allegedly revoked following Trump’s indictment.

Former President Trump speaks to supporters at a rally to support local candidates on Sept. 3, 2022, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Advertisement

The DOE’s “Central Personnel Clearance Index and Clearance Action Tracking System ‘reflect[ed] an active Q clearance’ for President Trump,” according to the 2024 filing, as reported by The Federalist. 

An assistant general counsel at the agency, however, “instructed that the relevant systems ‘be immediately amended’ and ‘promptly modified to reflect the terminated status of [President] Trump’s Q clearance,’” the filing states.

Former President Trump listens as David Pecker is questioned by prosecutor Joshua Steinglass during Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, April 26, 2024, in this courtroom sketch. (Reuters/Jane Rosenberg)

Trump’s classified documents case comes as he continues a weeks-long legal battle in a Manhattan courtroom where he is facing 34 felony charges of falsifying business records. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges and slammed the case as another “scam” and “witch hunt” promoted by the Biden administration ahead of the general election.

SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH HITS BACK AT JUDGE FOR ‘FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED LEGAL PREMISE’ IN TRUMP DOCUMENTS CASE

Advertisement

“This Judge has taken away my Constitutional Right to FREE SPEECH. I am the only Presidential Candidate in History to be GAGGED,” Trump wrote last week on Truth Social. 

“This whole ‘Trial’ is RIGGED, and by taking away my FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THIS HIGHLY CONFLICTED JUDGE IS RIGGING THE PRESIDENTIAL OF 2024 ELECTION. ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!” Trump continued

The classified documents case, meanwhile, also opened the doors to investigations regarding classified documents in the possession of Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence. Special Counsel Robert Hur announced in February that he would not recommend criminal charges against Biden for possessing classified materials after his vice presidency, citing that Biden is “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

President Biden speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 15, 2023. (Chris Kleponis/CNP/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone from whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him – by then a former president well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness,” Hur wrote in his report. 

Advertisement

 

The findings sparked widespread outrage that Biden was effectively deemed too cognitively impaired to be charged with a crime but could serve as president. Trump has meanwhile slammed the disparity in charges as a reflection of a “sick and corrupt, two-tiered system of justice in our country.” 

Politics

House Republicans push Johnson to go to war with Senate over SAVE Act

Published

on

House Republicans push Johnson to go to war with Senate over SAVE Act

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Several House Republicans are pushing Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to go to war with the Senate GOP over an election security bill that has little chance of passing the upper chamber under current circumstances.

House GOP leaders convened a lawmaker-only call on Sunday in the wake of a massive military operation against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel.

After leaders briefed House Republicans on how the chamber would respond to the ongoing conflict — including a vote on ending Democrats’ weeks-long government shutdown targeting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — Fox News Digital was told that several lawmakers raised concerns about the Senate not yet taking up the Safeguarding American Voter Eligiblity (SAVE America) Act. Among other provisions, the act would require voters in federal elections to produce valid ID and proof of citizenship.

Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis., was among those pushing the House to reject any bills from the Senate until the measure was taken up, telling Johnson according to multiple sources on the call, “If we don’t get this done, or at least show that we’ve got some backbone, we’re done. The midterms are over.”

Advertisement

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., pauses for questions from reporters as he arrives for an early closed-door Republican Conference meeting at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

At least three other House Republicans shared similar concerns. Sources on the call said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, argued that GOP voters were “not enthused” heading into November and that “the single biggest thing” to turn that around would be forcing the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act.

The SAVE America Act passed the House last month with support from all Republicans and just one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

JEFFRIES ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF ‘VOTER SUPPRESSION’ OVER BILL REQUIRING VOTER ID, PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP

Republicans have pointed out on multiple occasions that voter ID measures have bipartisan support across multiple public polls and surveys. But Democrats have dismissed the legislation as an attempt at voter suppression ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Advertisement

 Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks at a press conference with other members of Senate Republican leadership following a policy luncheon in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 28, 2025. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

The legislation would require 60 votes in the Senate to break filibuster, which it’s likely not to get given Democrats’ near-uniform opposition. But House Republicans have pressured Senate Majority Leader John Thune to use a mechanism known as a standing filibuster to circumvent that — which Thune has signaled opposition to, given the vast amount of time it would take up in the Senate and potential unintended consequences in the amendment process.

It also comes as Congress grapples with the fallout from the strikes on Iran and the need to ensure safety for the U.S. domestically and for service members abroad, both of which will require close coordination between the two chambers.

Johnson told Republicans several times on the Sunday call that he was privately pressuring Thune on the bill but was wary of creating a public rift with his fellow GOP leader, sources said.

HARDLINE CONSERVATIVES DOUBLE DOWN TO SAVE THE SAVE ACT

Advertisement

“If we’re going to go to war against our own party in the Senate, there may be implications to that,” Johnson said at one point, according to people on the call. “So we want to be thoughtful and careful.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, talks with a guest during a “Only Citizens Vote Bus Tour” rally in Upper Senate Park to urge Congress to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

At another point in the call, sources said Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., suggested pairing a coming vote on DHS funding with the SAVE America Act in order to force the Senate to take it up.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But both Johnson and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., were hesitant about such a move given the enhanced threat environment in the wake of the U.S. operation in Iran.

Advertisement

Both spoke out in favor of the SAVE America Act, people told Fox News Digital, but warned the current situation merited leaving the DHS funding bill on its own in a bid to end the partial shutdown, so the department could fully function as a national security shield.

Related Article

Sen Lee dares Democrats to revive talking filibuster over SAVE Act, slamming criticism as ‘paranoid fantasy'
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump justifies Iran attack as Congress and others raise objections

Published

on

Trump justifies Iran attack as Congress and others raise objections

According to President Trump, the United States attacked Iran because the Islamic Republic posed “imminent threats” to the U.S. and its allies, including through its use of terrorist proxies and continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world,” he said in a recorded statement Saturday.

According to leading Democrats in Congress, Trump’s justification is questionable, especially given his claims of having “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities in separate U.S. bombings last June.

“Everything I have heard from the administration before and after these strikes on Iran confirms this is a war of choice with no strategic endgame,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and part of a small group of congressional leaders — the Gang of Eight — who were briefed on the operation by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

That divide is bound to remain an issue politically heading into this year’s midterm elections, and could be a liability for Republicans — especially considering that some in the “America First” wing of the MAGA base were raising their own objections, citing Trump’s 2024 campaign pledges to extricate the U.S. from foreign wars, not start new ones.

Advertisement

The debate echoed a similar if less immediate one around President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, also based on claims that “weapons of mass destruction” posed an immediate threat. Those claims were later disproved by multiple findings that Iraq had no such arsenal, fueling recriminations from both political parties for years.

The latest divide also intensified unease over Congress ceding its wartime powers to the White House, which for years has assumed sweeping authority to attack foreign adversaries without direct congressional input in the name of addressing terrorism or preventing immediate harm to the nation or its troops.

Even prior to the weekend bombings, Democrats including Sen. Adam Schiff of California were pushing Congress to pass a resolution barring the Trump administration from attacking Iran without explicit congressional authorization.

“President Trump must come to Congress before using military force unless absolutely necessary to defend the United States from an imminent attack,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the armed services and foreign relations committees, said in a statement Thursday.

In justifying the daylight strikes that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei just two days later, Trump accused the Iranian government of having “waged an unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder” for nearly half a century — including through attacks on U.S. military assets and commercial shipping vessels abroad — and of having “armed, trained and funded terrorist militias” in multiple countries, including Hezbollah and Hamas.

Advertisement

Trump said that after the U.S. bombed Iran last summer, it had warned Tehran “never to resume” its pursuit of nuclear weapons. “Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland,” he said.

Other Republican leaders largely backed the president.

“The United States did not start this conflict, but we will finish it. If you kill or threaten Americans anywhere in the world — as Iran has — then we will hunt you down, and we will kill you,” said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

“Every president has talked about the threat posed by the Iranian regime. President Trump is the one with the courage to take bold, decisive action,” said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

While Iran’s coordination with and sponsorship of groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are well known, Trump’s claims about Tehran’s ongoing development of nuclear weapons systems are less established — and the administration has provided little evidence to back them up.

Advertisement

Democrats seized on that lack of fresh intelligence in their responses to the attacks, contrasting Trump’s latest statements about imminent threats with his assertion after last year’s bombings that the U.S. had all but eliminated Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

“Let’s be clear: The Iranian regime is horrible. But I have seen no imminent threat to the United States that would justify putting American troops in harm’s way,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the Gang of Eight. “What is the motivation here? Is it Iran’s nuclear program? Their missiles? Regime change?”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the Trump administration “has not provided Congress and the American people with critical details about the scope and immediacy of the threat,” and must do so.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said the Trump administration needs congressional authority to wage such attacks barring “exigent circumstances,” and didn’t have it.

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” he said.

Advertisement

After the U.S. military announced Sunday that three U.S. service personnel were killed and five others seriously wounded in the attacks, the demands for a clearer justification and new constraints on Trump only increased.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said Sunday he is optimistic that Democrats will be unified in trying to pass the war powers resolution, and also that some Republicans will join them, given that the strikes have been unpopular among a portion of the MAGA base.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who partnered with Khanna to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, has said he will work with him again to push a congressional vote on war with Iran, which he said was “not ‘America First.’”

Benjamin Radd, a political scientist and senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, said that whether or not Iran represented an “imminent” threat to the U.S. depends not just on its nuclear capabilities, but on its broader desire and ability to inflict pain on the U.S. and its allies — as was made clear to both the U.S. and Israel after the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which Iran praised.

“If you are Israel or the United States, that’s imminent,” he said.

Advertisement

What happens next, Radd said, will largely depend on whether remaining Iranian leaders stick to Khamenei’s hard-line policies, or decide to negotiate anew with the U.S. He expects they might do the latter, because “it’s a fundamentalist regime, it’s not a suicidal regime,” and it’s now clear that the U.S. and Israel have the capabilities to take out Iranian leaders, Iran has little ability to defend itself, and China and Russia are not rushing to its aid.

How the strikes are viewed moving forward may also depend on what those leaders decide to do next, said Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology who teaches courses on Iran and Middle East politics at the UCLA International Institute.

If the conflict remains relatively contained, it could become a political win for Trump, with questions about the justification falling away. But if it spirals out of control, such questions are likely to only grow, as occurred in Iraq when things started to deteriorate there, he said.

Israel and the U.S. are betting that the conflict will remain manageable, which could turn out to be true, Harris said, but “the problem with war is you never really know what might happen.”

On Sunday, Iran launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and the wider Gulf region. Trump said the campaign against Iran continued “unabated,” though he may be willing to negotiate with the nation’s new leaders. It was unclear when Congress might take up the war powers measure.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending