作者： root

Last year, small US firms faced notable tariff price pressures, Fed report finds

March 3, 2026 4:05 PM UTC / Reuters

By Michael S. Derby

节点运行失败

A large number of empty workstations fill the wire shop area at Pathfinder Manufacturing, near Boeing’s Everett widebody jet plant, at a factory in Everett, Washington, U.S., September 25, 2024. REUTERS/David Ryder/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary

• Tariffs and inflation increased costs for small businesses in 2025
• Retail and manufacturing firms most affected by tariff-related costs
• AI adoption rising among small firms, boosting productivity without job loss

March 3 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s regime of ​large-scale tax increases on imports as well as generalized inflation gains created headwinds for U.S. ‌small businesses last year, a Federal Reserve report released on Tuesday said.

“The most common challenge” faced by these smaller firms in 2025 was the rising cost of goods, services and wages, the 12 regional Fed banks collectively said as part of the 2025 ​Small Business Credit Survey.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

More than four-in-10 firms in the poll said “that increased costs associated with tariffs were ​a financial challenge,” with retail and manufacturing firms feeling that pressure most acutely. Among ⁠firms facing higher costs related to the president’s tax increases, 76% of respondents passed on some of the ​higher costs and 60% absorbed some of the expense.

“Nearly half of firms said they source at least some inputs ​from outside the United States, and a large majority of those firms reported that foreign inputs increased in price from 2024 to 2025,” the report said.

Firms did not on balance respond to the higher costs by changing suppliers or moving activity back inside ​U.S. borders.

Trump’s tariff system was a notable driver of inflation in 2025, with Fed officials attributing much of ​the overshoot of their 2% target last year to the tax hikes. Most Fed officials expect the impact of the tariffs ‌to fade ⁠this year.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that tariffs are borne by foreigners, and are designed to both bring industry back to American shores while creating revenues for the government. The tariffs also have been repeatedly used as a coercive foreign policy tool.

Recent reports from the New York Fed and the Congressional Budget Office have both found ​that contrary to the president’s ​view on tariffs, they ⁠are almost entirely borne by those inside U.S. borders. The outlook for the tariff system has been clouded by a Supreme Court ruling that Trump’s sweeping levies exceeded his ​authority, although Trump followed that decision with the imposition of even more tariffs on goods ​coming into ⁠the U.S.

The regional Fed report also looked at usage of artificial intelligence technology by small firms last year and found rising adoption and little job market displacement.

Just shy of half of small firms are using AI and 15% plan to ⁠add ​it to their operation in the next year, the report said. The ​Fed survey said the main use for AI so far is writing and marketing followed by individual productivity.

AI did not change labor costs ​but it did enhance productivity for many firms, the report said.

Reporting by Michael S. Derby; Editing by Andrea Ricci

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Trump Iran military strikes get mixed approval from Americans in new polls | Fox News

By Paul Steinhauser | Fox News

Published March 3, 2026 11:30am EST

The findings of two new national polls conducted in the hours after President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran are clear — only a minority of Americans approve of the operation and Democrats and Republicans don’t see eye to eye over the attacks.

Twenty-seven percent of those questioned in a Reuters/Ipsos national survey conducted Saturday and Sunday after the start of “Operation Epic Fury” by American and Israeli forces on Iran that resulted in the killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said they approved of the strikes.

A plurality, 43%, said they disapproved, with nearly three in 10 not sure.

There were similar findings in a CNN poll conducted by SSRS that was also in the field this past weekend.

Fifty-nine percent of Americans surveyed in the poll said they disapproved of the initial decision to strike Iran, with 41% giving a thumbs up.

As expected, there’s a wide divide between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans questioned in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, by a 55%-32% margin, were supportive of the military action. The vast majority of Democrats, 73%, disapproved of the strikes, with only 7% saying they approved. A plurality of independents, 44%, disapproved of the military attack, with 19% supportive and nearly four in 10 unsure.

The partisan gap was even wider in the CNN poll.

More than three-quarters of Republican respondents, 77%, approved, compared to 32% of independents and 18% of Democrats.

According to the CNN poll, 83% of Republicans said Trump has a clear plan for handling the attacks on Iran, while 70% of independents and 88% of Democrats disagreed.

Overall, six in 10 said they don’t think the president has a clear plan for dealing with the situation, and 62% said Trump should get congressional approval before any further military action.

Both polls were conducted before the U.S. military announced on Sunday the first U.S. casualties in the operation — six service members killed.

The joint U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran is now in its fourth day as of Tuesday, with Trump saying the plan is ahead of schedule thanks to the early elimination of Iran’s top leaders.

Trump has said Iran is seeking talks with the U.S. as the military operations continue, but the president indicated he believes the opportunity for negotiations has passed.

The U.S. has urged Americans to leave 14 countries across the Middle East as Iran’s counterattacks intensify. The U.S. State Department has also closed embassies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the Gulf Cooperation Council warned Iran it will take “all necessary measures,” including possible military action, in response to Tehran’s missile and drone attacks.

Paul Steinhauser is a politics reporter based in the swing state of New Hampshire. He covers the campaign trail from coast to coast.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6390312505112
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6390319401112

What tonight’s Texas Senate primaries could mean for the Senate majority in 2027 | CNN Politics

By Dana Bash, CNN
Published 2:02 PM EST, Tue March 3, 2026

Texas voters go to the polls today to select the Democratic and Republican nominees for Senate. CNN’s Dana Bash and the “Inside Politics” panel break down the fascinating, close races on both sides and explain the stakes for the midterms.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/03/politics/video/inside-politics-texas-senate-race

Why strike Iran now? Inside the Trump administration’s shifting reasons. | CNN Politics

Published 1:13 PM EST, Tue March 3, 2026 / CNN

President Trump said the U.S. “forced Israel’s hand” to attack Iran just one day after Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Iran was going to “come after” the U.S. if “Israel attacked them”. CNN’s David Chalian tells the Inside Politics panel, “in the Oval Office, Donald Trump is course correcting here.”

2:55 • Source: CNN

Anthropic’s Claude AI being used in Iran war by U.S. military, sources say

March 3, 2026 / 1:04 PM EST / CBS News

Two sources familiar with the U.S. military’s use of artificial intelligence confirm that the U.S. used Anthropic’s Claude AI model over weekend for the attack on Iran — and is still using it.

The Pentagon has not said exactly how the AI tool is being deployed, but it’s being used despite a government-wide ban on the technology after a dispute last week with the Pentagon. The conflict centered around Anthropic’s push for guardrails that would explicitly prevent the military from using Claude to conduct mass surveillance on Americans or to power fully autonomous weapons.

The Pentagon demanded the ability to use Claude for “all lawful purposes” and contended that Anthropic’s usage concerns were not material because it’s already illegal for the Pentagon to conduct mass surveillance of Americans, and internal policies restrict the military from using fully autonomous weapons.

And beyond those laws, “At some level, you have to trust your military to do the right thing,” the Pentagon’s chief technology officer, Emil Michael, said in an interview with CBS News Friday.

Anthropic CEO DarioAmodei told CBS News that Anthropic had sought to draw “red lines” in the government’s use of its technology because “we believe that crossing those lines is contrary to American values, and we wanted to stand up for American values.”

“Disagreeing with the government is the most American thing in the world,” Amodei said. “And we are patriots. In everything we have done here, we have stood up for the values of this country.”

President Trump announced Friday that he’s ordering federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s technology, allowing them six months to phase it out, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has declared the company a supply chain risk.

National security news site Defense One, citing multiple sources familiar with the DoD’s spat with Anthropic, reported it could take three months or longer for the Pentagon to replace Claude’s capabilities with another AI platform.

Pentagon chief technology officer Michael told CBS News the Defense Department uses Claude for synthesizing documents and making logistics and supply chains more efficient, among other tasks.

Jennifer Jacobs and Jo Ling Kent contributed to this report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/anthropic-ceo-says-conflict-with-government-is-about-standing-up-for-whats-right/

Trump once warned ‘lives will be wasted’ in Iran war. Now he’s leading one

Updated Mar 3, 2026, 2:29 PM ET | Published Mar 3, 2026, 2:29 PM ET | By Andrew Kaczynski

In this handout image, US President Donald Trump oversees “Operation Epic Fury” with, from left, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles at Mar-a-Lago on February 28, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida.

Daniel Torok/White House/Handout/Getty Images

As US forces carry out bombing operations inside Iran, President Donald Trump and several of his top national security officials are now presiding over a war they once warned would be costly, destabilizing and against American interests.

More than a decade ago, Trump repeatedly (and wrongly) predicted that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran for political benefit — warning that “lives will be wasted for no reason.”

Throughout 2011 and 2012, Trump returned again and again to the idea that a confrontation with Iran would be politically motivated, strategically unnecessary and likely lead to US casualties.

He was not alone. Several of his current top national security officials previously voiced opposition to the idea of US military action against Iran. Vice President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent have each been sharply critical of the kind of campaign the administration has now launched.

Their past skepticism underscored a broader theme that has defined Trump’s political rise and which has been a key pillar of his MAGA movement for more than a decade: promises to avoid what Trump and his allies have described as “endless” or “stupid” wars in the Middle East and beyond.

US President Donald Trump speaks at the Port of Corpus Christi on February 27, 2026 in Corpus Christi, Texas. Trump visited Texas to deliver remarks on affordability and economic issues less than a week before the state’s midterm primary elections on March 3rd.

Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images

Despite campaigning on a promise to avoid “endless wars” and costly foreign interventions, Trump’s two terms have seen a series of military operations abroad — including the 2020 assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025, and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro earlier this year.

His open-ended war with Iran is by far the largest military operation he has initiated and the one that most directly contradicts his past rhetoric against US intervention abroad.

Anna Kelly, a spokesperson for the White House, said President Trump’s stance on stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon has been consistently shared by his predecessors in the White House. Kelly also provided an on-record statement from press secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“President Trump’s courageous decision to launch Operation Epic Fury is grounded in a truth that presidents for nearly 50 years have been talking about, but no president had the courage to confront: Iran poses a direct and imminent threat to the United States of America and our troops in the Middle East. The rogue Iranian Regime under the evil hand of the Ayatollah has killed and maimed thousands of American citizens and soldiers over the years – and that ends with President Trump.”

Smoke plumes rise following missile strikes in Tehran on March 1, 2026.

Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images

‘He’ll start a war’

As the Trump-Vance ticket campaigned in 2024, Vance brushed aside criticism of Trump’s combative style, arguing that while his rhetoric was provocative, his actions were less combative and more peaceful.

“Mean tweets and world peace has a pretty nice ring to it,” Vance said.

That anti-interventionalist message was central to Trump’s own rhetoric even before his first campaign for the presidency.

“I say that he starts a war in Iran before the election, which will make it very hard for the Republican to win,” Trump said of then-President Barack Obama in January 2012 on the Sean Hannity radio program. “He’ll start a war, you know, lives will be wasted for no reason.”

The 2012 comment from Trump, who was then making early forays into conservative politics with appearances at CPAC and on Fox News, prompted Hannity to call the notion of bombing Iran “the most chilling abuse of power, is what you’re describing, in American history.”

“Yeah, I think it’s going to happen,” Trump responded. “There’ll be some kind of a war started. Instead of working it out, which you can do very easily. And not from weakness, hey look, you know, it’s called be a tough negotiator. You have a lot of strength. But you know, rather than doing that, I predict that he will start some kind of a war/ skirmish or conflict.”

Trump offered no evidence for his prediction, and there was no public indication the Obama administration was planning a war with Iran. No such conflict ever occurred during Obama’s presidency.

Hannity now says past American presidents “didn’t have the political courage” to attack Iran.

The Trump administration has confirmed that at least six US service members have been killed and several others seriously wounded during the operations,

Trump, speaking in a video address on Sunday, acknowledged the casualties and warned that more US deaths were likely as the campaign continues.

Graves are being prepared for the victims following an Israeli strike on a school in Minab, Iran, on March 2, 2026.

Iranian Foreign Media Department/Wana News Agency/Reuters

In 2011 and 2012, Trump returned repeatedly to the baseless claim that Obama would start a war with Iran.

“I think that he would do it. I do believe he will do it, whether he does it under the guise of Israel or not, but I do believe he would do it,” Trump said in another interview with Fox Host Jeannine Pirro in April 2012 about war with Iran.

In a 2011 video blog that has since been deleted, he said: “Our president will start a war with Iran because he has absolutely no ability to negotiate. He’s weak, and he’s ineffective. So the only way he figures that he’s going to get reelected — as sure as you’re sitting there — is to start a war with Iran.”

Speaking on “The Laura Ingraham Show” in April 2012, Trump again forecast conflict.

“I happen to think that the president is going to start a war with Iran,” Trump said. “I think it’ll be a short-term popular thing to do. And I think he’s going to do that for political reasons.”

A person holds a picture of Iran’s deceased supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as people mourn in Tehran, on Sunday.

Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images

Other administration officials critical of Iran strikes

In 2024, then-Senator Vance argued that such a conflict would not serve American interests and would drain US resources.

“Our interest I think very much is in not going to war with Iran,” Vance said in an interview with comedian Tim Dillon in October 2024. “It would be a huge distraction of resources it would be massively expensive to our country.

“I don’t want America to be the policeman of the world,” he added.

In photographs released by the White House, Vance and Gabbard were seated in the Situation Room as the strikes unfolded — part of the team monitoring and coordinating the operation.

This photo provided by the White House, which has been partially blurred, shows Vice President JD Vance listening with Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in the White House Situation Room during Operation Epic Fury on Saturday, February 28.

The White House/Handout/AP

Gabbard, who now serves as Director of National Intelligence, built much of her political identity on vehement opposition to US wars of intervention — including against Iran.

As a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2018, Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, warned that, “Every dollar spent on interventionist regime-change wars is a dollar not spent on education, health care, infrastructure and a myriad of other needs so desperately needed right here at home.”

Gabbard maintained her anti-interventionalist stances as a congresswoman, telling Fox News in 2019, “Currently, Iran does not pose a direct threat to the United States.”

After the 2020 killing of Soleimani, Gabbard, by then a presidential candidate, warned the strike would push the US toward a catastrophic conflict and called for an immediate end to escalation.

She posted “No War With Iran” across her social media platforms and sold merchandise bearing the slogan, including T-shirts emblazoned with the words “NO WAR WITH IRAN.”

“War with Iran would make Iraq/Afghanistan wars seem like a picnic. #StandWIthTulsi #NoWarWithIran,” she said in a Jan. 7, 2020 tweet linking to a Fox News appearance that month.

“It will be far more costly in lives, American lives, and American taxpayer dollars,” she said.

A missile launched from Iran is pictured in the sky from the Bureij camp for Palestinian refugees in the central Gaza Strip on March 1, 2026.

Eyad Baba/AFP/Getty Images

Last year, before the US bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, Gabbard drew Trump’s ire over a video she posted warning that the world is “closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.” As CNN reported at the time, Trump viewed the video as a thinly veiled criticism of his consideration to allow Israel to strike Iran.

Not unlike Gabbard, Joe Kent entered politics by staking out a staunchly anti-war stance.

Kent, a former Green Beret, said he turned to politics after witnessing “the failures of the government establishment keeping us at war in the Middle East” and watching officials “lie about regime-change wars.”

In interviews, he railed against the “military industrial complex” and argued that Washington had trapped the country in “endless wars” disconnected from the national interest.

“Let’s not start a new war with Iran,” Kent said in 2021 radio interview in which he also praised Trump.

Justice Department reverses course and now intends to defend Trump’s executive orders targeting law firms

March 3, 2026 / 1:34 PM EST / CBS News

Washington — The Justice Department is walking back its move to end its appeals of lower-court decisions that invalidated President Trump’s executive orders targeting four law firms— just hours after it said it would drop its defense of the directives.

The Justice Department informed the U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday that it is now seeking to withdraw its request to voluntarily dismiss the appeals. Lawyers for the four firms oppose the move, calling it an “unexplained about-face,” according to the filing.

The Justice Department said in its motion that regardless of the firms’ position, it is its “prerogative” to pursue the appeal.

Susman Godfrey said in a statement, “Yesterday evening, the Administration told the Court that it gave up and wouldn’t even try to defend its unconstitutional executive orders. Today, it reversed course.”

“Regardless, Susman Godfrey will defend itself and the rule of law — without equivocation,” the firm said.

Representatives for Perkins Coie and Jenner & Block did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The reversal from the Justice Department comes less than 24 hours after government lawyers said in a filing that they would be moving to voluntarily drop the department’s appeals of the four lower court decisions that struck down Mr. Trump’s executive orders as unconstitutional. The motion to end the case was signed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, a top Justice Department official.

The Justice Department’s written arguments were due in the ongoing appeals in the coming days, and the appeals court has not yet signed off on the government’s initial motion to dismiss.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the reversal. A spokesperson for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The rulings stemmed from executive orders Mr. Trump issued last year that sought to punish four firms — Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey — because of lawyers they hired and cases they worked on. The measures all attempted to impose the same sanctions on the firms, going after their clients with government contracts, restricting their access to federal buildings and officials, and suspending security clearances held by their employees.

A fifth firm, Paul, Weiss, was also the subject of a directive from Mr. Trump, but it was rescinded after the firm reached a deal with the White House to provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes the administration supports.

Nine other firms reached similar agreements with the president to avoid executive orders and pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services for initiatives backed by the Trump administration.

The four firms that sued the Trump administration won their cases at the trial-court level, with four different federal judges ruling overwhelmingly in their favor and finding the executive orders violated the First, Fourth and Sixth Amendments.

The directives rolled out in the first months of Mr. Trump’s second term were part of a broader effort by the president to punish his perceived political enemies upon his return to power. Two of the firms, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, hired lawyers who worked on former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, including Mueller himself.

Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News stemming from baseless allegations about the integrity of the 2020 election that were broadcast by the network. Fox News agreed to pay Dominion $787 million to settle the case.

Perkins Coie represented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election, in which her opponent was Mr. Trump. It also hired a research firm that retained former British spy Christopher Steele, who produced the infamous “Steele Dossier”.

Nikki Haley slams Democrats who say Iranian regime ‘was no threat to America’: ‘Absurd’

Former UN ambassador called Operation Epic Fury a ‘history-defining moment’

By Rachel Wolf
Fox News
Published March 3, 2026 11:48am EST

Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley slammed Democrats who claim that the Iranian regime was not a threat to the U.S., calling the notion “absurd.”

“It’s absurd for Democrats to say the Iranian regime was no threat to America. For decades, they targeted American troops, made the spread of terrorism a priority, relentlessly pursued nuclear weapons, built missiles aimed at our bases, and plotted assassinations against President Trump and other U.S. leaders — myself included — on American soil,” Haley said on X.

“When they chanted ‘Death to America,’ they meant all of us, at any cost,” she added.

Haley told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum that the U.S. and Israel’s joint military offensive, Operation Epic Fury, was a “history-defining moment.” She added that for President Donald Trump, her former boss-turned-political rival, it was a “legacy defining moment.”

Nikki Haley, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, visits “Fox & Friends” at Fox News Channel Studios on Sept. 9, 2024, in New York City.(John Lamparski/Getty Images)

“They attempted to do diplomacy, and the Iranian Regime did what they always do. They lie, they cheat, they never tell the truth, and they always want to make sure in the back of their minds they want to harm people,” Haley told MacCallum. “And we saw this when we got out of the Iranian deal, you know, years ago, that they were cheating then. I think that they were trying to get away with cheating now, and I think the Trump administration saw through that.”

The launch of Operation Epic Fury caused a sharp divide within the Democratic Party, with major players praising and criticizing the attacks.

Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., both of whom called the launch of Operation Epic Fury “illegal,” are among the most vocal critics. Additionally, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., claimed that the operation lacked “strategic clarity” and called for a vote on a war powers resolution.

A woman walks past a building which was damaged after a strike on a police station amid the U.S.–Israeli military campaign in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, March 3, 2026.(Vahid Salemi/AP Photo)

LIZ PEEK: DEMOCRATS RAGE OVER TRUMP’S IRAN STRIKES AS EXILES CHEER AYATOLLAH’S FALL

“Confronting Iran’s malign regional activities, nuclear ambitions, and harsh oppression of the Iranian people demands American strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity. Unfortunately, President Trump’s fitful cycles of lashing out and risking wider conflict are not a viable strategy,” Schumer said in a statement.

“The Senate should quickly return to session and reassert its constitutional duty by passing our resolution to enforce the War Powers Act,” Schumer added.

On Feb. 28, when the strikes began, Kaine said that Trump “launched an unnecessary, idiotic, and illegal war against Iran that puts America’s servicemembers and embassy personnel at risk.” Kaine, as well as some other Democrats, called for Congress to return to Washington to vote on his war powers resolution. The resolution, which focused on Iran, was filed in January.

Sanders also issued a statement on Saturday criticizing the operation in which he slammed both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Vermont senator said Trump and Netanyahu had started an “illegal, premeditated and unconstitutional war” against Iran. Sanders, like Kaine, called for a vote on a war powers resolution.

“This attack against Iran is a clear violation of international law and will create increased instability in an already dangerous world. If the United States and Israel can launch an attack against a sovereign nation, so can any other country. Might does not make right. It creates international anarchy, death, destruction and human misery,” Sanders’ statement read.

A general view of Tehran with smoke visible in the distance after explosions were reported in the city, on March 2, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.(Contributor/Getty Images)

IRANIAN-AMERICAN JOURNALIST CALLS OUT MAMDANI OVER RESPONSE TO US-ISRAEL STRIKES

“We must not allow Trump to force us into another senseless war. No war with Iran,” he added.

There are Democrats who have praised the operation, including Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has said that he would be a “hard no” if Democrats forced a war powers resolution vote.

“President Trump has been willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region. God bless the United States, our great military, and Israel,” Fetterman wrote on X as Operation Epic Fury began.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., also praised the operation, saying that “confronting the Iranian threat is essential to national security and to global stability.”

He also called on the president to comply with the War Powers Act and said that he “requested an immediate classified briefing” on the operation.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Today, the United States, with our key democratic ally Israel, took decisive action to defend our national security, fight terror, protect our allies, and stand with the Iranian people who have been massacred in the streets for demanding freedom from the murderous Iranian regime,” Gottheimer said.

“I applaud the extraordinary bravery and professionalism of our servicemembers and pray for their safety as Iran and its terrorist proxies retaliate against American bases and our partners in the region,” he added.

Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6390176071112

FBI agents fired by Patel worked in counterintelligence, including on cases involving Iran, sources say

Updated on: March 3, 2026 / 2:39 PM EST / CBS News

Most of the FBI agents fired by FBI Director Kash Patel last week worked on counterintelligence cases, including cases pertaining to Iran, multiple sources told CBS News.

Approximately a dozen or so FBI employees, including agents, analysts and support staff, were abruptly terminated over a two-day period last week after Patel lashed out over the discovery that his phone records and those of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles were subpoenaed by the FBI as part of special counsel Jack Smith’s probes into President Trump.

The toll records at issue, which include the originating phone and recipient phone, date, time and duration of the call, are commonly sought during criminal probes and do not contain details about the content of phone calls.

Most of the people who were fired worked in some capacity on Smith’s probe into Mr. Trump’s retention of classified records after he left the White House in early 2021.

Many of the agents who were terminated were assigned to a squad that worked on global counterintelligence cases, including those involving Iran. Among the terminated staffers was a section chief in counterintelligence who handled espionage threats, including threats from the Iranian government and its proxies, one of the sources added.

A different source with knowledge of the matter called the firing of the members of the CI-12 squad “devastating to the FBI’s Iran program.” The source said that these agents have confidential informants in the Iranian community in the U.S. “You can’t replicate that with new agents. These sources will go away.” The source pointed out that in the intelligence community, it is only the FBI that has a robust intelligence program in the U.S. because the CIA cannot operate domestically.

The fact that many of those fired handled counterintelligence cases was first reported by the New York Sun.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/at-least-10-fbi-employees-who-worked-on-trump-classified-documents-case-fired-sources-say/

How much is Trump’s base on board with war with Iran? It’s complicated

2026-03-03 / CNN Politics

Analysis by

Aaron Blake

Updated 26 min ago

Updated Mar 3, 2026, 2:11 PM ET

PUBLISHED Mar 3, 2026, 1:31 PM ET

Donald Trump The Middle East Election polls

[See all topics]

Facebook TweetEmailLink Threads

Link Copied!

President Donald Trump looks on during a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

Prominent conservatives are balking at President Donald Trump’s war with Iran in ways they didn’t when he struck Iran’s nuclear facilities last year and Venezuela two months ago.

Megyn Kelly said she had “serious doubts about what we are doing.” Tucker Carlson called it “absolutely disgusting and evil” (after being a little more muted following the June strikes). Fox News host Will Cain has questioned the clarity of the mission. And a number of prominent conservative influencers have echoed those concerns.

But just how representative are these comments of the sentiments on the broader political right?

Ad Feedback

The answer right now is “not very.” Republicans have largely supported the US decision to take military action — including 77% to 23% in a new CNN poll. And that matters a great deal when it comes to keeping GOP lawmakers in line. (The US strikes on Iran are unpopular overall, including by a 59%-41% margin in the CNN poll.)

Still, the war with Iran could challenge Trump’s ability to hold his base together in a way his previous foreign strikes did not.

That’s because his base is pretty lukewarm — even bordering on skeptical in some ways.

And a prolonged conflict that leads to broader war and more US casualties could be a tough sell for the president who campaigned on ending wars rather than starting them.

Even with strong GOP support — 55%-13% in a Reuters-Ipsos poll and 81%-12% in a Washington Post poll — there are warning signs for Trump.

For one, the Republicans who say they support the US strikes on Iran don’t do so very strongly.

The percentage of Republicans who “strongly” approved was just 37% in the CNN poll and 54% in the Washington Post poll. The Reuters-Ipsos poll, which offered just two options, showed 45% of Republicans either opposing the strikes (13%) or declining to weigh in (32%).

And that last poll actually showed significantly fewer Republicans supporting this mission than the June strikes. The 55% support now is down from 69% in the summer.

The polls today also show some real reservations on the right with how we’ve gotten to where we are today and what happens from here.

Among Republicans:

• About one-third said Trump hadn’t clearly explained the mission, in both the Washington Post poll and a CBS News-YouGov poll conducted right before the US launched strikes.
• Just 54% in the Washington Post poll said they wanted Trump to continue striking Iran, which he’s doing.
• Just 41% strongly favored overthrowing the Iranian government in the CNN poll.
• 51% were at least “somewhat” concerned about the US getting bogged down in a full-scale war in the Washington Post poll.

The thread that runs through many of these findings is something we’ve seen after Trump’s previous strikes in Iran and Venezuela: His base seems to be much more okay with brief missions with quick deliverables and no blowback.

But what happens when that’s not the case? What happens when it’s more of a prolonged war?

We’ve already seen six US soldiers killed and more than a dozen seriously injured. And the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed 42% of Republicans said they’d be more likely to oppose the mission if US troops were killed or injured.

In this US Navy handout image, an F/A-18E Super Hornet, attached to Strike Fighter Squadron 14, taxis the flight deck after an arrested landing on Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of Operation Epic Fury on March 1, 2026.

U.S. Navy/Getty Images

We’re also seeing gas prices start to spike, and 34% of Republicans said that would make them more likely to oppose the mission in the Reuters-Ipsos poll.

Also, 46% of Republicans trust Trump “moderately” or less than that when it comes to making decisions about the use of force in Iran, per the CNN poll.

The previous strikes in Iran and Venezuela were not popular. But they didn’t become major issues because, as with so many controversial Trump actions, they were brief stories from which the political world quickly moved on.

The war in Iran appears to be developing differently.

It’s a little like the immigration crackdown in Minneapolis. Aspects of Trump’s deportation program were unpopular long before two US citizens were killed — thanks to the mistaken deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, other deportations without due process, the use of masked agents and other events. But the weekslong saga in Minneapolis trained people’s eyes on the situation in a way that made it difficult to avert their gazes — which did not help Trump.

It remains to be seen if Iran will pan out the same way. The president’s base has given him plenty of berth over the last decade, even when his actions transparently violated his promises. And he could try to wrap up military action quickly before it becomes a liability.

In comments to the New York Post on Monday, Trump downplayed public opinion surveys and said it’s “not a question of polling.”

“I think people are very impressed with what is happening, actually,” he said. “I think it’s a silent — if you did a real poll, the silent poll — and it’s like a silent majority.”

But Trump used an opposition to foreign wars to bring into his coalition lots of people who might not otherwise be politically inclined. To the extent the war with Iran continues, he could find it difficult to convince those people to stay in his corner.

Even Republicans’ tolerance seems to be quite limited right now.

And seeing prominent conservatives express skepticism about Trump’s foreign adventurism could certainly give people the permission structure to balk.

Donald Trump The Middle East Election polls

[See all topics]

Facebook TweetEmailLink Threads

Link Copied!

Ad Feedback