President Donald Trump told the American public his top military adviser blessed the Iran strike campaign as a sure thing. But the truth, according to a New York Times report on Monday, was the opposite.

Before the bombs fell, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine stood before Trump and his national security team in the White House Situation Room in February and delivered a stark warning.

"During the meeting, General Caine discussed an array of options, among them that U.S. forces could carry out a limited strike as a way to push Iran in the negotiations, or a larger campaign with the goal of toppling the government. The latter option in particular, he said, carried high risk of American casualties, could destabilize the region and significantly deplete stocks of American munitions," the Times reported.

Days later, Trump took to Truth Social and pushed a very different story.

Caine, Trump wrote, had said any military action against Iran would be "something easily won."

"Numerous stories from the Fake News Media have been circulating stating that General Daniel Caine, sometimes referred to as Razin, is against us going to War with Iran. The story does not attribute this vast wealth of knowledge to anyone, and is 100% incorrect," the president raged on his platform. "General Caine, like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won."

Six American troops have since died. Trump has warned that more casualties will likely come.

Other administration officials, the Times noted, were "similarly misleading in private sessions with lawmakers."

"During a Feb. 24 meeting with the so-called Gang of Eight — the leaders of the House and Senate and heads of the intelligence committees — Secretary of State Marco Rubio made no mention that the Trump administration was considering regime change, according to people familiar with his comments," the report said.

Protections for religious expression in K-12 schools could also be expanded to guard ideological and political speech through a bill that passed Thursday in the Missouri House.

State Rep. Darin Chappell, a Republican from Rogersville and the bill’s sponsor, said the legislation is intended to guard First Amendment rights.

“We don’t want anyone’s political ideas to be squelched just because someone in authority has different ideas,” Chappell said during a Tuesday debate.

He doesn’t want public schools to tell students what they can and can’t think or say, he said, acknowledging some exceptions to the rule.

The legislation passed on a 99-47 vote would allow schools to take action against expression that is “substantially disruptive” or prevents other students from equal access to educational opportunities. Speech not protected by the First Amendment, like obscenity, is also excluded.

The legislation largely codifies protections already in place through federal law.

State Rep. Ian Mackey, a St. Louis Democrat, said he is not sure the bill “will change a darn thing in our schools” but said it could have “unintended consequences.”

A chief concern among Democrats was a provision that would bar public schools from discriminating against student clubs because of their views and certain leadership requirements. Last year, lawmakers passed a bill that codified these protections in the state’s public universities.

State Rep. Wick Thomas, a Democrat from Kansas City, asked Chappell if the bill could “protect Nazi student clubs,” giving a hypothetical about a group of fourth graders.

“I am not sure how many Nazi fourth graders there are,” Chappell replied. “But sure.”

Mackey warned the House not to overlook the issue, pointing out that Affton High School was vandalized with racist graffiti, including a swastika, last year.

“To think that they wouldn’t want to form a club,” he said. “You’re brushing off something that is a lot more serious.”

State Rep. LaKeySha Bosley, a Democrat from St. Louis, also worried the legislation could open doors for hateful groups.

“Allowing them to have spaces like this is going to create more contention,” she said.

Chappell repeatedly said Tuesday that he believes the best remedy to “bad speech” is “more speech,” saying he dropped “stupid” ideas after his peers corrected him as an adolescent.

“This bill protects everyone equally, and I believe the First Amendment is for everybody,” he told Bosley. “And if somebody sounds like a moron, that’s our opportunity to clue them in that they’re sounding like a moron.”

Democrats also worried about the cost of lawsuits that could arise from the bill, which empowers students to sue public schools who violate their free speech rights. The legislation waives the state’s immunity to be sued, which Chappell said was intended to remove school districts’ claims at sovereign immunity as political subdivisions of the state.

The bill received broad support from House Republicans, who saw it as common sense.

“Political and ideological speech should be protected,” said state Rep. John Simmons, a Republican from Washington. “It is kind of shameful that we have to add it to existing language.”

A nearly identical bill was filed in the Senate, passing a Senate committee in a 5-2 vote last month. It has stalled since, not yet making it onto the Senate’s calendar for consideration.