Trump

The Trump administration must turn over a cache of documents, photos, internal reports and other evidence detailing the activities of the military in Southern California, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, handing a procedural victory to the state in its fight to rein in thousands of troops under the president’s command.

Ordering “expedited, limited discovery,” Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the federal court in San Francisco also authorized California lawyers to depose key administration officials, and signaled he might review questions about how long troops remain under federal control.

The Department of Justice opposed the move, saying it had “no opportunity to respond.”

The ruling follows a stinging loss for the state in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday, when an appellate panel struck down Breyer’s temporary restraining order that would have returned control of the troops to California leaders.

Writing for the court, Judge Mark R. Bennett of Honolulu said the judiciary must broadly defer to the president to decide whether a “rebellion” was underway and if civilians protesting immigration agents had sufficiently hampered deportations to warrant an assist from the National Guard or the Marines.

Bennett wrote that the president has authority to take action under a statute that “authorizes federalization of the National Guard when ‘the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.’”

But neither court has yet opined on California’s other major claim: that by aiding immigration raids, troops under Trump’s command violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws.

Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, argued the White House is abusing the post-Civil War law — known in legal jargon as the PCA — by having soldiers support Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

“There isn’t a dispute that what the National Guard is doing right now is prohibited by the PCA — legally it absolutely has to be,” said Agarwal. “Going out with ICE officers into the community and playing a role in individual ICE raids really feels like what the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prohibit.”

In his June 12 order, Breyer wrote that charge was “premature,” saying that there was not yet sufficient evidence to weigh whether that law had been broken.

The 9th Circuit agreed.

“Although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,” Bennett wrote. “Before the district court, Plaintiffs argued that certain uses of the National Guard would violate the Posse Comitatus Act … We express no opinion on it.

Now, California has permission to compel that evidence from the government, as well as to depose figures including Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., the director of the ICE field office in L.A., and Maj. Gen. Niave F. Knell, who heads operations for the Army department in charge of “homeland defense.”

With few exceptions, such evidence would immediately become public, another win for Californians, Agarwal said.

“As the facts are further developed in this case, i think it will be come more abundantly clear to everyone how little this invocation of the National Guard was based on,” she said.

In its Monday briefing, the Trump administration argued that troops were “merely performing a protective function” not enforcing the law.

“Nothing in the preliminary injunction record plausibly supports a claim that the Guard and Marines are engaged in execution of federal laws rather than efforts to protect the personnel and property used in the execution of federal laws,” the Justice Department’s motion said.

The federal government also claimed even if troops were enforcing the law, that would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act — and if it did, the Northern District of California would have only limited authority to rule on it.

“Given the Ninth Circuit’s finding, it would be illogical to hold that, although the President can call up the National Guard when he is unable ‘with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,’ the Guard, once federalized, is forbidden from ‘execut[ing] the laws,’” the motion said.

For Agarwal and other civil liberties experts, the next few weeks will be crucial.

“There’s this atmospheric Rubicon we have crossed when we say based on vandalism and people throwing things at cars, that can be justification for military roaming our streets,” the lawyer said. “There was more unrest when the Lakers won the Championship.”

US President Donald Trump said he does not support regime change in Iran, calling it a path to chaos, and claimed nuclear weapons are “the last thing on Iran’s mind right now.” Israel and Iran are observing a ceasefire after 12 days of hostilities.

THE HAGUE — Aboard Air Force One over the Atlantic on Tuesday, President Trump turned his attention for a brief moment from the diplomatic victory he had brokered between Israel and Iran to one that has proven far more elusive.

“I’d like to see a deal with Russia,” Trump told reporters before arriving in the Netherlands for a NATO summit and referencing his private conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the war in Ukraine. “Vladimir called me up. He said, ‘Can I help you with Iran?’ I said, no, I don’t need help with Iran. I need help with you.”

“I hope we’re going to be getting a deal done with Russia,” Trump added. “It’s a shame.”

It was a rare expression of frustration from Trump with Putin at a critical time in Moscow’s war against Ukraine, and as Ukrainian leaders and their allies in Europe desperately seek assurances from Trump that U.S. assistance for Kyiv will continue.

The president will be at the summit in The Hague through Wednesday, where he is expected to meet with leaders from across Europe, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. “Now we’re going to NATO — we’ll get a new set of problems,” Trump said of the meetings. “We’ll solve a new set of problems.”

The European bloc hopes to leverage Trump’s jubilation over the outcome of Israel’s war with Iran — which saw its nuclear program neutered and much of its military leadership and air defenses eliminated — into a diplomatic success for itself, European officials told The Times. After ordering U.S. precision strikes against three of Iran’s main nuclear facilities over the weekend to assist the Israeli campaign, Trump announced a ceasefire in the conflict on Monday that has tentatively held.

“The message will be that deterrence works,” one European official said. The hope, the official added, is that Trump will feel emboldened to take a more aggressive stance toward Russia after succeeding in his strategic gamble in the Middle East.

In The Hague, discussions among NATO and European officials have focused on Russia’s timetable for reconstituting its land army, with the most aggressive analyses estimating that Moscow could be in a position to launch another full-scale attempt to take over Ukraine — or a NATO member state — by 2027.

In a text message sent to Trump, screenshots of which he posted to social media, NATO Secretary Gen. Mark Rutte fawned over the president’s “decisive action” to bomb Iran, a decision he called “truly extraordinary.”

“Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” Rutte wrote. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

Rutte was referencing a new commitment by members of the alliance to spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, a significant increase that has been a priority for Trump since his first term in office.

The matter is not fully settled, with Spain resisting the new spending commitment. “There’s a problem with Spain, “ Trump told reporters on the plane, “which is very unfair to the rest of the people.”

But the new funding — “BIG” money, as Rutte put it — could help appease a president who has repeatedly expressed skepticism of the NATO alliance.

As he spoke with reporters, Trump questioned whether Article 5 of the NATO charter, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, in fact requires the United States to come to the defense of its allies.

“There are numerous definitions of Article 5, [but] I’m committed to being their friends,” he added. “I’ve become friends with many of those leaders, and I’m committed to helping them.”

Trump has failed thus far to persuade Putin to agree to a ceasefire against Ukraine despite applying pressure to both sides — particularly against Kyiv, which Trump has incorrectly blamed for starting the war.

In the Dnipro region of Ukraine on Tuesday, 160 people were injured and 11 were killed in a ballistic missile strike by Moscow, Zelensky wrote on social media.

“Russia cannot produce ballistic missiles without components from other countries,” Zelensky said. “Russia cannot manufacture hundreds of other types of weapons without the parts, equipment and expertise that this deranged regime in Moscow does not possess on its own. That is why it is so important to minimize the schemes that connect Russia with its accomplices. There must also be a significant strengthening of sanctions against Russia.”

Assuming a similar strategy to the Europeans, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in an interview on Sunday that Congress should act to enable Trump with leverage against Putin in upcoming negotiations.

“How does this affect Russia?” Graham responded on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” when asked about the war with Iran. “I’ve got 84 co-sponsors for a Russian sanctions bill that is an economic bunker-buster against China, India and Russia for Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine.”

“I think that bill’s going to pass,” he added. “We’re going to give the president a waiver. It will be a tool in Trump’s toolbox to bring Putin to the table.”

The ceasefire between Israel and Iran is already showing signs of strain – and has triggered frustration, and a televised expletive, from United States President Donald Trump, who accused Israel of undermining the deal just hours after its announcement.

The ceasefire, brokered by the US and Qatar, came into effect late Monday following days of intensive missile barrages between the two foes. Israel’s last wave of strikes targeted Iranian military infrastructure near Isfahan, prompting retaliatory drone launches by Tehran.

Iran violated the ceasefire, “but Israel violated it too”, Trump told reporters on the White House’s South Lawn on Tuesday as he departed for the NATO summit.

“So I’m not happy with them. I’m not happy with Iran either. But I’m really unhappy if Israel is going out this morning.”

“I’ve got to get Israel to calm down,” he said. “Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came out and dropped a load of bombs, the likes of which I’ve never seen before.”

As he prepared to head to a NATO summit in The Hague in the Netherlands, Trump’s anger flared on the White House Lawn: “We have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the f*** they’re doing.”

A day earlier, Trump boasted on his Truth Social app that “the Ceasefire is in effect!”

“ISRAEL is not going to attack Iran. All planes will turn around and head home, while doing a friendly ‘Plane Wave’ to Iran. Nobody will be hurt,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s unusually public display of anger at Israel saw the US leader apparently trying to force his ally to call off warplanes in real time on Tuesday.

Earlier the same morning, he had posted on Truth Social: “ISRAEL. DO NOT DROP THOSE BOMBS” – without it being clear which bombs he was referring to.

“IF YOU DO IT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION. BRING YOUR PILOTS HOME, NOW!”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to quickly accede, with his office saying in a statement on Tuesday that Israel still carried out one more attack near Tehran after Trump’s appeal, but is refraining from “further strikes”.

Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz had said earlier on Tuesday that he had ordered the military to mount new strikes on targets in Tehran in response to what he claimed were Iranian missiles fired in a “blatant violation” of the ceasefire.

Iran denied launching any missiles and said Israel’s attacks had continued for an hour and a half beyond the time the ceasefire was meant to start.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that his country would not fire at Israel if it was not fired upon, but that a “final decision on the cessation of our military operations will be made later”.

Despite the rocky start, Trump voiced support for the ceasefire itself, clarifying he is not seeking regime change in Iran, after some mixed messaging in recent days, and insisting that the ceasefire remains in effect.

If it holds, the truce would be a big political win for Trump in the wake of his risky gamble to send US bombers over the weekend to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran that Israel and the United States claim were being used to build an atomic bomb in secret.

US intelligence and the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog had previously recorded no indication Iran was developing a nuclear weapon.

Reporting from Tehran, Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said Iranian officials appeared to welcome Trump’s remarks, viewing them as a potential opening for diplomatic engagement.

“It might give the impression that Trump is serious about this ceasefire,” Hashem said.

In Washington, Al Jazeera’s Phil Lavelle, said Trump is feeling “quite annoyed” at and perhaps “betrayed” by Netanyahu violating the ceasefire.

“He was angry with both Israel and Iran. But you could really tell some of the extra anger there, the extra fury was aimed at Israel,” Lavelle said.

The US leader had said the truce would be a phased 24-hour process beginning at about 04:00 GMT Tuesday, with Iran unilaterally halting all operations first. He said Israel would follow suit 12 hours later.

Israel has been bombing Iran in an offensive that began June 13. The US joined the attack with a mission starting overnight Friday to Saturday against the deeply-buried and hard-to-access Fordow complex and two other sites.

Iranian officials say more than 400 people have been killed in air strikes. Retaliatory missile strikes have killed 28 people in Israel, the first time large numbers of Iranian missiles have penetrated – and on a daily basis – its much vaunted air defence systems, which mainly the US has provided.

WASHINGTON — President Trump isn’t the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad.

Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.

His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict.

Even after Trump announced late Monday that a “complete and total ceasefire” between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump’s action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran.

Here’s a closer look at what the act does and doesn’t do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond:

Dividing war powers between Congress and the president

Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn’t already issued a declaration of war.

It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its “collective judgement” to send troops into “hostilities.” The War Powers Resolution calls for the president “in every possible instance” to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces.”

But when Congress enacted the law, “it didn’t install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs,” said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

“Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action,” Anderson said. And “the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it’s hard to say it’s in clear contradiction” to the War Powers Resolution.

Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were “limited in scope and purpose” and “designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation.”

In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term.

If Congress doesn’t authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president “terminate any use” of the armed forces. “That’s the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution,” Anderson said.

How past presidents have used it

Congress hasn’t declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Nixon’s veto.

Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn’t require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn’t an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002.

Throughout his presidency, President Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn’t rise to the level of “hostilities” set forth in the War Powers Resolution.

What Congress is doing now

Trump’s actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn’t broken cleanly along party lines.

Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a “complete and total” ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours.

Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill’s sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come “as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday.” He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday.

“There will be Republicans who will support it,” Kaine said. “Exactly how many, I don’t know.”

He added that, “this is as fluid a vote as I’ve been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day.”

Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump’s actions on Monday and said he’s operating within his authority.

“There’s always a tension between Congress’ power to declare war and the president’s power as commander in chief,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could.”

A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached.

Khanna was undeterred.

“In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization,” Khanna said. “We still need a vote.”

Askarinam and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

Published on
24/06/2025 – 7:59 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

Stocks rallied on Tuesday after US President Trump said that a “complete and total ceasefire” between Iran and Israel would take effect in the coming hours.

Iran’s foreign minister denied that an official ceasefire agreement had been reached, but noted that Tehran would not continue its attacks as long as Israel halted its “aggression”. At the time of writing, Israel had yet to comment.

The truce, which Trump is labelling the end of the “12-day war”, came after Iran attacked a US base in Qatar on Monday, retaliating against the US bombing of its nuclear sites over the weekend.

In response to Tuesday’s development, oil prices dropped as fears over a blockage to the Strait of Hormuz subsided. 

About 20% of global oil and gas flows through this narrow shipping lane in the Gulf.

Brent crude, the international standard, dropped 2.92% to $69.39, while WTI dropped 3.18% to $66.35.

Last week, Brent reached over $78 a barrel, a level not seen since the start of this year.

Looking to the US, S&P 500 futures rose 0.58% to 6,112.00 on Monday, while Dow Jones futures increased 0.51% to 43,118.00.

Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 jumped 0.89% to 8,550.10, South Korea’s Kospi rose 2.75% to 3,097.28, and the Shanghai Composite index climbed 1.07% to 3,417.89.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 2% to 24,162.70 and the Nikkei 225 increased 1.16% to 38,796.39.

The US Dollar Index slipped by 0.32% to 98.10. The euro gained 0.25% against the dollar while the yen dropped 0.48% in comparison to the greenback.

Economists had suggested that persistent threats to oil would increase the value of the US dollar and hurt other currencies such as the euro, notably as the US economy is more energy independent.

Greg Hirt, chief investment officer with Allianz Global Investors, told Euronews earlier this week that although the dollar may see a short lift on the Iran-Israel conflict, “structural issues around a twin deficit and the Trump administration’s volatile handling of tariffs should continue to weigh on an overvalued US dollar”.

June 23 (UPI) — President Donald Trump early Tuesday announced a cease-fire between Israel and Iran was in effect, seven hours after he announced plans for the truce, half a day after Iran struck a U.S. military base in Qatar and 11 days after Israel’s first airstrikes.

After his 6 p.m. Monday truce plans, Trump posted on Truth Social after 1 a.m. EDT: “THE CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!”

On Tuesday morning in Iran and Israel, media in both countries reported the cease-fire began after strikes were reported on both sides.

Earlier, Trump posted on Truth Social that the war pause would take effect just after midnight on the U.S. East Coast, with the war slated to officially end a day later.

The U.S. president said there are two 12-hour cease-fire periods, starting with Iran and then Israel.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his nation would stop fighting if Israel stops strikes, posting on X: “The military operations of our powerful Armed Forces to punish Israel for its aggression continued until the very last minute, at 4 a.m. [8 p.m. EDT[.”

Israel hadn’t confirmed the cease-fire and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was meeting with his security cabinet, a source told CNN.

“During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL.” Trump wrote. “On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, ‘THE 12 DAY WAR’. This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”

Trump later told NBC News in an interview that “I think the cease-fire is unlimited. It’s going to go forever.” Trump said he doesn’t believe Israel and Iran “will ever be shooting at each other again.”

And in a follow-up post on Truth Social at 10:18 p.m., Trump wrote: “Israel & Iran came to me, almost simultaneously, and said, “PEACE!” I knew the time was NOW. The World, and the Middle East, are the real WINNERS! Both Nations will see tremendous LOVE, PEACE, AND PROSPERITY in their futures. They have so much to gain, and yet, so much to lose if they stray from the road of RIGHTEOUSNESS & TRUTH. The future for Israel & Iran is UNLIMITED, & filled with great PROMISE. GOD BLESS YOU BOTH!”

Trump and his U.S. Vice President JD Vance negotiated with top Qatari leaders, who took the proposal to Iran, a diplomat told NBC News and CNN. Trump spoke with Netanyahu and Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

“We were actually working on that just as I left the White House to come over here,” Vance told Fox News. “So that’s good news, that the president was able to get that across the finish line.”

Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also is Trump’s National Security adviser, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff negotiated the terms, CNN reported.

The United States entered the war early Sunday with B-2 bomber airstrikes on three nuclear sites two days ago in an effort to present Iran from having an atomic bomb. The seven planes took 18 hours to fly from Missouri to Iran. Decoys also flew west to Guam.

After Trump’s announcement, Israel military told residents in the Tehran neighborhoods of Mehran and District 6 that it will carry out operations there. And Iran warned people in the Ramat Gan suburb of Tel Aviv to evacuate, according to the semi-official Mehr News Agency.

A residential building in southern Israel took a “direct hit” from an Iranian missile strike early Tuesday in the city of Beer Sheva , according to Israel’s emergency services, Magen David Alom. At least three people were killed and six others were being treated with light to moderate injuries,.

Before Trump’s announcement, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei posted on X: “Those who know the Iranian people and their history know that the Iranian nation isn’t a nation that surrenders.”

It was his first comments since U.S. struck the nation.

Iran strikes major U.S. base

Iran retaliated though it gave the United States advance notice it would strike the U.S. airbase in Qatar.

Qatar’s defense ministry said its air defenses “successfully” intercepted the missiles, and there were no deaths or injuries. The U.S. also used Patriots to stop the missiles.

The base in Doha was attacked “by short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles originating from Iran,” a U.S. defense official told CNN.

“At this time, there are no reports of U.S. casualties,” the official said. “We are monitoring this situation closely and will provide more information as it becomes available.”

Iran’s Armed Forces said they “targeted the Al Udaid base in Qatar with destructive and forceful missiles,” according to a statement obtained by The New York Times.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran, relying on Almighty God and the faithful, proud people of Iran, will never leave any aggression against its territorial integrity, sovereignty, or national security unanswered,” the statement read.

Iran said it used the same number of bombs the U.S. used to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, the secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council said. The seven B-2’s dropped 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators. U.S. Tomahawk missiles also were used.

Trump thanked Iran for giving advance notice of the airstrikes.

“Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “There have been 14 missiles fired – 13 were knocked down, and 1 was ‘set free,’ because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done. Most importantly, they’ve gotten it all out of their “system,” and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE.”

Qatar called the attack “a flagrant violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and airspace.”

“We affirm that the state of Qatar reserves the right to respond directly, proportionate to the nature and scale of this blatant aggression and in accordance with international law,” Majed Al-Ansari, a spokesperson for the Qatari Foreign Ministry, said in a statement Monday.

Video by CNN shows burning debris falling next to a highway in Qatar after Iranian missiles fired at US base Al-Udeid were intercepted.

Air raid sirens sounded in Bahrain, which is close to Qatar and where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered. In addition to Qatar, United Arab Emrites, Kuwait and Iraq closed their airspace. But they later were reopened.

Airspace remains closed in Iran but flights resumes in Israel on Monday.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine were in the Situation Room, a White House official told CNN.

The New York Times reported loud booms were heard in Doha, the capital of Qatar. Lights were going upward, apparently part of a missile defense system, and some objects were seen falling to earth.

The base, which is heavily fortified, has been on high alert in the past few days for Iranian retaliatory attack after missiles targeted nuclear facilities early Sunday local time.

The base is the headquarters of U.S. Central Command and has 10,000 military and civilian personnel.

Non-sheltered American planes were moved from the base, according to a satellite image taken Thursday that shows tarmacs nearly empty.

Also, all U.S. Navy ships deployed at the base Bahrain left port last week. The U.S. has two aircraft carriers in the region — the USS Carl Vinson and the USS Nomitz — and the USS Ford, the newest carrier in the 11-ship fleet, will deploy from Norfolk Va., this week. Destroyers are part of the strike group.

The State Department has also begun organizing departure flights from Israel, and Americans can leave through Jordan via land crossings. Approximately 250 U.S. citizens, permanent residents and their immediate family members departed Israel on U.S.-facilitated flights, a State Department official said Monday.

The United States has not fought Iran since the B-2 bombers’ attacks.

Israeli attacks

Israel’s military targeted Iran’s Evin prison in Tehran where dissidents and political prisoners are held.

France’s foreign minister condemned the strikes on the prison, which houses two French nationals.

“The strike aimed at Evin Prison in Tehran put in danger two of our nationals, Cecile Kohler and Jacques Paris, hostages for the past three years. It’s inacceptable,” Jean-Noël Barrot said in a post on X.

The Israeli strikes on Tehran also damaged the main power lines in the northern part of Iran’s capital, according to the Iranian government-affiliated Mehr news agency. The area has more than 1 million people.

In Vienna, Rafael Grossi, the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, warned on Monday at an emergency meeting in Vienna that “violence and destruction could reach unimaginable levels” if Iran, Israel and the United States do not find a pathway to diplomacy.

Dissenting justice warns court actions expose ‘thousands to the risk of torture or death’.

A divided Supreme Court has allowed the administration of United States President Donald Trump to restart swift removals of migrants to countries other than their homeland, lifting a court order that requires they get a chance to challenge the deportations.

The high court majority did not detail its reasoning in the brief order issued on Monday, as is typical on its emergency docket. All three liberal justices dissented.

In May, immigration officials put eight people on a plane to South Sudan, though they were diverted to a US naval base in Djibouti after a judge stepped in.

The refugees and migrants from countries including Myanmar, Vietnam and Cuba had been convicted of violent crimes in the US. Immigration officials have said that they were unable to return them quickly to their home countries.

The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump’s administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living undocumented in the US.

In a scathing 19-page dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the court’s action exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”

“The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” she wrote in the dissent, which was joined by the other two liberal judges, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Lawyers for some of the migrants who had been on the flight to South Sudan said they would continue to press their case in court. “The ramifications of Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, meanwhile, said in a social media post that the decision was a “MAJOR win for the safety and security of the American people”.

The department did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.

District judge concerned about danger facing deportees

The Supreme Court action halts an order from US District Judge Brian E Murphy in Boston, who decided in April that people must have a chance to argue that deportation to a third country would put them in danger – even if they have otherwise exhausted their legal appeals.

He found that the May deportation flight to South Sudan violated his order and told immigration authorities to allow people to raise those concerns through their lawyers. Immigration officials housed the migrants in a converted shipping container in Djibouti, where they and the officers guarding them faced rough conditions.

The administration has reached agreements with other countries, including Panama and Costa Rica, to house immigrants because some countries do not accept US deportations. South Sudan, meanwhile, has endured repeated waves of violence since gaining independence in 2011.

Murphy’s order does not prohibit deportations to third countries. But it says migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in serious danger of torture if sent to another country.

The third-country deportation case has been one of several legal flashpoints as the Trump administration rails against judges whose rulings have slowed the president’s policies.

Another order from Murphy, who was appointed by former Democratic President Joe Biden, resulted in the Trump administration returning a gay Guatemalan man who had been wrongly deported to Mexico, where he says he had been raped and extorted.

The man, identified in court papers as OCG, was the first person known to have been returned to US custody after deportation since the start of Trump’s second term.

United States President Donald Trump says that Iran and Israel have agreed to a “complete and total” ceasefire that will come into effect in the coming hours.

Trump’s announcement on Monday came shortly after an Iranian missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base hosting US troops in Qatar.

“On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, ‘THE 12 DAY WAR,’” Trump said in a social media post.

“This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”

Neither Israel nor Iran has confirmed the agreement.

More to come…

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday the Trump administration may deport criminal migrants to South Sudan or Libya even if those countries are deemed too dangerous for visitors.

By a 6-3 vote, the conservative majority set aside the rulings of a Boston-based judge who said the detained men deserved a “meaningful opportunity” to object to being sent to a strange country where they may be tortured or abused.

The court issued an unsigned order with no explanation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a 19-page dissent and was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach,” she said. “I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.”

Last month, the government put eight criminal migrants on a military plane bound for South Sudan.

“All of these aliens had committed heinous crimes in the United States, including murder, arson, armed robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault of a mentally handicapped woman, child rape, and more,” Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the court. They also had a “final order of removal” from an immigration judge.

But U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston said the flight may have defied an earlier order because the men were not given a reasonable chance to object. He said the Convention Against Torture gives people protection against being sent to a country where they may be tortured or killed.

He noted the U.S. State Department had warned Americans: “Do not travel to South Sudan due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.”

Sauer said this case was different from others involving deportations because it dealt with the “worst of the worst” among immigrants in the country without authorization. He said these immigrants were given due process of law because they were convicted of crimes and were given a “final order of removal.”

However, their native country was unwilling to take them.

“Many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove,” he told the court. “As a result, criminal aliens are often allowed to stay in the United States for years on end, victimizing law-abiding Americans in the meantime.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the plane landed at a military base in Djibouti.

In April, Murphy said “this presents a simple question: before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?”

He said the plaintiffs were “seeking a limited and measured remedy … the minimum that comports with due process.”

THE HAGUE — Whether the United States launches a broader war against Iran after bombing its nuclear facilities may come down to President Trump’s meetings with NATO partners this week at a summit of the alliance, a gathering long scheduled in the Netherlands now carrying far higher stakes.

So far, Washington’s transatlantic partners have praised the U.S. operation, which supplemented an ongoing Israeli campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, air defenses and military leadership. But European officials told The Times their hope is to pull Trump back from any flirtation with regime change in Iran, a prospect that Trump and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, have openly discussed in recent days.

Trump is scheduled to arrive in The Hague on Tuesday morning for two days of meetings, now expected to focus on the nascent crisis, as U.S. intelligence and military officials continue to assess the outcome of U.S. strikes over the weekend against Iran’s main nuclear sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

NATO was directly involved in the last two U.S. wars in the Middle East, taking part in a U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks and helping to train and advise security forces in Iraq. And while not a member of NATO, Israel coordinates with the security bloc through a process called the Mediterranean Dialogue, which includes work against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

At the Mauritshuis on Monday evening, overlooking The Hague’s historic court pond and under the gaze of Vermeer’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring,” NATO officials, European military leaders and U.S. senators discussed the obvious: A summit that had been seen as an opportunity to show Trump that Europe is willing to pay more for its defense — with NATO members now committing to spend 5% of their GDP on military essentials and expenditures — will now be consumed instead with the possibility of a new war.

As the event was ending, Iran struck the U.S. military base in Qatar, its largest in the Middle East. But the Iranians gave Doha advance notice of the strike in an effort to avert casualties, the New York Times reported, indicating Tehran might be looking for an off-ramp from continuing escalation with Washington.

While the Pentagon said the U.S. bombing run, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, American and Israeli officials acknowledged to The Times that it is not entirely clear how much equipment and fissile material Tehran was able to salvage before the attacks began.

And as concerns emerge that Iran may have been able to preserve a breakout capability, Israel’s target list across Iran seemed to broaden on Monday to reflect military ambitions beyond Iran’s nuclear program, including the headquarters of the Basij militia and a clock in downtown Tehran counting down to Israel’s destruction.

“Trump spoke too soon,” said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, of the president’s declaration that the United States had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capacity with its weekend strikes.

“We may have simply waited too long with our hand-wringing, and given the Iranians time to evacuate their enriched stockpiles. If so, that represents a failure of leadership,” he added, noting reports that trucks could be seen at the Fordo site leading up to the U.S. attack. “If they then scattered and the U.S. intelligence community lost track of where they went, then that is an intelligence failure that could potentially be as costly as the one that preceded the Iraq war.”

European powers, particularly France, Germany and the United Kingdom, have been careful to praise Trump for ordering the strikes. But they have also urged an immediate return to negotiations, and expressed concern that Israel has begun targeting sites tangential and unrelated to Iran’s nuclear program.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, warning of “volatility” in the region, encouraged Iran “to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.” And Germany’s foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, questioned whether Tehran’s nuclear knowledge could be bombed away. “No one thinks it’s a good thing to keep fighting,” he told local media.

“I called for deescalation and for Iran to exercise the utmost restraint in this dangerous context, to allow a return to diplomacy,” said French President Emmanuel Macron. “Engaging in dialogue and securing a clear commitment from Iran to renounce nuclear weapons are essential to avoid the worst for the entire region. There is no alternative.”

Later Monday, after Israel had struck Iran’s notorious Evin prison, where foreign nationals are held, France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, issued a more scathing rebuke. “All strikes must now stop,” he said.

One European official said that efforts would be made once Trump arrives to underscore his military successes, noting the example he has made — using military force to deter an authoritarian foe — could still be applied to Russia in its war against Ukraine. Now that Trump has demonstrated peace through strength, the official said, it is time to give diplomacy another chance.

But it’s unclear if Iran would be receptive to pleas for a diplomatic breakthrough.

In a post on X on Sunday, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, noted that Israel’s attacks last week and the U.S. strikes this week coincided with negotiations, torpedoing any chance for talks to succeed.

“Last week, we were in negotiations with the U.S. when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/E.U. when the U.S. decided to blow up that diplomacy,” he wrote, adding that European calls to bring Iran to negotiations were misplaced. The E3 represents France, Germany and Italy.

“How can Iran return to something it never left, let alone blew up?” he added.

On Monday, before its strikes against the U.S. base in Qatar, Iranian military leaders vowed vengeance against the United States for the strikes.

The retaliation “will impose severe, regret-inducing, and unpredictable consequences on you,” said Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaqari, head of the Iranian military’s central command headquarters, in a video statement on Iranian broadcaster Press TV. He added that the U.S. attack “will expand the range of legitimate and diverse targets for Iran’s armed forces.”

Times staff writer Nabih Bulos in Beirut contributed to this report.

June 23 (UPI) — The parent company behind the Truth Social social media platform announced Monday it will buy back millions of dollars’ worth of its own stock.

The Trump Media and Technology Group Corp., or DJT, of which President Donald Trump indirectly owns more than 114 million shares via a revocable trust and is the largest shareholder, stated in a press release that its board of directors has approved the repurchase of up to $400 million of the company’s common stock.

“The board took a vote of confidence in our company, our stock and our strategic plans,” said Trump Media’s CEO and Chairman Devin Nunes. “Since Trump Media now has approximately $3 billion on its balance sheet, we have the flexibility to take actions like this which support strong shareholder returns, as we continue exploring further strategic opportunities.”

DJT is the operator of Truth Social, the streaming platform Truth+ and the FinTech brand Truth.Fi.

The buybacks, comprised of either stocks or warrants, would be achieved through open-market transactions, with repurchased shares to then be retired by the company. According to the release, the “timing and amount of the repurchases would be at Trump Media’s discretion, in compliance with relevant Securities and Exchange Commission rules and regulations.”

The share repurchases would be funded separately from Trump Media’s previously announced Bitcoin treasury strategy, which featured a private placement offering of approximately $2.3 billion and won’t be changed by the buyback.

The announcement also notes that DJT might also consider repurchasing its outstanding convertible notes in either open-market or privately negotiated transactions and will maintain its discretion in regard of any related prices, terms and factors which would apply to such repurchases.

The move follows Trump Media’s $2.5 billion raise last month from institutional investors, which it says would be used to buy bitcoin with custody provided by Anchorage Digital and Crypto.com.

Donald Trump’s coalition has always been a Frankenstein’s monster — stitched together from parts that were never meant to coexist.

Consider the contradictions: fast-food fanatics hanging out with juice-cleanse truthers chanting “Make America Healthy Again” between ivermectin doses, immigration hardliners mixing with business elites who are “tough on the border” until they need someone to clean their toilets or pick their strawberries, and hawkish interventionists spooning with America Firsters.

Dogs and cats living together — mass hysteria — you know the bit.

Navigating these differences was always going to be tricky. But in recent days — particularly following Israel’s bombing of Iran, an operation widely believed to have been greenlit by Trump — the tension has reached new highs.

Signs of strain were already emerging earlier this year. We got early hints of discord during the “Liberation Day” tariff fiasco — where Trump declared an “emergency” and imposed steep tariffs, only to suspend them after they riled markets and spooked his business-friendly backers.

The tariff blunder was a harbinger of things to come. But it was the House’s passage of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” — a budgetary monstrosity that self-respecting Freedom Caucus deficit hawks should’ve torched on principle — that truly exposed the rift.

Enter Elon Musk, the billionaire tech bro and MAGA ally, who publicly trashed both the bill and Trump in a flurry of posts. He even referenced Trump’s name reportedly appearing in Jeffrey Epstein’s files — a claim that, though unverified, was tantamount to “going nuclear.”

But before there was enough time to say “Republican civil war,” Musk deleted his mean tweets, adding to the evidence that this is still Trump’s party; that modern Republicans view deficits the way the rest of us view library late fees — technically real, but nothing to lose sleep over; and that ketamine is a hell of a drug.

The next internecine squabble was over immigration. Trump proudly ran on rounding ’em all up. Mass deportations! Load up the buses! But then it turned out that his rich buddies in Big Ag and Big Hospitality weren’t so keen on losing some of their best employees.

So Trump floated a carve out to protect some “very good, long time workers” in those particular industries.

It even started to look like some exemptions were coming — until his Department of Homeland Security said “no mas.” (The raids will presumably continue until the next time a farmer or hotelier complains to Trump in a meeting.)

But the real fissure involves some prominent America First non-interventionists who thought Trump was elected to end the “forever wars.”

In case you missed it, Israel has been going after Iran’s nuclear capabilities with the same gusto that Trump aide Stephen Miller applies to deporting Guatemalan landscapers, and Trump is all in, calling for an “unconditional surrender” of the Iranian regime.

This didn’t sit well with everyone in the MAGA coalition.

“I think we’re going to see the end of American empire,” warned Tucker Carlson on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. “But it’s also going to end, I believe, Trump’s presidency — effectively end it — and so that’s why I’m saying this.”

And Carlson (co-founder of the Daily Caller, where I worked) didn’t stop there. “The real divide isn’t between people who support Israel and those who support Iran or the Palestinians,” he tweeted. “It’s between warmongers and peacemakers.”

Then he named names, alleging that Fox’s Sean Hannity, radio firebrand Mark Levin, media titan Rupert Murdoch and billionaire Trump donors Ike Perlmutter and Miriam Adelson were among the warmongers.

Trump hit back, calling Tucker “kooky” and repeating his new mantra: “IRAN CAN NEVER HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.”

It’s tempting to see this spat as the beginning of a schism — a break that might finally yield a coherent Trump Doctrine, at least, as it pertains to foreign policy (possibly returning the GOP to a more Reaganite or internationalist party). But that misunderstands the nature of Trump and his coalition.

These coalitional disagreements over public policy are real and important. But they mostly exist at the elite level. The actual Trump voter base? They care about only one thing: Donald Trump.

And Trump resists ideological straitjackets.

If Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu rubs him the wrong way next week (as he did by congratulating Joe Biden in 2020), or if Israel’s military campaign starts slipping in the polls, Trump could flip faster than a gymnast on Red Bull.

There is no coherent philosophy. No durable ideology. What we’re watching is a guy making it up as he goes along — often basing decisions on his “gut” or the opinion of the last guy who bent his ear.

So if you’re looking for a Trump Doctrine to explain it all — keep looking. There isn’t one.

There’s only Trump.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

For 24 years, immigrants lacking documentation who graduated from high school in California have received in-state tuition benefits at public colleges and universities under a law that’s given tens of thousands access to higher education that many couldn’t otherwise afford.

When the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 540 in 2001, it was the second state in the nation — after Texas — to embrace such tuition policies. Bipartisan efforts quickly grew across the country, with more than 20 states adopting similar policies.

But recent court actions by the Trump administration are causing alarm among immigrant students and casting a shadow over the tuition benefit in California, the state with the largest population of people living in the U.S. without legal authorization.

On June 4, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Texas over its tuition statute for immigrants without authorization, alleging it violated a federal law that prevents people who do not have legal status from receiving public benefits. Texas did not defend its law and instead put its support behind the Trump administration, leaving 57,000 undocumented college students in the state in educational limbo after a federal judge blocked the statute.

Last week, the DOJ launched a similar suit in Kentucky, asking a federal judge to strike down a state practice that it says unlawfully gives undocumented immigrants access to in-state college tuition while American citizens from other states pay higher tuition to attend the same schools.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” Atty. Gen. Bondi said of the Texas lawsuit in a statement that signaled a broader fight. “The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.”

Is California next?

Legal experts say that it’s not a matter of “if” but when and how the Trump administration will come for California’s law. The White House is already battling the state over liberal policies, including support of transgender students in school sports; sanctuary cities opposing ongoing federal immigration raids; and diversity, equity and inclusion programs in education.

“We are just waiting to see when it’s California’s turn,” said Kevin R. Johnson, the dean of the UC Davis law school, who specializes in immigration. Johnson predicted the White House was going after “lower-hanging fruit” in more conservative states before California, where Trump will face “firm resistance.”

The potential threat has shaken California’s undocumented students.

“If I no longer qualify for lower tuition, I really don’t know what I would do,” said Osmar Enríquez, who graduated last month with an associate’s degree from Santa Rosa Junior College and will enroll at UC Berkeley in August to embark on an undergraduate degree in media studies.

The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition for people like Enríquez can be thousands of dollars at a community college and tens of thousands at CSU and UC campuses. International students pay out-of-state rates. At Santa Rosa Junior College, the average tuition for two semesters for an in-state student is $621. For an out-of-state student, it’s $5,427.

“What I see the Trump administration doing is trying to exclude us,” said Enríquez, who aspires to one day operate a public relations company. “They don’t want us to get educated or to reach positions of power. And with everything going on now, they are just trying to dehumanize us any way they can.”

More than 80,000 undocumented college students in California

Campus and university-level data on undocumented student populations can be difficult to estimate.

Although universities and colleges keep track of how many students without documentation receive tuition exemptions under AB 540, the data also include citizens who qualify for in-state tuition. These students grew up in the state and graduated from a California high school before their families moved elsewhere.

Numbers are also complicated by changes in the California Dream Act Application, which was established for students lacking documentation to apply for state aid but has expanded to allow students who are citizens and have an undocumented parent.

Out of the University of California system’s nearly 296,000 students, it estimates that between 2,000 and 4,000 are undocumented. Across California State University campuses, there are about 9,500 immigrants without documentation enrolled out of 461,000 total students. The state’s biggest undocumented group, estimated to be 70,000, comprises community college students and recent graduates such as Enríquez.

Born in Mexico and brought by his family to the U.S. when he was a 1-year-old, Enríquez said in-state tuition has made his education monumentally more affordable. At his next stop, UC Berkeley, in-state tuition and fees last year amounted to $16,980. Out-of-state and international students had to pay a total of $54,582.

What students say

Several undocumented students from UCLA, Cal State Los Angeles and other schools declined interviews with The Times or requested to be cited without their names, saying they were fearful of identifying themselves publicly as the federal government undertakes a third week of immigration raids across Southern California.

“I just want to go to school. What is wrong with that?” said an undocumented graduate student at Cal State Los Angeles who received his undergraduate degree at a UC campus. The Latin American studies student asked for his name to be withheld because of concern over immigration enforcement agents targeting him.

“I don’t only want to go a school, I want to go to a public university. I want to contribute to my university. I want to become a professor and teach others and support the state of California,” he said. “Why are we so bent on keeping students from getting an education and giving back?”

Sandra, a Cal State Northridge student who asked to be only identified by her first name, had a similar view. An undocumented immigrant whose parents brought her from Mexico to Los Angeles at age two, she said she would not be in college without the in-state tuition law.

“I was not eligible for DACA, so money is thin,” Sandra said, referencing the Obama-era program that gave work authorization to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children but hasn’t taken new applications since 2021. “We save and we squeeze all we can out of fellowships and scholarships to pay in hopes that we use our education to make a difference and make an income later.”

Legal questions

The Trump administration’s challenge to the tuition rules rest on a 1996 federal law that says people in the U.S. without legal permission should “not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any post-secondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

“There are questions about exactly what that means,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA Law School. “Does that apply to universities that do not use residency as a requirement for the tuition rate but instead use high school graduation in the state?” he said, explaining that state practices differ.

In California, an undocumented immigrant who did not graduate from a high school in the state would typically not qualify for reduced tuition.

The Justice Department has argued in court that giving in-state tuition to immigrants without proper authorization violates the federal law. Some Trump opponents point out that the law does not speak specifically to tuition rates, although courts have interpreted the word “benefit” to include cheaper tuition.

In the recent Texas case, undocumented students, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, have filed a motion in court, asking the judge to allow them to argue in support of upholding reduced tuition rates.

The tuition policies have survived other legal challenges.

Before Trump administration intervened, the Texas law appeared to be legally sound after a federal appeals court ruled in 2023 that the University of North Texas could charge out-of-state students more than it charges in-state undocumented immigrants. In that case, the court said the plaintiffs did not make good case that out-of state students were illegally treated differently than noncitizens. But the court suggested there could be other legal challenges to tuition rates for immigrants lacking documentation.

The California law has also withstood challenges. The state Supreme Court upheld its legality in 2010 after out-of-state students sued. The next year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case.

The California court concluded that undocumented immigrants were not receiving preferential treatment because of their immigration status but because they attended and graduated from California schools. Justices said U.S. citizens who attended and graduated from the state’s schools had the same opportunity.

Still, momentum has built to abolish in-state tuition rates for immigrants without legal documentation.

This year, lawmakers in Florida — which had a rule on the books for more than a decade allowing tuition waivers for undocumented students — eliminated the option. Prior to the federal action against Texas, legislators in the state also tried and failed to follow Florida’s lead. During this year’s legislative sessions, bills were also introduced in Kansas and Minnesota, although they have not passed.

EXPLAINER

Iran remains the US’s adversary in the Middle East since the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

United States-Iran tensions have surged to the highest point in decades after President Donald Trump on Sunday ordered direct strikes that he said “obliterated” key nuclear facilities across the Middle Eastern country.

Iran remains the biggest adversary of the US in the region since the 1979 Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini toppled pro-Western Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Since then, the two nations have sparred over a multitude of issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Iran’s backing of proxies in the region, and US political interference.

Israel, which has long considered Iran a threat, launched unprecedented strikes across Iran last week after accusing the country of developing nuclear weapons. Israeli claims have not been backed by any credible proof, but Trump dragged the US into the war following the Israeli strikes.

On Sunday, the US directly hit Iran in what the Trump administration called a highly sophisticated covert attack that involved more than 125 US aircraft and 75 precision bombs. Washington said it “devastated” Iran’s nuclear sites, but Tehran has warned it will retaliate.

Here’s a timeline of US-Iran relations since 1953:

• (1953) US-backed coup and reinstallation of the shah: Tensions initially began brewing over the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh’s efforts to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). The British colonial power controlled the majority stake in the joint-venture company since oil was discovered in the early 1900s. Mosaddegh’s moves to nationalise the company after his 1951 election angered the British. The US’s Central Intelligence Agency supported the United Kingdom in engineering a coup and backing once-deposed monarch, Pahlavi, back into power as shah.
• (1957) Atoms for Peace: The shah’s ambitions for a nuclear-powered Iran gained support from the US and other Western allies. Both countries signed a nuclear agreement for the civilian use of nuclear power as part of then-US President Dwight D Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace programme. A decade later, the US provided Iran with a nuclear reactor and uranium to fuel it. The nuclear collaboration forms the basis for the current nuclear question.
• (1979) Islamic revolution: While relations between Tehran and Washington flourished, Iranians groaned under the dictatorship of the shah and resisted the perceived overreach of Western influence on their business. Revolutionary protests began rocking the country in late 1978 and forced the shah to flee in January 1979. Exiled Islamic scholar Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to rule the new Islamic republic.
• (1980) US cuts diplomatic ties: Following the US’s move to admit the shah for cancer treatment after his exile, Iranian students broke into the US embassy in Tehran and kidnapped 52 Americans for 444 days. Washington cut off diplomatic ties and imposed sanctions on the country. The shah died in exile.
• (1980-88) US backs Iraqi invasion: Following Iraq’s invasion of Iran under Saddam Hussein, who was eager to push back against Khomeini’s ideology, the US sided with Iraq, deepening tensions between the two nations. The war lasted till 1988 and saw thousands die on both sides. Iraq also used chemical weapons on Iran.
• (1984) Sponsor of terror designation: President Ronald Reagan officially designated Iran as a “state sponsor of terror” after a series of attacks in Lebanon, where the US had been drawn in after Israel invaded the country. In one attack on a military base in Beirut, 241 US service members were killed. The US blamed Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia movement backed by Iran. Later, though, Reagan worked with Iran behind the scenes to free American hostages held by Hezbollah. When it came to light, the Iran-Contra affair, as it was termed, was a huge scandal for Reagan.
• (1988) Iran Air flight shot down: Amid war tensions and even direct attacks on each other’s military warships in the Gulf, a US naval ship breached Iranian waters and fired at the civilian Iran Air flight (IR655) headed to Dubai on July 8. All 290 people on board were killed. The US, which claimed it was a mistake, did not formally apologise or claim responsibility but paid families $61.8m as compensation.
• (1995) Tighter sanctions: Between 1995 and 1996, the US imposed more sanctions. Then, President Bill Clinton’s executive orders banned US companies from dealing with Iran, while Congress passed a law penalising foreign entities investing in the country’s energy sector or selling Iran advanced weapons. The US cited nuclear advancement and support of groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
• (2002) 9/11 aftermath: Following the 9/11 attacks on the US, President George W Bush, in a State of the Union address, said Iran was part of an “Axis of Evil” alongside Iraq and North Korea. At the time, Iran had been parlaying with the US behind the scenes to target their mutual foes – the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. The cooperation was soured, and by the end of 2022, international observers noted highly enriched uranium in Iran, inviting more sanctions.
• (2013) Iran nuclear deal: Between 2013 and 2015, US President Barack Obama began high-level talks with Iran. In 2015, Tehran agreed to the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that would limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of sanctions. China, Russia, France, Germany, the UK and the European Union were also party to the deal that capped Iran’s enrichment at 3.67 percent.
• (2018) Trump withdraws from the nuclear deal: Under Trump’s first term, the US unilaterally withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped back sanctions against Iran. Trump and Israel had been critical of the deal. Iran also called off its commitments and began producing enriched uranium beyond the limits the deal had imposed.
• (2020) IRGC leader assassinated: During Trump’s first term, the US killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in Baghdad in a drone strike. A year earlier, the administration had named the Quds Force a “terrorist” organisation. Iran responded with strikes on US assets in Iraq.
• (2025) Letter to Tehran: In March, Trump shot off a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei proposing new negotiations on a nuclear deal with a deadline of 60 days. But Khamenei rejected the offer, saying the US is not seeking negotiations with Iran but rather imposing demands on it. Talks started unofficially in Oman and Italy, with Muscat acting as the mediator. Trump claimed his team was “very close” to a deal after several rounds of talks and warned Israel against strikes. Tehran, too, expressed optimism but insisted on the right to enrich uranium – a sticking point in the talks. Israel launched strikes across Iran a day before the sixth round of the Iran-US talks.
• (2025) US strikes: The US bombed three key nuclear facilities in Iran, citing security concerns and the defence of Israel.

As United States President Donald Trump addressed the world on the strikes launched by his country’s military against three key Iranian nuclear sites in the early hours on Sunday, he thanked several people and institutions.

The US military, fighter pilots who dropped the bombs, and a general were among those on his list. So was one individual who is not American, and with whom Trump has had a topsy-turvy relationship: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump also said Netanyahu and he had worked like “perhaps no team has ever worked before”. Those laudatory comments represent a stark contrast from the far more crude language that Trump used for the Israeli leader just four years ago, and their public tension over Iran less than a month ago.

We track Trump’s often-love and sometimes-hate relationship with Netanyahu:

What did Trump say about Netanyahu?

In his televised address on Sunday, during the early morning hours in the Middle East, Trump thanked and congratulated Netanyahu. “I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” he said, referring to a name the Israeli PM is widely known by.

“We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel,” Trump said, referring to Iran’s nuclear facilities.

“I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done,” Trump said, adding praise for the US forces.

Trump warned Iran to accept what he described as “peace” but what effectively amounts to the surrender of its nuclear programme, on US terms.

“If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier,” he said. Meanwhile, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with a nuclear arsenal, though it has never officially acknowledged it.

The US strikes follow nine days of Israeli missile attacks against Iran, including on its nuclear facilities. Israel did not have the bombs needed to damage or destroy Iran’s most secretive nuclear site in Fordow, buried deep inside a mountain.  The US, using its bunker-buster bombs, hit Fordow as well as the facilities in Natanz and Isfahan on Sunday.

Trump’s decision to align himself with Netanyahu in bringing the US into the war with Iran has split his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) support base.

What did Netanyahu say about Trump?

After Trump announced the strikes and appreciated the Israeli leader, Netanyahu responded with warmer words than the ones the US president had used for him.

“President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” Netanyahu said in a recorded video statement.

He further said, “In tonight’s action against Iran’s nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed. It has done what no other country on Earth could do.”

“History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world’s most dangerous regime the world’s most dangerous weapons,” said Netanyahu.

The chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has publicly said it does not believe that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, an assessment shared by US intelligence agencies, which also drew the same conclusion earlier this year.

However, Trump has in recent days said his hand-picked spy chief, Tulsi Gabbard, and the intelligence community’s assessment were “wrong”.

Trump’s “leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace”, Netanyahu said in this statement.

“President Trump and I often say: ‘Peace through strength’. First comes strength, then comes peace. And tonight, Donald Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength,” concluded Netanyahu.

How were their ties during Trump’s first term?

Netanyahu enjoyed a close relationship with Trump during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021.

Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy there from Tel Aviv, a long-sought symbolic victory for Netanyahu that strengthened his image domestically. Trump appointed an ambassador who was ideologically aligned with Israel’s settler movement, David Friedman, in May 2017.

In March 2019, the US president also recognised Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, becoming the only world leader to back Israel’s annexation of the region that is recognised internationally as a part of Syria.

In September 2020, Trump hosted the signing of the Abraham Accords, which led to normalisation of relations between Israel and four Arab states – Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, and Sudan.

Trump formally withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal — in May 2018, through a presidential proclamation that reinstated US sanctions against Iran.

This marked a major shift from the previous US policy of implementing the JCPOA in January 2016 to curb Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump declared the deal “defective at its core”, claiming it offered insufficient assurances and failed to address Iran’s missile programme and regional activities.

Why did Trump sour on Netanyahu?

In a December 2021 Axios interview with Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, Trump revealed that his relationship with Netanyahu deteriorated after the Israeli PM publicly congratulated incoming President Joe Biden on his 2020 election victory — a loss that Trump has refused to accept.

“The first person that congratulated [Biden] was Bibi Netanyahu, the man that I did more for than any other person I dealt with. Bibi could have stayed quiet. He has made a terrible mistake,” Trump said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. “And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape.”

“F*** him,” Trump said, expressing his anger.

How have their ties been since?

While the incoming Trump administration initially claimed to broker a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, with some observers noting that he may rein in the Israeli military campaign, it soon rallied behind Netanyahu’s continuing genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people.

In a joint news conference in February this year, Trump wildly proposed that the US should “take over” the Gaza Strip, redevelop it, and relocate Palestinians⁠ — a plan that Netanyahu publicly endorsed as “nothing wrong”.

Netanyahu also said he was “committed to US President Trump’s plan for the creation of a different Gaza”. Later that month, the US approved $2.5bn worth of arms sales to Israel, including bombs and drones.

In March, Israel resumed major air attacks in Gaza after negotiations over the release of captives collapsed. The White House confirmed that Israel had consulted Trump before the attacks.

On Iran, meanwhile, Trump’s position has seesawed from alignment with Netanyahu to his own distinct positions.

April 12-June 13, 2025: The US led back-channel nuclear negotiations with Iran, mediated by Oman.

May: Trump stated during his Gulf tour that the US was in “very serious negotiations” with Iran and “getting very close” to a nuclear deal, signalling openness to diplomacy. On May 28, Trump said he told Netanyahu to hold off on any strike against Iran to give his administration more time to push for a new nuclear deal. He told reporters at the White House that he relayed to Netanyahu a strike “would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution”.

June 11-12: The IAEA said Iran had not been transparent enough in its nuclear programme, and that elements of its approach were in violation of the country’s safeguards agreement with the United Nations nuclear watchdog. The US began evacuating its regional embassies. Tensions surged as Trump stated that diplomacy was stalling and hinted at serious consequences if no deal was reached.

June 13: Israel launched massive air strikes on Iranian nuclear and military sites, killing key nuclear scientists, scholars, and top military commanders.

In the initial US reaction to Israeli attacks on Iran, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, called the strikes “unilateral” and said Washington was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”.

The US-Iran talks over a nuclear deal were suspended. Trump admitted that he was aware of Israel’s plans to attack Iran.

June 19: Trump, after nearly a week of stalled talks and Israeli attacks, signalled support for Israel’s military campaign, though keeping a diplomatic track open for talks with Tehran.

June 20: The US president set a two-week ultimatum for Iran to negotiate the nuclear deal.

June 21: Trump ordered US air strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities, coordinating with Israel. He declared them “completely obliterated”.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Sunday called into question the future of Iran’s ruling theocracy after a surprise attack on three of the country’s nuclear sites, seemingly contradicting his administration’s calls to resume negotiations and avoid an escalation in fighting.

“It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” Trump posted on social media. “MIGA!!!”

The post on his social media platform marked a stark reversal from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Sunday morning news conference that detailed the aerial bombing of Iran early Sunday.

“This mission was not and has not been about regime change,” Hegseth said.

The administration has made clear it wants Iran to stop any development of nuclear weapons, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that any retaliation against the U.S. or a rush toward building a nuclear weapon would “put the regime at risk.”

But beyond that, the world is awash in uncertainty at a fragile moment that could decide whether parts of the globe tip into war or find a way to salvage a relative peace. Trump’s message to Iran’s leadership comes as the U.S. has warned Iran against retaliating for the bombardment targeting the heart of a nuclear program that it spent decades developing.

The Trump administration has made a series of intimidating statements even as it has called for a restart of negotiations, making it hard to get a read on whether the U.S. president is simply taunting an adversary or using inflammatory words that could further widen the war between Israel and Iran that began with Israeli attacks on June 13.

Until Trump’s post Sunday afternoon, the coordinated messaging by his vice president, Pentagon chief, top military advisor and secretary of State suggested a confidence that any fallout would be manageable and that Iran’s lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table.

Hegseth had said that America “does not seek war” with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes had given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington.

But the unfolding situation is not entirely under Washington’s control, as Tehran has a series of levers to respond to the aerial bombings that could intensify the conflict in the Middle East with possible global repercussions.

Iran can block oil being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, attack U.S. bases in the region, engage in cyberattacks or accelerate its nuclear program — which might seem more of a necessity after the U.S. strikes.

All of that raises the question of whether the U.S. bombing will open up a more brutal phase of fighting or revive negotiations out of an abundance of caution. In the U.S., the attack quickly spilled over into domestic politics, with Trump spending part of his Sunday going after his critics in Congress.

He used a social media post to lambaste Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a stalwart Trump supporter who had objected to the president taking military action without specific congressional approval.

“We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the ‘bomb’ right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!)” Trump wrote.

Boak and Pesoli write for the Associated Press.