Trump: “It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu”

Heather Cox Richardson | Letters from an American

Heather Cox Richardson

June 25, 2025

At The Hague, a city in the Netherlands, today for a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Trump showed that he cannot let go of the intelligence assessment that his military strikes against Iran had set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions only by a few months. He appears determined to convince Americans that he has solved the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions overnight.

“It’s gone for years, years,” he said. And then, turning to the news outlets that reported the early conclusions of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the intelligence arm of the Pentagon, that the hits delayed production of a nuclear weapon by only a few months, he said: “CNN is scum. MSDNC is scum. The New York Times is scum. They’re bad people. They’re sick. And what they’ve done is they’ve tried to make this unbelievable victory into something less.” Trump insisted that the U.S. hits caused “total obliteration.” He claimed he did not want the recognition of the effectiveness of the hits for himself, but rather for “the military.”

Trump equated the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities with the U.S. bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at the NATO summit that the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into who had leaked the DIA report, complaining that “CNN and others are trying to spin it to make the president look bad, when this was an overwhelming success.” Later in the morning, Trump’s social media account posted that CNN should fire Natasha Bertrand, one of the CNN journalists who broke the story that the attacks had done less damage than Trump claimed.

Marc Caputo of Axios reported this afternoon that the Trump administration will limit the classified information it shares with Congress after the leak of the DIA assessment, even though there is currently no evidence tying that leak to Congress. A senior White House official said: “We are declaring a war on leakers.”

Stephan Neukam and Andrew Solender of Axios reported that congressional Democrats, already angry that the administration delayed briefing Congress about the strikes on Iran past the legal deadline for such a briefing, see the announcement that the White House will limit the information it provides to Congress as an attempt to hide reality in order to bolster Trump’s narrative. “A senior House Democrat told the Axios reporters: “[T]his from a group of people who used Signal about actual war plans?”

On the Senate floor, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: “The administration has no right to stonewall Congress on matters of national security. Senators deserve information, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening right now abroad.”

Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said: “The law requires the congressional intelligence committees to be kept fully and currently informed, and I expect the Intelligence Community to comply with the law.”

Tomorrow the White House will brief senators on the strikes. Notably, it is not sending Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the Intelligence Community did not think Iran was developing a nuclear weapon. Instead, it is sending Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine. Ratcliffe, not Gabbard, will represent the Intelligence Community.

Today, Ratcliffe appeared to walk back Trump’s claims that the strikes had “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, saying instead they had “severely damaged” the program.

On his social media platform tonight, Trump continued his attacks on CNN and announced that tomorrow morning, Hegseth and “Military Representatives” will hold a “Major News Conference” to “fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots.” He claimed those “Patriots” were “very upset!” when they “started reading Fake News by CNN and The Failing New York Times. They felt terribly!… The News Conference will prove both interesting and irrefutable. Enjoy!”

There is no evidence that anyone sees the correction of Trump’s extreme claims as an attack on the pilots who flew the mission, or that the pilots see that correction in that way.

Laura Rozen of Diplomatic notes that the strikes might have convinced Iran to abandon negotiations and commit to building a nuclear weapon. Rozen quotes former top European Union Iran nuclear negotiator Enrique Mora, who wrote: “This unprecedented strike has shown, for the second time, the Islamic regime that nuclear diplomacy is reversible, fragile and vulnerable to changes in leadership in Washington. There will not be a third time.” Mora continued: “If Iran now decides to move towards a bomb, it will do so following a clear strategic logic. No one bombs the capital of a nuclear-armed country. June 21, 2025 may go down in history not as the day the Iranian nuclear program was destroyed, but as the day a nuclear Iran was irreversibly born.”

Tonight, on his social media site, Trump’s account called for Israel to abandon its trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, calling it a “ridiculous Witch Hunt.” Trump claimed that Netanyahu was a partner in “something that nobody thought was possible, a complete elimination of potentially one of the biggest and most powerful Nuclear Weapons anywhere in the world, and it was going to happen, SOON!” Trump called for the trial to be “CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero.” He continued: “It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu.”


5 reasons to watch desert-war thriller “Ice Cold in Alex”

As tense as The Wages of Fear, and featuring cinema’s most refreshing beers, here’s why the perilous wartime adventure Ice Cold in Alex is worth your attention.

By Lou Thomas

When Captain Anson (John Mills) of the British RASC Motor Ambulance Company is ordered to leave the Libyan port city of Tobruk before it is besieged in 1942, he is forced to take a treacherous journey across the desert to Alexandria. Anson sets out with nurses Diana Murdoch (Sylvia Syms), Denise Norton (Diane Clare) and Mechanist Sergeant-Major Tom Pugh (Harry Andrews), and they soon pick up a South African officer, Captain van der Poel (Anthony Quayle). Together the five negotiate terrain that proves to be emotionally and physically draining.

Ice Cold in Alex (1958) has a simple, concise plot yet packs a hefty moral weight. Sixty years after its release, director J. Lee Thompson’s desert epic still stands up as an essential war film. Here are five reasons why it needs to be seen.

1. A realistic tone

Ice Cold in Alex is much less jingoistic than many war films of its time. The mission is about survival rather than victory or defeat – watching today you might be reminded of Bryan Forbes’ underrated PoW drama King Rat (1965) in which ethical certainties play second fiddle to the business of staying alive. With a script co-written by Christopher Landon, derived from his book, both character motivation and dialogue feel briskly authentic. A great deal of this must be due to Landon’s own experiences in the Second World War, when he served in North Africa with the 51st Field Ambulance.

2. The resolute protagonist

One of the biggest British stars of the 1940s and 50s, thanks to roles in terrific fare such as This Happy Breed (1944) and Waterloo Road (1945), John Mills had a big 1958. Having served during the Second World War, he led Leslie Norman’s epic Dunkirk and is excellent as Ice Cold’s protagonist. His Anson is a weary, alcoholic officer suffering from what we would probably call post-traumatic stress disorder. Battered by the desert and beaten by war before the events of the film begin, the indefatigable Anson is a recognisable and sympathetic soldier, brought to life by Mills’ believable and nuanced portrayal.

Ice Cold In Alex (1958)

3. Trucking hell

An ambulance is not a truck, but even so Ice Cold in Alex plays something like a British answer to the French suspense classic The Wages of Fear. Released five years prior, Henri-Georges Clouzot’s masterpiece is likewise a study of an epic journey involving extreme mobile peril in cumbersome vehicles and amid sweaty, uncomfortable conditions. The earlier film is certainly bleaker, and draws darker conclusions about human nature, but Thompson’s film gives it a run for its money in the tension stakes. Anson and van der Poel’s investigation of a mine field is taut and revealing, while a scene in which the latter gets caught in quicksand is as heart-stopping as anything shot by Clouzot.

4. More than method

Sylvia Syms once claimed that there was “very little acting” in the film because the conditions of filming in Libya were so difficult. Citing a “horrible” shoot, Syms explained, “We became those people… we were those people.” Thompson was apparently a particularly hard taskmaster, and the ambulance crew are often shown on screen as exhausted and filthy. While Syms would not be the first actor to exaggerate the toughness of location work, a glance at many scenes would suggest a genuinely taxing shoot.

Ice Cold in Alex (1958)

5. One of cinema’s greatest drinking scenes

The clue is in the title. The film is named for Anson’s own holy grail, the fine icy lager he’ll sup if he can just get himself and his colleagues through the baking desert. Knowing how appreciated a beer can be after a busy day at work, one can only guess at the incredible relief a soldier finishing a dangerous mission might feel when finally sinking a cold one. Mills was required to drink real beer during the shooting of the scene as nothing else looked right on film. He ended the day slightly worse for wear because of the many takes Thompson insisted on.

Source: 5 reasons to watch desert-war thriller Ice Cold in Alex | BFI

What I fear Trump will do with his war – Robert Reich

Centralize even more power and curtail even more civil liberties

By Robert Reich

Friends,

One of my goals in writing this letter to you every day is to alert you to dangers to our democracy so you can alert others, who then alert others, and by this means we enlarge and strengthen our bulwark against the tide of fascism.

Wars pose particular challenges to democracy because nations at war often become more xenophobic and willing to give those in power extra leeway to protect the homeland. That’s an underlying danger in Trump’s war with Iran.

Trump has already tried to use three pretexts to usurp power — terrorism, national emergency, and war itself — to justify his mass deportations, universal tariffs, and consolidations of power. And he has tried to use these to gain legal legitimacy under laws that give presidents additional power when the nation is threatened.

Federal courts and public opinion haven’t allowed him to go as far as he wished. But if Trump’s war with Iran escalates — which it’s almost certain to do if Iran retaliates — courts may be reluctant to impede a commander-in-chief and the public may be willing to go along.

I fear that Trump’s war with Iran will enable him to use these three pretexts — terrorism, national emergency, and war — to further suppress dissent at home, narrow freedom of speech and expression, make warrantless searches and arrests of Americans, imprison opponents, and put more military onto our streets.

Terrorism

The use of terrorism has already begun. A bulletin issued just yesterday by the National Terrorism Advisory System within the Department of Homeland Security warns of a “heightened threat environment in the United States” following the U.S. military strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.

The bulletin notes that U.S. law enforcement “has disrupted multiple potentially lethal Iranian-backed plots in the United States since 2020,” and goes on to warn of Iranian retaliation for Sunday morning’s attack.

Surely Iran is planning retaliation. During a Sunday phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian insisted that the U.S. “receive a response to their aggression,” according to Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, as reported by The Times of Israel.

Any retaliation by Iran will be used by Trump to justify an intensifying crackdown on “terrorism.”

Even before Trump’s attack on Iran, he appropriated the term “terrorist” to describe various groups he deemed threats to the United States — including drug cartels and migrants.

Trump framed the rendition of Venezuelans to El Salvador as necessary to protect the U.S. from the scourge of “terrorism.” And he described fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction.

Now that we are at war with Iran, expect Trump to use the rhetoric of terrorism far more often, and the Department of Homeland Security to lead the charge against such threats.

National emergency

In his first hundred days in office this term, Trump declared eight “national emergencies” — far more than any other modern president in that same period of time. By comparison, Biden declared 11 national emergencies over his whole four-year term. Obama declared 12 in his eight years. George W. Bush declared 14 in his two terms.

The declaration of a national emergency automatically allows a president to use “emergency” powers in laws intended by Congress to be utilized rarely, when the nation is seriously imperiled.

Trump has been using such so-called “emergencies” to achieve domestic priorities more quickly than he’d be able to if he tried to pass laws through Congress.

The pattern began in his first term when he declared a “national emergency” to help fund the southern border wall after Congress didn’t approve the full amount. His declaration of an invasion on the southern border paved the way for intensified deportations.

Trump’s declaration of an “economic emergency” in April, based on the nation’s trade deficit (which has existed for decades), enabled him to impose unprecedented global tariffs.

An “energy emergency” made it easier for him to ease environmental regulations. His pronouncement that fentanyl entering from Canada was an emergency provided legal justification for sanctions, as did a similar finding on the International Criminal Court’s approach to Israel.

Trump invoked a “national emergency” to justify sending the National Guard to Los Angeles at a time when state and local officials said they had the protests there under control. Had he not federalized the National Guard, Trump said, “Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.”

Trump’s stream of emergency declarations has also contributed to a sense that America is facing perpetual crises, under threat from foreign nations and domestic enemies. Trump thrives in this atmosphere, adopting the role of fighter and savior.

His war with Iran will fuel even more “national emergencies” and the legal authority that accompanies them.

War

Trump has tried to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify his mass deportations without due process, but unsuccessfully in the courts because the Act allows a president to detain and remove nationals of an enemy nation only during a “declared war,” “invasion,” or “predatory incursion” against the United States.

The law was invoked only three times before Trump, each during a war declared by Congress: the War of 1812 (with the United Kingdom), World War I and World War II. Each gave the U.S. government heightened powers to remove from the U.S. nationals of the party it was fighting. It was used during World War II to justify the internment of Japanese Americans and has since become synonymous with some of the nation’s most shameful civil liberties violations.

Trump’s attempt to use this centuries-old statute to conduct mass removals—outside of immigration law, with no hearings or judicial review—has been another authoritarian power grab posing grave threats to civil liberties and the rule of law.

On April 7, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that people targeted by Trump under the Alien Enemies Act must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal, including arguments over the law’s constitutionality and application.

Yet a war with Iran may be enough to seemingly legitimize his use of the Act.

In addition, Trump has not ruled out invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows the deployment of active-duty U.S. military personnel within the United States in cases of unrest or rebellion — a prospect also made more likely when the nation is at war.

Trump wants to be a war president. Everything he has done to date has been aimed at concentrating power in his hands and undermining democratic institutions, which are far easier to do as a war president.

I write this not to worry or depress you. My purpose is to encourage you to be extra vigilant in guarding against Trump’s further use of these three pretexts to erode democracy and attack our freedoms.

Wars almost always challenge civil liberties. Given Trump’s record, that challenge could be enormous.

Be safe. Be strong.

Source: What I fear Trump will do with his war – Robert Reich

Trump’s job approval rating among age 18-29 has dropped 44 points since he took office

Heather Cox Richardson | Letters from an American

Heather Cox Richardson

June 20, 2025

Individuals in plain clothes with their faces covered and without badges or name tags are snatching people off the streets and taking them away. Todd Lyons, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is housed within the Department of Homeland Security, claimed that such measures for anonymity are imperative because “ICE officers have seen a staggering 413 percent increase in assaults against them.”

Philip Bump of the Washington Post looked into that claim and noted that by using a percentage, ICE avoids the question of just how many assaults there have actually been. He points out that year-to-date assaults against Customs and Border Protection are currently 20% lower than they were in 2024 and that at least one ICE news release blurred the distinction between “threatening to assault” and “assaulting.” ICE would not provide evidence for their claims.

Bump concludes: “[W]e should not and cannot take ICE’s representations about the need for its officers to obscure their identities at face value.” After Bump’s article appeared yesterday, the Department of Homeland Security posted on social media: “New data reveals that ICE law enforcement is now facing a 500% increase in assaults while carrying out enforcement operations.”

Bump noted that ICE “has been eager to level dubious charges against Democratic legislators,” and the message from Homeland Security bears that claim out. After claiming a 500% increase in assaults, it continued: “Make no mistake, sanctuary politicians are contributing to the surge in assaults of our ICE officers through their repeated vilification and demonization of ICE. This violence against ICE must end.”

The Department of Homeland Security appears to be trying to convince Americans that their agents must cover their faces because their opponents, especially Democrats, are dangerous.

On Tuesday, masked, plainclothes ICE agents assaulted and arrested New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander, the city’s chief financial officer. Lander was accompanying an immigrant to a scheduled court hearing to try to protect him from arrest in one of ICE’s sweeps of those showing up for their court hearings. Lander asked the agents to produce an arrest warrant for the man they were arresting, and was himself arrested.

Read more