Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) again insisted that he would refuse to drop out of the race for U.S. Senate after President Donald Trump suggested he would endorse his opponent, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), in retaliation for threatening to disobey the commander-in-chief's demands.
In a post to Truth Social this week, Trump said he would make his endorsement in the Texas Senate race "soon," adding that the candidate whom he did not endorse would be ordered to "immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!"
Paxton responded on Wednesday by saying he would stay in the race against the president's wishes.
"I'm staying in this race," the candidate asserted. "I owe it to the people of Texas."
"Well, that's bad for him to say," Trump said on Thursday. "That is bad for him. So maybe, maybe that leads me to go the other direction."
The threat, however, did not change Paxton's mind when he was asked about it on Thursday.
"No, I'm going to give people in Texas a choice," he told MAGA influencer Benny Johnson. "The people in Washington can have their own opinion. The president can have his own opinion, but I've been in this race for almost a year, and we're going to win this race in the runoff."
"So, do you have any indication that President Trump might endorse you?" Johnson wondered.
"Well, I know that John Cornyn has suggested that Susie Wiles, as [Trump's] chief of staff, is behind this. I don't know what's true or not true," Paxton replied.
Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, warned Thursday about what President Donald Trump's next moves in the war against Iran could be.
Himes told CNN anchors Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown that after the Senate rejected a resolution to limit Trump's war powers without congressional permission—a measure also expected to fail Thursday in the House—lawmakers were now in a difficult position regarding military action against Iran, with few options remaining.
"There's a reallykind of dark answer to thatquestion, which and theanswer to that is, and I hateto be this blunt and honest withthe American people, but it'strue. The answer to thatquestion is nothing," Himes said. "Even if thewar powers resolution were tohave passed the Senate and tohave passed the House, there isno reason to believe that Donald Trump would have taken that intoaccount."
Himes argued that Trump would have vetoed the resolution regardless of what lawmakers said. He predicted what Trump would do.
"And so what eventually is going to endthis war is what we're beginningto see already, just in thefourth or fifth day of this war,gasoline prices are already up$0.22 a gallon on average acrossthe country," Himes said. "They are now higherthan they were when Donald Trumptook office the stock market isstumbling today. And by the way,I should have put this first.But most tragically and mostimportantly, there are now six Americans dead in this war.Eventually the pressure of thoselosses in the context ofthe administration's inabilityto tell us how this ends, youknow how or when this ends,eventually the American peopleare going to be even more souron this war than they alreadyare now. And I suspect whathappens then is that Donald Trump just pulls the plug,declares victory, and walksaway."
And despite reports that Iranian military forces have weakened, that doesn't mean they're done fighting, Himes explained.
"There's no question that the Iranians are being very badly hit right now most of their navy is gone," Himes said. "There's lots of almost MTV-quality videos that you can watch on an hourly basis being released by the White House and by the Department of Defense. The reality is that the Iranians maintain pretty shocking military capability and asymmetric capability. That's what we, you know, the fancy term for the terrorists that they have for generations now been planting in the region, and scarily outside of the region."
He also described another troubling concern for American intelligence involved in the strikes against Iran — and how a move by the FBI could be putting troops at potential risk.
"As this regime gets increasingly desperate, they are going to reach for those tools at a time, by the way, when the FBI has fired the people who are Iran counterterrorism experts and whatnot," Himes said. "So it is a very, very real danger. And I just pray that this administration sobers up, takes their eye off of their constant need to praise this president, and actually gets into the business of defending and standing for the security of the American people."
President Donald Trump insisted that he be "involved" in picking the next leader of Iran after the United States assassinated Ali Khamenei in Operation Epic Fury.
In an interview with Axios on Thursday, Trump revealed that he would not accept Mojtaba Khamenei, son of the former supreme leader.
"They are wasting their time," the U.S. president said. "Khamenei's son is a lightweight."
"I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy [Rodriguez] in Venezuela," he added.
Trump also said he would not accept a leader who would force the U.S. to strike Iran again "in five years."
"Khamenei's son is unacceptable to me. We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran," he insisted.
When pressed about a new Iranian leader earlier this week, Trump was unable to come up with a name.
"Most of the people we had in mind are dead," he said.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has come under fire over an explosive whistleblower complaint and allegations that she is protecting the Trump family — and that she even planted a mole to obstruct the investigation, according to an analyst Thursday.
Salon's Jesselyn Radack described multiple problems and conflicts of interest that have surfaced around Gabbard's alleged mismanagement of the complaint, which are tied to claims that President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner influenced the president over Iran. The complaint itself was apparently "locked in a safe," according to a Wall Street Journal report last month.
"We don’t know the substance of the intelligence report underlying the whistleblower complaint, but the government claims it is 'exquisitely' classified, which raises an immediate problem: That’s not a real classification level," Radack wrote. "The report apparently involves an intelligence service intercepting a conversation between two foreign nationals about Iran and Jared Kushner’s influence on his father-in-law, the president. At the time, the Trump administration was considering a strike on Iran, which in fact occurred at the end of June 2025."
Gabbard reportedly delayed investigating the complaint amid "ongoing rumors concerning the state of her relationship with Trump, which has appeared to be in constant flux," Radack explained.
"Instead of providing guidance, Gabbard — the former champion of whistleblowers — apparently sat on the complaint for eight months and stonewalled the whistleblower and their lawyer," Radack wrote.
She also reportedly made potentially "sinister" moves, "rather than innocent, bureaucratic snafus."
"And worse, during this delay, she reportedly planted a mole in the ICIG’s office to snitch about the situation directly to her — obviously compromising the office’s independence," Radack wrote.
Gabbard has appeared to be acting as a protector of the Trump family — instead of focusing on national intelligence concerns.
"We don’t know why Gabbard continues to aggressively obstruct this whistleblower complaint," Radack added. "It sounds like she’s more concerned with protecting Jared Kushner, and perhaps Trump himself, than the public she’s supposed to serve. But we do know this: The ICWPA system for intelligence community whistleblowers depends on the knowledge, trust, credibility and good faith of the director of national intelligence. It’s a fatal flaw to make that person an intermediary, much less a gatekeeper, on a whistleblower’s path to congressional oversight."
Donald Trump's reasoning that he had no choice but to start a war with Iran because Iranian missiles could hit the American mainland “soon” was undercut by a report from MS NOW’s Jackie Alemany on Thursday morning.
During a military medal ceremony on Monday at the White House, the president told the audience, “The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America.”
Alemany, the co-host of MS NOW’s “The Weekend,” broke the news on “Morning Joe” that one of her sources in the White House claimed Trump has been champing at the bit to get the war started for some time.
Speaking with the “Morning Joe” co-hosts, she swerved away from a question from Joe Scarborough to state, “I do want to address something that Jonathan [Lemire] said, because I've had this reporting that just came to me. But the personal nature of Trump's position on Iran: I have a source who had lunch with Trump at Mar-a-Lago a month and a half ago, who said essentially that Trump was itching to strike Iran.”
"And I think it does really get to this idea that so little of this is based on actual substance and primarily on settling a score against Iran, wanting to legacy build and, again, a lack of a real justification here,” she pointed out. “And there are lots of members of Congress in a bipartisan manner who are taking issue with this, although not enough for this to pass in the Senate and likely to fail in the House today.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Spain has already agreed to cooperate with the United States on any war with Iran — but almost immediately, the Spanish government contradicted this.
As CNBC noted, when Leavitt was pressed by reporters on Wednesday about Spain's refusal to allow U.S. use of its military bases for staging such an operation, she replied, “With respect to Spain, I think they heard the president’s message yesterday loud and clear, and it’s my understanding, over the past several hours, they’ve agreed to cooperate with the U.S. military. The president expects all of our European allies, of course, to cooperate in this long sought-after mission, not just for the United States but also for Europe, to crush the rogue Iranian regime.”
However, Madrid swiftly disagreed, with Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares telling a local outlet that, “The Spanish government’s position on the war in the Middle East ... and the use of our bases has not changed at all.”
Spain is one of the member states of the NATO alliance, which would compel the Spanish government to protect the United States if it were attacked; but they aren't obliged to give unlimited cooperation to the U.S. to help them invade another country.
Already, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has condemned President Donald Trump's move to strike Iran, saying, “You can’t play Russian roulette with the destiny of millions ... Nobody knows for sure what will happen now. Even the objectives of those who launched the first attack are unclear. But we must be prepared, as the proponents say, for the possibility that this will be a long war, with numerous casualties and, therefore, with serious economic consequences on a global scale.”
Trump, for his part, has threatened to "cut off all dealings" with Spain if they do not commit to stand behind U.S. military objectives.
A Democratic Party representative who served in the Iraq war has issued a statement denouncing the rhetoric around the ongoing strikes on Iran.
Donald Trump approved a bombing campaign against Iran earlier this week, with veterans now serving in government airing their concerns. New York Democrat Rep. Pat Ryan, a veteran who twice served in Iraq, issued a statement to CNN expressing his concern over the current Iran situation.
He said, "If I hear one more chicken hawk who’s never served a single day in uniform sitting in a gold-plated office in DC or Mar-a-Lago or anywhere else, try to talk tough having never seen what war is about, I’m going to lose my mind."
Fellow representatives backed Ryan's comments, with Rep. Eugene Vindman calling the conflict with Iran an unnecessary use of US resources.
He said, "I will not be shedding a tear for the Iranian regime and the Ayatollah. I understand the threat but I also understand that wars are easy to start and hard to finish.
"This is a commitment of American blood and treasure to a conflict that we didn’t need to be engaged in."
Donald Trump has said the U.S. will stay in the fight for as long as it takes to achieve the country's objectives, although his administration has not yet laid out a compelling case for the operation, according to some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
John Bolton, the president's national security advisor during his first administration, told Joanna Coles on a new episode of "The Daily Beast Podcast" on Wednesday that he is concerned that Trump hasn't thought through the implications of the strikes. He added that the president's lack of a decision-making process "magnifies the risk" that something could go wrong.
“As long as things are going successfully, he’ll stick with it," Bolton said. "If we run into real difficulty, and I hope we don’t, and we shouldn’t at this point, but if we do, because anything is possible, that would be the testing time to see whether he was able to stick it out."
Donald Trump has reportedly scrambled energy experts to find an alternative source of energy following the strikes on Iran.
While some experts believe a hold-up in the Strait of Hormuz supply line will be temporary, other insiders are concerned there could be longer-term consequences at play. Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman suggested the route, which has been used by the US and other Western nations as a supply line through the Persian Gulf, could be cut off for longer than the few days industry experts were predicting.
Ben Lefebvre, writing in Politico, noted two energy industry insiders had been asked by the president's team to find a solution - and fast.
Trump's chief of staff, Susie Wiles, reportedly asked advisers to bring the president ideas on how to tackle the rising oil price and the subsequent effect this will have on gasoline prices.
One insider said the administration had been "looking under every rock for ideas on improving energy prices, especially gasoline prices" for a solution. The unnamed executive went on to say that current energy heads of staff are being "screamed at to find some good news" on the situation.
"Folks are scrambling for announcements and messaging to counter the narrative," they added.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, "I think it speaks to why this action was so necessary that ultimately the energy industry is going to benefit from the president’s actions with respect to Iran, because Iran will no longer be controlling the Strait of Hormuz and restricting the free flow of energy."
Insiders also confirmed a handful of ideas had been pitched to the president or members of his team, but that none were considered viable at this time.
Lefebvre wrote, "Some of the ideas the administration is considering include a temporary holiday on the gasoline tax, people familiar with the discussions said. But that might not bring immediate relief since it would require action from Congress. And there’s no guarantee oil refiners and gas stations would pass the savings along to drivers.
"Some administration officials have also floated using the U.S. military to defend energy infrastructure in the Middle East. But that idea isn’t likely to win over Saudi Arabian officials, who are cool on it given the sensitivities around American boots on the kingdom’s soil."
President Donald Trump faces an inherent "problem" in his administration that "magnifies the risk" of failure in Iran, according to a former administration insider.
Early Saturday morning, U.S. and Israeli forces conducted a coordinated bombing campaign across more than 100 sites in Iran. The move set off a geopolitical frenzy, with Iran firing retaliatory strikes at several neighboring countries as well as at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait, which killed six Americans over the weekend.
Trump has said the U.S. will stay in the fight for as long as it takes to achieve the country's objectives, although his administration has not yet laid out a compelling case for the operation, according to some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
John Bolton, the president's national security advisor during his first administration, told Joanna Coles on a new episode of "The Daily Beast Podcast" on Wednesday that he is concerned that Trump hasn't thought through the implications of the strikes. He added that the president's lack of a decision-making process "magnifies the risk" that something could go wrong.
“As long as things are going successfully, he’ll stick with it," Bolton said. "If we run into real difficulty, and I hope we don’t, and we shouldn’t at this point, but if we do, because anything is possible, that would be the testing time to see whether he was able to stick it out."
A veteran court watcher warned on Wednesday that the Supreme Court is about to "gravely disappoint" Americans.
Former Solicitor General of the United States Donald B. Verrilli Jr. discussed the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the tariffs case on a new episode of the "Amicus" podcast with Dahlia Lithwick. He argued that the case provided temporary relief for those concerned that the court was about to sign away a wholesale transfer of power from Congress to the presidency. Even so, there are still some outstanding issues that should give Americans reasons for concern, he argued.
"If you actually think about it, what Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, what Justice Neil Gorsuch said, what Justice Elena Kagan said in her concurrence, and what the chief justice said? There was a common core to it, which was: 'Use your common sense, man,'" Verrilli Jr. said.
In late February, the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump's tariff regime was unconstitutional because it was not approved by Congress. Courts are now wrestling with the question of how to return the tariffs that were collected to the businesses that paid them.
While that case was a brief win, Verilli Jr. noted that there are still many cases concerning presidential power that are being decided by unsigned opinions — also known as the shadow docket — which he described as "quite distressing."
"Nevertheless, I look at the course of our history, and I feel that there’s reason to keep the faith," Verilli Jr. said.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) lashed out at several of her Republican colleagues for opposing a motion that would require Congress to release information on payouts that silence victims of congressional sex scandals.
During a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) moved to release information about payouts for sexual misconduct.
Boebert spoke out in support of Mace's motion in committee after a majority of Republicans in the full House voted down a similar effort.
"And I want to thank Congresswoman Nancy Mace for introducing this privileged motion," the Colorado Republican said. "I think at this point, this is something that should be introduced on a weekly basis. I am absolutely disgusted that we could even get to 50 members of Congress who want immediate transparency. Don't we all campaign on transparency? Don't we all go out and tell the American voters that we are leaders and that we are going to get justice for them, that we are going to do right by them?"
"And then we hire their daughters to come work for us," she continued. "And your tax dollars, millions and millions of dollars, has been used in this slush fund as hush money to silence victims who have been sexually harassed, sexually abused by members of Congress."
Boebert noted that attention had been focused on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but the misconduct was "happening right here in our nation's capital."
"And to every member who voted to send this to committee, where you know this was sent to die on the House floor just moments ago," she remarked. "I hope you have a darn good reason to tell your constituents why you were not going to stand up for the victims."
"And I'm glad that we are doing something about it here in the Oversight Committee," the lawmaker added. "And to the members who voted against this, go home and tell your daughters what you did today! Go home and tell your daughters what happens in the workplace, no matter where it is, in your hometown, in your nation's capital, and tell them what you did to help continue to cover up decades of corruption!"
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt directly attacked CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Wednesday during the first press briefing since the United States and its ally Israel launched military strikes against Iran.
Leavitt had made several comments criticizing media coverage of the Trump administration and went after reporters at the White House, specifically Collins and CNN.
The Trump administration has presented several different objectives since launching its military operation five days ago — with Cabinet members and even President Donald Trump giving conflicting information over what prompted the attacks and led to the regional conflict that has now left six American troops dead.
"Is it the position of this administration that the press should not prominently cover the deaths of U.S. service members?" Collins asked Leavitt.
"No, it's the position of this administration that the press in this room and the press across this country should report on the success of Operation Epic Fury and the damage it is doing to the rogue Iranian regime that has threatened the lives of every single American in this room," Leavitt said. "If the Iranian regime had their choice, they would kill every single person in this room, and so we can all be very grateful that we have an administration, that we have men and women in our armed forces who are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the rest of us in this room and for every American across the country, and for every troop that is based in the Middle East."
Collins pushed back on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had said earlier Wednesday. When Leavitt started to clash with her, things became personal.
"But Secretary Hegseth was complaining that it was front-page news about these six service members who were killed," Collins said.
"That's not what the secretary said, and that's not what he meant, and you know it!" Leavitt said, appearing visibly upset by Collins' statement. "You are being disingenuous. There is not — we've never had a secretary of defense who cares more..."
Collins then interjected and read the statement directly from Hegseth, who had claimed that the press had purposefully tried to speak badly about Trump.
"The press only wants to make the president look bad," Leavitt said. As you know, the press, the deaths of U.S. service members under every president. The press does only want to make the president look bad. That's a fact. Especially, you know, listen to me, especially you, and especially CNN, and the secretary of defense cares deeply about our warfighters and our men and women in uniform. He travels all across this country to meet with them, to connect with them. And your network has hardly ever probably reported on that."
Collins responded again to Leavitt's attacks — pointing out that covering the slain military members was not an attempt to attack Trump.
"That's not making the president look bad, that's showcasing that," Collins said.
"And I just told you that the president of the United States will be attending their dignified transfer. So please. So, please," Leavitt said. "We expect you to cover that as you should, Kaitlan. But you and your network know that you take every single thing this administration says and tries to use it to make the president look bad. That is an objective fact."
Collins pushed back again.
"I don't think covering troop deaths is trying to make the president look bad," Collins said.
"If you're trying to argue right now that CNN's overwhelming coverage is not negative of President Donald Trump, I think the American people would tend to agree, and your ratings would tend to disagree with that as well," Leavitt said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered an attack on the media on Wednesday during the first press briefing since the U.S. launched its military operation against Iran five days ago.
NBC News senior White House correspondent Garrett Haake asked Leavitt why President Donald Trump, just days after his State of the Union address, had not laid out the case for why the U.S. had planned with its ally Israel to launch military strikes on Iran. Leavitt blamed the press for conflicting reports over the Trump administration's objectives in the military action, and what prompted the attacks.
"Does the president believe the country supports the actions that he's taken so far in Iran?" Haake asked.
Leavitt responded to the question with a swipe at the media, including the reporters at the briefing.
"I think he does. And I think the president knows the country is smart enough to read past many of the fake news headlines produced by people in this room, that this action was unjustifiable," Leavitt said.
"Again, this is a rogue terrorist regime that has been threatening the United States, our allies and our people for 47 years," Leavitt argued. "And the American people are smart enough to know that. And they've also been smart enough to listen to the president himself, not just over the past year in this second term, but during his first term as president and also for the past 40 years of his life. This is a president who has been remarkably consistent on this issue, that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. And the president tried peace through diplomacy exhaustively and extensively. He and his team gave it their best go."
