Pentagon

WASHINGTON — Merely two weeks had passed since the Iran war began when Gen. Randy George, the Army’s highest-ranking officer, began sounding an alarm.

Touring a weapons depot in North Carolina, George warned lawmakers present that the conflict’s vast and ever-growing list of targets was straining U.S. capacity — “depleting our stockpiles faster than we can replace them,” as one congressman recalled. Since assuming Army leadership, George had made it his mission to strengthen the nation’s industrial base in anticipation of precisely this moment, when the United States would be engaged in a major war with a formidable adversary.

On Thursday, in a brief phone call, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired George. No reason was given, a U.S. official familiar with the matter told The Times.

The forced departure of George in the middle of a war created yet another blow to morale inside the Pentagon, where multiple officials expressed dismay over the state of the department’s leadership. Over the last year, Hegseth has fired five sitting members of the joint chiefs of staff, with only two holdovers remaining in their posts.

“Whenever you have a change in leadership, military or otherwise, there is bound to be some churn in information management,” one U.S. official said, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “So what you’re doing, in the middle of a war, as we are taking U.S. casualties, is you’re taking out the general in charge of making sure the right people and equipment are flowing into the Middle East.”

Inside the building, officials believe that Hegseth’s next target is Dan Driscoll, the Army secretary and an ally to President Trump. Driscoll has been seen by Hegseth’s aides as outshining the Defense secretary on prominent policy initiatives.

Gen. Randy George, U.S. Army chief of staff, speaks with soldiers during training exercises at Lightning Academy at Schofield Barracks in Honolulu on Nov. 10, 2025.

(Christopher Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

It is a purge that Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill fear could have tangible, detrimental effects on the war effort. Sens. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Joni Ernst of Iowa, all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have expressed private concerns over George’s firing, a second U.S. official said.

Forcing out Army leadership responsible for training and equipping its soldiers, and for ensuring weapons stockpiles continue to meet demand, risks bureaucratic chaos and despair in the ranks at a time when the Trump administration is openly considering a ground operation in Iran.

Others in the Pentagon have raised concern over the U.S. military stockpile, including Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, who last month warned at a defense conference that munitions shortages were a concern even before the war began.

“It was something that we were concerned about even before the operation,” Meink said. “It has just been the fact that we couldn’t see the threat evolving and what we’re facing. So we definitely have to improve on that.”

Trump has denied that the United States faces weapons shortages, even after meeting with the nation’s top contractors last month in a push for them to increase — and on some products, quadruple — their output.

“What interceptors we have for Iran is because of Randy George,” the first U.S. official countered. “He continued to work that problem set up through [Thursday]. It’s a problem set he was working in real time.”

Jerry McGinn, director of the Center for the Industrial Base at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said U.S. forces have reached a stage in the war where they can pivot away from standoff weapons systems. With Iran’s air defenses largely degraded, they can instead rely on weapons such as laser-guided bombs, helping ease pressure on stockpiles.

But Iran’s downing of two U.S. aircraft on Friday suggests that longer-range weapons may still be necessary.

“When the stockpile is stressed, as it was after Ukraine and then now with Iran, any surge in need leads to a backlog as they try to replenish,” McGinn said.

“The three things they’ve been using a whole lot of are Tomahawks, [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] and Patriots, and those inventories were already somewhat depleted after Midnight Hammer last summer,” McGinn added. “You can’t crank those out very fast.”

Beyond his role tending to the nation’s “magazine depth” — making sure the military isn’t firing more weapons than it is able to replenish — George also led the Pentagon’s effort to set up a joint task force last year aimed at speeding up the U.S. military’s ability to counter small unmanned aircraft systems, or drones.

The program has proved critical in the war effort. Tehran now relies heavily on its Shahed drones, with its missile production and launch capacity severely diminished.

Acknowledging the Pentagon expulsions, Iran’s embassy in South Africa posted photos on social media Friday x-ing out portraits of several top U.S. military officials fired in recent months.

“Regime change happened successfully,” the Iranians wrote.

April 3 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has requested that Congress increase the Pentagon’s budget by $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027 on Friday.

The additional funding the president is asking for is a 40% increase over the current budget. At the same time he is requesting a 10% decrease in all non-defense spending, cutting about $73 billion from domestic programs.

Some of the programs that Trump is proposing to reduce funding to include environmental, renewable energy, transportation and infrastructure programs. About $1.6 billion would be eliminated from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research programs.

The budget request is being led by White House Budget Director Russell Vought, the author of Project 2025.

“The 2027 budget builds on the president’s vision by continuing to constrain non-defense spending and reform the federal government,” Vought wrote in a message to Congress. “A historic paradigm shift in the budget process is occurring and is producing real results for the American public. Fiscal futility is ending. Together, we will achieve significant budgetary savings for the American people while implementing the president’s bold vision.”

The request comes on the heels of Trump’s speech on Wednesday, in which he said the United States cannot “take care of day care, Medicaid, Medicare, all of these individual things.” Instead, the United States must focus on war.

“Don’t send any money for day care, because the United States can’t take care of day care,” Trump said Wednesday. “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care.”

Fiscal year 2027 begins in October.

The White House published a top-line fact sheet summarizing the request for more defense spending on Friday, along with additional documents highlighting the president’s spending goals. It outlines Trump’s wish to “reinvigorate” the military.

Trump is calling on Republicans in Congress to approve $350 billion in additional funds through reconciliation for obtaining munitions and expanding the defense industry.

By taking $350 billion in additional funding through the budget reconciliation process, Republicans could avoid the Senate filibuster and the need to negotiate with Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Trump is also requesting $40.8 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Justice, a $4.7 billion increase over its current budget. The White House says this is to continue the Trump administration’s efforts to “stop the migrant crime epidemic.”

Another $1.47 billion is being requested for the Department of Defense to add resources to the southern border, including sensors and surveillance technology.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has asked the Army’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George, to step down, the Pentagon said Thursday, as the United States wages a war against Iran.

A Pentagon official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter, confirmed that George has been asked to take early retirement from the post of Army chief of staff, which he has held since August 2023.

The ouster of George is just the latest of more than a dozen firings of top generals and admirals by Hegseth since he first took office last year.

CBS News was first to report the ouster.

George is a graduate of West Point Military Academy and an infantry officer who served in the first Gulf War as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. He also served as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s top military aide from 2021 to 2022, during the Biden administration, before taking on top leadership roles in the Army.

George survived the initial round of firings last February, which saw the removal of top military leaders, including Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy’s top uniformed officer, and Gen. Jim Silfe, the No. 2 leader at the Air Force, by Hegseth. President Donald Trump also fired Gen. Charles “C.Q.” Brown, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same time.

Since then, more than a dozen other top military generals and admirals have either retired early or been removed from their posts.

Among these departures was George’s deputy, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. James Mingus, who was in the post for less than two years when Trump suddenly nominated Lt. Gen. Christopher LaNeve for the position. LaNeve was then serving as Hegseth’s top military aide, having been plucked for that post from commanding the Eighth Army in South Korea after less than a year in the job.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Tuesday that he expects the United States to end its involvement in the war with Iran within three weeks, declaring there probably will be “no reason” for American forces to stay in the region even as top defense officials maintain Tehran’s military capabilities have not been fully eliminated.

Trump told reporters during an Oval Office event that he is confident the U.S. objectives in the conflict will be largely achieved by then, whether Iran makes a “deal” with the United States or not.

“If they come to the table that will be good, but it doesn’t matter whether they come or not,” Trump said. “We’ve set them back. It will take 15 to 20 years to rebuild what we have done to them.”

Trump added that he believes the threats to the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil route, will be “all cleared up” by the time the U.S. leaves the region. But if issues remain, he said, that will not be a problem for the United States.

“That’s not for us,” he said. “That will be for whoever is using the strait.”

Trump’s comments came hours after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that, a month into the war, Iran still has the ability to launch offensive missiles, despite ongoing U.S. and Israeli efforts to weaken Tehran’s military capabilities and weapons programs.

“Yes, they will shoot some missiles, but we will shoot them down,” Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, acknowledging the remaining threat.

The comment, made during the first public briefing on the conflict in nearly two weeks, underscored that despite weeks of intensive U.S. military operations and repeated assertions by Trump that Iran’s military has been “obliterated,” the threats posed by Iranian forces have not been fully eliminated.

Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at the briefing that the U.S. military remains focused on “interdicting and destroying” Iran’s weapons warehouses and facilities.

“We’ve continued to do the work against Iran’s missile, drone and naval production facilities,” Caine said.

Although air and naval strikes have been the primary focus so far, U.S. officials have not ruled out the possibility of ground operations as thousands of American soldiers and Marines have begun arriving in the Middle East.

Hegseth said it is up to Trump to determine whether ground operations in Iran will become the next phase in the conflict, which the president has said he is open to ending through diplomatic talks.

Trump repeated over the weekend that Iran is “begging to make a deal” to end the war, but on Monday, the president threatened to target Iran’s power-generating plans and oil wells and even desalination plants if a “deal is not shortly reached.”

President Trump speaking Tuesday in the Oval Office.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday that the administration will “operate within the confines of the law,” when asked about Trump’s threat to target infrastructure that would potentially harm civilians.

Caine told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. would only “strike lawful targets” when asked about American military considerations for civilian targets.

“We are always thinking about those considerations and developing options to be able to mitigate those risks,” Caine said.

Since the start of the war, Iranian officials have condemned a series of U.S. military attacks that have hit schools, including a Feb. 28 strike at an elementary school that killed at least 175 people, many of them children.

As Trump issues a new wave of threats on key infrastructure, he has at the same time touted ongoing diplomatic talks with Iran and reportedly told aides he’s willing to end the war without resolving Iran’s de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz that has rattled global energy markets.

Americans have also felt the financial pinch because of the war when it comes to energy prices. Gasoline prices in the United States reached an average of $4 a gallon Tuesday, a price that Trump says Americans are willing to pay to endure because “they are also feeling a lot safer.”

“All I have to do is leave Iran, and I will be doing that very soon and, [prices] will come tumbling down,” Trump said.

Hegseth, for example, said those diplomatic talks are “very real,” but stressed that the military pressure will continue alongside those negotiations and that ground operations remain an option.

“Our adversary right now thinks there are 15 different ways we can come at them with boots on the ground. And guess what? There are,” Hegseth said. “If we needed to, we could execute those options on behalf of the president of the United States and this department, or maybe we don’t have to use them at all. Maybe negotiations will work.”

He said the goal was to remain “unpredictable.” Caine added that the presence of U.S. ground forces in the region can serve as a “pressure point” as diplomatic efforts continue.

As the hostilities continued in the region on Tuesday, the State Department warned American citizens in Saudi Arabia that U.S. officials were “tracking reports of threats against locations where American citizens gather.

“We advise U.S. citizens that hotels and other gathering points including U.S. businesses and U.S. educational institutions may be potential targets,” officials wrote in a new warning.

And in Rome, Pope Leo XIV told reporters that he hopes Trump is “looking for an offramp” to end the war in Iran and made an appeal to “decrease the amount of violence,” according to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile, Trump administration officials have faced challenges in securing support from some U.S. allies, an issue that Hegseth and the president have publicly pointed out.

On Tuesday, Trump complained that countries have “refused to get involved” in the war and efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. allies’ access to oil has been affected by Iran’s chokehold on the key waterway as a result of the joint operation launched by U.S. and Israel. But now, Trump wants those countries to deal with the strait.

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT,” Trump wrote on his social media website.

Trump added that countries will have to “start learning how to fight” for themselves.

“The U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us,” Trump wrote. “Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

In a separate post, Trump singled out France for barring Israeli military planes from flying over its airspace.

“The USA will REMEMBER!!!” Trump posted on his social media website.

On Tuesday, the Italian and U.K. governments reportedly restricted U.S. warplanes from landing in their military bases.

At the Pentagon, Hegseth acknowledged that the U.S. military has faced “roadblocks or hesitations” from U.S. allies when asking for assistance or use of their bases — and said the president is simply noting that “we don’t have much of an alliance.”

“A lot has been shown to the world about what our allies would be willing to do for the United States of America when we undertake an effort of this scope on behalf of the free world,” Hegseth said.

Fielding more hardened shelters to better protect U.S. forces at bases in the Middle East is now a top priority in the face of Iranian attacks, according to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. At the same time, this underscores questions about why more investments in physical hardening were not made in the region well before the current conflict. This is especially true given months of planning leading up to this and the clear threats that Iranian drones and missiles posed.

For years now, TWZ has been highlighting how the lack of hardened infrastructure at American military facilities abroad and at home creates worrisome vulnerabilities. This is especially concerning when it comes to aircraft parked in the open, like the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) that was destroyed in an Iranian attack last week.

Hegseth talked about U.S. defensive posture in the Middle East at a press conference today at the Pentagon. The Secretary also announced that he had made a previously undisclosed visit to the region to meet with American service members.

“I’ll say, what I witnessed, where I went, was a completely locked-in discipline of bunker use and bunker improvement. So, from the beginning, as we stated very clearly, the first thing we did was set up a defense and make sure our defensive capabilities were maxed out before any of this even started,” Hegseth said. “That included fortifications, as much as possible, but it also included dispersement [sic]. If all of our people are in one place, you can imagine why that’s a big problem.”

“Alongside that dispersement [sic] is more and more bunkers. And I can tell you, talking to base commanders, talking to our allies in Israel, talking to others, rapidly fielding that and then improving those positions is a theater priority, no doubt, as are the air defenses and the layered air defenses,” he continued. “It’s not just Patriots and THAADs [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems]. It’s fighters and defensive CAPs [combat air patrols]. It’s other kinetic defeat systems. It’s electronic warfare. So the defense of our troops and our assets is max [sic].”

“I will say, on some of those other assets you talked about, air wings, airframes, there’s some things adversaries are doing to provide info and intel that they shouldn’t. We’re aware of it, and ultimately, we move things around,” he added. “One of the biggest principles you learn in the military is to not set patterns, predictable patterns, and so we’re – commanders are working hard to adjust in real time with those systems and make sure they’re in the right places and not easily targetable.”

Hegseth was responding to a two-part question about the status of efforts to establish additional bunkers at bases in the region and what other measures were being taken to better protect high-value assets, including aircraft like the E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). On March 27, an Iranian attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia succeeded in destroying one of these prized AWACS jets, as well as damaging other aircraft and injuring several American service members, as you can read more about here.

Separately, on March 23, the U.S. Space Force had put out a contracting notice to identify “potential sources” of “prefabricated, transportable, hardened shelter systems” that could be delivered to Jordan within weeks or even days of a contract award. The U.S. military has a major presence in Jordan, particularly at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, which has been a key hub in the current campaign against Iran. Muwaffaq Salti has, in turn, also come under Iranian attack, with an AN/TPY-2 missile defense radar there having been notably targeted.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also put out another contracting notice regarding planned new hardened underground facilities at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on March 25, which TWZ was first to report. This is a longer-term project, with work not expected to start until 2028.

Though Hegseth says more bunkers for bases in the Middle East are now a priority, it remains unclear why this was not already the case years ago. There has been no shortage of examples in the region of the threats posed by Iran’s drone and missile arsenals, as well as those employed by Iranian-backed proxies. This includes numerous instances of direct and sometimes fatal attacks on U.S. forces, as well as on allies and partners. Drone threats, in general, are not new and have only continued to grow, something TWZ has been sounding the alarm on for nearly a decade now. In turn, we have also highlighted the curious lack of investment in hardened infrastructure, especially to better protect aircraft, which are especially vulnerable when parked out on open flight lines.

In recent years, U.S. military officials have often pushed back on calls for more physical hardening, having questioned the cost-effectiveness and general utility of doing so. More emphasis has generally been put on expanding active defenses, such as surface-to-air missiles, as well as employing concepts of operations centered on dispersion of forces and camouflage, concealment, and deception. In addition to talking about the importance of bunkers, Hegseth hit these same general talking points himself just this morning.

The destruction of the E-3 at Prince Sultan Air Base raises additional questions about the limits of dispersal and other operating concepts, which the U.S. Air Force has codified under the banner of Agile Combat Employment (ACE). Satellite imagery makes clear that E-3s and other aircraft have continued to be parked out in the open at well-established points on the taxiways at the base in Saudi Arabia. More broadly speaking, American forces in the region continue to operate primarily from a small number of large bases, the locations of which are well known.

Visualizing ACE

Furthermore, in his remarks today, Hegseth alluded to reports that Russia and China have been helping Iran target key assets at bases in the Middle East, including through the provision of satellite imagery. In the past decade, the Chinese have dramatically expanded their space-based surveillance capabilities. The commercial satellite imagery sector in that country has also grown.

At the same time, while additional information from those sources would help refine Iranian targeting processes, it would not be necessary to launch attacks on key assets and facilities, especially larger ones, at locations like Prince Sultan or Muwaffaq Salti in Jordan. Iran has its own intelligence streams in the region that it could leverage, as well. We have seen numerous examples of very deliberate targeting on the part of Iranian forces, especially when it comes to prized air and missile defense radars and communications arrays, many of which are fixed in place, from the start of the current conflict.

And they VERY likely had recent intel from satellite imagery (China and Russia)

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 30, 2026

There are ways to provide targeting data beyond near real time satellite imagery. And even then, who knows how often they are moving them. It would be worth a BM and definitely worth a hopeful shot of a one-way attack drone.

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 29, 2026

In the past few years, there has been some signs of a tonal shift across the U.S. military when it comes to physical hardening, especially against drone attacks. Just last week, authorities at Shaw Air Force Base in California put out a contracting notice regarding plans to put up counter-drone nets around non-hardened sunshade-type shelters on the flightline, a defensive measure that other Air Force facilities have been exploring, as well. In addition to seeing more pushes for additional passive defenses at established bases, work has been touted on more rapidly deployable capabilities to support expeditionary and distributed operations.

At the same time, the U.S. military is clearly still playing catch-up in this regard. These are issues that extend well beyond the Middle East and the current conflict with Iran, too. Though Iran’s drones and missiles clearly present real dangers, the scale and scope of those attacks pale in comparison to the volume and diversity of incoming threats U.S. forces would expect to face in a large-scale conflict in the Pacific against China.

It is true that you cannot protect everything from every threat, but physical hardening can help lessen the impacts. It also limits the overall options an enemy has for attacking a particular target and imposes additional costs to achieving the desired level of destruction. Paired with other tactics, it can drastically improve the survivability of a combat air force on the ground.

Hopefully there will FINALLY be a real wake up call here on hardened infrastructure for air bases. They (DoW leadership) have and are living in a fantasy land with this. It’s maddening. It’s easier to kill your most potent combat aircraft on the ground, where they sped the vast…

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 29, 2026

And this is at home and overseas. You can’t protect everything, not even close, but you can protect a portion of your fleet and plan around that capacity.

— Tyler Rogoway (@Aviation_Intel) March 29, 2026

The current conflict with Iran has clearly put new emphasis on expanding the hardened infrastructure at air bases and other facilities in the Middle East, but it remains to be seen whether this latest wakeup call will be heard more broadly.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

US Department of Defense demands retraction of report alleging broker sought multimillion-dollar investment for Hegseth.

The United States Department of Defense has demanded the retraction of a newspaper report alleging that a broker for defence chief Pete Hegseth attempted to make a large investment in weapons companies in the run-up to the war on Iran.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell demanded the “immediate” retraction on Monday after The Financial Times reported that a wealth manager for the defence secretary contacted BlackRock about making a multimillion-dollar investment in a defence-related fund in the weeks leading up to the war.

Hegseth’s broker at Morgan Stanley ultimately did not go ahead with the investment in the exchange-traded fund, whose holdings include Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, because it was not yet available for purchase at the time, The Financial Times reported, citing three unnamed sources.

“This allegation is entirely false and fabricated. Neither Secretary Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about any such investment,” Parnell said in a post on social media.

“This is yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public.”

Hegseth and his department “remain unwavering in their commitment to the highest standards of ethics and strict adherence to all applicable laws and regulations,” Parnell said.

Al Jazeera could not independently confirm the Financial Times report.

The Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent outside of usual business hours.

The Financial Times and Morgan Stanley also did not immediately respond to inquiries.

BlackRock declined to comment.

The report comes amid scrutiny of well-timed trades in financial and prediction markets that have fuelled speculation that figures with insider knowledge may be profiting off of US President Donald Trump’s war plans.

While The Financial Times reported that the attempted investment by Hesgeth’s broker did not go ahead, the defence chief would not have made money on such a purchase in the month since the war began.

While the iShares Defense Industrials Active ETF has risen more than 25 percent over the past year, it has fallen nearly 13 percent since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28.

The plans, which fall short of a full invasion, could involve raids by special operations and conventional infantry troops, The Washington Post reported.

The Pentagon is preparing for weeks of limited ground operations in Iran, potentially including raids on Kharg Island and coastal sites near the Strait of Hormuz, according to United States officials quoted by The Washington Post newspaper.

The plans, which fall short of a full invasion, could involve raids by special operations and conventional infantry troops, the Post reported on Saturday, exposing US personnel to Iranian drones and missiles, ground fire, and improvised explosives.

Whether President Donald Trump would approve any of those plans remains uncertain, according to the report.

“It’s the job of the Pentagon to make preparations in order to give the Commander in Chief maximum optionality. It does not mean the president has made a decision,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, responding to questions over the Post report.

The Trump administration has deployed US Marines to the Middle East as the war in Iran stretches into its fifth week, and has also been planning to send thousands of soldiers from the army’s 82nd Airborne to the region.

On Saturday, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said about 3,500 additional soldiers arrived in the Middle East on board the USS Tripoli.

The sailors and marines are with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit and arrived in the region on March 27, along with “transport and strike fighter aircraft, as well as amphibious assault and tactical assets”, according to CENTCOM.

Officials speaking to The Washington Post said discussions within the administration over the past month have touched upon the possible seizure of Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub in the Gulf, and raids into other coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz to find and destroy weapons that can target commercial and military shipping.

According to the report, one person said the objectives under consideration would probably take “weeks, not months” to complete, while another put the potential timeline at “a couple of months”.

The Pentagon had not responded on Saturday to the Post’s requests for comment. Iran has yet to respond to the report.

The report comes as Pakistan, which shares a 900km-long (559-mile) border with Iran, mediates between Washington ‌and Tehran, hosting two days of talks starting on Sunday with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Egypt.

Iranian threats

The Iranian parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said on Sunday the “enemy openly sends messages of negotiation and dialogue and secretly plans a ground attack”.

“Unaware that our men are waiting for the arrival of American soldiers on the ground to set fire to them and punish their regional partners forever. Our firing continues. Our missiles are in place,” the Tasnim news agency reported, quoting Ghalibaf.

“Our determination and faith have increased. We are aware of the enemy’s weaknesses, and we clearly see the effects of fear and terror in the enemy’s army.”

It was not clear whether Ghalibaf was responding to the Post report.

On Wednesday, Ghalibaf had warned that intelligence reports suggested that “Iran’s enemies” ⁠were planning to occupy an Iranian island with support ‌from an unnamed country in the region.

He said any such attempt would be met with targeted attacks on the “vital infrastructure” of the regional country – which he did not name – that assists in the operation.

Tasnim quoted an unnamed military source as saying on Wednesday that Iran could open a new front at the mouth of the Red Sea if military action takes place on “Iranian islands or anywhere else in our lands”.

The source told Tasnim that Iran can pose a “credible threat” in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, ⁠which lies between Yemen and Djibouti.

Tasnim later quoted an “informed source” claiming that Yemen’s Houthi rebels, backed by Iran, are prepared to play a role “if there is a need to control the Bab al-Mandeb Strait to further punish the enemy”.

March 25 (UPI) — The Pentagon has ordered paratroopers to the Middle East, as President Donald Trump pursues a diplomatic solution to the war with Iran while declining to rule out the possibility of launching ground operations, according to reports.

The contingent of paratroops to be deployed are from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, out of Fort Bragg, N.C., and will include Maj. Gen. Brandon Tegtmeier, the division commander, The New York Times, CNN and CBS News reported, citing unidentified sources.

The soldiers are specifically members of the 82nd Division’s Immediate Response Force, The Times, CNN and The Washington Post reported. According to the U.S. Army, the Immediate Response Force is its only division capable of beginning an airborne assault operation anywhere in the world within 18 hours of receiving orders.

Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat from Colorado and a former paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne, lambasted Trump over the announcement Tuesday night.

“These paratroopers, and the American people, deserve better,” he said in a statement. “We must protect our service members and stop spending billions of dollars a day fighting overseas wars of choice, especially as folks back home can’t afford gas, groceries or healthcare.”

The announcement comes as Iran’s claimed closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which flows about 20% of the world’s oil supplies, has seen energy prices surge and nations scrambling to mitigate the effects on their economies.

It was unclear exactly how many the paratroops would be deployed or where they would be sent, but their deployment could give Trump a rapid-response force in the region, while representing an escalation in the conflict.

Earlier this month, U.S. Central Command said it had struck more than 90 military targets on the Kharg Island, a key location in Iran’s ability to enforce its maritime blockade, including naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers and other military sites.

Trump described the strike as “one of the most powerful bombing raids in the History of the Middle East, and totally obliterated every MILITARY target in Iran’s crown jewel, Kharg Island.”

“For reasons of decency, I have chosen NOT to wipe out the Oil infrastructure on the Island,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform. “However, should Iran, or anyone else, do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz, I will immediately reconsider this decision.”

Trump on Saturday had given Iran a 48-hour ultimatum to open the strait or the U.S. military would “obliterate” its power plants, to which Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, responded that if the American president makes good on his threat, critical and energy infrastructure and oil facilities would be “irreversibly destroyed.”

On Monday, Trump announced that he had extended the ultimatum five days after having what he called “very good and productive conversations” on a solution to the war with Iran.

Trump said Tuesday that negotiations with Iran were underway and that the Iranians “want to make a deal.”

The extent of the negotiations was unclear.

March 24 (UPI) — Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth plans to request $200 billion in funding from Congress as the cost of the United States’ war with Iran grows.

The request comes on top of an already record-setting Pentagon budget passed by Congress last year. Transparency over how funds are being spent continues to dwindle, experts told UPI.

As of March 15, 16 days into the war, it had cost the United States about $12 billion, Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said in an interview on Face the Nation.

Linda Bilmes, a Harvard Kennedy School professor and former assistant secretary and chief financial officer of the U.S. Department of Commerce under the Clinton administration, told UPI the reported cost is “just the very tip of the huge iceberg.”

“The $11 billion or whatever it is that they’re quoting is just the immediate operational spend in terms of munitions and fuel and such in the first couple weeks,” Bilmes said. “That doesn’t cover any kind of medium-term expenditures around reset, repair, resupply, replenishment of weapons and systems and munitions and so forth, which is a much bigger number.”

“We’ve probably spent at least $40 billion if you bring into account already everything that has been spent and the fact that it needs to be restocked in the inventory,” Bilmes said.

There are also longer-term costs yet to come, such as the lifetime disability benefits that some 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East will be eligible to receive.

“The vast majority of them have been exposed to toxins, contamination from oil fumes, formaldehyde, benzine, all of these things that are in the air,” Bilmes said.

In a 2011 study, Bilmes estimated that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs would pay up to $1 trillion in benefits to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the subsequent 30 to 40 years. In 2021, that estimate increased to $2.5 trillion as the war in Afghanistan continued until August of that year.

During a press briefing last week, Hegseth said the $200 billion request to Congress would be to “ensure that our ammunition is refilled and not just refilled but above and beyond.”

“That’s like the [gross domestic product] of Hungary, the GDP of New Zealand. Medium-sized countries have GDPs the size of just this increase,” Bilmes said. “That’s $1,500 for every household in America.”

The cost of war continues to increase for U.S. taxpayers. The U.S. military is using some advanced weapons technologies, such as AI-powered systems in combat for the first time in the Iran war. Defense contractors are preparing to increase their production of weapons for the United States four times over, President Donald Trump said following a meeting with several earlier this month.

“They have agreed to quadruple production of the ‘Exquisite Class’ weaponry in that we want to reach, as rapidly as possible, the highest levels of quantity,” Trump posted on social media on March 6. “Expansion began three months prior to the meeting and plants and production of many of these weapons are already underway.”

Trump did not clarify which companies were a part of the meeting, nor did he define what “exquisite class weaponry” is.

Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told UPI it is becoming increasingly challenging to analyze defense spending as the Pentagon has become less transparent.

Hartung’s research focuses on the arms industry and the U.S. military budget. He is the former director of the Arms and Security Program and the Center for International Policy and co-director of its Sustainable Defense Task Force.

When the United States began sending defense aid to Ukraine in 2022, the government would periodically report what weapons it was sending and the types of training missions it was involved in. That is yet to take place for the war in Iran.

“In this war, really other than a leak, they really haven’t put out much in the way of justification or what exactly is being spent,” Hartung said. “They haven’t put out even a detailed budget this year the way they normally would. Normally an administration that’s been in power a while puts it out in early February. Now, we’re kind of flying blind as to what it’s exactly all going to.”

Transparency has waned from the Pentagon over the course of years. Funding put toward defense in last year’s budget reconciliation was marked in broad categories, rather than a more detailed, itemized budget.

Hartung said it was not the “normal budget process” and that hearings over the Pentagon’s budget lacked the same level of substance and oversight of years passed.

In July, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense published its budget request for program acquisitions for the 2026 fiscal year. It requested $179.1 billion dedicated to research, development, test and evaluation of major weapon systems, $205.2 billion for procurement and $961.7 billion for total Department of Defense research and procurement. This accounts for about 40% of the department’s total funding.

The reconciliation bill passed by Congress added $150 billion in new defense spending, increasing the department’s total budget to more than $1 trillion.

Among the biggest expenditures approved by Congress were more than $25 billion for munitions and supply chain resiliency, $24 billion for integrated air and missile defense, $29 billion for shipbuilding, and $14 billion for enhancing resources for nuclear forces.

About $10 million was approved for department oversight.

The longer the war continues, the greater the cost will be to the United States. Then comes the matter of reconstruction.

The United States has historically been involved in reconstruction efforts following wars it was engaged in, including World War II and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The U.S. government spent about $141 billion on reconstruction in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2021, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported.

The war with Iran has spread beyond its borders already. As of Monday, Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, said that at least 40 energy sites have been damaged in the war, including sites belonging to U.S. allies.

Whether and to what extent the United States would be involved in reconstruction efforts in Iran and among affected allies is another variable that will not be known until the fighting stops.

Beyond the budget implications is the human cost of war. Hartung said, depending on the decision to put U.S. troops on the ground in Iran, the toll paid by service members could be larger yet. At least 13 U.S. troops have already been killed in action.

The Iran Health Ministry reported earlier this month that more than 1,200 civilians have been killed. Among them are at least 165 people killed in a strike on an elementary school for girls in Minab, Iraq. Many of the victims in the school bombing were children.

A preliminary investigation by the U.S. military has found that the United States is likely responsible for the deadly strike on the school by a Tomahawk missile on Feb. 28. The United States is the only country involved in the war that uses Tomahawk missiles.

The cost of the operation that killed the victims at the elementary school likely exceeds $1 million. A Tomahawk missile costs about $2 million.

“It could have been a million or two to hit that one target,” Hartung said. “They do have a small drone-like system they’ve been using that’s like $35,000 each but I don’t know exactly what they used. A cruise missile’s $2 million but then some of the other bombs could be a few hundred thousand but it’s remarkable how much even one strike can cost. Some of the planes are thousands or tens of thousands an hour.”

Unlike the Vietnam and Korean War and those that preceded them, the United States does not pay for its modern war efforts by raising taxes. Instead, it incurs an ever-growing debt that now accounts for about 17% of the government’s budget in fiscal year 2026.

Bilmes is writing about the changing approach to funding war in her upcoming book The Ghost Budget: Paying for America’s Wars. It is due to be released in the fall.

“We’ve borrowed every penny that has been spent right now. We’re just adding to the debt,” Bilmes said.

As the United States takes on more debt to fund a growing defense budget, it has also cut taxes, reducing revenues.

“Arguably, our approach to this, in engaging in another war of choice, is positioning us closer to another major economic crisis,” Bilmes said.

March 24 (UPI) — The Department of Defense has announced new restrictions on reporters, including removing their office space from the Pentagon, after a judge last week struck down a Trump administration policy that threatened journalists’ credentials for obtaining unauthorized information.

Under the new policy announced Monday, reporters will be required to work from new office space outside the Pentagon but in an annex facility on its grounds. It also requires credentialed journalists to be escorted by Department of Defense personnel at all times within the Pentagon.

The announcement comes after the Defense Department announced a new policy in October that required all journalists with access to the Pentagon to sign a form acknowledging they could have their credentials revoked for collecting unauthorized information. Most Pentagon reporters declined and surrendered their credentials.

The New York Times then sued the administration of President Donald Trump. On Saturday, a federal court judge ruled in the paper’s favor, stating the policy was unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the credentials of seven journalists with The Times.

The Pentagon intends to appeal the decisions, and in the interim announced the new policy shuttering the Correspondents’ Corridor and mandating journalist escorts, which Sean Parnell, assistant to the Defense secretary, said in a statement was in compliance with the court’s order.

“The Department always complies with court orders but disagrees with the decision and is pursuing an appeal,” he said.

A spokesperson with The Times quickly repsonded to the new policy, saying “We will be going back to court.”

“The new policy does not comply with the judge’s order,” Charlie Stadtlander, the Times spokesperson, said in a statement.

“It continues to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the press.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly taken actions that critics say are aimed at influencing its media coverage, including the October memorandum, restricting access to outlets over editorial decisions and seizing control of the White House press pool.

Journalists and free speech organizations were quick to crticize the policy, with the National Press Club calling the closure of the Correspondents’ Corridor an effort to undermine independent reporting of the Pentagon while it is fighting a war with Iran.

“At a time when the United States is engaged in active military conflict, the public depends on journalists being able to observe, report and ask questions freely,” NPC President Mark Schoeff said in a statement.

“Independent reporting on the U.S. military is not optional. It is essential to accountability, transparency and public trust. Any policy that curtails that access should concern everyone who values a free and informed society.”

The Pentagon Press Association said it was consulting with its legal counsel, according to a statement obtained by Axios.

“Press freedom is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and an informed public is vital to democracy,” the organization said.

“At such a critical time, we ask why the Pentagon is choosing to restrict vital press freedoms that help inform all Americans.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump took the United States to war without a vote of support from Congress, but lawmakers are increasingly questioning when, how and at what cost the war with Iran will come to an end.

Three weeks into the conflict, the toll is becoming apparent. At least 13 U.S. military personnel have died and more than 230 have been wounded. A $200-billion request from the Pentagon for war funds is pending from the White House. Allies are under attack, oil prices are skyrocketing, and thousands more U.S. troops are deploying to the Middle East with no endgame in sight.

“The real question is: What ultimately are we trying to accomplish?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told the Associated Press.

“I generally support anything that takes out the mullahs,” he said. “But at the end of the day, there has to be a kind of strategic articulation of the strategy, what our objectives are.”

Trump said late Friday that he was considering “winding down” the military operations even as he outlined new objectives and goals and despite the continued buildup of forces in the region.

Congress stands still

The president’s decision to launch the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is testing the resolve of Congress, which is controlled by his party. Republicans have largely stood by the commander in chief, but will soon be faced with more consequential wartime choices.

Under the War Powers Act, the president can conduct military operations for 60 days without approval from Congress. So far, Republicans have easily voted down several resolutions from Democrats designed to halt the war.

But the administration will need to show a more comprehensive strategy ahead or risk blowback from Congress, lawmakers said, especially as they are being asked to approve billions in new spending.

Trump’s casual comment that the war will end “when I … feel it in my bones” has drawn alarm.

“When he feels it in his bones? That’s crazy,” said Virginia Sen. Mark R. Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

House speaker says mission is ‘all but done’

The president’s party appears unlikely to directly challenge him, even as the conflict drags on. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said the military operation will be over quickly.

“I do think the original mission is virtually accomplished now,” Johnson told the AP and others at the Capitol this week.

“We were trying to take out the ballistic missiles, and their means of production, and neuter the navy, and those objectives have been met,” he said.

Johnson acknowledged that Iran’s ability to threaten ships in the Strait of Hormuz is “dragging it out a little bit,” especially as U.S. allies have largely rebuffed the president’s request for help.

“As soon as we bring some calm to the situation, I think it’s all but done,” Johnson said.

But the administration’s stated goals — of ending Iran’s ability to obtain a nuclear weapon and degrading its ballistic missile supplies, among others — have perplexed lawmakers as shifting and elusive.

″Regime change? Not likely. Get rid of the enriched uranium? Not without boots on the ground,” Warner said.

“If I’m advising the president, I would have said: Before you take on a war of choice, make the case clear to the American people what our goals are,” he said.

The power of the purse

The Pentagon has told the White House that it is seeking an additional $200 billion for the war effort, an extraordinary amount that is unlikely to win support. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the amount “preposterous.”

The Defense Department’s approved appropriations from Congress this year are more than $800 billion, and Trump’s tax breaks bill gave the Pentagon an additional $150 billion over the next several years for various upgrades and projects.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said the country has other priorities.

“How about not taking away funding for Medicaid, which will impact millions of people? How about making sure SNAP is funded?” she said, referring to the healthcare and food assistance programs that were cut as part of last year’s Republican tax reductions.

“These are things that we should be doing for the American people,” she said.

Many lawmakers have recalled the decision by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to come to Congress to seek an authorization for the use of military force — a vote to support his proposed military actions in Afghanistan and later Iraq.

Tillis said Trump has latitude under the War Powers Act to conduct the military campaign, but that will soon shift.

“When you get into the 45-day mark, you’ve got to start articulating one of two things — an authorization for the use of military force to sustain it beyond that or a very clear path on exit,” he said.

“Those are really the options the administration needs to be thinking about.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

March 21 (UPI) — A federal judge struck down the Department of Defense’s policy that led to the ouster of most journalists from the Pentagon last fall and replaced them with those who agreed to the department’s new rules.

Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of The New York Times, which sued the Department of Defense over the policy. Friedman ruled that the policy is unconstitutional and ordered the department to give back the credentials of the seven Times journalists who cover the Pentagon.

Though he didn’t order the restoration of other reporters’ credentials, he voided the policy that they refused to sign, allowing them to get credentialed again.

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell wrote on X: “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.”

In October, the Defense Department required that all credentialed journalists sign the policy. Signing it gave the Pentagon the ability to label the journalists “security risks” and revoke their credentials if the department decided they had endangered national security. They had to pledge to only publish approved information.

Most news outlets refused to sign, losing their press passes and desks inside the Pentagon. They were replaced with news outlets and people friendly to the administration. The Times then sued the department over its First Amendment rights.

“A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription,” Friedman wrote in his opinion.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech,” Friedman added. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”

First Amendment attorney Theodore Boutrous, who is representing The Times in the suit, told CNN: “The district court’s decision is a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war.”

“The district court’s opinion is not just a win for The Times, [Times reporter] Mr. [Julian E.] Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon,” Boutrous said.

Friedman also agreed with the Times that the policy violated its due process rights because it was vague and could be accidentally violated by reporters. Part of the policy prevented reporters from asking certain questions.

“A primary way in which journalists obtain information is by asking questions,” he wrote. “Under the policy’s terms, then, essential journalistic practices that the plaintiffs and others engage in every day — such as asking questions of department employees — could trigger a determination by the department that a journalist poses a security or safety risk.”

First Amendment advocates said they support the decision.

“The court affirmed that our security and liberty rely on the press’s freedom to publish and the public’s ability to access news about government affairs free from state control,” said Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in a statement.

Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said the ruling is especially important right now.

“It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting ‘authorized’ narratives,” Stern said in a statement.

A federal judge in the United States has agreed to block the administration of President Donald Trump from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon.

Friday’s ruling sides with The New York Times in its argument that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.

He ruled that the Pentagon policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.

Times lauds ruling

New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country”.

“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court ruling is “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war”.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.

The Times’ legal team, meanwhile, claimed the policy is designed to silence unfavourable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Weeding out ‘disfavoured’ journalists

The judge said he recognises that “national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected”.

“But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing,” Friedman wrote.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credentials],” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused.

The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. But he said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties”.

Friedman gave the Pentagon a week to file a written report on its compliance with the order.

The Times argued that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper noted that Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorised information by promoting her “tip line”.

The government didn’t object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.

The judge said he does not see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.

“But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed Friday to block the Trump administration from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon, agreeing with The New York Times that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington sided with the newspaper and ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including from the Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials. He ruled that it violates the First and Fifth amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s (credential),” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government attorneys wrote.

Times attorneys claim the policy is designed to silence unfavorable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is reportedly sending three California-based warships and roughly 2,500 Marines to the Middle East, the second significant deployment in a week.

The three warships are part of the San Diego-based USS Boxer amphibious ready group. The Marines are from the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, based at Camp Pendleton. The deployments were reported Friday by the Associated Press, citing Pentagon sources.

A 2,500-strong Marine unit accompanied by the USS Tripoli warship launched from Japan on Saturday.

The major reinforcement comes as the war’s economic shock waves are felt throughout the globe, as Washington seeks to secure vital shipping lanes and deter further attacks on energy infrastructure around the Persian Gulf.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, front, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine arrive for a news conference at the Pentagon in Washington on Thursday.

(Mandel Ngan / AFP via Getty Images)

President Trump has continued pressing allies to join his proposed coalition to patrol the Iranian-controlled Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping lane through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply passes. So far, Europe, Japan, China and Australia have refused to heed the call.

Trump on Thursday said Iran “is close to demolished,” but that securing the Strait of Hormuz remained a struggle. He suggested the U.S. was working to secure the strait not for its own oil needs, but “just to be nice” to other countries that rely on oil from the region to a much larger degree than the U.S.

Marines perform a demonstration with helicopters and the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer Oct. 18, 2025, on Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.

(Gregory Bull / Associated Press)

“They complain about the high oil prices they are forced to pay, but don’t want to help open the Strait of Hormuz, a simple military maneuver that is the single reason for the high oil prices. So easy for them to do, with so little risk. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER!” Trump wrote Friday on Truth Social.

Iran continued sweeping attacks on Mideast energy facilities, a retaliation to Israeli strikes on its Iran’s South Pars field, the world’s largest natural gas field Wednesday. The fallout has dragged the gulf states into the war amid the largest energy supply disruption in history.

Iranian Shahed drones hammered Kuwait’s largest oil refinery Friday. Similar attacks triggered fires at Ras Laffan Industrial City in Qatar, bringing energy product screaming to a halt at the largest natural gas hub in the globe. Repairs are expected to take years.

Meanwhile, United Arab Emirates’ air defense systems were countering Iranian missiles overnight, and Saudi Arabia said it might respond with force if Iran continues to attack facilities in the kingdom.

An Israeli self-propelled howitzer artillery gun fires rounds toward southern Lebanon from a position in the upper Galilee in northern Israel near the border on Friday.

(Jalaa Marey / AFP via Getty Images)

Israel said Friday it had killed Esmail Ahmadi, a senior intelligence official in Iran’s Basij and deputy to its commander, in an airstrike. Officials described Ahmadi as “one of the most important pillars” of the Basij volunteer paramilitary force.

Even as Israel carries out daily decapitation airstrikes in Tehran and the U.S. deploys renewed forces to its front door, the Islamic Republic has not faltered.

Abolfazl Shekarchi, a senior spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, said American and Israeli officials could be targeted worldwide.

“From now on, based on the information we have, even recreational and tourist locations around the world will not be safe for you,” Shekarchi said.

Oil prices have surged past $100 a barrel and found a volatile new floor amid the chaos.

Financial markets have reacted with sustained losses. Wall Street has now posted its fourth consecutive week of declines, with investors increasingly pricing in the risk that higher energy costs could slow economic growth while reigniting inflation. Analysts warn that persistently elevated crude prices are likely to squeeze corporate margins and weigh on consumer spending in the United States and beyond.

The International Monetary Fund has cautioned that the conflict could push inflation higher, too. The Federal Reserve is now facing renewed uncertainty as they weigh whether to hold interest rates higher for longer in response to rising energy costs.

At a White House event on Friday, Trump maintained that the United States’ military operation is “going extremely well in Iran.”

“The difference between them and us is they had a navy two weeks ago and they have no navy anymore. It’s all at the bottom of the sea,” Trump said. “Fifty-eight ships were knocked down in two days and we have the greatest navy in the world. It is not even close.”

The president did not take questions from reporters in the room. But in unprompted remarks, he said the United States and Iran are not engaging in talks because their leaders “are all gone,” adding to the uncertainty about the war’s exit strategy.

“We are having a hard time, we want to talk to them and there is nobody to talk to,” he said. “We have nobody to talk to and you know what? We like it that way.”

WASHINGTON — Since becoming defense secretary, Pete Hegseth has found no shortage of ways to bring his strand of conservative evangelicalism into the Pentagon.

He hosts monthly Christian worship services for employees. His department’s promotional videos have displayed Bible verses alongside military footage. In speeches and interviews, he often argues the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and troops should embrace God, potentially risking the military’s secular mission and hard-won pluralism.

Now the defense secretary’s Christian rhetoric has taken on new meaning after the U.S. and Israel went to war with Iran, an Islamic theocracy.

“The mullahs are desperate and scrambling,” he said at a recent Pentagon press briefing, referring to Iran’s Shiite Muslim clerics. He later recited Psalm 144, a passage of Scripture that Jews and Christians share: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle.”

Hegseth has a history of defending the Crusades, the brutal medieval wars that pitted Christians against Muslims. In his 2020 book “American Crusade,” he wrote that those who enjoy Western civilization should “thank a crusader.” Two of his tattoos draw from crusader imagery: the Jerusalem Cross and the phrase “Deus Vult,” or “God wills it,” which Hegseth has called “the rallying cry of Christian knights as they marched to Jerusalem.”

Matthew D. Taylor, a visiting scholar at Georgetown who studies religious extremism and has been a frequent Hegseth critic, said, “The U.S. voluntarily going to war against a Muslim country with the military under the leadership of Pete Hegseth is exactly the kind of scenario that people like me were warning about before the election and throughout his appointment process.”

Taylor said Hegseth’s rhetoric and leadership “can only inflame and reinforce the fears and deep animosity that the regime in Iran has towards the U.S.”

When asked whether Hegseth views the war in Iran in religious terms, a Defense Department spokesperson pointed to a recent CBS interview in which Hegseth seemed to confirm as much.

“We’re fighting religious fanatics who seek a nuclear capability in order for some religious Armageddon,” Hegseth said of Iranian leaders. “But from my perspective, I mean, obviously I’m a man of faith who encourages our troops to lean into their faith, rely on God.”

Allegations U.S. military commanders cited biblical prophecies remain unverified

Generations of evangelicals have been influenced by their own version of Armageddon and the end of the world, circulated by books like the “Left Behind” series and “The Late Great Planet Earth,” or the horror film “A Thief in the Night.” Some evangelicals espouse prophecies in which warfare involving Israel is key to bringing about the return of Jesus.

Christian Zionist pastor John Hagee, head of Christians United for Israel, said of the Iran war, “Prophetically, we’re right on cue.”

The co-founder of Hegseth’s denomination, however, does not teach this theology. Pastor Doug Wilson of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches identifies as a postmillennialist, meaning he believes most of the apocalyptic events of the Bible have already happened, paving the way for the gradual Christianization of the world before Christ’s return.

Hegseth has not said the Iran war is part of Christian prophecy. Yet days after the conflict began, claims went viral that U.S. military commanders were telling troops the war fulfilled biblical prophecies around Armageddon and the return of Christ.

The Associated Press has not been able to verify these claims, which stem from one source: Mikey Weinstein, the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog group. Based on allegations Weinstein said he received from hundreds of troops, 30 Democratic members of Congress asked the Pentagon inspector general to investigate.

In an interview with the AP, Weinstein declined to provide documentation or the original emails he received from service members. He said troops were afraid of retaliation, so they would not speak to the media, even if their identities remained protected.

Three major religion watchdog groups — the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Anti-Defamation League and the Council on American-Islamic Relations — said they have not received similar complaints. The Pentagon declined to comment on the allegations.

Hegseth wants to reform the military chaplain corps

Hegseth’s church network, the CREC, preaches a patriarchal form of Christianity, where women cannot serve in leadership, and pastors argue that homosexuality should be criminalized. Hegseth last year reposted a video in which a CREC pastor opposed women’s right to vote. Wilson, its most prominent leader, identifies as a Christian nationalist and preached at the Pentagon in February at Hegseth’s invitation.

Both Wilson and Hegseth have questioned Muslim immigration to the United States. Wilson argues the country should restrict Muslim immigration in order to remain predominantly Christian. In “American Crusade,” Hegseth lamented growing Muslim birth rates and that Muhammad was a popular boys’ name in the U.S.

As head of the armed forces, Hegseth has overseen changes that are in line with his conservative Christian worldview, including banning transgender troops, curtailing diversity initiatives and reviewing women in combat roles.

Youssef Chouhoud, a political scientist at Christopher Newport University, said, “The intrusion of Christian nationalist policy, not just Christian nationalist rhetoric … that is what’s troubling.”

Hegseth has pledged to reform the military’s chaplain corps, which provides spiritual care to troops of any faith and no faith at all. He scrapped the 2025 U.S. Army Spiritual Fitness Guide and wants to renew chaplains’ religious focus, which he said in a December video message has been minimized “in an atmosphere of political correctness and secular humanism.”

Rabbi Laurence Bazer, a retired U.S. Army colonel and chaplain, said it risks making service members feel like outsiders when the language of military leadership draws exclusively from one faith tradition.

“The U.S. military reflects the full diversity of this country — people of every faith step forward to serve,” Bazer said in a statement. “That diversity is a strength worth protecting.”

Stanley writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Peter Smith in Pittsburgh , and AP reporter Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report..

March 15 (UPI) — The Department of Defense has identified the six U.S. service members killed during a refueling mission as part of the Iran war as three members of an Air Force refueling wing and three from the Ohio Air National Guard.

The six crew members were aboard a Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker — a refueling aircraft — when it crashed Thursday in western Iraq, which was considered friendly airspace.

Among the dead were four airmen assigned to the 6th Refueling Wing at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla.: Maj. John A. Klinner, 33, of Auburn, Ga.; Capt. Ariana G. Sabino, 31, of Covington, Wash.; and Tech Sgt. Ashley B. Pruitt, 34, of Bardstown, Ky. The three were part of the 99th Air Refueling Squadron based out of Sumpter Smith Joint National Guard Base in Birmingham, Ala.

Shortly after their identities were made public, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey offered her condolences on X.

“Three of the service members who lost their lives in duty to our nation were stationed at the 117th in Birmingham,” she posted. “They were not only outstanding Airmen. They were our neighbors — our fellow Alabamians. May their service and that of their families never be forgot.

Three others were assigned to the 121st Refueling Wing at Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base in Columbus, Ohio: Capt. Seth R. Kobal, 38, of Mooresville, Ind.; Capt. Curtis J. Angst, 30, of Wilmington, Ohio; and Tech Sgt. Tyler H. Simmons, 28, of Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and his wife, Fran DeWine, were mourning the loss of the three airmen who operated out of Ohio and were trained to do work that was “critical in long-distance missions in defense of our nation.”

“Every mission they undertook involved risks that they were willing to take and the courage to put the lives of others above their own,” he wrote in a post on X.

“They served with honor.”

The Pentagon said the crash that led to the service members’ deaths was under investigation. A second Boeing Stratotanker involved in the incident declared an emergency before landing in Tel Aviv with no one on board injured.

Thirteen U.S. service members have died in connection to the Iran war, which began in late February.

WASHINGTON — After two weeks of war with Iran, the Trump administration is being forced to temper its expectations of a swift end to the conflict, with U.S. intelligence and defense officials expressing doubt it can achieve the overthrow of Iran’s government and the destruction of its nuclear program through military means.

It was an outcome forewarned by analysts at the State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon, who together alerted the administration to the pitfalls full-scale war with Iran would bring before President Trump decided to proceed, two U.S. officials told The Times, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Certain military goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out at the start of the war are still seen as achievable at the Pentagon, with U.S. and Israeli strikes making steady progress degrading Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure, its drone program and its navy.

But a prewar U.S. intelligence assessment, that an air assault was unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic, still holds, with the intelligence community now casting doubt the assault had any more political effect than to radicalize a government already devoted to the destruction of Israel and harming the United States.

A military procession in Tehran carries the casket of Ali Shamkhani, political advisor to Iran’s last Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was also killed in U.S.-Israeli attacks.

(Atta Kenare / AFP/Getty Images)

Concern has only grown that Iran’s new government will make the fateful strategic decision to build a bomb after the war, unless Trump decides to escalate the conflict with a perilous ground invasion. And the White House now contends with a new mission imperative, created by its decision to launch the war itself, of reopening the Strait of Hormuz to vital shipping traffic that carries 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquid natural gas supply.

The foreign policy strategy Trump publicly laid out as his playbook for the conflict — to come down hard on the government, decapitating its leadership, and hope the remnants would seek mercy — has not worked, with Tehran looking for new ways to expand the war and maximize pain for the U.S. administration.

Trump has minimized the conflict as an “excursion” that would end “very soon,” while also calling it a war, vowing to take the time he needs to “finish the job.” He says it will conclude whenever he decides to end it.

It remains possible that a declaration from Trump that the fighting is over results in a ceasefire, as it did in June of last year, when Trump demanded an end to 12 days of war between Iran and Israel. But the Iranians have a vote, too — and senior leadership in the Islamic Republic have made plain they plan to continue fighting this time whether Trump likes it or not.

On Friday, the Pentagon announced that an additional expeditionary unit of 2,500 Marines was being deployed to the region to support the effort.

“Starting wars is an easy matter,” Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, wrote on social media. “Ending them does not happen with a few tweets.

“We will not leave you until you admit your mistake and pay its price,” he added.

It is a sore lesson for a president whose decade in public life has been distinguished by an exceptional ability to warp reality to his liking.

“The White House has created a dilemma for America: If it declares victory and ends the war, it leaves in place a weakened Iranian government with the means and renewed motivation to pursue nuclear weapons,” said Reid Pauly, a professor of nuclear security and policy at Brown University.

“If it presses on with the war,” Pauly added, “it risks the kind of mission creep that may eventually find American boots on the ground.”

In a news release last week, the White House said that, “from the opening hours of this historic campaign, the objectives were clear: obliterate Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity, annihilate its navy, sever its support for terrorist proxies, and ensure the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism will never acquire a nuclear weapon.”

Yet, at the start of the operation, Trump issued a promise to the people of Iran that, at the end of the U.S.-Israeli campaign, Iran’s military and paramilitary infrastructure would be so badly hobbled that a rare, generational opportunity would emerge for them to take their government back.

“To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump said. “Stay sheltered. Don’t leave your home. It’s very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

Trump said in the days that followed he would need to have a say over the next ruler, after assassinating the country’s longtime supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But the Iranian system of clerics and militants defied the president, selecting in Khamenei’s son a man viewed as even more hostile to the West than his father was.

Israeli leadership, too, set out regime change as a goal of the war. Yet even their officials now say that a substantial leadership change in Tehran is an unlikely result.

Trump would go on to insist on the “unconditional surrender” from the Iranian government, a demand that he later said would be satisfied by the incapacitation of Iran’s military.

Repeating his conviction that the war will end soon, Trump told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade in an interview Friday that he would order an end to the fighting “when I feel it. When I feel it in my bones.”

“The problem with the administration’s approach is that it has constantly shifted its goals. Some are achievable, such as degrading Iran’s conventional force. Others are not, such as picking the next leader of Iran,” said Ray Takeyh, a scholar on Iran at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The mixed messages have led to confusion at home,” Takeyh added, “and lack of planning for oil shortages and getting the Americans out of the region shows that process and personnel can actually matter.”

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the joint U.S.-Israeli campaign was always designed to unfold in three phases: degrading Iran’s ability to wage war, reducing Iran’s ability to repress democratic forces inside the country, and finally, encouraging the Iranian people to rise up.

“The president controls the strategy, but no president fully controls the endgame because the regime gets a vote,” Dubowitz said. “The endgame is not a scripted political transition directed from Washington. It is a regime under simultaneous military, economic, and internal pressure — to strip of its war-making and repression capabilities — and whether that produces succession, fracture, or collapse will ultimately be decided in Tehran.”

Whether the conflict will achieve the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is an equally grave question in Washington, where officials are debating over a list of stark options on how to physically destroy, bury or retrieve the fissile material that Tehran could use to build a nuclear weapon — a threat seen as only more grave under the stewardship of an angry and vengeful government.

“The war was publicly justified, to the extent it was justified at all, in terms of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. Very few strikes have been directed against nuclear-related targets, however — almost certainly because those that survived last June’s attacks are invulnerable to air attack,” said James Acton, co‑director of the nuclear policy program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“Unless the U.S. and Israel attempt high-risk special forces operations or a ground incursion,” he added, “Iran will end the war with its surviving nuclear infrastructure largely intact and greater incentives to build the bomb.”

Pauly agreed it is unrealistic to expect the United States and Israel can destroy Iran’s nuclear program through air power alone. The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran has roughly 440 kilograms — about 970 pounds — of 60% highly enriched uranium, possibly spread across multiple facilities.

“Securing this material will require either U.S. ground troops or, after some coercive bargain is reached, international inspectors,” Pauly said.

In an exchange with reporters last week at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had few details to offer on what U.S. options were to remove or eliminate an accessible uranium stockpile, enriched to near weapons grade, that had been buried in a U.S. operation last year intended on obliterating the nuclear threat.

Diplomacy, he suggested, might be required to secure the material.

“I will say we have a range of options, up to and including Iran deciding that they will give those up,” he told reporters, “which of course we would welcome.”