Home Blog

Supreme Court Shuts Down ‘Progressive’ Candidate’s GOP Primary Play

0
Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

The Supreme Court just put a hard stop to a political stunt in Ohio.

A self-described progressive candidate tried to game the system — running as a Republican in a deep-red congressional district — and it didn’t work.

Samuel Ronan, a former Democratic candidate, filed to run in the GOP primary against Rep. Mike Carey. To get on the ballot, he signed a legal declaration swearing he was a Republican.

Problem: he’d already said publicly that the whole thing was a strategy — running Democrats as Republicans in “deep red districts” to “get a foot in the door.”

That didn’t sit well with actual Republican voters.

One of them filed a formal protest, pointing to Ronan’s own words as proof he was trying to mislead voters. The local elections board split along party lines, and Ohio’s Secretary of State stepped in to break the tie — kicking Ronan off the ballot.

Ronan sued, claiming the state violated his First Amendment rights by using his political speech against him.

A federal judge wasn’t buying it.

You can change parties, the court said. You can say whatever you want politically. But you can’t sign a legal document under penalty of fraud and expect the state to ignore clear evidence you didn’t mean it.

Or, as the judge put it: the First Amendment doesn’t give you a free pass to lie on official paperwork.

Ronan made a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court.

The justices declined — no explanation, no lifeline.

Bottom line: if you’re going to run in a party’s primary, you actually have to belong to it — at least on paper and in practice.

Historians Sue Trump After DOJ Scraps Records Rule

0
By The White House - https://www.flickr.com/photos/202101414@N05/54581054338/, Public Domain,

The country’s largest group of historians is suing the Trump administration after the Justice Department declared the president doesn’t have to follow the law requiring him to turn over his records.

The American Historical Association and American Oversight filed the lawsuit Monday in federal court, warning the administration is putting the public record at risk.

They called the case an effort to “preserve the historical record that belongs to the American people, before it is forever lost.”

“This case is about the preservation of records that document our nation’s history, and whether the American people are able to access and learn from that history,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit comes days after the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel said Trump “need not further comply” with the Presidential Records Act — a post-Watergate law that made presidential records public property.

The groups are asking a judge to step in, declare the law constitutional, and block Trump from using the opinion to keep official records.

“The Administration’s actions nullifying a law duly enacted by Congress, based on a legal determination that contravenes a decision of the Supreme Court, violate the separation of powers twice over,” the complaint states.

The Presidential Records Act requires materials like emails, call logs, and internal documents to be turned over to the National Archives after a president leaves office.

Trump previously faced scrutiny for keeping sensitive records at Mar-a-Lago after his first term and was later indicted on charges related to retaining classified information and obstruction. The case was dismissed after a judge questioned the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.

Judge Rebuked Twice By Supreme Court Deals New Blow To Trump Immigration Agenda

A federal judge already twice rebuked by the Supreme Court is back at it—this time blocking the Trump administration from ending legal protections for thousands of Ethiopian migrants.

Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee in Massachusetts, temporarily halted the administration’s plan to strip temporary protected status (TPS) from more than 5,000 Ethiopians—a move that would have made them deportable within 60 days.

Murphy said the Department of Homeland Security didn’t follow the law when it pulled the plug on the program.

That ruling lands right in the middle of the administration’s broader push to shrink TPS and tighten immigration enforcement.

But it also lands on a judge with a track record.

Murphy has repeatedly tried to block Trump-era deportation policies—especially efforts to send migrants to third countries. The Supreme Court has stepped in twice to reverse him, even issuing a rare 7–2 clarification saying he ignored its orders. An appeals court also shut down one of his more recent rulings just last month.

Critics say this is more of the same.

“This rogue judge lacks the subject matter jurisdiction to issue this order,” Sen. Eric Schmitt said. “The assault on the rule of law continues.”

Legal analyst Jonathan Turley piled on, warning that “this system cannot function with such rogue operators at the trial level.”

Iowa Solicitor General Eric Wessan pointed to what he sees as a fundamental problem: the law itself.

“One big problem for Murphy is the statute: It explains TPS determinations aren’t reviewable. Another is the Supreme Court, which has stopped similar orders twice,” Wessan said. “He finds neither statute nor SCOTUS stops him. I’m unconvinced.”

Murphy, for his part, insists he’s not defying the high court. He noted that the Supreme Court hasn’t fully explained its recent TPS-related rulings—and hasn’t stepped in on every similar case.

“There is no reason to assume” the justices have settled the issue, he wrote.

The lawsuit behind the ruling claims the administration’s TPS rollback isn’t just procedural—it’s discriminatory. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argue the policy is aimed at reducing non-white immigration, writing that the effort targets “the nationals of majority Black countries” in particular.

The Justice Department is expected to appeal, setting up yet another round in a growing legal fight between the Trump administration and a judge who keeps standing in its way.

Democrat Candidate Calls For Banning MAGA From Internet

    0
    Gage Skidmore Flickr

    A Democratic candidate for the Georgia House is under fire after proposing a sweeping—and controversial—“punishment” for Trump supporters: kicking them off social media for four years.

    Suzanna Karatassos, a self-described “progressive fighter” running for a seat held by Republican state Rep. Houston Gaines, made the remark in a now-deleted video that quickly spread online.

    “When this is all over and Trump’s gone and Democrats are back in charge and we’re rebuilding everything, the punishment for MAGA for voting for Trump three times needs to be they remove their internet access for four years,” Karatassos said.

    “That they cannot post videos or comments on social media for four straight years, so that none of us are subjected to their lies and misinformation while we are rebuilding the chaos that they caused the whole world and America gets to be without their BS online for 4 straight years.”

    “Can we all agree to this?” she added.

    Karatassos later deleted the video—but not before it was captured and widely shared by critics.

    Her comments land in the middle of a heated national fight over free speech, censorship, and Big Tech’s role in policing online content.

    In 2023, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a sweeping injunction blocking federal agencies—including the FBI and Department of Health and Human Services—from pressuring social media companies to suppress “protected free speech.”

    Doughty pointed to 25 instances of alleged government pressure on tech platforms, according to reporting tied to a thread by Substack writer Justin Hart.

    But the Supreme Court later struck down that ruling in a 6–3 decision, saying the states and individuals who brought the case lacked legal standing. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

    Separate emails from April 2021 also showed the Biden White House pushing Facebook over content, including a Tucker Carlson video on COVID-19 vaccines.

    Meanwhile, Karatassos’ remarks are already fueling backlash—raising fresh questions about how far some candidates are willing to go when it comes to policing political speech online and Donald Trump.

    Trump Asks Court To Throw Out Remnants of ‘Legally Unsound’ Fraud Case

    1
    Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

    President Trump has asked New York’s highest court to dismiss the remaining findings and penalties in the state’s civil fraud case against him, arguing that the lawsuit brought by Attorney General Letitia James was legally flawed and politically motivated.

    In a 119-page filing submitted Wednesday to the New York Court of Appeals, Trump’s attorneys described the case as an “unprecedented” use of the attorney general’s authority and urged the court to fully overturn it.

    “This Court should put an end to this politically motivated action,” his lawyers wrote.

    James filed the civil lawsuit in 2022, accusing Trump and his family business of inflating the value of their assets to secure more favorable loan and insurance terms. The case became one of the most significant legal challenges Trump has faced, threatening both his public image as a successful real estate developer and the future of the Trump Organization. It also elevated James as one of Trump’s most prominent political and legal adversaries.

    The case has taken a complex path through the courts. After a bench trial, Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump liable for fraud and imposed a $464 million judgment, which grew to more than $500 million with interest. Engoron also barred Trump from serving in top roles at New York companies for three years, imposed two-year bans on his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and appointed an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s business practices.

    However, a mid-level appellate court later struck down the financial penalty as excessive, removing the largest monetary consequence while leaving the liability finding and other restrictions in place. The appellate judges were sharply divided in their ruling.

    Despite that partial victory, Trump’s legal team is now seeking to eliminate the remaining penalties and the underlying liability determination. His lawyers acknowledged the “unusual posture” of the appeal, since the prior ruling largely benefited him, but argued that the decision still rests on an “erroneous finding” that must be reversed.

    “This unprecedented and legally unsound case is about far more than President Trump,” his lawyers said, arguing that James stretched a New York law targeting “persistent fraud or illegality” beyond its intended use.

    “If left on the books, the mistaken legal rulings below threaten New York’s position as the Nation’s financial capital, as well as the State’s commercial real-estate industry,” they added.

    The New York attorney general’s office, which has also appealed aspects of the appellate ruling, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The appeal comes amid a broader and highly contentious legal and political battle between Trump and James. During the period between Trump’s presidential terms, James secured a major civil fraud ruling against him, while Trump and his allies have repeatedly accused her of pursuing politically motivated cases.

    More recently, Trump administration officials have sought to pursue criminal cases against James. She was indicted last fall on mortgage fraud allegations, but a federal judge dismissed the charges, finding that the prosecutor who brought the case had been unlawfully appointed. Prosecutors later sought two additional indictments, but grand juries declined to bring charges.

    Trump’s latest appeal now asks the state’s highest court to bring the long-running civil case to a close by wiping out the remaining findings and penalties that continue to affect him and his business.

    Trump Calls For Fox News To Take ‘Loser’ Host Off The Air

      1

      President Donald Trump criticized two Fox News hosts in a Truth Social post, calling on network executives to remove one of them from the air.

      Trump first responded to a “Fox News Sunday” interview with Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, accusing anchor Shannon Bream of failing to challenge what he described as false claims made by Democrats on her program. He also targeted Jessica Tarlov, a co-host of “The Five” and a liberal panelist who appears on the Sunday show, urging that she be taken off the air.

      “Tell Shannon Bream of FoxNews that it’s not the Save Act, it’s the Save America Act, a big difference! Also, when she insists on having lightweight Democrat Congressmen, such as Jake Auchincloss, on her not very hard hitting show, she should correct them when they spew out Democrat propaganda and lies. She never does! I always close deals, unlike the Dems, and did great with China in every way, also, unlike the Dems!” Trump said.

      “For Fox executives only, take Jessica Tarlov off the air. She is, from her voice, to her lies, and everything else about her, one of the worst “personalities” on television, a real loser! People cannot stand watching her. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump continued.

      During the “Fox News Sunday” segment, Auchincloss said the war in Iran has been a “failure” and argued that it has given Iran leverage through its control of the Strait of Hormuz.

      Trump has previously criticized Fox News, particularly after the network’s early projection that former President Joe Biden would win Arizona in the 2020 election. In a March appearance on “The Five,” Trump said he was not a fan of Tarlov, who frequently criticizes him on-air, and suggested the show would be better without her.

      “I watch Jessica, and I’m not a fan,” Trump said. “And she uses fake numbers. She’ll give, ‘Well, he’s only polling 42%.’ That’s not right. Polling very high, actually.” He added criticism of “bad journalists” who write “fake stories,” before saying, “I’m sure I’d like her. I’m sure she’s a lovely person.”

      Megyn Kelly Calls U.S.-Iran Ceasefire ‘Surrender’ In Blistering Interview

      Conservative media personality and former Fox News host Megyn Kelly sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s handling of the recent U.S.–Iran conflict, describing the resulting ceasefire as resembling a “surrender” by the United States—even as she acknowledged supporting the decision to end the fighting.

      Speaking in an interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Kelly offered a blunt assessment of the agreement reached between the Trump administration and Iranian officials, a two-week ceasefire brokered with the help of Pakistani mediators.

      “You got to say, the deal sounds very much like surrender on our part, which I’m in favor of. I mean, great. This needed to end, ugly, or any other way, it needed to end. It was folly to begin with. It was folly throughout. It remains folly,” Kelly told Morgan.

      The ceasefire came shortly before a deadline Trump imposed for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route. Despite the pause in hostilities, Trump warned that U.S. forces would remain positioned in and around Iran and could carry out further strikes if Tehran failed to comply with a broader agreement.

      Yet Kelly’s critique extended far beyond the ceasefire itself. In a wide-ranging and at times blistering exchange with Morgan, she questioned how the conflict began and why Trump embraced it in the first place—pointing in particular to the influence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

      “What led Trump, what, at 79 years old, to sit in there in that situation room when Bibi Netanyahu was seated as an equal?” she asked. “Trump didn’t even sit at the head of the table. Trump sat at the side of the tables and Bibi was across from him as an equal in the American situation room. What led him to sit there and buy what that guy was selling hook, line, and sinker when every other president was able to see through that liar? What was it?”

      Kelly cited reporting from journalist Maggie Haberman and co-author Jonathan Swan, which described internal skepticism from top U.S. officials—including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—about intelligence presented by Netanyahu.

      “Because he was told the next day by our own top advisers, from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the secretary of state to the vice president, that these are lies and that these objectives are not going to be attainable. Don’t believe him!” Kelly said.

      She acknowledged that limited military gains may have been possible but rejected the broader claims made by Trump about the outcome of the conflict.

      “We might be able to wipe out the Ayatollah, not regime change, Ayatollah. And we might be able to decimate some portion of their missiles and their military. OK, that’s true,” she said. “But the goals as stated by Trump when we did pull the trigger. We’re all over the board into this moment.”

      Kelly was especially critical of Trump’s assertion that the U.S. had achieved regime change in Iran.

      “He’s pushing the BS claim that we effected regime change. No, we didn’t! It’s the same regime, just different players. There isn’t somebody more moderate in there at all. We have no reason to believe that.”

      Instead, she argued, the outcome may have strengthened more hardline elements within Iran.

      “In fact, it looks like the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in control now, which is far more radical. And the fatwa that had allegedly been issued by the Ayatollah on developing nukes is gone.”

      She added that Iran now appears to hold increased leverage, both economically and strategically.

      “Iran is more powerful economically. It controls the Strait and now is demanding the lifting of all sanctions against it.”

      Kelly also criticized what she described as Trump’s shifting position on a proposed 10-point plan to resolve the conflict.

      “And what Trump did with that 10-point plan was go from Monday saying, no, not good, to Tuesday saying, very workable. We can do it as a means of saving face to bail off of his insane threats about annihilating an entire civilization.”

      Her frustration extended to Trump’s rhetoric more broadly, including social media posts in which he referenced extreme military action.

      “I don’t know about you, but I am sick of this s—! I’m just — I’m sick of it. Can’t he just behave like a normal human? I mean, honestly, like the president — ‘3D chess’ — just shut up,” she said on her podcast. “F—ing shut up about that s—! You don’t threaten to wipe out an entire civilization. We’re talking about civilians, just casually in a social media post.”

      Ultimately, Kelly placed responsibility for the conflict on a combination of external influence and presidential decision-making.

      “So I don’t know how we got here, Piers. I’d like to know just as much as anybody else, but all I can think in my head, based on what I’ve read in the paper, is we got her thanks to Bibi Netanyahu, Lindsey Graham, and Mark Levin.”

      “And ultimately, President Trump, that’s not to take agency away from the president, who was bamboozled. I don’t know why he was too weak to say no. He was too gullible to see through the lies.”

      “One way or another, he allowed himself to be pushed into this insane conflict.”

      Watch the full video here.

      Lawmaker Whose Parents Fled Iranian Regime Files Impeachment Articles

      By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Pete Hegseth, CC BY-SA 2.0

      Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) whose parents fled Iran following the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, announced Monday that she will file articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, accusing him of war crimes tied to the escalating conflict in the region.

      Ansari, who previously told The New York Times she felt “a rush of hope, but also unease” after Americans and Israelis killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in February, has since become sharply critical of how the Trump administration has handled the aftermath.

      Her announcement comes at a volatile moment. A ceasefire agreement was reached Tuesday evening, following intense fighting, but tensions quickly resurfaced after Iran again moved to close the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, raising fears of renewed economic and military escalation.

      “Donald Trump’s deranged statements — including one on Easter Sunday — are further entrenching our country and our world in another devastating, never-ending war,” Ansari said in a statement announcing her plans.

      She pointed specifically to Trump’s warning to Iran’s remaining leadership to “open the f—ing Strait” of Hormuz or face strikes on critical infrastructure.

      Ansari accused the administration of crossing legal and moral lines, arguing that both the president and Pentagon leadership have engaged in conduct that could constitute war crimes.

      “Ansari claimed Trump is threatening war crimes in violation of the Geneva Convention and has already committed ‘illegal actions and atrocities already committed at his direction — including violence that has destroyed schools, hospitals, and critical civilian infrastructure.'”

      “As the daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled this regime, and as an American Congresswoman who swore an oath to the United States Constitution, I know that this cannot go on,” she said.

      Her family’s history with Iran shapes much of her stance. Her father was studying medicine in the United States when the Iranian Revolution unfolded and was unable to return home, while her mother fled the country as a teenager after facing increasing restrictions on women’s rights under the Khomeini regime.

      Ansari is also calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office, and said she will move forward with impeachment proceedings against Hegseth “next week.”

      She argued the Pentagon chief has overstepped his authority and violated constitutional limits on war powers.

      “Hegseth’s reckless endangerment of U.S. servicemembers and repeated war crimes, including bombing a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, and willfully targeting civilian infrastructure, are grounds for impeachment and removal from office.”

      “Only Congress has the power to declare war, not a rogue president or his lackeys,” she added.

      The administration has forcefully pushed back on those claims. Hegseth and Trump recently oversaw a major operation to rescue a U.S. airman shot down by Iranian forces, which the president said required a large-scale military response.

      Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson dismissed Ansari’s impeachment effort as political theater.

      “Secretary Hegseth will continue to protect the homeland and unleash epic fury on Iran’s radical regime,” Wilson said.

      “This is just another charade in an attempt to distract the American people from the major successes we have had here at the Department of War.”

      Ansari’s move adds to a growing list of Democratic efforts to challenge the administration’s conduct in the conflict, even as the fragile ceasefire and renewed tensions in the Strait of Hormuz underscore how quickly the situation on the ground continues to shift.

      Influencer Files to Challenge Trump-Backed Rep. Randy Fine

      0

      A social media personality known more for viral posts than political campaigns is stepping into a deeply red congressional race—against one of President Trump’s most outspoken allies.

      Dan Bilzerian, an influencer with millions of followers, has filed paperwork to run as a Republican against Rep. Randy Fine in Florida’s 6th District, according to federal filings.

      The move sets up a long-shot primary challenge against a first-term congressman who has quickly built a national profile—and strong ties to Trump.

      Fine isn’t just another Republican incumbent. His campaign notes that Trump has endorsed him three separate times in the past two years, including in his current reelection bid. The district itself isn’t likely to offer much room for an upset: Trump carried it by roughly 30 points in 2024.

      But Bilzerian isn’t entering quietly.

      He has already taken aim at Trump directly, blasting the former president’s foreign policy in a recent social media post and suggesting he should be removed from office—remarks that could prove politically toxic in a GOP primary.

      That puts him not only at odds with Fine, but also with the voters he would need to win over.

      Meanwhile, Fine has been leaning into a different kind of national attention.

      In recent days, the Florida Republican made headlines for a blunt argument tying immigration directly to the cost of living. He has called for deporting all illegal immigrants, arguing the move would reduce demand for housing, health care, education, and even car insurance.

      “DEPORTATIONS = AFFORDABILITY,” Fine wrote in a series of posts, framing immigration enforcement as an economic solution.

      He has also drawn a hard line against any form of amnesty, pledging he would “never, ever” support it.

      The contrast between the two candidates is already stark: a Trump-aligned incumbent emphasizing immigration and affordability, versus a social media figure openly criticizing the president while trying to run in a pro-Trump district.

      For now, the race looks lopsided on paper.

      The district’s strong Republican tilt—and Fine’s backing from Trump—give the incumbent a clear advantage heading into the Aug. 18 primary.

      Still, Bilzerian’s entry adds an unpredictable element to a race that otherwise might have flown under the radar.

      Trump Hails Iran Ceasefire Deal As US Victory

      President Donald Trump holds a Cabinet meeting, Wednesday, April 30, 2025, in the Cabinet Room. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

      President Trump on Wednesday hailed the newly reached ceasefire with Iran as a “total and complete victory” for the United States, even as questions remain about the durability of the agreement and the scope of concessions secured from Tehran.

      In a brief interview with Agence France-Presse (AFP), Trump was unequivocal in claiming success.

      “Total and complete victory. 100 percent. No question about it,” he said.

      Trump added that there is “no question” the outcome represents a U.S. win and suggested China played a behind-the-scenes role in bringing Iran to the negotiating table.

      “We have a 15-point transaction, of which most of those things have been agreed on,” he said. “We’ll see what happens. We’ll see if it gets there.”

      The ceasefire—brokered just hours before Trump’s self-imposed Tuesday deadline to escalate attacks—marks a dramatic turn in the Iran Conflict, which has intensified for weeks around the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.

      The agreement, which also involves Israel, includes Iran’s key concession to allow shipping to resume through the strait. A regional official told The Associated Press that vessels from Iran and Oman will pay fees that will go toward Iran’s reconstruction.

      Trump also claimed that Iran’s enriched uranium would be secured under the deal, though he did not provide specifics.

      “Iran’s enriched uranium will be perfectly taken care of, or I wouldn’t have settled,” he said.

      Stopping Iran’s nuclear program and preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon has been a central objective of the Trump administration throughout the conflict, though Iran has long maintained its program is for peaceful purposes.

      White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed the president’s framing, arguing the agreement was made possible by military pressure.

      “The success of our military created maximum leverage, allowing President Trump and the team to engage in tough negotiations that have now created an opening for a diplomatic solution and long-term peace,” she wrote on X. “Additionally, President Trump got the Strait of Hormuz reopened.”

      However, Vice President Vance characterized the two-week ceasefire deal between the U.S. as “a fragile truce” while speaking in Hungary on Wednesday.

      “If the Iranians are willing in good faith to work with us, I think we can make an agreement,” Vance said.

       “If they’re going to lie, if they’re going to cheat, if they’re going to try to prevent even the fragile truce that we’ve set up from taking place, then they’re not going to be happy,” he continued.

      “Because what the president has also shown is that we still have a clear military, diplomatic, and maybe most importantly we have extraordinary economic leverage,” he said. “The president has told us not to use those tools. He’s told us to come to the negotiating table, but if the Iranians don’t do the exact same thing, they’re going to find out that the president of the United States is not one to mess around.”

      The ceasefire follows a period of sharp escalation in rhetoric and military activity. In the hours leading up to the deadline, Trump warned that Iran’s “whole civilization” could be destroyed if a deal was not reached—remarks that drew widespread backlash from Democrats and some conservative figures, who accused the president of threatening actions that could constitute war crimes.

      Asked whether he would revive that threat, Trump told AFP: “You’re going to have to see.”

      Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced the administration’s victory narrative during a Pentagon briefing Wednesday, describing the U.S. campaign—dubbed “Operation Epic Fury”—as decisive.

      “Operation Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield, a capital V military victory by any measure,” Hegseth said. “Epic fury decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come.”

      Hegseth said Iran had been driven to negotiate by the threat of further strikes on critical infrastructure.

      “You see, had Iran refused our terms, the next targets would have been their power plants, their bridges and oil and energy infrastructure, targets they could not defend and could not realistically rebuild,” he said. “President Trump had the power to cripple Iran’s entire economy in minutes.”

      He further claimed that U.S. and Israeli forces had “achieved every single objective,” citing more than 800 strikes that he said dismantled Iran’s defense industrial base.

      “In less than 40 days, [U.S. Central Command], using less than 10 percent of America’s total combat power, dismantled one of the world’s largest militaries,” Hegseth said.

      Still, officials acknowledged the situation remains fluid. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine noted that the ceasefire is only a pause for now and that U.S. forces remain prepared for further action if needed.

      Regional tensions also appeared far from resolved. Missile and drone activity continued in the hours after the deal was announced, with the United Arab Emirates intercepting incoming threats and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain issuing alerts. An Iranian missile strike in southern Israel triggered additional warnings across the country early Wednesday, according to local reports.

      The agreement’s long-term implications remain uncertain. While Iran has agreed to a temporary ceasefire and to participate in talks on a broader peace framework—reportedly set to begin Friday in Islamabad—it has not publicly committed to curbing uranium enrichment or surrendering nuclear material, key demands of U.S. hardliners. The deal also leaves Iran’s current leadership structure intact.

      Trump indicated the United States would play an active role in managing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

      “We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just ‘hangin’ around’ in order to make sure that everything goes well,” he wrote on Truth Social.

      For now, the ceasefire has halted the immediate trajectory toward wider escalation. But with core disputes unresolved and both sides maintaining military readiness, the Iran Conflict appears to be entering a new, uncertain phase.