trump

Caracas, March 20, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US Treasury Department has issued a new sanctions waiver as the Trump administration seeks to deepen US control over Venezuela’s oil sector.

General License 52 (GL52), published on Wednesday, authorizes US entities to engage in transactions with Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA under conditions that limit Venezuelan sovereignty.

An updated FAQ from the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control clarified that the exemption allows US companies to engage in activities related to the exportation of Venezuelan-origin oil products, export diluents and inputs to Venezuela as well as enter into new contracts for oil and gas production.

However, in line with recent US licenses, GL52 mandates that all tax, royalty, and dividend payments be made into US Treasury-controlled accounts.

Following the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has taken control over Venezuelan crude exports while imposing conditions favorable to Western energy conglomerates.

Thus far, Washington has returned US $500 million out of an initial January deal worth $2 billion. US authorities have also confirmed Venezuelan imports of US-manufactured medicines and medical equipment. Trump officials had vowed that US energy revenues could only be used for purchases from US suppliers and that Caracas would need to submit a “budget request” to access its funds.

The White House issued GL52 amid soaring energy prices caused by the US and Israeli war against Iran. Tehran has responded to massive bombings by targeting US military assets in the region and closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Last week, the US Treasury amended licenses to allow US imports of fertilizers from Venezuela, as well as repair works in the South American country’s electric grid. Venezuela’s electrical infrastructure remains in a precarious state after years of US sanctions, and expanded power capacity is a precondition for recovery of the oil industry.

Despite the broadened waivers for corporations hand-picked by the White House to engage with Venezuela, PDVSA and its subsidiaries remain under financial sanctions, while third-country firms risk secondary sanctions should they enter into agreements without a US Treasury special license.

In late January, Venezuelan authorities approved a pro-business overhaul of the country’s Hydrocarbon Law, granting private companies reduced fiscal responsibilities, increased control over production and exports, and the possibility of taking disputes to international arbitration bodies.

Chevron and Shell, with US Treasury approval, were the first companies to take advantage of the new incentives. Chevron’s Petropiar joint venture with PDVSA was granted a new 500 square-kilometer bloc to drill for extra-heavy crude in the Orinoco Oil Belt, while Shell is set to take over light and medium crude and natural gas operations in the eastern state of Monagas.

Last week, European energy giants Eni and Repsol, who were also given the inside track by the White House, announced an agreement with the Venezuelan government for the development of the Cardón IV offshore natural gas project.

Eni and Repsol each own 50 percent stakes in Cardón IV, which has been in operation since 2009. Neither firm nor Caracas offered details on the renewed agreement, though both enterprises had lobbied for improved conditions and mechanisms to recoup accumulated debt due to US sanctions.

According to Bloomberg, ONGC Videsh (India), Maha Capital AB (Sweden), and J&F Investimentos (Brazil) are among the companies likely to receive special licenses for involvement in Venezuela’s oil sector as Washington seeks to counter rising crude prices. Nevertheless, analysts stress that the Venezuelan oil industry does not have the capacity to significantly ramp up output in the near future.

On March 11, the Trump administration formally recognized Acting President Delcy Rodríguez as Venezuela’s “sole authority,” days after Venezuela and the US reestablished diplomatic ties following a seven-year hiatus.

On Monday, Rodríguez appointed new executive boards for PDVSA’s US-based affiliates, including refiner CITGO. Asdrúbal Chávez, who held multiple roles in both PDVSA and CITGO since the 2000s, was picked as president of CITGO and its parent company, PDV Holding. At the time of writing, US authorities have not commented on the proposed new leadership for the companies, which had been run by the US-backed opposition since 2019.

CITGO is currently in the closing stages of a court-mandated auction that will see Venezuela lose ownership of its most prized foreign asset to address creditor claims against the country. The sale to Amber Energy, a subsidiary of vulture fund Elliott Management, is pending authorization from the US Treasury Department.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has been named in two separate criminal investigations led by prosecutors in the United States.

The New York Times was the first to report the existence of the two probes on Friday, citing sources familiar with the proceedings.

Media reports indicate that Petro is not personally the target of the investigations, which focus on drug-smuggling in Latin America.

But according to the Times, US attorneys in Brooklyn and Manhattan are looking into whether Petro met with drug traffickers and solicited donations from them for his 2022 presidential campaign. Al Jazeera has not independently verified the Times report.

By Friday afternoon, Petro had issued a statement denying the claims, which threaten to reopen the rift between the US and Colombia.

“In Colombia, there is not a single investigation into my relationship with drug traffickers, for one simple reason: I have never in my life spoken with a drug trafficker,” Petro wrote on the social media platform X.

He added that he told campaign managers to never accept donations from bankers or drug traffickers.

The investigations in the US, he argued, would ultimately exonerate him, and he blamed Colombia’s right-wing opposition for stirring controversy.

“So, the proceedings in the US will help me to dismantle the accusations of the Colombian far right, which is indeed closely linked to Colombian drug traffickers,” Petro said.

Petro has not been charged with any crimes, and the investigations are in their initial stages, according to the Times.

But experts say the timing of the report is significant, as it comes barely two and a half months before Colombia is set to hold a closely watched presidential election on May 31.

“If this would have happened a week before the first round, it would be election interference,” Sergio Guzman, director at Colombia Risk Analysis, a security think tank, told Al Jazeera.

“This seems to be more of a warning that shows how the US could influence the outcome of the election.”

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, is limited to a single term in office, but the election is likely to be a referendum on his four years in office.

It will also be a test for Petro’s Historic Pact coalition, whose candidate, Ivan Cepeda, is currently leading in the polls.

But United States President Donald Trump has repeatedly sought to boost the prospects of right-wing candidates in Latin America. He and Petro have been at loggerheads since Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Their feud came to a head in January after the US attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, Nicolas Maduro.

Shortly afterwards, a reporter asked if the US would take military action against Colombia. Trump replied: “It sounds good to me.”

To cool tensions, Trump and Petro held a call afterwards and agreed to meet.

Petro then visited the White House in early February to mend his often-combative relationship with Trump. While there, the Colombian delegation interacted with their counterparts, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, a longtime critic of Petro’s government, was also in attendance. Guzman believes the senator’s presence was significant.

“We don’t have a lot of straightforward answers about what were the commitments during that meeting, but Bernie Moreno did say that he wanted Petro not to be as involved in elections,” Guzman told Al Jazeera.

“And guess what? Petro is fully involved in the elections.”

The meeting also addressed collaborative efforts to combat drug trafficking, an issue core to Trump’s foreign policy.

Both presidents walked away from the meeting in good spirits, with Petro sharing a photo signed by Trump that read, “Gustavo – a great honor. I love Colombia.”

But Petro and Trump have long been at odds over how to tamp down on narcotics smuggling.

Colombia, the region’s largest producer of cocaine, has been criticised by the Trump administration for what it sees as soft-on-crime policies, including negotiations with armed groups.

Petro, meanwhile, has denounced the US for its lethal tactics, calling them tantamount to murder.

The US, for instance, has bombed at least 46 alleged drug boats and vessels in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Some of the 159 people killed were Colombian citizens.

The US has also floated the idea of conducting military attacks in Latin America against suspected drug traffickers, and it recently began joint operations against gangs in Ecuador, Colombia’s neighbour.

Analysts say actions like these have Latin American leaders on edge.

Trump’s aggressive manoeuvres suggest that the US president is willing to jeopardise “the sovereignty and peace of every nation” in his campaign against illicit drugs, according to Rodrigo Pombo Cajiao, a constitutional law professor at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.

Pombo Cajaio pointed to the US abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3. Maduro was a longtime adversary of Trump, and he is currently being held in prison in New York on drug-related charges.

“Every political leader in the region has been put on notice” after that abduction, Pombo Cajiao said.

“As the world’s leading producer of cocaine, Colombia found itself at high risk of judicial prosecution” from the US, he added.

Currently, Petro’s Historic Pact is leading May’s presidential race. A GAD3 poll released this week suggested Cepeda is ahead in the polls with 35 percent voter approval, ahead of far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, who had 21 percent.

Trump calls NATO cowardly over lack of support for Iran war, says Strait of Hormuz should be protected ‘by other nations who use it’.

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.

The US is moving military assets to the Middle East that are key to providing support for ground troop operations. Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett says it’s the clearest sign yet of potential US boots on the ground in Iran to secure the Strait of Hormuz.

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 — The Justice Department sent a subpoena to former FBI Director James Comey as part of an investigation into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials waged a years-long conspiracy against President Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.

The grand jury subpoena was issued last week by the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of Florida, according to the people, who asked not to be identified speaking about an ongoing investigation.

The subpoena seeks information about Comey’s role in putting together an intelligence assessment about Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to the people.

The U.S. attorney’s office has previously sent subpoenas to other former U.S. officials. The office is conducting a sweeping investigation into whether former U.S. officials allegedly took actions to sabotage Trump starting in 2016 through his indictment over the handling of classified documents in 2023.

The new subpoena, reported earlier by Axios, marks an escalation of Justice Department efforts targeting Comey in particular, who Trump has repeatedly said should be investigated.

Comey was previously indicted by a grand jury at the request of the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for allegedly lying to senators during a congressional hearing — a claim that Comey has denied. The indictment was dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the U.S. attorney was unlawfully appointed. The Justice Department is appealing the ruling.

A lawyer for Comey declined to comment Thursday. The U.S. attorney’s office in Miami didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump and Comey have had a contentious relationship. Trump fired Comey as FBI director in 2017 during his first term as president. Since then, Comey and Trump have publicly criticized each other.

Strohm writes for Bloomberg News.

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department filed a new lawsuit Friday against Harvard University, saying its leadership failed to address antisemitism on campus, creating grounds for the government to freeze existing grants and seek repayment for grants already paid.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, is another salvo in a protracted battle between the administration of President Trump and the elite university.

“The United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures,” the Justice Department wrote in the lawsuit. It asked the court to compel Harvard to comply with federal civil rights law and to help it “recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies awarded to a discriminatory institution.”

The lawsuit also asks a judge to require that Harvard call police to arrest protesters blocking parts of campus and to appoint an “independent outside monitor,” approved by the government, to ensure it complies with court orders.

Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit comes after negotiations appear to have bogged down in the months-long battle with the Trump administration that has tested the boundaries of the government’s authority over America’s universities. What began as an investigation into campus antisemitism escalated into an all-out feud as the Trump administration slashed more than $2.6 billion in research funding, ended federal contracts and attempted to block Harvard from hosting international students.

In a pair of lawsuits filed by the university, Harvard has said it’s being unfairly penalized for refusing to adopt the administration’s views. A federal judge agreed in December, reversing the funding cuts and calling the antisemitism argument a “smokescreen.”

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, a major association of colleges and universities, accused the administration of launching a “full scale, multi-pronged” attack on Harvard. Friday’s lawsuit, he said, is just the latest attempt to pressure Harvard to agree to changes favored by the administration.

“When bullies pound on the table and don’t get they want, they pound again,” Mitchell said.

The Trump administration began investigating allegations of discrimination against Harvard’s Jewish and Israeli students less than two weeks after the president took office. The allegations focus on Harvard’s actions during and after pro-Palestinian demonstrations during the Israel-Hamas war.

Officials concluded Harvard did not adequately address concerns raised about antisemitism that drove some students to conceal their religious skullcaps and avoid classes. During protests of the war, Trump officials said, Harvard permitted students to demonstrate against Israel’s actions in the school library and allowed a pro-Palestinian encampment to remain on campus for 20 days, “in violation of university policy.”

In its lawsuit Friday, the Justice Department also accused Harvard of failing to discipline staff or students who protested or tacitly endorsed the demonstrations, such as by canceling or dismissing classes that conflicted with protests.

“Harvard University has failed to protect its Jewish students from harassment and has allowed discrimination to wreak havoc on its campus,” White House press secretary Liz Huston said Friday on X. “President Trump is committed to ensuring every student can pursue their academic goals in a safe environment.”

Despite their bitter dispute, Harvard and the Trump administration have held some negotiations, and the two sides have reportedly been close to reaching an agreement on multiple occasions. Last year, the administration and the university were reportedly approaching a deal that would have required Harvard to pay $500 million to regain access to federal funding and to end the investigations. Almost a year later, Trump upped that figure to $1 billion, saying that Harvard has been “behaving very badly.”

At the same time, the administration was taking steps in a civil rights investigation that had the potential to jeopardize all of Harvard’s federal funding.

In June, the Trump administration made a formal finding that Harvard tolerated antisemitism.

In a letter sent to Harvard, a federal task force said its investigation had found the university was a “willful participant” in antisemitic harassment of Jewish students and faculty. The task force threatened to refer the case to the Justice Department to file a civil rights lawsuit “as soon as possible,” unless Harvard came into compliance.

When colleges are found in violation of federal civil rights law, they almost always reach compliance through voluntary agreements. When the government determines a resolution can’t be negotiated, it can try to sever federal funding through an administrative process or, as the Trump administration has done, by referring the case to the Justice Department through litigation.

Such an impasse has been extraordinarily rare in recent decades.

Last summer, Harvard responded that it strongly disagreed with the government’s investigative finding and was committed to fighting bias.

“Antisemitism is a serious problem and no matter the context, it is unacceptable,” the university said in a statement. “Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community.”

In a letter last spring, Harvard President Alan M. Garber told government officials that the school had formed a task force to combat antisemitism, which released a detailed report of what unfolded on campus after Hamas militants stormed Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 251 others. Israel retaliated with an offensive that killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and displaced around 90% of Gaza’s population — prompting pro-Palestinian demonstrations at colleges around the country.

After the demonstrations at Harvard, Garber said the university had hired a new provost and new deans and that it had reformed its discipline policies to make them “more consistent, fair and effective.”

Since he took office, Trump has targeted elite universities he believes are overrun by left-wing ideology and antisemitism. His administration has frozen billions of dollars in research grants, which colleges have come to rely on for scientific and medical research.

Several universities have reached agreements with the White House to restore funding. Some deals have included direct payments to the government, including $200 million from Columbia University. Brown University agreed to pay $50 million toward state workforce development groups.

Balingit and Casey write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal arts commission on Thursday approved the final design for a 24-karat gold commemorative coin bearing President Trump’s image to help celebrate America’s 250th birthday on July 4.

The vote by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, whose members are supporters of the Republican president and were appointed by him earlier this year, was without objection. It clears the way for the U.S. Mint to begin production on the coin, whose size and denomination are still under discussion.

“As we approach our 250th birthday, we are thrilled to prepare coins that represent the enduring spirit of our country and democracy, and there is no profile more emblematic for the front of such coins than that of our serving President, Donald J. Trump,” U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said in a statement.

The unprecedented move marks yet another example of Trump and his allies circumventing conventional past presidential practices — and even the law — to get what he wants. It’s the latest instance of Trump putting his name and likeness in the historical archive, following his renaming of the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center performing arts venue and a new class of battleships, among other tributes.

Federal law says no living president can appear on U.S. currency. But Megan Sullivan, the acting chief of the Office of Design Management at the Mint, said the Treasury secretary has authority to authorize the minting and issuance of new 24-karat gold coins, which Scott Bessent has used to get around that prohibition and put Trump on a coin.

She presented the coin’s final design at the commission’s March meeting on Thursday and said Trump had approved it.

“It is my understanding that the secretary of the Treasury presented this design, as well as others, to the president and these were his selection,” Sullivan said.

The White House and the Mint did not immediately respond to electronic and telephone requests for comment.

The front of the coin features an image of Trump in a suit and tie and with a stern look on his face. His fists rest on top of what is supposed to be a desk as he leans forward. Lettering on the top half of the coin spells “LIBERTY” in a slight arc. Directly underneath that are the dates 1776-2026. The words “IN GOD WE TRUST” are at the bottom, with seven stars on one side of the coin and six stars on the other side.

The reverse side depicts a bald eagle midflight with “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” on the right side and “E PLURIBUS UNUM” on the left side.

“I know it’s a very strong and a very tough image of him, and I think it’s fitting to have a current sitting president who’s presiding over the country over the 250th year on a commemorative coin for said year,” said Commissioner Chamberlain Harris, a top White House aide to Trump.

The coin will be part of a “very limited production run,” Sullivan said, but the number has not been determined. The size and denomination of the coin also have not yet been decided, she said. Some commissioners noted Trump’s fondness for big things as they advocated for the largest size coin.

The Mint, which is part of the Treasury Department, has looked at a size for the Trump coin that is larger than its 1-ounce gold coin, which is about 1.3 inches in diameter, Sullivan said.

Its largest coin is 3 inches, “so we’re looking somewhere in there,” she said.

“I think the president likes big things,” said Commissioner James McCrery II, who was the architect on Trump’s design proposal for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom addition to the White House. The fine arts commission approved that proposal at its February meeting.

Harris told McCrery she agreed with him. She works in the White House as a special assistant to the president and deputy director of the Oval Office.

“I think the larger the better. The largest of that circulation, I think, would be his preference,” Harris said, speaking of Trump.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Health and environment advocacy groups in the United States are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw a key 2009 climate change ruling known as the “endangerment finding”.

That finding had established that greenhouse gases are a risk to public health and environmental safety, given that they are the primary drivers of climate change. It formed the legal basis for many regulatory policies aimed at curbing climate change.

When US President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”, rescinded the declaration in February this year, the EPA supported the move, deeming it the “single largest deregulatory action in US history”.

The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday this week, alleges that the Trump administration’s decision will risk the health and welfare of US citizens.

“Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, the associate vice president of clean air strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Trump’s revocation of the endangerment finding is the latest in a series of steps he has taken to prioritise deregulation, boost fossil fuel production and reverse climate regulations.

But Trump is not the first US president to enact policy damaging to the environment. Here’s how decades of US policy have harmed the environment before he arrived in the White House

What is the ‘endangerment finding’?

The endangerment finding was established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama. It states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.

That ruling allowed the EPA under President Obama to move forward on policy aimed at limit the release of greenhouse gases in the US, Michael Kraft, professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Al Jazeera.

Under the endangerment finding, power plants were required to meet federal limits on carbon emissions or risk being shut down. This forced oil and gas companies to invest more to detect and fix methane leaks, curb flaring, and improve tailpipe and fuel‑economy standards to enable automobile companies to manufacture more efficient, lower‑emitting vehicles.

What does rescinding it mean?

“By allowing for increased pollution, these recent changes [by the Trump administration] will harm practically every single person on the planet,” Washington, DC-based policy researcher Brett Heinz told Al Jazeera.

“People living near fossil fuel facilities will be some of the most immediately affected, as they will be exposed to the new air and water pollution unleashed by deregulatory policies,” Heinz added.

Without the endangerment finding in place, the EPA has lost a key legal basis on which to limit greenhouse gas emissions, making it easier for coal plants, oil refineries and petrochemical complexes to run older, dirtier equipment for longer, expand without installing modern pollution controls, and emit more soot, smog‑forming gases and toxic chemicals into nearby communities.

Heinz explained that higher greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and industry as well as continued deforestation will also amplify the dangers posed by natural disasters. This is because increased warming exacerbates heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts, and raises sea levels – all of which turn existing natural hazards into more frequent and more destructive disasters.

“The only people who will benefit from these decisions are a small handful of wealthy fossil fuel executives and shareholders, who will see healthy profits while the world grows sick. These fossil fuel elites, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s presidential campaign, have now gotten a return on this investment,” Heinz said.

Experts say that Trump’s decision to entirely do away with environmental policy is unlike any president before him.

“The White House’s tidal wave of new pro-pollution policies is completely unprecedented. While past administrations have modified environmental rules, the second Trump administration is essentially trying to eliminate them entirely. So far, this has been the most radically anti-environmental presidency in American history,” Heinz said.

How have previous US presidents endangered the environment?

Trump is by no means the first US president to enact policy which is damaging to the environment, however.

Under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909, Congress passed the Reclamation (Newlands) Act of 1902, which treated land and rivers primarily as raw material for large infrastructure projects rather than as ecosystems in need of protection.

This was furthered by Democrat Harry Truman, who was president from 1945 to 1953 and pushed for rapid post‑war industrial and suburban expansion by commissioning the construction of interstate highways and promoting car‑centric development.

Under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961, the interstate highway system burgeoned, and the private car became a developmental priority in the US.

While Republican Richard Nixon, who was president from 1969 to 1974, signed key environmental laws, he also backed massive fossil‑fuel expansion. Under Nixon, the highly toxic herbicide, known as Agent Orange, was used by the US military during the Vietnam War.

Republican Ronald Reagan, who was president from 1981 to 1989, appointed people to the EPA and the Department of Interior who pushed for expanded oil, gas, coal and timber extraction on public lands.

To facilitate this, they favoured deregulation and industry interests, and rolled back existing environmental policy, slashing budgets for EPA enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, easing rules on toxic emissions and pesticides, and opening up more federal land – including wilderness and wildlife habitat – to oil, gas, mining and logging activities.

Republican George W Bush, who was president from 2001 to 2009, refused to ratify the 1997 UN-backed emissions reductions Kyoto Protocol and actively undermined global climate negotiations by formally withdrawing US support for Kyoto in 2001, appointing senior officials who questioned climate science, and pushing voluntary, industry-friendly approaches instead of binding emissions cuts.

While Obama, who was president from 2009 to 2017, introduced several landmark climate regulations, he also oversaw the fracking boom, making the US the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and locking in long-term fossil infrastructure.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and gas, a process believed to cause methane leaks, groundwater contamination, heavy water use and increased local air pollution.

Democrat Joe Biden, who was president from 2021 to 2024, approved large fossil projects such as the Willow project in Alaska. This involved oil development on federal land in the National Petroleum Reserve, projected to pump hundreds of millions of barrels of crude over several decades.

Figures released by the the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suggested that the project would release 239 million to 280 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. The project, approved in 2023 and ongoing, was projected to continue for 30 years.

Biden also backed LNG export growth by approving new and expanded export terminals and long‑term export licences, allowing companies to lock into multidecade contracts to ship US gas to Europe and Asia.

Is this a partisan issue?

No.

“The failure of US policymakers to aggressively tackle global warming is not so much a Democrat versus Republican matter,” Steinberg said.

“It’s neoliberalism, a form of corporate freedom, that is the heart of the problem. A bipartisan consensus on the need for economic growth has led to a general trend toward weakening environmental regulations,” he added.

The US once led the world in conservation by creating an extensive national park system in the 19th century, Ted Steinberg, a history professor at the US-based Case Western Reserve University, told Al Jazeera.

“That was then. US corporate interests, especially the fossil fuel industry, combined with the one-party political system, in which both Republicans and Democrats indenture themselves to the business class, have caused the United States to drag its feet on global warming,” Steinberg said.

What is the history of Washington’s impact on the environment?

The US has historically been the largest contributor to global warming, experts say.

“As in most countries, US environmental policy has been a response to the problems caused by industrialisation and urbanisation, starting in the mid-19th century and proceeding from there, happening at the local, state and national levels,” Chad Montrie, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told Al Jazeera.

“Much of that policy has been limited and inadequate, especially when corporations were able to exert their influence, but in some cases, it has been ahead of what other nations were doing,” Montrie, who specialises in environmental history, added.

There was a time when environmental policy was bipartisan. The EPA was, in fact, created by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970.

“It wasn’t until the rise of pro-business politics in the 1980s that Republicans like President Reagan took a hard turn against environmental protections,” Heinz said.

“The Democratic Party continues to believe in environmental protection and climate-friendly policies to some degree, while the Republican Party has become one of the few political parties worldwide that completely denies the scientific facts around climate change.”

How does this affect the rest of the world?

“US policy often sets the standards for policy in other parts of the world, both because of its cultural influence and because of the control that the US has over global bodies like the International Monetary Fund,” Heinz said.

“Right now, the US is actively pushing dirty fossil fuels on the rest of the world and even threatening some of its allies for trying to negotiate new environmental agreements.”

Heinz explained that this pressure, coupled with soaring energy prices, seems to have convinced Europe to retreat from some of their climate goals. Household electricity prices jumped by about 20 percent across the European Union between 2021 and 2022, according to Eurostat data.

Heinz said that if the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP negotiations are any indication, global climate ambition appears to be on the decline right now.

The latest conference concluded in November 2025 in Brazil with a draft proposal which did not include a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, nor did it mention the term “fossil fuels” at all. This drew rebuke from several countries attending the conference.

“So long as Donald Trump remains in office, the hope of future generations relies upon the nations of the world coming together and acting responsibly to preserve a healthy environment at a time when the United States has gone truly mad.”

It was no surprise when Joe Kent showed up on Tucker Carlson’s podcast a day after quitting his counterterrorism job in President Trump’s administration. Here was a top official who resigned to protest the war with Iran turning to right-wing media’s leading critic of the conflict.

“The Israelis drove the decision to take this action,” Kent said in Wednesday’s interview.

But before long, the conversation moved in a different direction as Kent nodded to conspiracy theories that pro-Israel forces were behind the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

“I’m saying there are unanswered questions,” Kent said.

The conversation encapsulated two schisms within the Republican Party and the right-wing media system, both of which have reached high into the national security establishment of the Trump administration.

There’s a foreign policy debate over the wisdom of Trump’s war with Iran and the future of the United States’ longstanding alliance with Israel.

But there also are fears that the focus on Israel is the leading edge of an antisemitic fringe that has gained ground by portraying Jews as shadowy manipulators, echoing some of history’s most hateful tropes.

Tucker Carlson is playing a central role

At the center of both issues is Carlson, a former Fox News host who remains influential among conservatives. He was previously denounced for hosting Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and antisemite, on his podcast last year. During the interview, Fuentes complained about “organized Jewry in America.”

On Wednesday, Carlson was sharply critical about Israel, saying “its lobbying in the United States pressured the president.”

Matt Brooks, president of the Republican Jewish Coalition, described Kent’s appearance on Carlson’s podcast as “part of an ongoing problem.”

He noted that his group opposed Kent’s nomination as director of the National Counterterrorism Center because of ties to right-wing extremism. Trump ignored those concerns even though, as he said after Kent’s resignation, “I always thought he was weak on security” and “I didn’t know him well.”

Kent’s resignation letter trafficked in antisemitic conspiracy theories while raising concerns about the war with Iran.

He blamed “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” for encouraging conflict. Indeed, Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu encouraged Trump to join forces in an attack on Iran.

But Kent also went further, saying it’s “the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.” He also said his wife, a Navy cryptologist who was killed by a suicide bomber in Syria, died “in a war manufactured by Israel.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, described the letter as “virulent antisemitism.” Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat, said “scapegoating Israel isn’t just a tired antisemitic trope — it’s anti-American.”

Kent has previously rejected all forms of “racism and bigotry.”

Trump has said nothing about Kent’s remarks on Israel. He previously disputed the idea that Israel pushed him toward war, saying, “I might have forced their hand.”

Unified Republican support for Israel has fractured

Questions about Israeli influence are not unique to right-wing circles. Progressives have also faced accusations of antisemitism for their response to the war in Gaza, which began with an attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.

But it’s been a widening fault line within the Republican Party, which has been a bedrock of support for Israel over the years. Conservatives are still reckoning with the fallout from Carlson’s interview with Fuentes.

For example, board members and other staff members resigned from the Heritage Foundation after the think tank’s president defended Carlson.

Trump tried to sidestep the issue, declining to criticize Fuentes and praising Carlson for having “said good things about me over the years.” The president previously dined with Fuentes at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., between his two terms, and Carlson has continued to visit the White House.

Mort Klein, president of the conservative Jewish group the Zionist Organization of America, said Wednesday that he supports Trump but “I’d like him to do more” about antisemitism.

“I want him to be stronger on those issues,” Klein said.

Carlson has said that he is not antisemitic. But he has said that anti-Jewish hate is less pervasive in society than bias against white people and that some Christian politicians who were fervent supporters of Israel were guilty of heresy.

The Iran war is poised to continue fracturing right-wing media.

Ben Shapiro, co-founder of The Daily Wire, called Carlson’s Fuentes interview “an act of moral imbecility” and accused the host of misleading his audience with falsehoods and conspiracy theories.

He’s also feuded with Candace Owens, who has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories. Dennis Prager, a conservative commentator, wrote in an open letter to Owens that “I cannot think of anyone in public life engendering as much suspicion of Jews, Zionism and Israel as you.”

Megyn Kelly, like Carlson a former Fox News Channel anchor now helming her own independent media empire, said the war was sold to the American people by “Israel firsters, like Mark Levin.” Levin, a radio and Fox personality, has been among Trump’s most fervent supporters of the war.

Levin, for his part, called Kelly an “emotionally unhinged, lewd and petulant wreck.”

It promises to continue.

Levin posted on social media an invitation to Kent to appear on his show in the coming days.

“Sure,” Kent replied. “Let’s go.”

Beaumont and Bauder write for the Associated Press.

The United States Commission of Fine Arts, a federal agency, has approved plans for a commemorative gold coin that features one of Donald Trump’s recent presidential portraits.

The commission, made up of Trump appointees, voted unanimously in favour of minting the coin on Thursday. But the legality of such efforts has been repeatedly questioned.

Federal law prohibits the depiction of living presidents on US currency. Thursday’s coin, however, may sidestep the rule, as it is intended as a commemorative item, not for circulation as currency.

Still, the Trump administration has advanced other plans to put the president’s face on a $1 coin, in addition to the commemorative gold coin.

Critics denounced both initiatives as unlawful and inappropriate for a sitting leader.

“Monarchs and dictators put their faces on coins, not leaders of a democracy,” Senator Jeff Merkley told the news agency Reuters.

The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, a bipartisan federal panel, has previously pushed back against efforts to mint Trump-themed coins.

One of its members, Donald Scarinci, said that the panel and the Commission of Fine Arts are both supposed to approve such designs.

“But we still fully expect them to plough ahead and mint both coins,” Scarinci said of the commission.

The gold coin is set to feature a bald eagle on one side, and Trump on the other, leaning with both fists on the table and staring straight ahead.

The image is a facsimile of a black-and-white image of Trump taken by photographer Daniel Torok and featured in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, DC.

“I know it’s a very strong and a very tough image of him,” said Chamberlain Harris, a Trump aide who was appointed to arts commission earlier this year.

Harris indicated that the Trump gold coin would be as large as possible. The US Mint currently produces coins as large as 7.6 centimetres, or three inches, which is what Harris said the Trump administration would aim for.

“I think the larger the better. The largest of that circulation, I think, would be his preference,” Harris said, referencing her discussions with the president.

Megan Sullivan, the acting chief at the Office of Design Management at the US Mint, also indicated that Trump had given the design his approval.

“It is my understanding that the secretary of the Treasury presented this design, as well as others, to the president, and these were his selection,” Sullivan said.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has pushed to leave his mark on the federal government.

In addition to the gold coin and $1 coin that are slated to bear his image, he has placed his name on the US Institute of Peace and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Both efforts are the subject of ongoing lawsuits. An act of Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, designating it as a living memorial to the late John F Kennedy, a president who was assassinated in office in 1963.

Likewise, the US Institute of Peace was established by Congress as an independent think tank dedicated to conflict resolution.

It was the subject of a standoff between its leadership and members of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) last March, culminating in its employees being forcibly evicted.

Trump has also placed his face on government buildings around Washington, DC, in the form of long banners.

Even the architecture of the city is changing to reflect his tastes: Last October, he tore down the White House’s East Wing in order to build a massive ballroom, and he has plans to build a triumphal arch in the capital, similar to the one in Paris, France.

Trump has pitched many of the changes as part of the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations, which culminate this July.

At Thursday’s meeting to discuss the gold coin, his officials repeated the argument that celebrating Trump was a good way to mark the anniversary.

“I think it’s fitting to have a current sitting president who’s presiding over the country over the 250th year on a commemorative coin for said year,” said Harris.

WASHINGTON — Before Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi departed for Washington, she told her nation’s lawmakers that her Oval Office meeting with President Trump on Thursday would be “very difficult.”

Actually, it was awkward.

After a reporter questioned Trump about not warning Japan before launching his “surprise” offensive in Iran, Trump said that surprise was the point.

“Who knows better about surprise than Japan?” Trump said, turning toward a visibly tense Takaichi, seated next to him. “Why didn’t you tell me about Pearl Harbor, OK?”

The joke hung in the air. There was brief and muted laughter.

Takaichi’s eyes appeared to widen, but she kept her expression neutral as the the cameras rolled. She did not comment on the president’s remark. (She smiled at other times during their meeting.)

When leaders of the United States and Japan have raised the events of Dec. 7, 1941 — the day of “infamy” that plunged the U.S. into World War II — the circumstances have previously been far more solemn.

In 2016, President Obama and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe scattered petals together on the waters of Pearl Harbor to honor the more than 2,400 killed in the attack. Abe laid a wreath in honor of the dead.

“Ours is an alliance of hope that will lead us to the future,” Abe said, speaking to World War II veterans after paying tribute at the Pearl Harbor memorial. “What has bonded us together is the power of reconciliation, made possible through the spirit of tolerance.”

Japan, long constrained by its pacifist constitution, is now under intense pressure from the White House to support the U.S.-led war in Iran.

“Look, I expect Japan to step up, because, you know, we have that kind of relationship, and we step up in Japan. We have 45,000 soldiers in Japan,” Trump said. “We spend a lot of money on Japan, and we’ve had that kind of relationship.”

Trump has made a habit of going off script during televised Oval Office encounters with foreign leaders.

A meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky devolved into an on-camera shouting match with Trump and Vice President JD Vance repeatedly berating Zelensky for “gambling with World War III” and not showing enough gratitude for U.S. support.

And when South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited the White House, he said he was “ambushed” when Trump dimmed the lights and played a video promoting widely debunked claims of white genocide in South Africa.

By comparison, the Japanese prime minister’s summit in Washington was mild. For her part, Takaichi focused her statements on a new $550-billion trade pact involving Alaskan oil.

As for Iran, along with America’s European allies, Takaichi had already signaled she would not send warships to the embattled Persian Gulf to protect oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. But Takaichi promised cooperation in other areas, perhaps in a logistical support role.

“I firmly believe that it is only you, Donald, who can achieve peace across the world,” she told Trump.

The Trump administration said Thursday that it has launched investigations into 13 states that require state-regulated health insurance plans to cover abortion.

The inquiries are the latest in a long-running dispute between the political parties on how to interpret a provision, known as the Weldon Amendment, that’s included in federal spending laws each year. It bars states from discriminating against health entities that don’t provide, cover or refer for abortion.

When Democrat Joe Biden was president, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office said the provision didn’t pertain to employers or other healthcare sponsors. The Trump administration said this year that it does.

The administration says that potentially puts states with abortion coverage requirements in violation of the law, because they may not allow employers or other healthcare issuers to opt out. It said it was sending out letters to gather more information from those states.

The Health and Human Services civil rights office launched the investigations “to address certain states’ alleged disregard of, or confusion about, compliance with the Weldon Amendment,” office Director Paula M. Stannard said in a statement.

“Under the Weldon Amendment, health care entities, such as health insurance issuers and health plans, are protected from state discrimination for not paying for, or providing coverage of, abortion contrary to conscience. Period,” Stannard said.

The states with the coverage requirements are California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. All except Vermont have Democratic governors.

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill said in a statement Thursday that she’ll defend her state’s policies.

“New Jersey requires health insurance plans to follow all applicable laws, including protecting women’s reproductive freedom. So Donald Trump’s latest ‘investigation’ is nothing but a fishing expedition wasting taxpayers’ money,” she said.

The Weldon Amendment is one of a series of provisions known as conscience laws, which provide legal protections for individuals and healthcare entities that choose to not provide abortions or other types of care because of religious or moral objections.

In the years since it was enacted in 2005, there’s been a “partisan swing” in how broadly or narrowly it is interpreted depending on which party is in office, according to Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC Davis.

Ziegler said the fact that employers and plan sponsors are not mentioned among healthcare entities in the text of the Weldon Amendment could give Democrats an edge with their interpretation, but the question has yet to be resolved in court.

Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said the Heritage Foundation’s massive policy proposal known as Project 2025 called for an incoming Trump administration to withhold Medicaid funding for states found to violate the Weldon Amendment.

“What we’re seeing here is the fulfillment of a promise to the religious right,” she said.

President Trump’s first administration in 2020 moved to withhold federal healthcare funding from California over what it interpreted as a Weldon Amendment violation, but the Biden administration entered office the next year and reversed the decision.

Mulvihill and Swenson write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — In the escalating war in Iran, the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs would ordinarily be at the center of the geopolitical fray.

Typically led by a veteran diplomat, the bureau’s role would be to coordinate U.S. foreign policy across an 18-country region, much of which has become a chaotic battlefield scarred by drone and missile strikes as the U.S. and Israel remain locked in conflict with Iran.

The Trump administration for a time put Mora Namdar, a lawyer of Iranian descent with limited management experience, in charge before later moving her to a different post. One of her credentials was her contribution to Project 2025, a conservative think tank’s blueprint for the second Trump administration. Namdar’s last Senate-confirmed predecessor was a longtime Middle East expert who had been with the department since 1984 and had served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.

Now that bureau is also working with far fewer resources. The administration’s most recent budget proposed a 40% cut to the bureau, though Congress eventually enacted less dramatic cuts. The administration also eliminated the dedicated Iran office, merging it with the Iraq office.

Staff reductions and management choices hamper emergency response

These kinds of personnel and management choices — coupled with President Trump’s moves to shrink government and confine decision-making to a tight circle — are limiting the ability of the United States to handle a global emergency, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former U.S. officials, many of whom recently left government.

In divisions of the State Department that typically would handle the Iran response, numerous veteran diplomats with decades of collective experience were fired, retired or were reassigned — replaced by more junior officials or political appointees. The administration cut more than 80 staffers in Near Eastern Affairs, according to numbers compiled by a State Department employee who was terminated last year based on surveys of colleagues. (The department does not release official figures on Foreign Service officer staffing levels but did not dispute the number.)

The Trump administration has left the assistant secretary position in charge of Near Eastern Affairs vacant, along with key ambassadorships in the Middle East. Four of the five supervisors in the bureau have temporary titles.

The current and former officials, some of whom asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters during an active conflict, paint a portrait of an understaffed government workforce struggling to execute the president’s agenda. Those who remain tell colleagues that their analysis, recommendations and advice go unheeded.

The State Department vigorously disputed those assessments.

“As far as we can tell, AP’s entire ‘report’ on the evacuations does not include any conversations with people actually involved. Instead, it relies on ‘outside’ or ‘former official’ sources that have no idea what they are talking about. We walked AP through specific inaccuracy after specific inaccuracy — indeed how the whole premise was wrong,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

More than 3,800 State Dept. employees departed since Trump took office

The State Department saw a departure of more than 3,800 employees since President Trump took office through a combination of reductions in force, staffers taking the Fork in the Road deferred resignation plan and ordinary retirements. According to estimates by the American Foreign Service Association, the labor union that represents foreign service officers, senior foreign service ranks were disproportionately represented in the layoffs compared to their share of the overall workforce.

“He’s making choices without the larger expertise of the United States government that would flag issues of consequence,” said Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that studies federal workforce issues. “Sometimes government is slow-moving because there are a lot of different factors that need to be balanced against each other.”

For instance, the administration appears to have been caught off guard by what would happen once the U.S. struck Iran — something Trump himself acknowledged this week when he expressed surprise that Tehran retaliated with strikes on American allies in the region. “Nobody expected that. We were shocked. They fought back,” Trump told reporters this week.

Pigott said staffing reductions “are not having any negative impact on our ability to respond to this operation, our ability to plan, and our ability to execute in service to Americans.” He added that the department “rejects the premise that key decisions were made without meaningful input from experienced professionals.”

But Iranian retaliation on U.S. allies was predictable, according to former officials, as well as previous war games and conflict models run by both the U.S. military and private organizations. The National Security Council, which Trump has pared, typically would have presented the president with analysis from experts within the bureaucracy.

Instead, decisions are made by a small group of officials close to the president without the planning or coordination of the larger machinery of government, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security adviser.

“In the Trump Administration, decisions are made by President Trump and senior administration officials and not by no-name bureaucrat leakers who whine to the press about not being consulted about highly classified operations,” White House spokesperson Dylan Johnson said.

Advice from career officials often went unheeded

“In the time that I was there, there was no policy process to speak of,” said Chris Backemeyer, who served in Near Eastern Affairs as a deputy assistant secretary of state before resigning last year. Backemeyer was a major proponent of the Iran deal that Trump abandoned. He recently left government to run for Congress as a Democrat in Nebraska.

“They did not want to hear any advice from career people,” said Backemeyer.

Namdar was later moved to be the head of Consular Affairs, the part of the department responsible for providing assistance to American citizens overseas and issuing visas to foreign visitors.

When the U.S. made the decision to strike Iran, Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee offered embassy staff in Jerusalem the opportunity to evacuate — a sign that he knew strikes were coming. But some other embassies in the region did not make similar arrangements — leaving nonessential personnel and their families stranded in a war zone.

The department said it has been issuing travel warnings since January and was fully staffed to handle the crisis the moment the strikes were launched.

Evacuation planning was chaotic

Still, little planning appears to have gone into how to evacuate the Americans who were living, working, visiting or studying in many of the countries that became engulfed in the conflict — in part because the White House seems to have underestimated the possibility of the strikes expanding into a prolonged multi-country war, as evidenced by Trump’s own remarks.

After Iranian attacks on allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the State Department began calling for Americans to leave the region. But numerous former Consular Affairs staffers say such planning should have begun long before U.S. strikes started.

In a statement posted to social media, Namdar only told Americans to evacuate several days into the conflict, when airspace was largely closed and many commercial flights were unavailable.

“The messaging that went out to American citizens — after the U.S. struck Iran — was woefully late and, initially, confusing,” said Yael Lempert, who served as U.S. ambassador to Jordan until 2025. Lempert is one of five former ambassadors expected to speak about the department’s failures at an event Thursday at the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington.

Other poorly executed evacuations, such the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, have drawn criticism.

But this time they’re compounded by the loss of experienced people, officials say. Consular Affairs has lost more than 150 jobs in the Trump administration due to a combination of reductions in force, dismissals of probationary employees and retirements, according to a U.S. official who asked for anonymity — though other parts of the department were hit much harder.

The department notes that it has offered assistance to nearly 50,000 Americans impacted by the conflict, with more than 60 flights evacuating citizens from the region. In total, the department says more than 70,000 Americans have been able to return home since the outbreak of hostilities on Feb. 28.

Democrat says personnel reduction imperiled safety

“The loss of experienced personnel through these RIFs has clearly undermined the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ ability to fulfill its most important mission, to protect Americans abroad,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.

Language skills at the department are also atrophying. Thirteen Arabic speakers and four Farsi speakers, all trained at taxpayer expense, were among employees let go, according to a draft letter being circulated by former foreign service officers.

It can cost $200,000 to train a foreign service officer in a language. The letter estimates that the total number of people fired by the State Department in the name of efficiency received more than $35 million in taxpayer-funded language training and more than $100 million in total training and other career development.

The State Department has set up two temporary task forces to deal with the crisis in the Middle East. One aims to bolster the capacities of Near East Affairs and another is aimed at helping Consular Affairs evacuate Americans.

A group of more than 250 Foreign Service officers were part of the administration’s reduction-in-force last year but still remain on the State Department’s payroll. Many have volunteered to return to the department to work on either a task force or do any other job that needs to be done with the outbreak of a global crisis.

“I haven’t been given any separation paperwork. I still have an active clearance. I could go back to the department tomorrow, either to backfill or staff a task force,” said one foreign service officer who asked for anonymity because they are still technically on the department’s payroll and are not authorized to speak to the press. “I will do the scutwork jobs.”

The department hasn’t responded to their offer but said in a statement that the task force is “fully staffed.”

Tau writes for the Associated Press.

South Korea and Japan are facing uncomfortable questions about their mutual defensive obligations as the United States seeks support from its allies in the war on Iran, now nearly three weeks in and escalating by the day.

Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump urged the United Kingdom, China, France, Japan, and South Korea to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, which has remained de facto closed since Washington launched its war with ally Israel on Tehran on March 28.

The president backpedalled on his position on Tuesday – declaring on social media that “we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance – WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea” – but observers say US allies may not yet be out of the hot seat.

Trump is expected to raise the issue of warships when he meets with Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi at the White House on Thursday, according to Al Jazeera correspondent Jack Barton.

“People do expect him to put pressure on Takaichi again to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz. It makes sense in a way because Japan is so dependent on energy supplies” from the Middle East, Barton said on Thursday from Seoul.

Japan’s Maritime Self-Defence Force is one of the largest and most advanced navies in the world, he said, which makes it an attractive target for the Trump Administration.

Although Japan and the US share a mutual defence, Tokyo’s pacifist constitution places restrictions on when it can deploy its Self-Defense Force. Legal scenarios include when it is attacked or facing a “survival-threatening” scenario, as well as acting in “collective self-defence” of its allies.

Takaichi told legislators this week that her government is considering what can legally be done to protect Japanese ships and interests, according to Japanese public broadcaster NHK World, although deployment is still a hypothetical scenario.

Japan relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil imports, of which 70 percent pass through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Japanese media. Tokyo began releasing oil from its strategic reserve on Monday to make up for the shortfall.

Stephen Nagy, a professor at the International Christian University, Tokyo, told Al Jazeera it was not unexpected that the US – a treaty ally – would call on it for help, but Japan will need to consider what is expected.

“The question is if they are going to be on the front line of the attack from Iran or if they are going to provide some kind of supporting role, such as anti-mining activities, refuelling missions, maritime domain awareness,” he said.

“It’s not so much of a problem going there and being involved in the challenges associated with the Hormuz Strait; what is more important is what exactly they are going to do in that role. I think the Japanese are going to find a way to legally add value to the Trump administration, but don’t expect warships there fighting Iranian proxies,” he continued.

South Korea finds itself in a similar predicament as it is both a US treaty ally and a country that is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil and gas exports.

Seoul last week took the extraordinary measure of imposing a price cap on domestic fuel prices for the first time since the 1997 Asian financial crisis, to keep prices from rising too quickly for consumers. Despite their concerns, legislators continue to urge caution from the government in deploying its navy or military assets to the Middle East, according to Al Jazeera’s Barton.

In-Bum Chun, a retired South Korean lieutenant general, told Al Jazeera that it is not immediately clear whether Seoul’s Mutual Defense Treaty with the US applies to the Strait of Hormuz.

Seoul must also weigh helping the US against maintaining a credible deterrence against North Korea. Recent media reports suggest that the US is considering moving some of its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles from South Korea to the Middle East. The missiles were installed to deter North Korea, and their removal, along with naval assets, could make voters nervous.

“Seoul must also consider the persistent threat from North Korea and the fact that a South Korean warship is already deployed to the Middle East,” Chun told Al Jazeera. “At the same time, because about 70 percent of Korea’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, freedom of navigation is not an abstract principle but a core national interest. These competing realities must all be weighed before any final decision is reached.”

Donald Trump said the US was unaware of Israel’s South Pars strike and warned Iran against targeting Qatar.

WASHINGTON — U.S. companies will be allowed to do business with Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company after the Treasury Department eased sanctions, with some limitations, on Wednesday as the Trump administration looks for ways to boost world oil supplies during the Iran war.

The Treasury issued a broad authorization allowing Petróleos de Venezuela S.A, or PDVSA, to directly sell Venezuelan oil to U.S. companies and on global markets, a massive shift after Washington for years had largely blocked dealings with Venezuela’s government and its oil sector.

Separately, the White House said President Trump would waive, for 60 days, Jones Act requirements for goods shipped between U.S. ports to be moved on U.S.-flagged vessels. The 1920s law, designed to protect the American shipbuilding sector, is often blamed for making gas more expensive.

The moves highlight the increased pressure that the Republican administration is under to ease soaring oil prices as the United States, along with Israel, wages a war with Iran without a foreseeable end date. Global oil prices have since spiked as Iran halted traffic through the narrow Strait of Hormuz, where one-fifth of the world’s oil typically passes through from the Persian Gulf to customers worldwide.

The Treasury’s license is designed to incentivize new investment in Venezuela’s energy sector and is intended to benefit both the U.S and Venezuela, while increasing the global oil supply, a Treasury official told the Associated Press. The official was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Since the ouster and arrest of Nicolás Maduro as Venezuela’s president during a U.S. military operation in January, Trump has said the U.S. would effectively “run” Venezuela and sell its oil.

The U.S. license provides targeted relief from sanctions, but does not lift the penalties altogether. The license allows companies that existed before Jan. 29, 2025, to buy Venezuelan oil and engage in transactions that would normally be banned under American sanctions, reopening trade for a major oil producer to global markets.

There are some limits.

Payments cannot go directly to sanctioned Venezuelan entities such as PDVSA, but must be sent instead to a special U.S.-controlled account. In other words, the U.S. will allow the oil trade but will control the cash flow.

Additionally, deals involving Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and some Chinese entities will not be allowed. Transactions involving Venezuelan debt or bonds will not be allowed.

The license is expected to give a massive boost to Venezuela’s oil-dependent economy and help encourage companies that have been apprehensive to invest. The decision is part of the Trump administration’s phased-in plan to turn around Venezuela. But critics of the acting Venezuelan government argue that the move rewards Venezuela’s leadership — all loyal to Maduro and the ruling party — while repression, corruption and human rights abuses continue.

Many public sector workers survive on roughly $160 per month, while the average private sector employee earned about $237 last year, when the annual inflation rate soared to 475%, according to Venezuela’s central bank, and sent the cost of food beyond what many can afford.

Venezuela sits atop the world’s largest oil reserves and used them to power what was once Latin America’s strongest economy. But corruption, mismanagement and U.S. economic sanctions saw production steadily decline from the 3.5 million barrels per day pumped in 1999, when Maduro’s mentor, Hugo Chávez, took power, to less than 400,000 barrels per day in 2020.

A year earlier, the Treasury Department under the first Trump administration locked Venezuela out of world oil markets when it sanctioned PDVSA as part of a policy punishing Maduro’s government for corrupt, anti-democratic and criminal activities. That forced the government to sell its remaining oil output at a discount — about 40% below market prices — to buyers such as China and in other Asian markets. Venezuela even started accepting payments in Russian rubles, bartered goods or cryptocurrency.

The new license does not allow payments in gold or cryptocurrency, including the petro, which was a crypto token issued by the Venezuelan government in 2018.

Meantime, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the Jones Act waiver would help “mitigate the short-term disruptions to the oil market” during the Iran war and would “allow vital resources like oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and coal to flow freely to U.S. ports.”

Hussein and Cano write for the Associated Press. Cano reported from Caracas, Venezuela. AP writer Seung Min Kim contributed to this report.

GENEVA — The public wrangling between Iran, FIFA and U.S. President Donald Trump over the narrative of playing in the World Cup shifted on Tuesday to Mexico where President Claudia Sheinbaum seemed open to a suggestion by Islamic Republic diplomats that Iran’s games in June be moved to her country.

The Iranian ambassador and embassy in Mexico City said the country was negotiating with FIFA to move Iran’s three group-stage matches from the United States to Mexico after Trump last week discouraged the team from attending the 48-nation tournament, citing safety concerns.

It was already unclear whether such talks were even happening before FIFA said such unprecedented changes in World Cup history were not planned to a match schedule agreed three months ago.

Sheinbaum was asked about it Tuesday during her daily briefing.

“They are discussing with FIFA whether it’s feasible because they were going to hold the [games] in the United States,” she said. “They are looking into whether they can hold [them] in Mexico, and we will inform you when the time comes. Mexico has relations with all countries in the world. We’ll see what FIFA decides and then we’ll announce it.”

In a statement, FIFA said it is “in regular contact with all participating member associations, including [the Islamic Republic of] Iran, to discuss planning for the FIFA World Cup 2026. FIFA is looking forward to all participating teams competing as per the match schedule announced on Dec. 6, 2025.”

The Feb. 28 start of U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran that killed the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials immediately cast doubt on the national soccer team going to play at least three World Cup games in the U.S., which is co-hosting the most watched global sports event with Mexico and Canada.

Iran’s soccer federation has not canceled its World Cup entry with FIFA, though official comments have variously suggested the U.S. is unable or unwilling to ensure the delegation’s secure arrival and accommodation.

Since last week, Trump has variously said “I don’t really care” if the Iran team comes, that it was welcome and would be treated like all players as stars, and that the players’ safety was at risk.

In comments posted late Monday on the embassy website, Iran’s Ambassador to Mexico Abolfazl Pasandideh urged FIFA to move the team’s games to Mexico, saying the U.S. was not cooperative on visas.

“We love the Mexican people very much and for us, the best situation is for our games to be held in Mexico,” he was quoted as saying by state-run news agency IRNA.

An Iranian government spokesman and the team itself have said in recent days it is up to FIFA and the U.S. to keep the team safe during the World Cup. The Iran team’s planned training camp is in Tucson.

Pasandideh’s embassy in Mexico City also posted a statement attributed to national soccer federation president Mehdi Taj saying Iran wants to move its group-stage matches out of the U.S.

“When Trump has explicitly stated that he cannot ensure the security of the Iranian national team, we will certainly not travel to America,” the statement said. “We are currently negotiating with FIFA to hold Iran’s matches in the World Cup in Mexico.”

Iran is scheduled to play New Zealand on June 15 and Belgium on June 21 at SoFi Stadium before finishing group play in Seattle against Egypt on June 26.

Moving the games would be remarkable less than three months before the World Cup and risks being judged a failure in the history of tournament hosting.

It also is not envisaged by Iran’s first opponent.

New Zealand soccer federation chief executive Andrew Pragnell said Monday: “I also don’t foresee it as remotely feasible” to move scheduled games to another country. Tens of thousands of tickets have been sold for Iran games, including to visiting fans who have booked flights to the U.S.

“By trying to move the match schedule, you actually create more problems down the track,” Pragnell told New Zealand media outlet Stuff, adding “I don’t think it’ll happen.”

The Belgian soccer federation declined to comment Tuesday.

Trump said last week that the Iran team was welcome at the World Cup despite the ongoing war in the Middle East but “I really don’t believe it is appropriate that they be there, for their own life and safety.”

Iran’s mixed signals include Sports Minister Ahmad Donyamali telling state TV last week that it was not possible to play “due to the wicked acts they have done against Iran.”

But after Trump’s post the national team said on Instagram that “no one can exclude” it from the tournament and a government spokesman in Tehran stressed it was the responsibility of FIFA and the U.S. as a co-host nation to keep players safe and secure.

“FIFA is the organizer of the World Cup,” Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said. “When warnings are issued at the highest level about the environment being unsafe for Iranian football players, this indicates that the host country apparently lacks the capacity and ability to provide security for such an important sporting event.”

Soccer is followed passionately in Iran, a nation of more than 90 million people which has qualified for seven men’s World Cups and each of the past four editions. The team is ranked No. 20 in the world by FIFA and behind only Japan from Asia.

FIFA has not commented in recent days beyond an Instagram post by president Gianni Infantino last week that he’d received assurances from Trump that Iran was welcome at the tournament.

Dunbar and Pye write for the Associated Press. Amir-Hussein Rajdy in Cairo and Fabiola Sanchez in Mexico City contributed to this report.

March 18 (UPI) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard defended U.S. military strikes on Iran during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Wednesday, calling them a strategic success.

Senators challenged Gabbard to reconcile the words of President Donald Trump with the intelligence her department has received on Iran. When pressed, Gabbard yielded that Trump has the final say on what threats the United States faces.

When the United States performed strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June, Trump said Iran’s nuclear capabilities were “obliterated.” Earlier this month, he said Iran’s development of nuclear weapons posed an imminent nuclear threat to national security, justifying military action.

Gabbard affirmed Wednesday that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was “obliterated” in the June strikes.

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard said. “That is up to the president, based on a volume of information he receives.”

Gabbard was once a vocal opponent of engaging in a war with Iran, even selling shirts that read “No War With Iran” in 2019 while she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Iran is one of the United States’ top adversaries, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s “Annual Threat Assessment” said. China, Russia and North Korea are also on that list.

In the 19 days since the war with Iran began, Gabbard said the Iranian regime “appears to be intact but largely degraded.”

“Even so, Iran and its proxies remain capable of and continue to attack U.S. and allied interests in the Middle East,” Gabbard said. “The IC assesses that if a hostile regime survives it will seek to begin a yearslong effort to rebuild its missiles and UAV forces.”

WASHINGTON — The Iranian government remains “intact but largely degraded,” National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard told Congress on Wednesday, as Israel continued to hunt down the Islamic Republic’s leadership with an overnight airstrike that killed the nation’s spy chief.

The death of Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, announced Wednesday by Israel, was the third high-level assassination in roughly 24 hours in a series of strikes that have hollowed out Tehran’s leadership ranks.

Israel ordered strikes Tuesday that killed Iranian security chief Ali Larijani and Basij paramilitary commander Gholamreza Soleimani.

Additional senior Iranian figures could be targeted, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Wednesday. “Israel’s policy is clear and unequivocal: No one in Iran has immunity — everyone is a target,” Katz said.

Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s new supreme leader, issued a rare statement Wednesday addressing Larijani’s assassination.

“Undoubtedly, the assassination of such a person shows the extent of his importance and the hatred of the enemies of Islam towards him,” he wrote, according to the Associated Press. “All blood has its price that the criminal murderers of the martyrs must pay soon.”

Tehran responded with renewed missile and drone attacks on Israel and U.S.-aligned countries across the Persian Gulf, further disrupting strained energy infrastructure and shipping lanes. Fighting has halted oil and gas production throughout the region, as shipping was stalled through the Strait of Hormuz, a key artery for global oil supplies.

The war has triggered a severe global oil shortage that has destabilized electronics, agriculture, pharmaceutical and energy supply chains.

Exacerbating those disruptions, the U.S. and Israel carried out a coordinated attack on the South Pars natural gas field on Wednesday. The strikes drew swift condemnation from Qatar, a U.S. ally that shares the reservoir with Iran. The Qatari Foreign Ministry called the attack “dangerous and irresponsible” and “a threat to global energy security.”

The attack is a major blow to Iran’s supply of electricity too, as most of the country’s energy grid relies on gas, analysts said. The field accounts for about 75% of Iran’s natural gas production.

Tehran promised to respond with more attacks on its Mideast neighbors, the Associated Press reported.

Meanwhile, near-constant Israeli strikes in Beirut and southern Lebanon have displaced over 1 million people, and killed 968 civilians, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry.

With the war in its third week, deaths now number in the thousands across Iran, Israel and neighboring countries.

International reaction has sharpened as the fighting showed no sign of relenting. Russia condemned the “murder and liquidation” of sovereign leadership and called for an immediate ceasefire, while European leaders voiced growing alarm about the war’s trajectory and the risks of broader destabilization.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testifies Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Intelligence.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

All allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have refused to heed President Trump’s call to send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, signaling a deepening rift in the world’s most powerful military alliance. Trump has sought to sever the U.S. from the alliance.

“We no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID! “ he wrote on social media Tuesday.

Trump on Wednesday signaled little appetite for de-escalation, floating the prospect of a decisive military endgame.

“I wonder what would happen if we ‘finished off’ what’s left of the Iranian Terror State,” he wrote on his social media website.

The president visited Dover Air Force Base in Delaware on Wednesday, where the remains of six U.S. service members killed in the crash of a refueling aircraft were returned to their families. The visit marks the second time since the Feb. 28 launch of the war with Iran that Trump has attended the solemn military ritual known as a dignified transfer, the Associated Press reported.

At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on “worldwide threats” Wednesday, Democrats grilled Gabbard and other intelligence leaders over their preparation for Iranian retaliation against Mideast energy infrastructure, civilian areas and American military sites and personnel.

Trump has maintained that the U.S. was caught off guard by Iran’s retaliatory strikes.

“Nobody expected that. We were shocked,” he said at a Kennedy Center board meeting Monday. Later in the day, when asked at an Oval Office news briefing whether he had been warned about the possibility of Iranian retaliation, Trump reiterated his surprise.

“Nobody, nobody, no, no, no. The greatest experts — nobody thought they were going to hit,” he said.

Last year, intelligence agencies testified to Congress that Iran was capable of inflicting substantial damage on an attacker, executing regional strikes and disrupting shipping, “particularly energy supplies, through the Strait of Hormuz,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at the hearing, reading from last year’s worldwide threats report.

“In other words, every problem we’re seeing now was not only foreseeable, but was actually predicted by the intelligence agencies,” Wyden told Gabbard. “It’s hard to see how you can sit here and say that the intelligence agencies couldn’t provide a clear warning that if attacked, the Iranians would respond by attacking our people.”

Gabbard refused to confirm whether intelligence agencies briefed the president on the subject, saying she “won’t divulge internal conversations.”

She also testified that U.S. strikes on Iran had “obliterated” the country’s nuclear enrichment program, including underground facilities, and said officials are now watching to see whether Tehran attempts to rebuild. So far, she said, Iran has not restarted the program.

But Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) challenged that assessment, noting that Trump had used the same word — “obliterated” — to describe strikes just months before. He pressed Gabbard on how serious the nuclear threat was leading up to the February operation, given that timeline.

The intelligence community assessed that Iran “maintained the intention to rebuild and to continue to grow their nuclear enrichment,” Gabbard said adding that the “only person” who can determine what constitutes an imminent threat is the president.

“False,” Ossoff shot back. “It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States.”