博客

Trump: ‘I got him before he got me’ after killing Iran’s Supreme Leader

Published March 2, 2026 1:35pm EST | Updated March 2, 2026 2:12pm EST

By Morgan Phillips | Fox News

President Donald Trump said he authorized the strike that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei before Tehran could act on alleged plots against him, telling ABC: “I got him before he got me. They tried twice … I got him first.”

The president’s blunt remark appears to link Khamenei’s killing to previously reported Iranian-backed assassination plots targeting Trump during the 2024 election cycle — plots that U.S. prosecutors tied to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The U.S.-Israeli operation that killed Khamenei marked the most dramatic escalation in years of tensions between Washington and Iran. Iranian state media confirmed the longtime supreme leader’s death after coordinated strikes targeted senior regime figures and key facilities around Tehran, Iran.

Trump has framed the strike as both a strategic blow to the Iranian regime and a personal reckoning with a government he says sought his life.

Federal prosecutors in 2025 unsealed criminal charges against individuals accused of acting on behalf of the IRGC in alleged efforts to surveil and assassinate Trump. One case involved an Afghan national, Farhad Shakeri, whom authorities said was directed by Iranian contacts to track Trump’s movements and develop a plan to kill him in the closing weeks of the 2024 campaign.

In a separate case, prosecutors charged a Pakistani national, Asif Merchant, in what officials described as another Iranian-linked murder-for-hire plot connected to U.S. political figures, including Trump.

Iran has denied orchestrating assassination attempts against the president.

U.S. officials long have warned that Iran vowed revenge after Trump ordered the 2020 drone strike that killed IRGC Quds Force commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad. Iranian leaders publicly pledged retaliation at the time, and U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly have assessed that threats against Trump from Iranian actors remained elevated.

Trump’s comments suggest he views the killing of Khamenei as the culmination of that yearslong shadow conflict.

While the administration has not publicly detailed specific imminent threats tied to the strike, Trump’s statement underscores his argument that the move was justified not only as a matter of national security but also as a response to direct threats against him.

The fallout from Khamenei’s death remains uncertain. Iran’s succession process is opaque, and regional tensions are high as Tehran weighs its response. Security officials have historically warned that Iran is more likely to retaliate through proxy groups or asymmetric operations rather than through direct conventional confrontation.

For Trump, however, the message was simple: Tehran tried — and failed.

“I got him first,” the president said.

Fox News Digital has reached out to Iran’s permanent mission to the United Nations for comment.

Air travel chaos intensifies as airports remain closed, flights canceled amid Iran war

March 2, 2026 / 11:00 AM EST / CBS/AP

Air travel chaos intensified Monday as the war with Iran stretched into a third day — keeping airspace and airports in the Middle East closed and leaving travelers stranded.

Tourists, business travelers and religious pilgrims found themselves stuck unexpectedly in hotels, airports and on cruise ships, with no word on when many airports would reopen or when flights to, and through, the Middle East would resume.

Among the many people stranded were more than 58,000 Indonesians in Saudi Arabia who had been visiting Islam’s holy sites of Mecca and Medina during Ramadan. And about 30,000 German tourists were also stranded on cruise ships, in hotels or at closed airports.

Airports in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha — important hubs for travel between Europe, Africa and the West to Asia — remained shuttered after they were all directly hit by Iranian strikes.

A person points at a page on the Flightradar 24 website that shows civilian flights avoiding Iranian and Iraqi airspace, in Paris, on March 1, 2026. Anna Kurth/AFP via Getty Images

However, the government of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, said on Monday that both of its major airports would reopen later in the day for “limited” flights, several days after both facilities were closed due to the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran and Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone fire.

“Dubai Airports announces a limited resumption of flights from Dubai International Airport (DXB) and Dubai World Central – Al Maktoum International Airport (DWC) starting this evening,” the Dubai government said on X.

“Dubai Airports urged passengers not to go to the airport unless they have been contacted by the relevant airline to confirm their flight departure time,” the administration noted.

Dubai International Airport is the busiest commercial aviation hub in the world by passenger volume, with some 95.2 million people traveling through the airport last year, according to Dubai Airports.

Emirates, based in Dubai International Airport, said it will resume operating a “limited number of flights” on Monday evening, without providing more details. It previously said it was suspending flights until 3 p.m. local time Tuesday.

“We are accommodating customers with earlier bookings as a priority,” it said and advised people not to go to the airport unless they were notified.

Doha-based Qatar Airways said Monday its flights remained suspended, with its next update planned for Tuesday morning.

Air France canceled flights to and from Tel Aviv, Beirut, Dubai and Riyadh, while carriers from Air India to KLM suspended flights and issued advisories.

Airspace over multiple countries across the region was closed. Jordanian authorities announced Monday that its airspace would be closed from later in the evening “until further notice, in order to ensure the safety and security of civil aviation in Jordanian airspace,” according to the country’s official news agency.

The Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority said Monday that the complete closure of the country’s airspace to civilian traffic would be extended for at least 48 hours due to “ongoing security concerns in region.”

Some governments were scrambling to help their citizens get home after the conflict erupted on Saturday with Israel and the U.S. bombarding Iran.

U.K. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said Britain was establishing support systems to help citizens flee the Gulf region, home to an estimated 300,000 Britons.

“We are looking at a wide range of options, working, crucially with the travel industry and with government evacuation if necessary,” Cooper told Britain’s Sky News.

Asked by Sky if the U.K. might stage government evacuations from some countries, Cooper said: “We’re working on every possible option.”

“We have to recognize the scale of this as well, and also the fact that there are strikes still underway,” she said.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said late Sunday a military evacuation wasn’t possible because of airspace closures and that the government was looking into other options to help bring citizens home. He said everyone should follow advice from German travel agencies and local authorities.

The German Travel Association called on tourists to “remain at their booked hotels as a matter of urgency” and not “make their own way to the airport or to a neighboring country.”

Other governments made similar recommendations.

The U.S. Embassy in Israel said in a security alert Sunday that it directed all U.S. government employees and their families to shelter in place in and near their residences until further notice.

It said the embassy would be closed on Monday and that it was not in a position to evacuate or directly assist Americans in leaving Israel.

President Trump said Sunday that the joint operation would continue “until all of our objectives are achieved,” which he said could be up to four weeks. At least four American service members have been killed, according to the U.S. military.

Tucker Reals contributed to this report.

Supreme Court signals it will back marijuana user who was charged with owning a gun

By John Fritze, CNN | Published Mar 2, 2026, 1:55 PM ET

The Supreme Court appeared likely Monday to curb the government’s ability to disarm a frequent marijuana user, though several of the justices were also wary of completely undermining a 1968 law that was intended to ensure that Americans addicted to drugs don’t have access to firearms.

Over the course of nearly two hours of argument, a majority of justices — both conservative and liberal — signaled that they believed federal prosecutors overreached when they charged a Texas man with violating a federal law that bars people who are an “unlawful user” of drugs from owning guns.

The U.S. Supreme Court is seen Friday, Feb. 20, 2026, in Washington.

Jose Luis Magana/AP

In defending the law, the Trump administration argued the prohibition was similar to public drunkenness laws that were widely in force during the colonial era. But that kicked off a series of difficult questions from the justices about what types of drugs, and at what amount, would render a person too dangerous to own a weapon.

“John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madsion reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch told the attorney representing the Trump administration. “Are they all habitual drunkards who would be property disarmed for life under your theory?”

What if a person takes “one gummy bear with a medical prescription in Colorado?” Gorsuch pressed. “Disarm him for life?”

Sarah Harris, principal deputy solicitor general, said that person would fall under the category of a “habitual user” but that they would not likely be prosecuted. Trump signed an executive order in December to expedite the reclassification of marijuana, a move that would not legalize it but would increase research on medical uses.

The case centers on Ali Danial Hemani, a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan, who was indicted in 2023 on a single count of violating the federal anti-guns-and-drugs law. Though the Justice Department accused Hemani of many things in its appeal last year, his indictment dealt only with an FBI search that turned up a Glock 9mm pistol and 60 grams of pot.

The DOJ said Hemani used marijuana about every other day.

President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was convicted in 2024 of the same law, though that case involved his addiction to crack cocaine. He was later pardoned by the president during his final days in office.

Roughly half of US states have legalized small amounts of marijuana for recreational use and an even higher share of states allow the drug to be used medicinally. And, Gorsuch noted, the federal government has not anything to stop the shifting legal landscape around pot.

“What do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal and sort of isn’t, and that the federal government itself is conflicted on this?” Gorsuch said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, noted that the law applies far more broadly than just marijuana. It covers any drug classified by the federal government as a controlled substance, including prescription medications.

Barrett asked whether the government’s definitions would rope in someone who took their partner’s prescription Ambien to help them sleep, even though they did not have a prescription themselves. Harris acknowledged the government’s definitions would cover that person because they were taking the drug illegally.

“I agree with you … that legislatures can regulate to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous peoples,” Barrett said at one point.

But when it comes to some of the drugs at issue in the law’s enforcement, Barrett said, including marijuana, “I just don’t see anything in the scheme that actually reflects Congress’ judgment that this makes someone more dangerous.”

The Justice Department said only about 300 people have been are charged with violating the law annually. A conviction can carry a 15-year prison sentence.

Some pushback from Roberts

---

But there was some pushback from a few conservatives, particularly from Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, who seemed especially concerned with having courts make individual determinations about which drugs present dangers sufficient to disarm users, or whether individual people charged with a crime are, in fact, addicted.

At one point, Roberts suggested that Hemani’s argument took a “fairly cavalier approach to the necessary consideration of expertise and the judgments we leave to Congress and the executive branch” about the dangerousness of drugs. In each case, he said, “you don’t get to go in and re-weigh the legislative determination.”

Erin Murphy, a veteran Supreme Court attorney representing Hemani, countered that if Congress wants to make a categorical prohibition on gun owners users certain drugs, then the government needs to demonstrate there was some historic analogue to that prohibition under the Second Amendment.

Much of the argument Monday was wrapped up in the standards set by blockbuster gun cases handed down by the Supreme Court in recent years. In a landmark 2022 decision, the court made it easier for Americans to carry handguns in public and required gun prohibitions to have some connection to US founding-era laws to sustain Second Amendment challenges. It then clarified that historical test in a decision two years later, upholding a law that bars people who are the subject of domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns when they have been found to pose a credible safety threat.

The question of how much history is enough to justify a modern gun law continues to complicate Second Amendment cases in lower courts and was central to the debate for Hemani. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, repeatedly seemed to question the wisdom of the historic test the court laid out in 2022 given cases like Hemani’s.

“I don’t understand how this works any more in any meaningful way,” Jackson said of the historic test.

Denies related case

---

Earlier Monday, the court declined to take up a series of cases questioning whether the same law can be used to bar Americans convicted of non-violent felonies from owning guns.

Without comment, the court declined to hear an appeal from Melynda Vincent, who was convicted in 2008 of violating a federal bank fraud statute for writing a bad check at a Utah grocery store for $498.12 and was sentenced to probation for the crime. She wanted to keep a firearm for protection but the federal law prohibiting felons from having guns prevented her from doing so.

The court has been flooded with appeals on that issue over the past year, and more cases are likely.

In Hemani’s case, a federal district court in Texas dismissed the charge against him. The conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, ruling in a brief decision that the historical record points only to laws that barred guns for Americans who are actively intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time of their arrest.

A decision is expected by the end of June.

CNN poll: 59% of Americans disapprove of Iran strikes and most think a long-term conflict is likely

Updated Mar 2, 2026, 12:52 PM ET / Published Mar 2, 2026, 12:00 PM ET / CNN Politics

By Jennifer Agiesta, Ariel Edwards-Levy

Smoke rises following an explosion in Tehran, Iran, on Sunday.

Majid Asgaripour/Wana News Agency/Reuters

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of the US decision to take military action in Iran, as most say a long-term military conflict between the two nations is likely, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

The poll, fielded shortly after US and Israeli attacks launched the war with Iran, finds majorities express doubts about President Donald Trump’s handling of the situation. Most say they lack trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran, with 60% saying they do not think he has a clear plan for handling the situation and 62% saying he should get congressional approval for any further military action.

Just over a quarter (27%) feel that the US made enough of an effort at diplomacy with Iran before using military force, with 39% saying the US did not try hard enough at diplomacy first and 33% unsure.

The poll was conducted Saturday and Sunday, after news reports that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, had died in the attacks and largely before reports emerged of the deaths of four US troops.

Overall, 59% of Americans disapprove of the initial decision to strike Iran, with 41% approving. Strong disapproval (31%) roughly doubles strong approval (16%). A marginally higher share (44%) say they favor the US trying to overthrow the Iranian government, with 56% opposed to that.

Just 12%, though, would favor sending US ground troops into Iran, while 60% would oppose it and 28% are unsure.

A majority, 56%, say they see long-term military conflict between the US and Iran as at least somewhat likely, including 24% who see that as a very likely outcome. Asked by CNN on Monday how long the war might last, Trump said, “I don’t want to see it go on too long. I always thought it would be four weeks. And we’re a little ahead of schedule.”

A separate CNN poll conducted in January found the vast majority of Americans viewed Iran as unfriendly or an enemy of the US (89% felt that way). In CNN’s polling dating to 2000, Iran has consistently been viewed as unfriendly or an enemy by more than 7 in 10 Americans.

But the new poll suggests few see this military action as likely to reduce the risk the US faces from Iran. Most, 54%, say Iran will become more of a threat to the US as a result of this military action, with just 28% saying the strikes will make Iran less of a threat. Even among those who approve of the military action overall, roughly 40% are unconvinced it will lessen the threat from Iran.

The poll’s findings closely track views last summer in a CNN poll conducted after the US launched airstrikes in Iran aimed at reducing the country’s nuclear capabilities. Shifts in overall opinion since then are small, but generally all tilt away from supporting military action against Iran.

Republicans back latest Iran strikes, with a MAGA vs. non-MAGA split

Republicans are far more likely than independents or Democrats to approve of the weekend’s military action (77% of Republicans approve, compared with 32% of independents and 18% of Democrats) and to see it as likely to reduce the threat the US faces from Iran (58% of Republicans feel that way vs. 21% of independents and 9% of Democrats). An 83% majority of Republicans also say Trump has a clear plan for handling the situation, while broad majorities of independents (70%) and Democrats (88%) doubt he does.

Republicans are less unified on two questions. They are about evenly split over whether this action is likely to lead to a long-term military conflict with Iran (44% say it is at least somewhat likely, 44% that it is not), and are more likely to say they oppose (38%) sending ground troops to Iran or that they’re unsure about the prospect (35%) than they are to say they support such an effort (27%). Still, that marks an 11-point increase in support among Republicans for ground troops in Iran compared with last year.

Within the Republican Party, there is a sharp divide between those who say they consider themselves part of the “Make America Great Again” movement and those who do not, a division that appears largely linked to trust in the president. MAGA Republicans are 30 points more likely than non-MAGA Republicans to say they strongly approve of the decision to take military action, 34 points likelier to say it will reduce the threat Iran poses to the US and nearly 50 points more likely to say they have a great deal of trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran.

The initial support for military action among Trump’s base stands in contrast to opinions among the larger public. Majorities disapprove across most major demographic subgroups, including both men and women, White, Black and Latino adults, and all age groups.

CNN’s Edward Wu contributed to this report.

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS on February 28 and March 1. Interviews with 1,004 adults nationwide were conducted by text message. People interviewed for the poll are members of the nationally representative SSRS Text Message Panel. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Trump says elimination of Iran’s military leadership completed in about an hour

By Stephen Sorace | Fox News

Published March 2, 2026 12:14pm EST | Updated March 2, 2026 12:51pm EST

President Donald Trump said Monday at the White House that the U.S. “will easily prevail” against Iran.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

2 min

President Donald Trump on Monday declared that the joint U.S.-Israeli operation to “crush the threat” in Iran is “ahead of schedule,” stating that many of the regime’s military leaders were eliminated in about an hour.

Trump provided an update on “Operation Epic Fury” during a Medal of Honor ceremony at the White House, vowing that the U.S. will “easily prevail” over the “terrorist regime.”

“We have the strongest and most powerful, by far, military in the world, and we will easily prevail,” the president said. “We’re already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it’s okay. Whatever it takes.”

The U.S. and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury on Saturday morning, a joint military campaign that officials say targeted Iranian leadership and key military installations.

President Donald Trump speaks about Iran before a Medal of Honor ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Monday, March 2, 2026, in Washington.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Trump said that the operation is projected to last four to five weeks, noting that “we have capability to go far longer than that.”

“We also projected four weeks to terminate the military leadership,” Trump added. “And as you know, that was done in about an hour. So we’re ahead of schedule there by a lot.”

President Donald Trump speaking before participating in a Medal of Honor ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Monday, March 2, 2026, in Washington.(AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was among five to 10 top leaders killed after an Israeli strike in Tehran as part of the joint operation, a U.S. senior official previously confirmed to Fox News. Iran’s state media also confirmed that Khamenei and several senior leaders were killed in the strikes.

TOMAHAWKS, B-2 STEALTH BOMBERS AND ATTACK DRONES POUND OVER 1,000 IRANIAN TARGETS IN 24-HOUR BLITZ

Earlier Monday, War Secretary Pete Hegseth outlined what he described as a “clear” three-part mission against Iran, insisting the conflict “is not endless” and sharply rejecting comparisons to past U.S. wars in the Middle East.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth, left, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine take questions during a press conference on U.S. military action in Iran at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on March 2, 2026.(Brendan Smialowski/AFP/via Getty Images)

“We set the terms of this war from start to finish. Our ambitions are not utopian. They are realistic, scoped to our interests and the defense of our people and our allies,” he told reporters at the Pentagon.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Officials tell Fox News that Israel is focusing on Iranian leadership targets, while the United States is targeting military sites and ballistic missile infrastructure it says pose an “imminent threat.”

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan and Max Bacall contributed to this report.

How have US presidents tapped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during war?

By Reuters
March 2, 2026 5:50 PM UTC Updated 2 hours ago

节点运行失败

A maze of crude oil pipe and equipment is seen with the American and Texas flags flying in the background during a tour by the Department of Energy at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Freeport, Texas, U.S. June 9, 2016. REUTERS/Richard Carson Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, March 2 (Reuters) – While the U.S. has no plans yet to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the world’s largest emergency oil stockpile, presidents have long tapped it during times of crisis in ​attempts to control fuel prices for U.S. consumers.

The administration of President Donald Trump ‌is not currently discussing selling oil from the SPR, a U.S. source said on Monday.

The Reuters Power Up newsletter provides everything you need to know about the global energy industry. Sign up here.

But if oil prices continue to rise following the U.S.-Israeli attacks on OPEC-member Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other top officials, the ​administration could take another look, analysts said.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Report Ad

The SPR currently holds 415.4 million barrels, of mostly ​sour crude, which has a high sulfur content that many U.S. refineries ⁠are geared to process. The crude is held underground in hollowed-out salt caverns on the coasts ​of Texas and Louisiana. Capacity is about 714 million barrels.

Here’s how the SPR has been used ​before in times of war:

RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE

---

In March 2022, the month after Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump’s predecessor former President Joe Biden ordered the release of 180 million barrels over six months – the largest sale ever from the emergency ​stash. Biden and Trump have slowly bought some oil to begin to replenish that, but little ​has been returned as Congress needs to provide more money to do so.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

ATTACK ON SAUDI ARABIA

---

Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis attacked ‌Saudi ⁠Arabia in 2019, prompting the shutdown of more than half the crude output in the world’s largest exporter. Trump, then in his first term as president, said his administration stood ready to tap the SPR if needed. Ultimately that did not happen as oil output recovered quickly from Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq plant and Khurais field.

LIBYA CIVIL WAR

---

In June 2011, ​former President Barack Obama ​ordered the release of ⁠30 million barrels of oil from the reserve to offset disruptions to global markets from civil war in oil producer Libya. That sale was ​coordinated with the Paris-based International Energy Agency, resulting in an additional 30 ​million barrel ⁠release from other member countries.

OPERATION DESERT STORM

---

In 1990-1991, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, former President George H.W. Bush sold about 21 million barrels in two phases. In October 1990, the U.S. ordered a 3.9 million barrel ⁠test ​sale. In January 1991, after U.S. and allied warplanes began ​attacks against Baghdad and other military targets in OPEC-member Iraq as part of Operation Desert Storm, Bush ordered the sale of ​34 million barrels, of which 17.3 million barrels were sold.

Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Nia Williams

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

New CNN poll: Nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of Trump’s Iran strikes | CNN Politics

Published 1:17 PM EST, Mon March 2, 2026 / CNN

[Dana Bash]

The Inside Politics panel breaks down the latest CNN poll that shows most Americans disapprove of the president’s decision to strike Iran, don’t trust him to make the right decisions on the use of force in Iran and don’t believe he has a clear plan on how to handle the situation.

6:22 • Source: [CNN]

Latest News from CNN Politics 15 videos

Video Ad Feedback

New CNN poll: Nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of Trump’s Iran strikes

6:22

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

‘I don’t think they know what they are doing’: Dem Rep. Deluzio, an Iraq War veteran, denounces Trump case for war with Iran

5:39

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Jeffries calls on lawmakers to pass war powers vote

9:00

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Trump releases new video touting scope of US military campaign in Iran

2:41

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Former Pentagon spokesperson predicts price jump at gas pump

8:22

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Gen. David Petraeus and Brett McGurk break down the situation in Iran

6:58

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

GOP Sen. Cruz: Trump’s decision to strike Iran was ‘the most consequential decision of his presidency’

9:35

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Why Texas primary could determine next Senate majority

8:36

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Iranian activists say they have mixed feelings amid celebrations and concerns about country’s future

7:37

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Sen Gallego: ‘This was a BS reason for us to go to war’

9:44

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Israeli president: “This is a war that will change the future of the Middle East”

7:31

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

“I don’t think it’s remotely possible”: Sen. Jack Reed on regime change in Iran

7:18

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Top Democrat says he saw no intelligence suggesting preemptive Iranian strike

9:15

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

GOP Sen. Tom Cotton to the Iranian people: ‘Help is here’

9:24

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

Video Ad Feedback

Democratic Sen. Fetterman backs U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran: ‘I think it’s entirely appropriate’

7:13

Now playing

• Source: [CNN]

See more videos

Ad Feedback

Trump administration drops suits against law firms with ties to Democrats and other Trump foes

PUBLISHED Mar 2, 2026, 2:19 PM ET / By Katelyn Polantz

President Donald Trump stops to speak to the media as he departs the White House on February 27, 2026.

Heather Diehl/Getty Images/File

The Trump administration has decided to drop its prolonged court fights against four law firms with ties to Democrats, after it had sought and failed to cut out the firms’ access to the federal government as part of an apparent retribution campaign by President Donald Trump.

Despite Trump’s dislike for certain lawyers who had opposed him at the firms and his attempts to use executive orders against them, the firms – Perkins Coie, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey – had each been protected by federal judges in Washington, DC, who ruled against the administration last year.

Each of the firms, Trump said, had employed lawyers who had investigated or opposed him personally. He attempted to use the powers of the presidency to deprive the firms’ lawyers of access to federal buildings, secured classified information and meetings with federal agencies – all mainstays of Washington-based legal work.

The firms were notified by the administration this weekend that it was dropping its appeals, according to a source familiar with the decision. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.

The administration was appealing its court losses and had been delaying proceedings from moving forward at the US DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Filings were due beginning later this week.

The cases had been some of the most shocking attempts at retribution by Trump for his own past legal issues, with Trump aiming at large and well-known firms with prominent lawyers who had ties to Democratic administrations and the party.

Other firms under threat of similar Trump executive orders cut deals with the administration and changed their approach, especially by shifting the political leanings in the pro bono work they were willing to do, from liberal causes to more conservative ones.

Though the executive orders didn’t survive in court, they have widely curtailed large American law firms’ willingness to oppose the administration and represent progressive causes publicly.

Top Justice Department lawyers from the Biden and Obama administrations, for instance, have also found more difficulty in landing or staying at large law firms, as would be typical after prior administration changeovers in Washington, with some starting their own small white collar firms instead.

About one in four Americans, but a majority of Republicans, say they approve of the U.S. military strikes on Iran ordered by President Donald Trump, according to a new poll.

The national survey, conducted Saturday and Sunday by Reuters/Ipsos in the hours after the start of “Operation Epic Fury” by American and Israeli forces on Iran that resulted in the killing of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also indicates about half believe Trump is too willing to use military force.

Twenty-seven percent of those surveyed said they approved of the strikes, with 43% disapproving and nearly three in 10 not sure.

But there’s a partisan divide, with Republicans by a 55%-32% margin supportive of the military action. The vast majority of Democrats, 73%, disapproved of the strikes, with only seven percent saying they approved. A plurality of independents, 44%, disapproved of the military attack, with 19% supportive and nearly four in 10 unsure.

[IRAN’S NEAR HALF CENTURY WAR ON AMERICANS]

The poll was conducted before the U.S. military announced on Sunday the first U.S. casualties in the operation — three service members killed and five more seriously wounded.

“I think that the polling is very good, but I don’t care about polling. I have to do the right thing. I have to do the right thing. This should have been done a long time ago,” Trump said in an interview Monday with the New York Post when asked about the new survey.

The joint U.S.-Israeli operation is expected to carry on for days, with officials telling Fox News that Israel is targeting Iranian leadership, while the U.S. is attacking military targets and ballistic missile sites that pose an “imminent threat.”

The attack has plunged the volatile Middle East into a new and unpredictable conflict. Iran has retaliated against Israel and other nations in the region. Trump on Sunday warned against Iranian retaliation, saying that if Iran were to “hit very hard,” they would be met with “a force that has never been seen before.”

[OIL PRICES SURGE AFTER TANKERS STRUCK NEAR STRAIGHT OF HORMUZ]

The attack on Iran follows strikes Trump has ordered in recent months against Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria.

According to the poll, 56% of Americans think the president is too willing to use military force to advance U.S. interests. Nearly nine in 10 Democrats, six in 10 independents, and nearly a quarter of Republicans said Trump was too willing to use military force.

Trump, in his interview with the New York Post, emphasized that “it’s not a question of polling. You cannot let Iran, who’s a nation that has been run by crazy people, have a nuclear weapon.”

[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]

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

Trump’s overall approval in the new survey stands at 39%, down a point from the previous Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in mid-February.

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

The Trump team can’t get its story straight on war with Iran

Analysis by Aaron Blake
10 min ago
PUBLISHED Mar 2, 2026, 1:56 PM ET

The Middle East Pete Hegseth

“We’re very clear-eyed,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assured Monday about the Trump administration’s war with Iran. He said it had “clear objectives” and assured that the mission “is very, very clear” to American soldiers.

But while undertaking perhaps the most serious and fraught US military operation in two decades, the administration has delivered anything but clarity.

Ahead of Saturday morning’s strikes on Iran, it declined to enunciate a consistent set of goals and motivations.

And it’s spent the three days since shifting the goalposts and contradicting itself.

Trump spoke publicly on Monday for the first time since launching the strikes, and he laid out four objectives for the war: destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, annihilating its navy, preventing it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon and preventing it from arming terrorists.

But it’s been a journey to get to that point.

The nuclear threat

---

Perhaps most stunning has been the evolution in how the administration has described the nuclear threat Iran poses.

Despite Trump spending months assuring that his June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had “obliterated” its nuclear program, Trump and his team recently began playing up the threat again.

Trump’s Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed on February 22 that Iran was enriching uranium at “well beyond” the threshold for civil use. He said it was “probably a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.”

Then Trump in his State of the Union address last Tuesday said Iran was building intercontinental ballistic missiles “that will soon reach the United States of America.”

But Secretary of State Marco Rubio contradicted Witkoff, saying on Wednesday that Iran was in fact “not enriching right now” — but was trying to restart its nuclear program in other ways.

US intelligence also contradicted Trump. An unclassified Defense Intelligence Agency assessment from last year said the prospect of Iran striking the US with an ICBM was still a decade away. And CNN and others reported that there was no intelligence suggesting this was anything close to an imminent problem.

Fast-forward to Monday, and Hegseth put an entirely new spin on all of this.

Hegseth did not say, as Witkoff did, that Iran was enriching uranium at dangerously high levels. Nor did he say that it had missiles that would soon be capable of striking the US homeland.

He instead cited a build-up of more conventional weapons that he said laid the groundwork for those more serious threats. Hegseth intermittently referred to this as a “conventional shield” or “umbrella.”

“Iran was building powerful missiles and drones to create a conventional shield for their nuclear blackmail ambitions,” Hegseth said. He added that this jeopardized “our bases, our people, our allies” in the region.

“They were stalling, buying time to reload their missile stockpiles and restart their nuclear ambitions,” Hegseth said.

So in a week, the justifications have gone from an imminent threat from Iran having nuclear bomb-making material, to Iran at least having the means to strike the US homeland with missiles, to now Iran using conventional weapons to create the conditions to be able to “restart their nuclear ambitions.”

That’s a huge walkback.

Trump echoed those comments later Monday morning, citing Iran’s efforts to “shield their nuclear weapon development and make it extraordinarily difficult for anyone to stop them.” But he then also mentioned Iran supposedly having an ICBM that could strike the United States “soon.”

While the George W. Bush administration’s claims about the “weapons of mass destruction” threat posed by Iraq unraveled over years, the Trump administration is seeing its claims about Iran fall apart — and often be abandoned — in a matter of hours or days.

Whether Iran was about to strike

---

But it wasn’t just Iran’s nuclear threat that was supposedly imminent. The administration on Saturday also argued there was a real threat of Iran soon striking US forces in the Middle East with those conventional weapons — and that that’s, in part, why Trump had to take action.

A senior administration official who briefed reporters said there was evidence that Iran could strike “potentially, preemptively.”

“And the president decided he was not going to sit back and allow America’s forces in the region to absorb attacks from conventional missiles,” the official said.

But that explanation hasn’t panned out, either. A source familiar with the intelligence told CNN there were no indications that the Iranians planned to strike US forces or assets first — unless they were attacked by Israel or the US. On Sunday, Pentagon officials who briefed congressional staff acknowledged that reality, CNN reported.

And this is not a small point. The imminence of Iran’s threat matters greatly when it comes to the legitimacy of the US and Israeli strikes in Iran — both when it comes to public perception and international law.

Regime change

---

The other big shift in the administration’s messaging has been around regime change.

In the hours after launching the strikes, Trump repeatedly emphasized regime change was a goal — and possibly even the goal.

“All I want is freedom for the people,” Trump told the Washington Post.

This was also a major point of emphasis in Trump’s first video message about the operation.

“America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force,” he told the Iranian opposition. “Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.”

“When we are finished, take over your government,” Trump added. “It will be yours to take.”

But the administration now seems to have cold feet about this. It has repeatedly downplayed the US role in changing the regime.

That was punctuated by Hegseth saying explicitly Monday, “This is not a so-called regime change war.”

“But the regime sure did change,” he added. “And the world is better off for it today.”

[image_2]

Relatedly, there have been inconsistencies in how the administration has talked about the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trump told ABC News on Sunday, “I got him before he got me. … I got him first.”

But Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio told CBS News that he’d spoken with Rubio, who told him “we did not target Khamenei, and we were not targeting the leadership in Iran.”

And Hegseth echoed that Monday. When asked to comment on Khamenei’s killing, he said only: “I think Israel did a great job in the conduct of that operation.”

US intelligence was clearly shared with the Israelis. But it’s telling that the administration is trying to distance itself from the most significant regime-changing action.

The timeframe and what’s next

---

When it comes to who takes over, Trump offered dizzying commentary this weekend.

In an interview with The New York Times, he said he had “three very good choices” about who would run Iran now. (He declined to name them.)

But in a later interview with ABC News, the president suddenly signaled those people were, in fact, dead.

“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump told ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”

The administration has also struggled to convey a potential timeframe for the war, with Hegseth on Monday calling it a “gotcha-type question.”

In various comments over the weekend, Trump has floated it taking “four to five weeks,” “two or three days” and a week. He also said it’s “always been a four-week process,” before suggesting it could be less than that. On Monday, he told CNN’s Jake Tapper that “we’re a little ahead of schedule,” while also suggesting military action would be intensifying.

“We haven’t even started hitting them hard. The big wave hasn’t even happened. The big one is coming soon,” Trump told Tapper in a phone interview.

And he said at Monday’s event that the military “has the capability to go far longer” than his four-to-five-week projection.

“Whatever it takes,” Trump said.

The Middle East Pete Hegseth