National Security

Home National Security

Trump Abruptly Calls Off Planned Iran Strikes After Touting Major Diplomatic Breakthrough

Gage Skidmore Flickr

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he has canceled planned U.S. military strikes against Iran just hours before they were reportedly set to begin, citing what he described as a major diplomatic breakthrough.

In a statement posted to Truth Social, Trump said negotiations with the Islamic Republic had been elevated to “the highest level of Iranian leadership” and had received approval from key regional powers.

“Based on the fact that discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran have been brought to the highest level of Iranian leadership and approved, I have, as President of the United States of America, cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” Trump wrote.

The announcement comes after a volatile 48-hour period that saw U.S. forces conduct strikes against Iranian targets on Tuesday and Wednesday, while Trump repeatedly warned that additional military action could follow as soon as Thursday night.

According to Trump, negotiators have reached an agreement “in both concept and great detail” on a framework that has been approved by multiple nations, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt.

The president did not disclose specific terms of the proposed agreement but suggested a final accord could be signed in the near future.

“Time and place of the signing to be announced shortly,” Trump said.

Despite calling off the planned strikes, Trump emphasized that U.S. pressure on Iran is far from over. He announced that the naval blockade imposed in April will remain in place until an agreement is finalized.

“The Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this Transaction is finalized,” he wrote.

The sudden reversal marks a dramatic shift from Trump’s earlier rhetoric. Just hours before announcing the cancellation, the president had threatened another round of military strikes against Iran, raising fears that the region was on the verge of a broader conflict.

READ NEXT: Trump Signals Additional Strikes on Iran, Renews Threat to Seize Key Oil Hub

Bolton Warns Trump Could Try to ‘Snatch’ Raúl Castro as Cuba Tensions Escalate

The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton is sounding alarms over growing speculation that the Trump administration could take dramatic action against Cuba’s communist leadership — warning officials not to repeat what he called the “Venezuela game plan.”

Bolton, who has long advocated for hardline policies against authoritarian governments in Latin America, said Thursday he fears the administration could use newly filed criminal charges against former Cuban leader Raúl Castro as justification for a high-risk operation targeting the aging strongman.

“I’m a little worried that they’re going to try and run the Venezuela game plan and kidnap or snatch Raúl Castro, who’s 94 years old, under this indictment, which is perfectly justified, but it won’t change anything in Cuba, as it really hasn’t changed anything politically in Venezuela,” Bolton said during an appearance on NewsNation’s On Balance.

His comments come as tensions surrounding Cuba have intensified after the Justice Department announced murder charges against Castro and five others tied to the 1996 shootdown of two civilian humanitarian aircraft over international waters.

Federal prosecutors allege Castro authorized the Cuban military operation that destroyed the planes, killing four men — including three American citizens. The aircraft were operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-based humanitarian group that searched for Cuban migrants attempting to flee the island.

The indictment represents one of the most aggressive legal moves taken against senior Cuban officials in decades and has fueled growing speculation about whether the Trump administration is preparing a broader strategy aimed at regime change.

Bolton, despite supporting political change in Cuba, argued that removing a single figure would do little to dismantle the country’s entrenched communist system.

“In Cuba, you need the top echelon of government to depart the island, maybe for exile in Mexico or wherever they want to go, and we have to have a way to bring the government back under the control of the people,” he said, adding that such a process would “take some time.”

The administration has steadily increased pressure on Havana in recent months through legal, diplomatic, and economic measures.

A U.S. oil embargo implemented earlier this year has reportedly worsened Cuba’s already severe energy shortages. The island nation of roughly 10 million people has faced repeated rolling blackouts, while shortages of food, fuel, and medicine continue to strain daily life.

President Donald Trump has also declined to rule out military action. Asked this week about possible intervention in Cuba, Trump told reporters he would “be happy to do it.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said diplomatic solutions remain the administration’s preferred option but suggested hopes for peaceful negotiations are fading.

“The president’s preference is always a negotiated agreement that’s peaceful. That’s always our preference. That remains our preference with Cuba,” Rubio said in Miami before departing on an overseas trip.

“I’m just being honest with you. You know, the likelihood of that happening, given who we’re dealing with right now, is not high.”

Fueling further speculation, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and its strike group recently arrived in the Caribbean, leading some observers to question whether Washington could be positioning military assets closer to Cuba.

Trump has dismissed suggestions that the deployment was intended as intimidation.

Bolton, however, questioned whether the administration had fully thought through what comes next.

“Is the Nimitz carrier strike group really equipped to take military action?” Bolton asked. “I mean, we have a real advantage in Cuba we didn’t have in Venezuela, we have the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base right there on the island, so that’s a, that’s a step forward, but this is something clearly we need to be talking to key figures in the opposition in Cuba, the Cuban American community, I’m sure can be extremely helpful here.”

“Let’s just think this through before we force it into something that could be very detrimental to the people of Cuba, if the army and the police stick with the regime,” he added.

The escalating rhetoric comes as questions continue to swirl over whether Washington’s pressure campaign is designed primarily to force concessions from Havana — or whether the administration is laying groundwork for something much larger.

White House Counterterrorism Official Says Trump Left Instructions For VP In Case He’s Assassinated

Gage Skidmore Flickr

White House counterterrorism official Sebastian Gorka revealed Wednesday that President Donald Trump has already prepared written instructions for Vice President JD Vance in the event he is assassinated — a striking disclosure that underscores the persistent security threats surrounding the president during his second term.

Speaking on the New York Post’s “Pod Force One” podcast with host Miranda Devine, Gorka said Trump has contingency plans in place should the unthinkable happen.

“There is a letter in the drawer in the Resolute Desk that is addressed to the vice president should something happen to him,” Gorka said during the interview.

The revelation came as Devine raised concerns about Trump’s planned diplomatic travel and the dangers posed by hostile foreign powers, particularly Communist China.

Referring to Chinese President Xi Jinping and Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions, Devine described Trump as the one leader standing in the way of China’s global dominance.

“So they have every reason in the world to take him out,” she said.

Gorka, however, insisted the administration has extensive security precautions in place, even if he declined to discuss specifics publicly.

“We have protocols, trust me. Not ones I can discuss, but we have protocols,” he replied.

The comments offered a rare glimpse into the extraordinary security concerns surrounding Trump after surviving multiple assassination attempts and threats over the past several years.

Trump himself has previously acknowledged taking threats against his life seriously — particularly from Iran. In January, the president revealed he had left “very firm instructions” for how the United States should respond if Tehran successfully assassinated him.

“If they did that, they would be obliterated,” Trump said at the time. “I’ve left instructions — if they do it, they get blown up. There won’t be anything left.”

Federal officials have repeatedly warned of Iranian plots targeting Trump and former administration officials following the 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

But the most immediate threats against Trump have come on American soil.

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump narrowly survived an assassination attempt at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, when a gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop. One bullet grazed Trump’s ear as Secret Service agents rushed him off stage, while rallygoer Corey Comperatore was killed shielding his family from the gunfire.

The shocking attack triggered widespread scrutiny of the Secret Service and led to multiple congressional investigations into security failures surrounding the event.

Just weeks later, authorities arrested another suspect after he allegedly camped near Trump’s golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida, armed with a rifle and tactical gear while reportedly waiting for the president.

Then in April, a separate would-be attacker allegedly attempted to breach security at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the Washington Hilton before being intercepted by federal agents.

The repeated threats have dramatically reshaped Trump’s security posture during his second term, with officials reportedly operating under heightened protective measures both domestically and abroad.

Gorka’s disclosure about the letter to Vance adds another layer to that reality — signaling that the White House is actively preparing for worst-case scenarios even as Trump continues to project confidence publicly.

Watch the full podcast:

Patel Reveals Secret FBI Room ‘Off the Map’ — Packed With Russiagate Files

Image via gage Skidmore Flickr

FBI Director Kash Patel says he uncovered something straight out of a spy novel — a hidden room inside FBI headquarters that wasn’t even on the building’s official blueprints, allegedly packed with sensitive documents tied to the Trump–Russia investigation.

Patel revealed the discovery during a Tuesday appearance on “Hang Out with Sean Hannity,” describing how the off-the-books room contained multiple “burn bags” — typically used to destroy classified materials — that, instead of being destroyed, were filled with thousands of untouched documents.

“They weren’t burned, but the room was also off the map,” Patel said. “It wasn’t on our blueprint, and nobody had access to it.”

According to Patel, the room was locked away inside the Hoover Building and functioned as a previously undisclosed secure facility. Even more striking: no one initially had the ability to access it.

The discovery echoes claims made earlier by former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who said he found what he described as the “mother lode” of documents tied to “Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI’s probe into alleged Trump–Russia collusion.

“I’m reading this document, and I’m like, ‘I can’t believe this happened in the United States,’” Bongino said in a prior appearance. “It wasn’t just that it happened in the United States, it was that so many people knew about it. All you had to do was read it. This thing was bulls— from the start.”

Sources told Fox News Digital that the burn bags discovered by Patel’s team contained thousands of sensitive documents, including a classified annex to Special Counsel John Durham’s final report. That annex reportedly includes underlying intelligence reviewed during Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia probe.

The materials are now being reviewed and declassified in coordination with top intelligence officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Attorney General Pam Bondi. The annex is expected to be delivered to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who will ultimately decide what is released publicly.

One source familiar with the annex told Fox News Digital that intelligence collected before the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane suggested — with “alarming specificity” — that the bureau would play a role in advancing the Trump–Russia narrative.

“Mere days after this intelligence was collected, the FBI launched Crossfire Hurricane,” the source said. “It’s really hard to see how Brennan, Clapper and Comey are going to be able to explain this away.”

Patel has suggested the hidden room was deliberately concealed.

“Just think about this,” he said in a separate interview. “Me, as director of the FBI… found a room that Comey and others hid from the world in the Hoover Building, full of documents and computer hard drives that no one had ever seen or heard of.”

The documents have since been turned over to Grassley as part of an ongoing congressional push to uncover more details about the origins of the Russia investigation and any potential misconduct within the intelligence community.

For now, the biggest question remains: how did a secure room filled with highly sensitive materials exist inside FBI headquarters — completely off the books — without anyone knowing?

President And First Lady Call On ABC News To Fire Jimmy Kimmel

The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

First Lady Melania Trump is demanding consequences for late-night host Jimmy Kimmel after what she called “hateful” rhetoric—just days before a terrifying security breach at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

Kimmel sparked outrage last week during a parody segment in which he mocked the Trumps, referring to the first lady as “an expectant widow” while joking about their marriage.

“Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow,” Kimmel said.

The remark drew fierce backlash after a suspected would-be assassin attempted to storm the Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday. Authorities say 31-year-old Cole Allen of Torrance, California, rushed a Secret Service checkpoint at the Washington Hilton armed with multiple weapons and opened fire, wounding an agent before being taken into custody.

In the aftermath, Melania Trump took to X with a blistering response.

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy—his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America,” she wrote.

“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him. Enough is enough,” the first lady continued. “It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”

President Donald Trump echoed the call, demanding immediate action from the network.

“Wow, Jimmy Kimmel, who is in no way funny as attested to by his terrible Television Ratings, made a statement on his Show that is really shocking,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“He then stated, ‘Our First Lady, Melania, is here… you have a glow like an expectant widow.’ A day later a lunatic tried entering the ballroom of the White House Correspondents Dinner, loaded up with a shotgun, handgun, and many knives. He was there for a very obvious and sinister reason,” Trump continued.

“I appreciate that so many people are incensed by Kimmel’s despicable call to violence… this is something far beyond the pale. Jimmy Kimmel should be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.”

Kimmel, however, pushed back during his Monday night monologue, insisting the joke was harmless.

“It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he’s almost 80 and she’s younger than I am. It was not by any stretch of the definition a call to assassination. And they know that,” he said.

While expressing sympathy for those shaken by the incident, Kimmel rejected any suggestion his comments played a role.

“I am sorry that you and the president and everyone in that room on Saturday went through that. I really am,” he said. “Because no one got killed doesn’t mean it wasn’t traumatic and scary… But do you want us to believe that a joke I made three days before this dinner had any effect on anything that happened?”

He added, “I’ve been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence… and I think a great place to start to dial that back would be to have a conversation with your husband about it.”

Despite the backlash, ABC appears unmoved.

A network source told Page Six that executives are standing by their late-night host and have no plans to discipline him.

“It’s back to taping per usual. They’re moving on,” the insider said.

Kimmel has faced controversy before. Last year, ABC parent company Disney briefly suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” after comments related to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk triggered outrage and drew scrutiny from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who called the remarks “some of the sickest conduct.”

Kimmel later returned to air, saying he never intended to make light of the tragedy.

For now, despite renewed calls for his removal, it appears Kimmel’s job is safe—leaving critics fuming and the broader debate over media rhetoric once again front and center.

WHCA Dinner Shooting Prompts New Discussion Surrounding White House Ballroom

The attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is rapidly reshaping the debate over President Donald Trump’s long-controversial plan to build a new White House ballroom — with even some Democrats signaling a shift in tone.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who had previously opposed aspects of the project, acknowledged Monday that lawmakers may now need to reconsider it — not as a political issue, but as a security necessity.

“Do we need a ballroom? Well, that we can discuss that,” Rosen said in an interview. “This isn’t about Donald Trump. It is really about safety. It’s really about safety.”

The $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom proposal — which would replace the demolished East Wing — has drawn criticism for months over cost, transparency, and historical preservation concerns. But Saturday night’s attack, in which an armed suspect attempted to storm the event before being stopped, has injected new urgency into the conversation.

President Trump wasted little time connecting the incident to his long-standing push.

“I didn’t want to say this but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House,” Trump told reporters shortly after the shooting. “It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure.”

Security concerns take center stage

Trump allies argue the incident underscores a glaring vulnerability: Washington lacks a truly secure venue capable of hosting large gatherings of top officials.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is now moving quickly to capitalize on that argument, pushing legislation that would fund the project and include additional security infrastructure beneath the ballroom, including a Secret Service annex.

“It’s very difficult to have a bunch of important people in the same place unless it’s really, really secure,” Graham said. “The times in which we live are unusual… I’ve never felt the sense of threat that exists today.”

The Justice Department echoed that urgency in a late-night court filing, arguing that the shooting should end legal delays blocking the project.

“This Court should never have enjoined this Project, but now, after the Saturday night attempted assassination… reasonable minds can no longer differ — The injunction must be dissolved,” the administration wrote.

The DOJ went even further, warning that halting the project “greatly endangers the lives of all Presidents, current and future.”

Democrats show signs of movement — with caveats

While many Democrats remain skeptical, Rosen’s comments suggest cracks in the previously unified opposition.

She emphasized that large events inherently carry risk and that stronger protections may be necessary.

“You can’t harden each and every [event],” she said, “but you want to try to be sure that they’re as safe as possible.”

Still, Rosen cautioned that the ballroom alone is not a silver bullet.

“One ballroom isn’t the answer to this,” she said.

She also criticized how the project has been handled, particularly the demolition of the East Wing — which housed the first lady’s office and other staff — without what she described as proper congressional process.

“What I object to is it didn’t go through any of those processes before the demolition,” Rosen said. “What was lost… that should have been preserved for history?”

Other Democrats, including Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), have gone further, openly urging their party to reconsider outright opposition to the project.

GOP divisions emerge over funding

Despite broad Republican support for the concept, divisions are emerging over how to pay for it.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a longtime Trump ally, pushed back against using taxpayer dollars, insisting the project should remain privately funded.

“We have $39 trillion of debt,” Scott said. “Maybe we ought to stop spending money.”

Trump has previously maintained that private donors would cover the ballroom’s cost, though critics have raised questions about transparency.

Legal battle intensifies

The project remains tied up in court after a federal judge ruled the administration lacked proper congressional approval, limiting construction to below-ground work while the case proceeds.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued last year after the East Wing was torn down, arguing the project violated preservation laws.

Now, in the wake of the shooting, the administration is urging the court to reverse course — or at least signal it would do so — calling the lawsuit “frivolous” and “dangerous.”

A turning point?

Saturday’s attack — the third assassination attempt against Trump since 2024, according to the administration — may prove to be a pivotal moment in the debate.

What was once dismissed by critics as an expensive and unnecessary expansion is now being reframed by supporters as a critical national security upgrade.

And with even some Democrats beginning to acknowledge the security argument, the political battle over the ballroom may be entering a new phase.

Whether that shift is enough to overcome legal hurdles and funding disputes remains to be seen — but after this weekend, the question is no longer just whether the White House needs a ballroom.

It’s whether Washington can afford not to have one.

Inside The White House Correspondents’ Dinner Suspect’s ‘Manifesto’

The man accused of opening fire outside the White House Correspondents’ Dinner left behind a detailed “manifesto” describing his intent to target members of the Trump administration, “prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest,” according to a copy obtained by CBS News.

Cole Allen, 31, allegedly sent the writing to family members before the attack. In it, he stated that while law enforcement, hotel employees, and guests were not his intended targets, he was willing to harm them if necessary to reach administration officials. “I really hope it doesn’t come to that,” he wrote.

Authorities say Allen charged a security checkpoint outside the Washington Hilton on Saturday night armed with a shotgun, a handgun, and knives. President Donald Trump and other officials were quickly escorted from the event, which was later canceled. A Secret Service agent who was shot during the incident, while wearing a bulletproof vest, has since been released from the hospital.

The suspect’s brother reportedly alerted police in Connecticut after receiving the email, prompting law enforcement to intervene. Investigators later recovered additional writings from Allen’s home in Torrance, California, and his hotel room at the Hilton.

A chilling and ironic tone

Throughout the message, Allen adopted a matter-of-fact tone, at times veering into irony.

“Hello everybody!” he began. “So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today.”

He apologized to his parents “for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for ‘Most Wanted,’” and to colleagues and students for claiming he had a personal emergency. He suggested that by the time the email was read, he might already require medical attention, referring to potential injuries as “self-inflicted status.”

Declared targets — with one exception

Allen wrote that he chose to act because he did not want the administration’s alleged “crimes” to “coat [his] hands.” While he did not explicitly name Trump or the event, he described a plan to target officials in descending order of rank.

He made one notable exception: “not including Mr. Patel,” he wrote, referencing the FBI director, who was also in attendance.

Allen added that he would avoid targeting Secret Service, Capitol Police, or National Guard personnel unless necessary. “I hope they are wearing body armor,” he wrote.

He also detailed tactical decisions, claiming, “In order to minimize casualties, I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls).”

Anticipating criticism

The manifesto included a section addressing hypothetical objections to his actions, along with rebuttals.

“As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this,” he wrote as a potential criticism. “Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack.”

He also referenced his Christian faith, writing that some might argue he should “turn the other cheek.”

“Rebuttal,” he continued, “Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed.”

Allen then described various unnamed individuals experiencing hardship, in some cases attributing their struggles to the administration.

“I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it,” he added.

Criticism of security

In a postscript, Allen sharply criticized security measures at the event.

“PS… what the hell is the Secret Service doing? … No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event,” he wrote.

He claimed that if he had been a foreign agent, he could have brought in heavier weaponry without detection. Officials note that while the Washington Hilton hosted the event, it remained an operational hotel with public access, and only specific areas were secured.

Family warnings and prior behavior

Allen’s sister reportedly told investigators that he frequently used “radical” rhetoric and had previously discussed doing “something” to address what he saw as problems in society and government.

She also revealed her brother was a regular visitor to the shooting range, was a member of a group called “The Wide Awakes” and had previously attended a “No Kings” rally in California. 

Political reaction and unanswered questions

The motive behind the attack remains under investigation.

Former President Barack Obama emphasized the lack of confirmed details while condemning political violence broadly.

“Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting… it’s incumbent upon all of us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy,” Obama wrote. He also praised the Secret Service, calling their work “a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice” they show.

During a “60 Minutes” interview, Trump reacted angrily after host Norah O’Donnell read excerpts from the alleged manifesto.

“You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all stuff that has nothing to do with me,” Trump said, adding, “You should be ashamed of yourself… You’re a disgrace.”

More than 2,500 people had gathered for the annual dinner, which celebrates the First Amendment. Trump, who has typically declined to attend during his presidency, had made a historic appearance this year and has since said he hopes to reschedule the event within 30 days.

The Full Manifesto

To read Allen’s full 1,052-word manifesto as published by The New York Post, with minor edits to improve profanity, see below:

Hello everybody!

So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.

I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”

I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)

I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.

I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.

I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.

On to why I did any of this:

I am a citizen of the United States of America.

What my representatives do reflects on me.

And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.

(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)

While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)

Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest

Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*

Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)

Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security

National Guard: same as Hotel Security

Hotel Employees: not targets at all

Guests: not targets at all

In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)

I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

Rebuttals to objections:

Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.

Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.

Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.

Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.

Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?

This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.

Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.

Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.

Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.

Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack

Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.

Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is *astoundingly* incompetent.)

Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.

Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.

Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.

Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.

Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.

Thank you all for everything.

Sincerely,

Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen

PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.

Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.

What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.

No damn security.

Not in transport.

Not in the hotel.

Not in the event.

Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.

I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.

The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.

Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed s**t.

Actually insane.

Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.

Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.

DOJ Slams Alleged DC Pipe Bomber’s Bid To Claim Trump Pardon

Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

The Justice Department is forcefully pushing back against a striking legal claim from the man accused of planting pipe bombs in Washington, D.C., on the eve of Jan. 6 — that he was effectively pardoned by President Trump.

In a court filing Friday, prosecutors urged a federal judge to reject Brian Cole Jr.’s attempt to have his charges thrown out, calling his argument flatly incompatible with the “clear and unambiguous terms” of Trump’s sweeping Jan. 6 clemency order.

Cole, who was arrested in December 2025 after years of investigation, is accused of placing two pipe bombs outside the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters on Jan. 5, 2021 — just hours before rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

The devices never detonated, but the FBI has said they were functional and viable, raising the stakes of a case that remained unsolved for nearly five years.

Earlier this year, Cole’s lawyers made a bold move: They argued that his actions were “inextricably and demonstrably tethered” to the events of Jan. 6 — and therefore covered by Trump’s mass pardon of people tied to the attack.

They pointed to the broad language in Trump’s order, which applies to offenses “related to” events at or near the Capitol, and noted that Cole allegedly traveled to Washington for an election protest tied to the same political moment that fueled the riot.

But the Justice Department isn’t buying it.

“The defendant ignores that the proclamation expressly limited relief to individuals who had been ‘convicted of,’ or had a ‘pending indictment’ for, offenses related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro wrote.

That distinction, prosecutors argue, is decisive.

When Trump’s pardon took effect on Jan. 20, 2025, Cole had not yet been charged — putting him outside the scope of the order entirely.

“The defendant belonged to neither category, and so the proclamation has no bearing on this case,” Pirro wrote.

Cole was indicted weeks later, in January 2026, on charges including interstate transportation of explosives and malicious attempt to use them.

Prosecutors also made clear that even a broader reading of the pardon wouldn’t help him.

“Even if the Court somehow found, notwithstanding its text, that the proclamation could apply to this case,” Pirro wrote, the Justice Department’s interpretation should still prevail as a “consistent, reasonable” reading by the agency tasked with enforcing it.

The clash sets up a high-stakes test of how far Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons can stretch — and whether conduct that happened before the riot, but is arguably connected to it, can fall under their umbrella.

For now, the Justice Department’s position is blunt: Not this case. Not this defendant.

READ NEXT: Congressman’s Sudden Death Upends Key Race

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.