博客

Trump administration takes steps to impose new tariffs, announcing investigations into key trading partners

March 11, 2026 / 7:31 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington— The Trump administration on Wednesday announced new investigations into the trading practices of a number of U.S. trading partners, which could lead to more tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down some of President Trump’s tariffs last month.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the U.S. will investigate concerns of “structural excess capacity” — manufacturing more goods than a country can reasonably consume — in the European Union, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, South Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan and India.

President Trump is relying on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to unilaterally retaliate against countries if the U.S. determines they’ve imposed unfair trade barriers against the U.S. The law requires the federal government to first conduct an investigation into the country’s trade practices.

Structural excess capacity violations could result in the suppression of domestic wages and sustained market access barriers, Greer said.

Greer said Wednesday’s announcement, which will be published in the Federal Register, was “just an initiation.”

“We expect at the end of this process to be able to articulate with even more precision some of the challenges that face the United States because of structural excess capacity among some of our trading partners,” Greer told reporters on a call ahead of the announcement.

Greer said the U.S. will also soon launch separate Section 301 investigations into around 60 trading partner countries to ensure they’re prohibiting the import of goods made with forced labor. Greer said the administration also expects to launch the other Section 301 investigations “on a country-specific basis.”

Greer said the trade deals the U.S. already has in place with many of these countries are “independent” of these investigations.

After the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacks the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president announced a global tariff rate of 10% for up to 150 days, relying on a different code, Section 122. These tariffs will expire at the end of that period of time, unless they’re extended by Congress. Mr. Trump later said he would increase that rate to 15%, although the White House hasn’t made that 5-point increase official.

Greer said the administration’s goal is to conclude the new Section 301 investigations before the clock runs out on the temporary tariffs in July, but he also said he can’t predetermine how long the investigations will take.

Mr. Trump used Section 301 in 2018 to impose tariffs on China during his first term in office, after the U.S. trade representative determined China was treating the U.S. unfairly in trade matters, particularly related to technology transfer and intellectual property. Former President Joe Biden declined to end the China tariffs, and even added new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, semiconductors, solar cells and other products in 2024.

美能源部长：将从战略石油储备释放1.72亿桶石油

2026年3月12日 07:49 / 联合早报

美国释放战略石油储备，是国际能源署释放4亿桶石油的计划的一部分。 （路透社档案照片）

美国能源部长赖特周三说，美国将从战略石油储备中释放1亿7200万桶石油，以期降低因美以伊战争造成的供应冲击而飙升的油价。

赖特星期三（3月11日）说，美国释放战略石油储备是国际能源署（IEA）32个成员国当天早些时候达成的释放4亿桶石油计划的一部分。

赖特指出，释放工作将于下周开始，预计需要120天左右才能完成。

国际能源署周三早些时候宣布，32个成员国一致同意释放4亿桶战略石油储备，以应对因美国和以色列军事打击伊朗导致全球石油供应紧张的局面。

美国、荷兰、拉脱维亚、爱沙尼亚和立陶宛都是国际能源署成员国。

美国总统特朗普周三接受媒体采访时透露，将“稍微”减少战略石油储备以降低油价，并称会再次补充战略石油库存。

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to end Haitian protected status

March 11, 2026 6:59 PM UTC / Reuters

Light from the rising sun hits the U.S. Supreme Court building at the start of the day in Washington, D.C. U.S., January 12, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo [Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab]

• Summary

• Lawsuit says administration hostile to nonwhite immigrants
• Judge says that claim “seems substantially likely”
• Case involves Temporary Protected Status classification

March 11 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to intervene in its effort to strip humanitarian deportation protections from more than 350,000 Haitians living in the United States despite persistent violence in ​Haiti that has displaced more than a million people.

The Justice Department in an emergency request asked the court to lift a judge’s decision that blocked the ‌administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, for Haitians. The judge found that the administration’s action toward the Haitians likely was motivated in part by “racial animus.”

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

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Kristi Noem, a Trump appointee then serving as secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, determined in November 2025 that there were “no extraordinary and temporary conditions” in Haiti that would prevent Haitian migrants from returning to the Caribbean country. The U.S. State Department currently warns against travel to Haiti “due ​to kidnapping, crime, terrorist activity, civil unrest and limited healthcare.”

MASS DEPORTATIONS The Republican president, pursuing a policy of mass deportations since returning to office in January 2025, has moved ​to strip certain migrants of temporary legal protections previously provided to them by the U.S. government for humanitarian reasons, expanding the pool of possible ⁠deportees.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Under Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has moved to end TPS status for about a dozen countries, saying it was always meant to be temporary.

The Supreme Court in October let the ​administration terminate TPS for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants. The administration in February also asked the court to allow it to strip TPS status from about 6,100 Syrians living in the United States.

The Justice ​Department in its filing in the Haiti case said lower courts were “again attempting to block major executive-branch policy initiatives in ways that inflict specific harms to the national interest and foreign relations.”

As it did in the Syria case, the administration suggested that the Supreme Court take up and hear arguments on the underlying legal issue given that “stop-and-start litigation over TPS terminations has become endemic.”

“Unless the court resolves the merits of these challenges – issues that ​have now been ventilated in courts nationwide – this unsustainable cycle will repeat again and again, spawning more competing rulings and competing views of what to make of this court’s interim orders,” the ​Justice Department wrote.

Temporary Protected Status is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. It provides eligible migrants with work authorization and temporary protection from deportation.

Haitians ‌were first given ⁠TPS in 2010 under Democratic former President Barack Obama after a devastating earthquake struck their country.

The U.S. government repeatedly extended the status, most recently under Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration, which cited “simultaneous economic, security, political and health crises” in Haiti, fueled by gangs and a lack of a functioning government. That extension had given Haitians living in the United States protections through February 3, 2026.

More than 1.4 million Haitians have been displaced by violence and instability, according to the International Organization for Migration.

Trump fired Noem on March 5 after months of controversy including the fatal shootings of two ​U.S. citizens by federal officers in Minneapolis and ​questions by lawmakers about a $220 million advertising ⁠contract for a campaign promoting her and her department. Noem’s TPS decisions were not at issue in her dismissal.

‘HOSTILITY TO NONWHITE IMMIGRANTS’

---

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled, opens new tab on February 2 in a class-action lawsuit brought by Haitians challenging the administration’s move. Reyes found that Noem likely violated the procedures required ​to terminate the protected status of Haitian immigrants as well as the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

“Plaintiffs ​charge that Secretary Noem preordained ⁠her termination decision and did so because of hostility to nonwhite immigrants. This seems substantially likely,” Reyes wrote.

Referencing a December social media post by Noem, Reyes added, “Kristi Noem has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies and any other inapt name she wants. Secretary Noem, however, is constrained by both our Constitution and the (Administrative Procedure Act) to apply faithfully the facts to the law ⁠in implementing the ​TPS program.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 6 rejected the administration’s bid to ​pause the judge’s ruling.

The Supreme Court requested a response from the plaintiffs to the administration’s filing by next Monday.

Trump’s administration has asked the Supreme Court on an emergency basis to allow implementation of policies impeded by lower courts. The Supreme ​Court has sided with Trump in most of these cases since he returned to the presidency.

Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by Ted Hesson and Nate Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham

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

US February budget deficit flat at $308 billion as tariff revenues not yet hit by court ruling

March 11, 2026 6:05 PM UTC / Reuters

节点运行失败

The U.S. Capitol dome is seen reflected in a puddle in Washington, U.S., December 17, 2020. REUTERS/Erin Scott/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) – The U.S. budget deficit for February was nearly flat with a year earlier at $308 billion as growth in ​receipts and outlays were largely even, with receipts from ‌President Donald Trump’s tariffs not yet reflecting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling against many of his duties last month.

February receipts came in at $313 ​billion, up $17 billion or 6% from a year earlier, ​while outlays for the month totaled $621 billion, up $17 billion ⁠or 3% from February 2025. The year-on-year monthly comparison ​reflected the first full month in the Trump administration.

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

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Receipt growth was ​driven in part by a $15 billion increase in individual withheld income taxes in February, partly reflecting the payment of 2025 year-end bonuses, a Treasury ​official said. This was offset by a $7 billion increase in ​corporate tax refunds and a $6 billion increase in individual tax refunds driven ‌by ⁠last year’s Republican-passed tax cut legislation.

The report showed a slight cooling of net customs duties in February to $26.6 billion, compared with $27.7 billion in January and over $30 billion in the final months ​of last year.

But ​the Treasury ⁠official said the budget data largely does not reflect tariff reductions due to the Supreme Court’s ​decision to strike down duties under the International ​Emergency ⁠Economic Powers Act as illegal, as tariffs are generally paid a month in arrears. The Customs and Border Protection agency stopped ⁠assessing those ​tariffs on imports starting on February ​24.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The official said it was unclear how any IEEPA tariff refunds would show ​up in the data.

Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Andrea Ricci

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

Thune tells Trump that Republicans lack votes for talking filibuster strategy to pass SAVE America Act

By Chad Pergram
Fox News

Published March 11, 2026 1:22pm EDT

Chad Pergram reports on President Donald Trump’s push to pass the SAVE Act and Senate Republicans’ division over the talking filibuster in order to pass the legislation.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

10 min

Passage of the SAVE America Act is of paramount importance to President Donald Trump and many congressional Republicans.

In his State of the Union speech, the president implored lawmakers “to approve the SAVE America Act to stop illegal aliens and other unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections.”

The House approved the plan to require proof of citizenship to vote last month, 218-213. There’s now a different version of the legislation that’s in play. And, as is often the case, the hurdle is the Senate. Specifically, the Senate filibuster.

[image_1]

Upper Senate Park outside the U.S. Capitol is the scene of an “Only Citizens Vote” rally advocating passage of the SAVE Act, in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 10, 2025.(Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

So some Republicans are trying to save the SAVE America Act.

It’s important to note that Trump never called for the Senate to alter the filibuster in his State of the Union address. But in a post last week on Truth Social, Trump declared, “The Republicans MUST DO, with PASSION, and at the expense of everything else, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.”

Again, the president didn’t wade into questions about overcoming a filibuster. But “MUST DO” and “at the expense of everything else” is a clear directive from the commander in chief.

That’s why there’s a big push by House Republicans and some GOP senators to alter the filibuster — or handle the Senate filibuster differently.

It’s rare for members of one body of Congress to tell the other how to execute their rules and procedures. But the strongest conservative advocates of the SAVE America Act are now condemning Senate Republicans if they don’t do something drastic to change the filibuster to pass the measure.

Some Senate Republicans are pushing for changes, or at the very least, advocating that Senate Republicans insist that Democrats conduct what they refer to as a “talking filibuster” and not hold up the legislation from the sidelines. It takes 60 votes to terminate a filibuster. The Senate does that by “invoking cloture.” The Senate first used the cloture provision to halt a filibuster on March 8, 1917. Prior to that vote, the only method to end a filibuster was exhaustion — meaning that senators finally just run out of gas, quit debating and voted.

So let’s explore what a filibuster is and isn’t and dive into what Republicans are talking about when they’re talking about a talking filibuster.

The Senate’s leading feature is unlimited debate. But, ironically, the “debate” which holds up most bills is not debate. It’s simply a group of 60 lawmakers signaling offstage to their leaders that they’ll stymie things. No one has to go to the floor to do anything. Opponents of a bill will require the majority tee up a cloture vote — even if legislation has 60 yeas. Each cloture vote takes three to four days to process. So that inherently slows down the process — and is a de facto filibuster.

But what about talking filibusters? Yes, senators sometimes take the floor and talk for a really long time, hence, the “unlimited debate” provision in the Senate. Senators can generally speak as long as they want, unless there’s a time agreement green-lighted by all 100 members.

That’s why a “filibuster” is hard to define. You won’t find the word “filibuster” in the Senate’s rules. And since senators can just talk as long as they want, they might argue that suggesting they are “filibustering” is pejorative. They’re just exercising their Senate rights to speak on the floor.

A true filibuster is a delay. For instance, the record-breaking 25-hour and 8-minute speech last year by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., against the Trump administration was technically not a filibuster. Booker began his oratory on the evening of March 31, ending on the night of April 1. Once Booker concluded, the Senate voted to confirm Matt Whittaker as NATO ambassador. The Senate was supposed to vote on the Whitaker nomination on April 1 anyway. So all Booker’s speech did was delay that confirmation vote by a few hours. But not much.

In October 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours. It was part of Cruz’s quest to defund Obamacare. But despite Cruz’s verbosity (and a recitation of “Green Eggs and Ham” by Dr. Seuss), the Senate was already locked in to take a procedural vote around 1 p.m. the next day. Preparations for that vote automatically ended Cruz’s speech. Thus, it truly wasn’t a filibuster either.

[COLLINS BOOSTS REPUBLICAN VOTER ID EFFORT, BUT WON’T SCRAP FILIBUSTER]

[image_2]

Sen. Ted Cruz during an oversight hearing in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 17, 2025.(Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

So, this brings us to the talking filibuster, which actually gums up the Senate gearboxes. A talking filibuster is what most Americans think of when they hear the term “filibuster.” That’s thanks to the iconic scenes with Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Most senators filibuster by forcing the Senate to take two cloture votes — spread out over days — to handle even the simplest of matters. That elongates the process by close to a week. But if advocates of a given bill have the votes to break the filibuster via cloture, the gig is up.

However, what happens if a senator, or a group of senators, delays things with long speeches? That can only last for so long. And it could potentially truncate the Senate’s need to take any cloture vote, needing 60 yeas.

Republicans who advocate passage of the SAVE America Act believe they can get around cloture — and thus the need for 60 votes — by making opponents of the legislation talk. And talk. And talk.

And once they’re done talking, the Senate can vote — up or down — on the SAVE Act. Passage requires a simple majority. The Senate never even needs to tangle with 60.

Senate Rule XIX (19) states that “no senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day.”

Easy enough, right? Two speeches per day. You speak twice on Monday, then you have to wait until Tuesday? Democrats would eventually run out of juice after all 47 senators who caucus with Democrats have their say — twice.

But it’s not that simple. Note the part about two speeches per “question.”

Well, here’s a question. What constitutes a “question” in Senate parlance? A “question” could be the bill itself. It could be an amendment. It could be a motion. And just for the record, the Senate usually cycles through a “first-degree” amendment and then a “second-degree” amendment — to say nothing of the bill itself. So, if you’re scoring at home, that could be six (!) speeches per senator, per day, on any given “question.”

Questions?

But wait. There’s more.

Note that Rule XIX refers to a “legislative day.” A legislative day is not the same as a calendar day. One basic difference is if the Senate “adjourns” each night versus “recessing.” If the Senate “adjourns” its Monday session on calendar day Monday, then a new legislative day begins on Tuesday. However, the legislative day of “Monday” carries over to Tuesday if the Senate “recesses.”

It may be up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., whether the Senate “adjourns” or “recesses.” The creation of a new legislative day inhibits the GOP talking filibuster effort.

[SEN LEE DARES DEMOCRATS TO REVIVE TALKING FILIBUSTER OVER SAVE ACT, SLAMMING CRITICISM AS ‘PARANOID FANTASY’]

[image_3]

Senate Majority Leader John Thune arrives for a news conference after a policy luncheon on Capitol Hill, Feb. 3, 2026.(Mariam Zuhaib/AP Photo)

Democrats would obviously push for the Senate to adjourn each day. But watch to see if talking filibuster proponents object to Thune’s daily adjournment requests. If the Senate votes to stay in session, that forces the legislative day of Monday to bleed over to Tuesday.

Pro tip: Keep an eye on the adjournment vs. recess scenario. If a talking filibuster supporter tries to prevent the Senate from adjourning, that may signal whether the GOP has a shot at eventually passing the SAVE Act. If that test vote fails and the Senate adjourns for the day, the SAVE Act is likely dead in the water.

We haven’t even talked about a custom practiced by most Senate majority leaders to lock down the contours of a bill when they file cloture to end debate.

It’s typical for the presiding officer to recognize the Senate majority leader first on the floor for debate. So Thune and his predecessors often “fill” what’s called the “amendment tree.” The amendment tree dictates how many amendments are in play at any one time. Think of the underlying bill as a “trunk.” A “branch” is for the first amendment. A “sprig” from that branch is the second amendment. Majority leaders often load up the amendment tree with “fillers” that don’t change the subject of the bill. He then files cloture to break the filibuster.

That tactic curbs the universe of amendments. It blocks the other side from engineering controversial amendments to alter the bill. But if Thune doesn’t file cloture to end debate, then the Senate must consider amendment after amendment, repeatedly filling the tree and voting on those amendments. This would unfold during a talking filibuster, not when Thune is controlling the process by filing cloture and “filling the tree.”

This is why Thune is skeptical of a talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.

“This process is more complicated and risky than people are assuming at the moment,” said Thune.

In fact, the biggest “benefit” to filing cloture may not even be overcoming a filibuster, but blocking amendments via management of the tree. Republicans are bracing for amendments Democrats may offer.

“If you don’t think Democrats have a laundry list of amendments, talking about who won the 2020 election, talking about the Epstein files — if you don’t think they have a quiver full of these amendments that they’re ready to get Republican votes on the record, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you,” said George Washington University political science professor Casey Burgat.

Plus, forcing a talking filibuster for days precludes the Senate from passing a DHS funding bill. That’s to say nothing of confirming Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as Homeland Security secretary. His confirmation hearing likely comes next Wednesday, but a protracted Senate debate would block a confirmation vote from the floor.

[JEFFRIES ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF ‘VOTER SUPPRESSION’ OVER BILL REQUIRING VOTER ID, PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP]

[image_4]

Sen. Markwayne Mullin addresses reporters at the U.S. Capitol after being tapped as President Donald Trump’s new nominee to lead DHS, March 5, 2026.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Thune all but killed the talking filibuster maneuver on Tuesday — despite the president’s ultimatum.

“Do you run a risk of being on the wrong side of President Trump and your resistance to do this talking filibuster, tying the Senate in knots for weeks?” asked yours truly.

“We don’t have the votes either to proceed, get on a talking filibuster, nor to sustain one if we got on it,” replied Thune. “I understand the president’s got a passion to see this issue addressed.”

I followed up.

“Does he understand that, though?”

“Well, we’ve conveyed that to him,” answered Thune. “It’s about the math. And, for better or worse, I’m the one who has to be a clear-eyed realist about what we can achieve here.”

And there just doesn’t appear to be any parliamentary way to get there with the talking filibuster.

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]

Like many things in Congress, it all boils down to one thing.

As Thune said, “It’s about the math.”

Chad Pergram currently serves as Chief Congressional Correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.

US Senate Democrats push for answers on strike targeting Iran girls’ school, civilian casualties

March 11, 2026 6:57 PM UTC / Reuters

By Patricia Zengerle

节点运行失败

A satellite image, annotated by Reuters, shows the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school and other structures damaged after being struck, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Minab, Hormozgan Province, Iran March 4, 2026. 2026 Planet Labs PBC/Handout via REUTERS Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) – Nearly every U.S. Senate Democrat signed a letter sent to U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday requesting a “swift investigation” of ​airstrikes on a girls’ school in Iran that killed scores of children and any ‌other potential U.S. military actions causing civilian harm.

Reuters reported on March 5 that U.S. military investigators believe it is likely that U.S. forces were responsible for the strike on the school on February 28, as U.S. and Israeli forces ​launched attacks on Iran.

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

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

“The results of this school attack are horrific. The majority of those ​killed in the strikes were girls between the ages of 7 and 12 ⁠years old. Neither the United States nor the Israeli Government has yet taken responsibility for this ​attack,” the letter, signed by 46 senators, said.

The correspondence was signed by every member of the Senate ​Democratic caucus except John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, a senator known for outspoken opinions and occasional defiance of the party. His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The letter asked for answers to a series of questions, ​including whether U.S. forces conducted the strikes, what steps the military has taken to prevent and mitigate ​civilian harm and what role artificial intelligence tools have played in operations.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The Department of Defense did not immediately respond ‌to ⁠a request for comment on the letter. Hegseth has vowed to restore a “warrior ethos” to the U.S. military and referred to rules of engagement, directives typically given to military forces during a conflict, as “stupid” in a recent press conference.

Iran’s U.N. ambassador said on Tuesday the U.S.-Israeli strikes had killed more than ​1,300 civilians.

No Republicans signed the ​letter. Members of ⁠President Donald Trump’s party, who hold a 53-seat majority in the Senate, have almost unanimously backed his strategy on Iran, with only a handful expressing doubt ​about any aspect of the war.

The Democrats sent the letter a ​week after ⁠Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan resolution aiming to stop the air war and requiring that any hostilities against Iran be authorized by Congress. Every member of the Democratic caucus except Fetterman voted in favor of the ⁠resolution.

The ​lawmakers’ latest comments came as they awaited a request the White ​House is expected to make for more funding for the war. Several congressional aides have said they expect Trump to ask ​for $50 billion, although others have said that estimate seemed low.

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Aurora Ellis

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

US strike likely hit a school in Iran due to outdated intelligence, sources briefed on initial findings say

Published Mar 11, 2026, 2:48 PM ET / Updated Mar 11, 2026, 3:30 PM ET / CNN Politics

By Zachary Cohen, Thomas Bordeaux, Gianluca Mezzofiore

The US military accidentally struck an Iranian elementary school, in an attack that state media said killed at least 168 children and 14 teachers, likely due to outdated information about a nearby naval base, according to two sources briefed on the preliminary findings of an ongoing military investigation.

The February 28 strike on the Shajareh Tayyiba school in Minab occurred while the US military was conducting strikes on a neighboring Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facility, the initial investigation found.

US Central Command created target coordinates for the strike using outdated information provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency, which contributed to the mistake, the sources briefed on the preliminary findings told CNN.

In response to a request for comment, a Defense Intelligence Agency spokesperson said, “The incident is under investigation; we defer to the Pentagon for further comment.” A spokesperson for US Central Command also declined to comment on the preliminary findings, citing the ongoing investigation.

Satellite imagery from 2013 showed that the school and the IRGC base were once part of the same compound. But images from 2016 revealed that a fence had been erected to separate the school from the rest of the base, and that a separate entrance to the school had been built. In December 2025, imagery showed dozens of people in the school’s courtyard apparently playing.

The New York Times first reported details of the preliminary investigation, which remains ongoing.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he was unaware of a New York Times report that an ongoing military investigation had found, at least preliminarily, that the United States was responsible for a deadly strike on a school in southern Iran.

“I don’t know about that,” Trump said when asked by CNN’s Kristen Holmes about the Times story and whether he accepted responsibility.

The initial investigative findings raise additional questions about what led to the strike on the school and who was ultimately responsible.

Multiple sources told CNN the preliminary investigation is consistent with what had become increasingly obvious as new evidence continued to emerge publicly in recent days: The US military conducted the strike.

Video geolocated by CNN as filmed from a nearby construction site and released by Mehr News, a semi-official Iranian news agency, shows a munition that experts said is consistent with an American BGM or UGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) striking a location inside the IRGC base on February 28. As the camera pans to the right, a huge plume of smoke can be seen from the direction of the Shajareh Tayyiba school.

Trump had previously asserted that Iran might be to blame for the strike, though when pressed on why no one in his own administration seemed to be publicly supporting that claim, he responded, “Because I just don’t know enough about it.”

In this aerial photo released by the Iranian Press Center, mourners dig graves during a funeral in Minab, Iran, on Tuesday, March 3. Iranian officials say at least 168 young students were killed on Saturday morning when a strike hit the Shajaba Tayyiba Girls’ elementary school in Minab. The school sits about 200 feet from an Iranian military base. (Iranian Press Center/AFP/Getty Images) Brett

Iranian Press Center/AFP/Getty Images

“As the New York Times acknowledges in its own reporting, the investigation is still ongoing,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNN.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Tuesday the strike will be “thoroughly” investigated, adding the US has “attempted in every way possible to avoid civilian casualties.”

He accused Iran, meanwhile, of targeting civilians “indiscriminately.”

Missile debris that Iranian officials claim was recovered from the deadly strikes appeared to be from an American Tomahawk cruise missile, a CNN analysis previously found.

Four photographs of the fragments were shared on Telegram by Iran’s state broadcaster, IRIB, with the caption claiming they were remnants from the strike. It was not possible to confirm whether the fragments, pictured on a table in front of the ruined school building, were from the school strike, a strike on the neighboring Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) naval base or elsewhere.

They do, however, appear to be consistent with a US-made Tomahawk cruise missile, according to a CNN review and expert analysis.

The Pentagon classifies the missiles as precision-guided munitions. Multiple buildings at the base appear to have been struck by precision missiles.

Trump pushed back against the suggestion the US had carried out the strike in a news conference Monday in which he claimed Iran also had Tomahawk missiles. The cruise missiles, produced by US defense contractor Raytheon, are held by only a small group of US allies authorized to purchase them. Even Israel, one of Washington’s closest partners, does not possess them, and multiple munitions experts confirmed to CNN that Iran does not have them either.

CNN’s Christian Edwards and Kristen Holmes contributed to this story

Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime accountant testified behind closed doors that he was never aware of any payments the late financier and sex offender made to President Donald Trump, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said Wednesday.

Richard Kahn, one of the executors of Epstein’s estate, is the latest person to be deposed in the committee’s investigation into how the federal government handled Epstein’s case.

“Mr. Kahn testified under oath that — because the Democrats asked this question — that he had never seen any type of transaction to Trump or anyone in his family,” Comer told reporters. “That makes the fifth witness now that’s testified under oath that they’ve never seen any involvement by Donald Trump or the family.”

[image_1]

NEW MEXICO DOJ ANNOUNCES SEARCH OF FORMER JEFFREY EPSTEIN PROPERTY ZORRO RANCH

[image_2]

President Donald Trump’s connection to Jeffrey Epstein has been the subject of partisan debate in the House.(Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images; Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Comer said that Kahn did confirm, however, that five people paid money to Epstein: ex-Victoria’s Secret CEO Les Wexner, hedge fund manager Glenn Dubin, businessman Steven Sinofsky, the Rothschilds and investor Leon Black. Epstein was known to have served as a financial advisor for each of them.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS DESCEND ON CLINTONS’ HOMETOWN FOR HIGH-STAKES EPSTEIN PROBE GRILLING

“What Kahn said is he was under the impression that Epstein made his money as a tax advisor and a financial planner. So these were the five people that transferred significant sums of money to Epstein,” Comer said.

[image_3]

Richard Kahn, an accountant for convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, arrives for a House Oversight Committee deposition about Epstein, in the Rayburn Building on Wednesday, March 11, 2026.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

But when it comes to Trump, Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., gave a slightly different account of what Kahn said behind closed doors.

He told reporters that Kahn said a “person who was an accuser of Donald Trump was given a settlement by Jeffrey Epstein’s estate.”

That does not necessarily mean that the alleged settlement was regarding Trump.

[image_4]

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., speaks to reporters after a closed-door deposition with Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and confidante of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2026.(J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)

[image_5]

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The former president was known to be a friend of Epstein’s until the two had a falling out before the late pedophile’s first federal investigation.

He has not been implicated in any wrongdoing related to his crimes.

Subramanyam said Kahn also testified that “there was another head of state that was mentioned as having financial transactions with Jeffrey Epstein,” though he did not elaborate on who that was.

Elizabeth Elkind is a politics reporter for Fox News Digital leading coverage of the House of Representatives. Previous digital bylines seen at Daily Mail and CBS News.

Follow on Twitter at @liz_elkind and send tips to elizabeth.elkind@fox.com

Trump asks Supreme Court to let protections for Haitians expire

By John Fritze, Tami Luhby | 31 min ago | PUBLISHED Mar 11, 2026, 3:16 PM ET

The UU Supreme Court is seen on February 20, 2026.
Samuel Corum/Sipa USA/AP

President Donald Trump urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to let his administration end temporary immigration protections for some 350,000 Haitians who have lived in the US legally for years, escalating another fast-moving fight over immigration to the nation’s highest court.

The appeal followed a scathing ruling from a federal district court in Washington, DC, in February that blocked the administration from letting Temporary Protected Status expire for Haitian nationals.

The justices are already considering the administration’s decision to end similar protections for more than 6,000 Syrians.

Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson Getty Images Kavanaugh and Jackson appearance gets testy when emergency docket comes up 3 min read

In its appeal, the administration asked the Supreme Court to take up the broader of question of its power to end TPS for various groups. If the justices agree to do so, it would put Trump’s aggressive immigration policies front and center at a court that is already considering Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship.

“Unless the court resolves the merits of these challenges — issues that have now been ventilated in courts nationwide — this unsustainable cycle will repeat again and again, spawning more competing rulings and competing views of what to make of this court’s interim orders,” US Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. “This court should break that cycle.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration on fast-track immigration appeals over the past year, including on a TPS issue involving Venezuela and the administration’s so-called roving patrols. In other cases, it has taken a more nuanced approach. The court froze certain deportations under the Alien Enemies Act last spring and it required the administration to “facilitate” the return of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador last year.

Haitian TPS holders are among the latest foreign-born residents whose lives are being upended by the Trump administration, which is focused on slashing the number of immigrants entering and living in the US. The Department of Homeland Security has sought to terminate TPS for other countries as well, including Honduras, Nepal and South Sudan.

TPS allows an administration to permit people who arrived from certain countries at times of upheaval to temporarily live and work in the US legally. Haitian nationals became eligible after an earthquake rocked the country in 2010 and the designation has been repeatedly renewed since then as the country faced a host of crises, including widespread violence by armed gangs and the assassination of its president in 2021.

Recipients are vetted and are ineligible if they’ve been convicted of any felony or more than one misdemeanor in the US. The Homeland Security secretary has discretion to designate a country for TPS.

Critics, including DHS officials, say the designations were never intended to be permanent. And the Supreme Court has afforded the administration wide deference to cancel the designations in the past, including in a case involving Venezuelans with TPS status that the court decided in May.

That case, and others percolating in lower federal courts, have involved the Trump administration’s effort to cancel designations before they naturally expired. The status for Haitians, however, was last extended by the Biden administration in 2024 for an 18-month period that was set to expire earlier this year.

As it has in many other cases, the administration argued that federal courts are not permitted to review a discretionary decision to extend TPS.

But five Haitian nationals who benefit from TPS claimed that the administration violated federal law by failing to conduct an adequate review and argued the administration violated the equal protection clause because, they said, the decision appeared to be motivated by racial animus towards Haitians.

A nurse visiting a senior patient at home. LPETTET/E+/Getty Images Many Haitians may soon not be able to work in the US. That will make caring for the elderly much harder 6 min read

In an 83-page opinion, US District Judge Ana Reyes agreed with the plaintiffs.

Calling attention to Trump’s false claims during the election that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating their neighbors’ pets, Reyes wrote that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to end the protections was likely not based on a thorough review of conditions on the ground. (Noem was fired by Trump earlier this month.)

“Taken together, the record strongly suggests that Secretary Noem’s decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation was motivated, at least in part, by racial animus,” wrote Reyes, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden. “The mismatch between what the secretary said in the termination and what the evidence shows confirms that the termination of Haiti’s TPS designation was not the product of reasoned decision-making, but of a preordained outcome justified by pretextual reasons.”

Noem, Reyes wrote, “has a First Amendment right to call immigrants killers, leeches, entitlement junkies, and any other inapt name she wants.”

But, she said, the administration is constrained by both the Constitution and federal law to apply the facts to the law in implementing the TPS program.

“The record to-date,” Reyes wrote, “shows she has yet to do that.”

What is XMoney, Elon Musk’s new digital payments platform?

March 11, 2026 / 2:51 PM EDT / CBS News

Elon Musk is planning to launch a new payments platform, called XMoney, in beta form to select users in April.

In announcing a planned partnership between XMoney and Visa more than a year ago, then X CEO Linda Yaccarino referred to the platform as a so-called “Everything App” — a reference to the kind of all-in-one digital products that combine messaging, social networking, shopping, payments and other services in a single app, such as China’s WeChat.

In a brief post on social media Tuesday, Musk, also the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, didn’t specify when the first users will be offered early access to XMoney, which Musk previously described as a platform “intended to be the place where all the money is.”

Here’s what to know about XMoney.

What is it?

---

XMoney, an offshoot of the social media platform X, is designed as a financial payments platform that enables peer-to-peer transactions, similar to services such as PayPal, Venmo or Zelle.

As originally conceived, the new tool will let users fund an X-branded digital wallet via Visa Direct, the card issuer’s digital payment network, according to Yaccarino’s post. Users can also connect their debit card to an XMoney account and make direct payments to other users on the platform.

Additional details on the new product are scant. Neither X nor Visa responded to a request for more information about XMoney, including how many people are being invited to test the app.

1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad

Beam me $100, Scotty

---

Actor William Shatner of “Star Trek” fame teased the preliminary launch of XMoney last month, posting screenshots of his invitation to sign up for the payment app on Instagram, along with Musk’s confirmation that Shatner’s account would be “activated shortly.”

Shatner was sharing information about the new app to promote a charitable cause, saying that he would share about 100 invitations to become XMoney beta testers for donations of $1,000 apiece.

Where will XMoney be available?

---

XMoney will initially launch in the U.S. and is already licensed to operate in 40 U.S. states and in Washington, D.C.

By contrast, some states have sought to block XMoney. In May of 2025, New York officials sent a letter to the state’s Department of Financial Services urging it not to authorize the app and expressing concern that XMoney will not conduct business “honestly, fairly, equitably, carefully and efficiently.”

Musk himself “has engaged in a pattern of reckless conduct, in both business and government, that has put consumers at risk and demonstrated a lack of character and general fitness,” the New York officials said in urging the department not to license XMoney.

Despite such opposition, along with the prospect of scaling up in the fiercely competitive digital payments space, at least some technology experts aren’t writing off XMoney’s chances.

Wedbush Securities analyst Scott Devitt, who focuses on the internet and e-commerce, told CBS News that “anything Elon focuses on has a good chance of success.” Devitt also underlined Musk’s deep understanding of payment systems, commerce and generative AI.

Indeed, this isn’t Musk’s first foray into digital financial services. During the dot-com boom in the 1990s, he co-founded online bank X.com, which later became far better known after rechristening itself as PayPal in 1999.

Edited by Alain Sherter