u.s. military

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that the U.S. military carried out three strikes Monday in the waters of the Eastern Pacific against boats suspected of carrying drugs, killing 14 and leaving one survivor.

The announcement made on social media Tuesday, marks a continued escalation in the pace of the strikes, which began in early September spaced weeks apart. This was the first time multiple strikes were announced in a single day.

Hegseth said Mexican search and rescue authorities “assumed responsibility for coordinating the rescue” of the sole survivor but didn’t say if that person would stay in their custody or be handed over to the U.S.

In a strike earlier in October which had two survivors, the U.S. military rescued the pair and later repatriated them to Colombia and Ecuador.

Hegseth posted footage of the strikes to social media in which two boats can be seen moving at speed through the water. One is visibly laden with a large amount of parcels or bundles. Both then suddenly explode and are seen aflame.

The third strike appears to have been conducted on a pair of boats that were stationary in the water alongside each other. They appear to be largely empty with at least two people seen moving before an explosion engulfs both boats.

Hegseth said “the four vessels were known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics.”

The death toll from the 13 disclosed strikes since early September is now at least 57 people.

MEXICO CITY — The United States slapped sanctions on Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Friday and said it was sending a massive aircraft carrier to the waters off South America, a new escalation of what the White House has described as a war against drug traffickers in the region. Also Friday, the U.S. military conducted its 10th strike on a suspected drug-running boat, killing six people in the Caribbean Sea.

The Treasury Department said it was sanctioning Petro, his wife, his son and a political associate for failing to stop the flow of cocaine to the United States, noting that cocaine production in Colombia has risen in recent years. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Petro of “poisoning Americans.”

Petro denied those claims in a statement on X, saying he has fought to combat drug trafficking for decades. He said it was “quite a paradox” to be sanctioned by a country with high rates of cocaine consumption.

The sanctions put Petro in the same category as the leaders of Russia and North Korea and limit his ability to travel to the United States. They mark a new low for relations between Colombia and the United States, which until recently were strong allies, sharing military intelligence, a robust trade relationship and a multibillion-dollar fight against drug trafficking.

Elizabeth Dickinson, a senior analyst for the Andes region at the International Crisis Group, a think tank, said that while Petro and the U.S. government have had disagreements over how to tackle trafficking — with the Americans more interested in eradicating coca fields and Colombians focused on cocaine seizures — the two countries have been working for decades toward the same goal.

“To suggest that Colombia is not trying is false and disingenuous,” Dickinson said. “If the U.S. has a partner in counternarcotics in Latin America, it’s Colombia. Colombian forces have been working hand in hand with the Americans for literally four decades. They are the best, most capable and frankly most willing partner the U.S. has in the region.

“If the U.S. were to cut this relationship, it would really be the U.S. shooting themselves in the foot.”

Many viewed the sanctions as punishment for Petro’s criticism of Trump. In recent days, Petro has accused the U.S. of murder, saying American strikes on alleged drug boats lack legal justification and have killed civilians. He has also accused the U.S. of building up its military in South America in an attempt to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The quickened pace of U.S. airstrikes in the region and the unusually large buildup of military force in the Caribbean Sea have fueled those speculations.

On Friday, a Pentagon official said the U.S. ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford and its strike group to deploy to U.S. Southern Command to “bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States.”

The USS Ford is currently deployed to the Mediterranean Sea along with three destroyers. It would probably take several days for the ships to make the journey to South America.

The White House has increasingly drawn a direct comparison between the war on terrorism that the U.S. declared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Trump administration’s crackdown on drug traffickers.

Trump this month declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and said the U.S. was in an “armed conflict” with them, relying on the same legal authority used by the Bush administration after 9/11.

When reporters asked Trump on Thursday whether he would request that Congress issue a declaration of war against the cartels, he said that wasn’t the plan.

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them, you know? They’re going to be like, dead,” Trump said during a roundtable at the White House with Homeland Security officials.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military has built up an unusually large force in the Caribbean Sea and the waters off the coast of Venezuela since this summer, when the Trump administration first began to shift assets to the region as part of its so-called war against narcoterrorism.

Here is a look at the ships, planes and troops in the region:

Ships

The Navy has eight warships in the region — three destroyers, three amphibious assault ships, a cruiser and a smaller littoral combat ship that’s designed for coastal waters.

The three amphibious assault ships make up an amphibious readiness group and carry an expeditionary unit of Marines. As a result, those ships also have on board a variety of Marine helicopters, Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and Harrier jets that have the capability of either transporting large numbers of Marines or striking targets on land and sea.

While officials have not offered specific numbers, destroyers and cruisers typically deploy with a missile loadout that contains Tomahawk cruise missiles — a missile that can strike hundreds of miles from its launch point.

A U.S. Navy submarine, the USS Newport News, also is operating in the broader area of South America and is capable of carrying and launching cruise missiles.

Planes and drones

A squadron of advanced U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II jets have been sent to an airstrip in Puerto Rico. The planes were first spotted landing on the island territory in mid-September.

MQ-9 Reaper Air Force drones, capable of flying long distances and carrying up to eight laser-guided missiles, also have been spotted operating out of Puerto Rico by commercial satellites and military watchers, as well as photojournalists, around the same time.

It has been widely reported that the Navy is operating P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft out of the region as well.

Earlier this month, the military released a photo of an U.S. Air Force AC-130J Ghostrider, a heavily armed plane capable of firing its large guns with precision onto ground targets, also sitting on the tarmac in Puerto Rico.

There have been a multitude of other military aircraft that have temporarily flown through the region as part of military operations there.

For example, the U.S. Air Force flew a group of B-52 Stratofortress bombers through the region last week for what the Pentagon dubbed as a “bomber attack demo” in photos online.

Troops

All told, there are more than 6,000 sailors and Marines that are now operating in the region based on the ships that have been confirmed by defense officials.

The Pentagon has not offered specific numbers on how many drones, aircraft or ground crew are in the region so their impact on that broader figure is unknown.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump confirmed Wednesday that he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela and said he was weighing carrying out land operations on the country.

The acknowledgement of covert action in Venezuela by the U.S. spy agency comes after the U.S. military in recent weeks has carried out a series of deadly strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. U.S. forces have destroyed at least five boats since early September, killing 27 people, and four of those vessels originated from Venezuela.

Asked during an event in the Oval Office on Wednesday why he had authorized the CIA to take action in Venezuela, Trump affirmed he had made the move.

“I authorized for two reasons, really,” Trump replied. “No. 1, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America,” he said. “And the other thing, the drugs, we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea.”

Trump added the administration “is looking at land” as it considers further strikes in the region. He declined to say whether the CIA has authority to take action against President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump made the unusual acknowledgement of a CIA operation shortly after the New York Times published that the CIA had been authorized to carry out covert action in Venezuela.

Maduro pushes back

On Wednesday, Maduro lashed out at the record of the U.S. spy agency in various conflicts around the world without directly addressing Trump’s comments about authorizing the CIA to carry out covert operations in Venezuela.

“No to regime change that reminds us so much of the [overthrows] in the failed eternal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and so on,” Maduro said at a televised event of the National Council for Sovereignty and Peace, which is made up of representatives from various political, economic, academic and cultural sectors in Venezuela.

“No to the coups carried out by the CIA, which remind us so much of the 30,000 disappeared,” a figure estimated by human rights organizations such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo during the military dictatorship in Argentina (1976-1983). He also referred to the 1973 coup in Chile.

“How long will the CIA continue to carry on with its coups? Latin America doesn’t want them, doesn’t need them and repudiates them,” Maduro added.

The objective is “to say no to war in the Caribbean, no to war in South America, yes to peace,” he said.

Speaking in English, Maduro said: “Not war, yes peace, not war. Is that how you would say it? Who speaks English? Not war, yes peace, the people of the United States, please. Please, please, please.”

In a statement, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday rejected “the bellicose and extravagant statements by the President of the United States, in which he publicly admits to having authorized operations to act against the peace and stability of Venezuela.”

“This unprecedented statement constitutes a very serious violation of international law and the United Nations’ Charter and obliges the community of countries to denounce these clearly immoderate and inconceivable statements,” said the statement, which Foreign Minister Yván Gil posted on his Telegram channel.

Resistance from Congress

Early this month, the Trump administration declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and pronounced the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, justifying the military action as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

The move has spurred anger in Congress from members of both major political parties that Trump was effectively committing an act of war without seeking congressional authorization.

On Wednesday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said while she supports cracking down on trafficking, the administration has gone too far.

“The Trump administration’s authorization of covert CIA action, conducting lethal strikes on boats and hinting at land operations in Venezuela slides the United States closer to outright conflict with no transparency, oversight or apparent guardrails,” New Hampshire’s Shaheen said. “The American people deserve to know if the administration is leading the U.S. into another conflict, putting servicemembers at risk or pursuing a regime-change operation.”

The Trump administration has yet to provide underlying evidence to lawmakers proving that the boats targeted by the U.S. military were in fact carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration has only pointed to unclassified video clips of the strikes posted on social media by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and has yet to produce “hard evidence” that the vessels were carrying drugs.

Lawmakers have expressed frustration that the administration is offering little detail about how it came to decide the U.S. is in armed conflict with cartels or which criminal organizations it claims are “unlawful combatants.”

Even as the U.S. military has carried out strikes on some vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard has continued with its typical practice of stopping boats and seizing drugs.

Trump on Wednesday explained away the action, saying the traditional approach hasn’t worked.

“Because we’ve been doing that for 30 years, and it has been totally ineffective. They have faster boats,” he said. ”They’re world-class speedboats, but they’re not faster than missiles.”

Human rights groups have raised concerns that the strikes flout international law and are extrajudicial killings.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the U.S. military again targeted a boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, killing three aboard the vessel.

“The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the U.S.,” Trump said in a Truth Social post announcing the strike. “These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests.”

The strike that Trump says was carried out Monday came two weeks after another military strike on what the Trump administration says was a drug-carrying speedboat from Venezuela that killed 11.

The Trump administration justified the earlier strike as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

But several senators, Democrats and some Republicans, have indicated dissatisfaction with the administration’s rationale and questioned the legality of the action. They view it as a potential overreach of executive authority in part by using the military for law enforcement purposes.

The Trump administration has claimed self-defense as a legal justification for the first strike, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio arguing the drug cartels “pose an immediate threat” to the nation.

U.S. officials said the strike early this month targeted Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. And they indicated more military strikes on drug targets would be coming as the U.S. looks to “wage war” on cartels.

Trump did not specify whether Tren de Aragua was also the target of Monday’s strike.

The Venezuelan government did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported strike.

The Trump administration has railed specifically against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro for the scourge of illegal drugs in U.S. communities.

Maduro during a press conference earlier on Monday lashed out at the U.S. government, accusing the Trump administration of using drug trafficking accusations as an excuse for a military operation whose intentions are “to intimidate and seek regime change” in the South American country.

Maduro also repudiated what he described as a weekend operation in which 18 Marines raided a Venezuelan fishing boat in the Caribbean.

“What were they looking for? Tuna? What were they looking for? A kilo of snapper? Who gave the order in Washington for a missile destroyer to send 18 armed Marines to raid a tuna fishing vessel?” he said. “They were looking for a military incident. If the tuna fishing boys had any kind of weapons and used weapons while in Venezuelan jurisdiction, it would have been the military incident that the warmongers, extremists who want a war in the Caribbean, are seeking.”

Speaking to Fox News earlier Monday, Rubio reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t see Maduro as the rightful leader of Venezuela but as head of a drug cartel.

“We’re not going to have a cartel, operating or masquerading as a government, operating in our own hemisphere,” Rubio said.

Following the first military strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, America’s chief diplomat said Trump was “going to use the U.S. military and all the elements of American power to target cartels who are targeting America.”

AP and others have reported that the boat had turned around and was heading back to shore when it was struck. But Rubio on Monday said he didn’t know if that’s accurate.

“What needs to start happening is some of these boats need to get blown up,” Rubio said. “We can’t live in a world where all of a sudden they do a U-turn and so we can’t touch them anymore.”

Madhani and Garcia Cano write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matthew Lee in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Early this month, the U.S. military and masked federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from Customs and Border Protection invaded a park near downtown Los Angeles — ironically, a park named after Gen. Douglas MacArthur. They came ready for battle, dressed in tactical gear and camouflage, with some arriving on horseback, while others rolled in on armored vehicles or patrolled above in Black Hawk helicopters. Although the invasion force failed to capture anyone, it did succeed in liberating the park from a group of children participating in a summer camp.

The MacArthur Park operation sounds like a scene from “South Park,” but it really did happen — and its implications are terrifying. As Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol agent in charge, said to Fox News: “Better get used to us now, ’cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.” And President Trump is sending the same message to every Democratic governor and mayor in America who dares oppose him. He will send heavily armed federal forces wherever he wants, whenever he wants and for any reason.

The United States stands at the threshold of an authoritarian breakthrough, and Congress and the courts have given Trump a lot of tools. He’s learned from Jan. 6, 2021, that he needs tight control over the “guys with the guns,” as retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley put it. And that’s what he got when Congress dutifully confirmed Trump loyalists to lead all of the “power ministries” — the military, the FBI and the Department of Justice, the rest of the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security.

As commander in chief, the president can deploy troops and, under Title 10, he can also put National Guard troops under his command — even against the wishes of local officials. Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged the legality of Trump’s exercise of this authority in Los Angeles last month, and we will see what the courts say — but based on its initial rulings, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appears likely to defer to the president. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the troops cannot currently enforce laws, but Trump could change that by invoking the Insurrection Act, and we have to assume that the current Supreme Court would defer to him on that as well, following long-standing precedents saying the president’s power under the act is “conclusive.”

Trump could send the military into other cities, but the most dangerous weapon in his authoritarian arsenal might be the newly empowered Department of Homeland Security, which has been given $170 billion by Congress to triple the size of ICE and double its detention capacity.

No doubt, this will put Trump’s “mass deportation” into overdrive, but this is not just about immigration. Remember Portland in 2020, when Trump sent Border Patrol agents into the city? Against the wishes of the Oregon governor and the Portland mayor, the president deployed agents to protect federal buildings and suppress unrest after the killing of George Floyd. Under the Homeland Security Act, the secretary can designate any employee of the department to assist the Federal Protective Service in safeguarding government property and carrying out “such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.”

Under that law, DHS officers can also make arrests, on and off of federal property, for “any offense against the United States.” This is why, in 2020, Border Patrol agents — dressed like soldiers and equipped with M-4 semi-automatic rifles — were able to rove around Portland in unmarked black SUVs and arrest people off the streets anywhere in the city. Trump could do this again anywhere in the country, and with the billions Congress has given to immigration and border agencies, DHS could assemble and deploy a formidable federal paramilitary force wherever and whenever Trump wishes.

Of course, under the 4th Amendment, officers need to have at least reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts before they can stop and question someone, and probable cause before they arrest. And on Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order blocking ICE and Customs and Border Protection from making such stops without reasonable suspicion, and further holding that this could not be based on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; presence at a particular location, such as a Home Depot parking lot; or the type of work a person does. This ruling could end up providing an important constitutional restraint on these agencies, but we shall see. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling.

However, this litigation proceeds, it is important to note that the DHS agencies are not like the FBI, with its buttoned-down, by-the-book culture drilled into it historically and in response to the revelations of J. Edgar Hoover’s abuses of power. DHS and its agencies have no such baggage, and they clearly have been pushing the envelope in Los Angeles — sometimes brutally — over the last month. And even if Frimpong’s ruling stands up on appeal, ICE and Customs and Border Protection will no doubt adapt by training their officers to articulate other justifications for stopping people on the street or in workplaces. Ultimately, these agencies are used to operating near the border, where, in the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s words, the federal government’s power is “at its zenith,” and where there are far fewer constitutional constraints on their actions.

These are the tools at Trump’s disposal — and as DHS rushes to hire thousands of agents and build the detention facilities Congress just paid for, these tools will only become more formidable. And one should anticipate that Trump will want to deploy the DHS paramilitary forces to “protect” the 2026 or 2028 elections, alongside federal troops, in the same way they worked together to capture MacArthur Park.

A fanciful, dystopian scenario? Maybe, but who or what would stop it from happening? Congress does not seem willing to stand up to the president — and while individual federal judges might, the Supreme Court seems more likely to defer to him, especially on issues concerning national security or immigration. So, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, “the last check on power, after the checks and balances of government have failed, are the people, you and me.” Suit up.

Seth Stodder served in the Obama administration as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for borders, immigration and trade and previously as assistant secretary for threat prevention and security. He teaches national security and counterterrorism law at USC Law School.

WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court on Friday threw out an agreement that would have allowed accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in a deal sparing him the risk of execution for al Qaeda’s 2001 attacks.

The decision by a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., undoes an attempt to wrap up more than two decades of military prosecution beset by legal and logistical troubles. It signals there will be no quick end to the long struggle by the U.S. military and successive administrations to bring to justice the man charged with planning one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States.

The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors and the Pentagon’s senior official for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a year ago, stipulated life sentences without parole for Mohammed and two co-defendants.

Mohammed is accused of developing and directing the plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania.

The men also would have been obligated to answer any lingering questions that families of the victims have about the attacks.

But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, saying a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as Sept. 11 should only be made by the defense secretary.

Attorneys for the defendants had argued that the agreement was already legally in effect and that Austin, who served under President Joe Biden, acted too late to try to throw it out. A military judge at Guantanamo and a military appeals panel agreed with the defense lawyers.

But, by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Austin acted within his authority and faulted the military judge’s ruling.

The panel had previously put the agreement on hold while it considered the appeal, first filed by the Biden administration and then continued under President Donald Trump.

“Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the ‘families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.’ The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,” Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote.

Millett was an appointee of President Barack Obama while Rao was appointed by Trump.

In a dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, wrote, “The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred.”

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Roozbeh Farahanipour sat in the blue-green glow of his Westwood restaurant’s 220-gallon saltwater aquarium and worried about Iran, his voice accented in anguish.

It was Sunday morning, and the homeland he fled a quarter-century ago had been bombed by the U.S. military, escalating a conflict that began nine days earlier when Israel sprang a surprise attack on its perennial Middle Eastern foe.

“Anger and hate for the Iranian regime — I have it, but I try to manage it,” said Farahanipour, owner of Delphi Greek restaurant and two other nearby eateries. “I don’t think that anything good will come out of this. If, for any reason, the regime is going to be changed, either we’re facing another Iraq or Afghanistan, or we’re going to see the Balkans situation. Iran is going to be split in pieces.”

Farahanipour, 53, who’d been a political activist before fleeing Iran, rattled off a series of questions as a gray-colored shark made lazy loops in the tank behind him. What might happen to civilians in Iran if the U.S. attack triggers a more widespread war? What about the potential loss of Israeli lives? And Americans, too? After wrestling with those weighty questions, he posed a more workaday one: “What’s gonna be the gas price tomorrow?”

Such is life for Iranian Americans in Los Angeles, a diaspora that comprises the largest Iranian community outside of Iran. Farahanipour, like other Iranian Americans interviewed by The Times, described “very mixed and complicated” feelings over the crisis in Iran, which escalated early Sunday when the U.S. struck three nuclear sites there, joining an Israeli effort to disrupt the country’s quest for an atomic weapon.

About 141,000 Iranian Americans live in L.A. County, according to the Iranian Data Dashboard, which is hosted by the UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies. The epicenter of the community is Westwood, where the neighborhood’s namesake boulevard is speckled with storefronts covered in Persian script.

On Sunday morning, reaction to news of the conflict was muted in an area nicknamed “Tehrangeles” — a reference to Iran’s capital — after it welcomed Iranians who emigrated to L.A. during the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In some stores and restaurants, journalists from CNN, Spectrum News and other outlets outnumbered Iranian patrons. At Attari Sandwich Shop, known for its beef tongue sandwich, the pre-revolution Iranian flag hung near the cash register — but none of the diners wanted to give an interview.

“No thank you; [I’m] not really political,” one middle-aged guest said with a wry smile.

Kevan Harris, an associate professor of sociology at UCLA, said that any U.S. involvement in a military conflict with Iran is freighted with meaning, and has long been the subject of hand-wringing.

“This scenario — which seems almost fantastical in a way — is something that has been in the imagination: the United States is going to bomb Iran,” said Harris, an Iranian American who wrote the book “A Social Revolution: Politics and the Welfare State in Iran.” “For 20 years, this is something that has been regularly discussed.”

Many emigres find themselves torn between deep dislike and resentment of the authoritarian government they fled, and concern about the family members left behind. Some in Westwood were willing to chat.

A woman who asked to be identified only as Mary, out of safety concerns for her family in Iran, said she had emigrated five years ago and was visiting L.A. with her husband. The Chicago resident said that the last week and a half have been very difficult, partly because many in her immediate family, including her parents, still live in Tehran. They recently left the city for another location in Iran due to the ongoing attacks by Israeli forces.

“I am talking to them every day,” said Mary, 35.

Standing outside Shater Abbass Bakery & Market — whose owner also has hung the pre-1979 Iranian flag — Mary said she was “hopeful and worried.”

“It’s a very confusing feeling,” she said. “Some people, they are happy because they don’t like the government — they hate the government.” Others, she said, are upset over the destruction of property and death of civilians.

Mary had been planning to visit her family in Iran in August, but that’s been scrambled. “Now, I don’t know what I should do,” she said.

Not far from Westwood, Beverly Hills’ prominent Iranian Jewish community was making its presence felt. On Sunday morning, Shahram Javidnia, 62, walked near a group of pro-Israel supporters who were staging a procession headed toward the city’s large “Beverly Hills” sign. One of them waved an Israeli flag.

Javidnia, an Iranian Jew who lives in Beverly Hills and opposes the government in Iran, said he monitors social media, TV and radio for news of the situation there.

“Now that they’re in a weak point,” he said of Iran’s authoritarian leadership, “that’s the time maybe for the Iranians to rise up and try to do what is right.”

Javidnia came to the U.S. in 1978 as a teenager, a year before revolution would lead to the overthrow of the shah and establishment of the Islamic Republic. He settled in the L.A. area, and hasn’t been back since. He said returning is not something he even thinks about.

“The place that I spent my childhood is not there anymore,” he said. “It doesn’t exist.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval.

“Well done, President Trump,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) posted on X. Another Republican, Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama, called the bombings “strong and surgical.” The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), said Trump “has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.”

The divisions in Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president’s ability to conduct such a consequential action without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. Though Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to carry out acts of war without congressional approval, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority.

“This was a massive gamble by President Trump, and nobody knows yet whether it will pay off,” said Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional, and demanded more information in a classified setting. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that he received only a “perfunctory notification” without any details, according to a spokesperson.

“No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,” Schumer said in a statement. “Confronting Iran’s ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity.”

House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said that Trump “misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

The quick GOP endorsements of stepped-up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days and many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party’s schism over Iran could complicate the GOP’s efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350-billion national security package in Trump’s massive tax and spending bill, which he planned to push toward speedy votes this week.

“We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,” Wicker posted on X.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) both were briefed ahead of the strikes Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that “as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

Johnson said in a statement that the military operations “should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said he had also been in touch with the White House and that “I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.”

Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a staunch supporter of Israel’s military actions in the Middle East, also praised the U.S. attacks on Iran. “As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,” he posted. “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including among some of Trump’s most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America’s “forever wars.” Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that “while President Trump’s decision may prove just, it’s hard to conceive a rationale that’s Constitutional.”

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie, a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X: “This is not Constitutional.”

“This is not our fight,” said Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, one of Trump’s most loyal congressional allies.

Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch’s constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action.

Kaine said the bombings were an act of “horrible judgment.”

“I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,” Kaine said.

Democratic Rep. Greg Casar of Texas, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that “new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.”

“Then they sent other people’s children to fight and die endlessly,” Casar said. “Enough.”

Jalonick and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — When he first ran for office, Donald Trump appeared to be a new kind of Republican when it came to gay rights.

Years earlier, he overturned the rules of his own Miss Universe pageant to allow a transgender contestant to compete. He said Caitlyn Jenner could use any bathroom at Trump Tower that she wanted. And he was the first president to name an openly gay person to a Cabinet-level position.

But since returning to office this year, Trump has engaged in what activists say is an unprecedented assault on the LGBTQ+ community. The threat from the White House contrasts with World Pride celebrations taking place just blocks away in Washington, including a parade and rally this weekend.

“We are in the darkest period right now since the height of the AIDS crisis,” said Kevin Jennings, who leads Lambda Legal, a longtime advocacy organization. “I am deeply concerned that we’re going to see it all be taken away in the next four years.”

Trump’s defenders insist the president has not acted in a discriminatory way, and they point to public polling that shows widespread support for policies like restrictions on transgender athletes.

“He’s working to establish common sense once again,” said Ed Williams, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, which represents LGBT conservatives.

Harrison Fields, the principal deputy press secretary at the White House, said, “the overall MAGA movement is a big tent welcome for all and home to a large swath of the American people.”

“The president continues to foster a national pride that should be celebrated daily, and he is honored to serve all Americans,” Fields said.

Presidential actions were widely expected

Trump made anti-transgender attacks a central plank of his campaign reelection message as he called on Congress to pass a bill stating there are “only two genders” and pledged to ban hormonal and surgical intervention for transgender minors. He signed an executive order doing so in January.

His rally speeches featured a spoof video mocking transgender people and their place in the U.S. military. Trump has since banned them outright from serving. And although June is recognized nationally as Pride month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week that Trump has “no plans for a proclamation.”

“I can tell you this president is very proud to be a president for all Americans, regardless of race, religion or creed,” she added, making no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Williams described Pride activities as a progressive catch-all rather than a civil rights campaign. “If you’re not in the mood to protest or resist the Trump administration,” he said, “Pride is not for you.”

Trump declined to issue Pride Month proclamations in his first term, but did recognize the celebration in 2019 as he publicized a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality headed by Richard Grenell, then the U.S. Ambassador to Germany and the highest-profile openly gay person in the administration. (Grenell now serves as envoy for special missions.)

“As we celebrate LGBT Pride Month and recognize the outstanding contributions LGBT people have made to our great Nation, let us also stand in solidarity with the many LGBT people who live in dozens of countries worldwide that punish, imprison, or even execute individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation,” Trump posted on social media.

Times have changed where Trump is concerned

This time, there is no celebrating.

The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, which Trump named himself chairman of after firing members of the board of trustees, canceled a week’s worth of events celebrating LGBTQ+ rights for this summer’s World Pride festival in Washington, D.C., at one of the nation’s premier cultural institutions.

Trump, who indicated when he took up the position that he would be dictating programming, had specifically said he would end events featuring performers in drag. The exterior lights that once lit the venue on the Potomac River in the colors of the rainbow were quickly replaced with red, white and blue.

Multiple artists and producers involved in the center’s Tapestry of Pride schedule, which had been planned for June 5 to 8, told The Associated Press that their events had been quietly canceled or moved to other venues.

Inside the White House, there’s little second-guessing about the president’s stances. Trump aides have pointed to their decision to seize on culture wars surrounding transgender rights during the 2024 campaign as key to their win. They poured money into ads aimed at young men — especially young Hispanic men — attacking Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for supporting “taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners,” including one spot aired during football games.

“Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you,” the narrator said.

Jennings flatly rejected assertions that the administration hasn’t been discriminatory. “Are you kidding me? You’re throwing trans people out of the military. That’s example No. 1.”

He points to the cancellation of scientific grants and funding for HIV/AIDS organizations, along with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “petty and mean” order to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, which commemorates the gay rights activist and Navy veteran.

Jennings also said it doesn’t help that Trump has appointed openly gay men like Grenell and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to high-profile positions: “I would call it window dressing.”

Less tolerance for the issues as time passes

Craig Konnoth, a University of Virginia professor of civil rights, compared the U.S.’ trajectory to that of Russia, which has seen a crackdown on gay and lesbian rights after a long stretch of more progressive policies. In 2023, Russia’s Supreme Court effectively outlawed LGBTQ+ activism.

Williams said Trump has made the Republican Party more accepting of gay people. First lady Melania Trump, he noted, has hosted fundraisers for his organization.

“On the whole, we think he’s the best president ever for our community. He’s managed to support us in ways that we have never been supported by any administration,” Williams said. “We are vastly accepted within our party now.”

Trump’s approach to LGBTQ+ rights comes amid a broader shift among Republicans, who have grown less tolerant in recent years.

While overall support for same-sex marriage has been stable, according to Gallup, the percentage of Republicans who think marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized as valid with the same rights as traditional marriage dropped to 41% this year. That’s the lowest point since 2016, a year after the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, and a substantial decline from a high of 55% in 2021.

There’s been a similar drop in the share of Republicans who say that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable, which has dropped from 56% in 2022 to 38% this year. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage and say that same-sex relations are morally acceptable.

An AP-NORC poll from May also found that Trump’s approach to handling transgender issues has been a point of relative strength for the president. About half (52%) of U.S. adults said they approve of how he’s handling transgender issues — a figure higher than his overall job approval (41%).

Douglas Page, who studies politics and gender at Gettysburg College, said that “trans rights are less popular than gay rights, with a minority of Republicans in favor of trans rights. This provides incentives for Republicans to speak to the conservative side of that issue.”

“Gay people are less controversial to Republicans compared to trans people,” he said in an email, “so gay appointees like Secretary Bessent probably won’t ruffle many feathers.”

Megerian and Colvin write for the Associated Press. Colvin reported from New York. Linley Sanders and Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.