White House moves to limit sharing of some classified info with Congress after Iran leak
The move is prompting Democratic pushback from those who argue it would be unwise to restrict congressional access based on suspicion.
A White House official confirmed the decision, which was first reported by Axios. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced earlier Wednesday that the Pentagon was launching an investigation into the leak of the assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency.
'I am told by the FBI the leak already is being investigated, and it absolutely should be because this was a top secret intelligence analysis that very few people in the United States government had access to see,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News Wednesday.
The U.S. last Saturday carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities.
Despite assertions from the administration that the strikes set the country's nuclear capabilities back by years, an initial intelligence assessment obtained by some media outlets suggested the damage was more limited, setting the program back only by a few months.
According to Axios, the information was shared shortly after it was posted on CAPNET, a system used to share information with Congress.
Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, criticized the administration's plans.
'The leak of classified information is unacceptable and should be fully investigated and those responsible held accountable. It's also unacceptable for the Administration to use unsubstantiated speculation about the source of a leak to justify cutting off Congress from classified intelligence reporting, particularly when over a million people within the Executive Branch have clearance to access classified top-secret reporting,' he said.
'The law requires the congressional intelligence committees to be kept fully and currently informed, and I expect the Intelligence Community to comply with the law,' he continued.
Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), the chair of the intelligence panel, didn't directly criticize the decision for Congress but lamented the result stemming from the leak.
'I am furious with the repeated, blatant disregard for the very simple, proper handling of classified information. When leakers leverage their access to highly sensitive information to push a political or personal agenda it is to the detriment of U.S. national security and incredibly disrespectful to those who put their lives on the line for our country collecting intelligence and supporting our mission on the ground. Access to classified information is a privilege and with that comes the utmost responsibility to safeguard that information with the highest level of caution and care,' he said in a statement.
'I will continue to work with the Administration to ensure information to keep Congress fully and currently informed is shared via the appropriate Committees with appropriate oversight responsibilities. This reckless and dangerous behavior must end–full stop.'
Lawmakers were set to receive classified briefings on Tuesday about the Trump administration's strikes against Iran, but they were postponed until later this week.
The Senate briefing will now take place on Thursday. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced the House briefing would be Friday.
Administration officials have aggressively pushed back on reporting about an early internal assessment that found the U.S. strikes delayed Iran's nuclear program by only a few months. Trump and others have referred to the sites as 'obliterated' and argued they all but eliminated Iran's ability to pursue a nuclear weapon.
President Trump also cited an assessment from the Israel Atomic Energy Commission about the success of the U.S. strikes on the Iranian nuclear facilities, which, together with Israeli strikes, set back Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon 'by many years.'
Updated at 8:36 p.m. EDT.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Ketanji Brown Jackson turns independent streak loose on fellow justices
To hear Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson tell it, it's a 'perilous moment for our Constitution.' The Supreme Court's most junior justice had pointed exchanges with her colleagues on the bench this term, increasingly accusing them of unevenly applying the law — even if it meant standing on her own from the court's other liberal justices. Jackson has had an independent streak since President Biden nominated her to the bench in 2022. But the dynamic has intensified this term, especially as litigation over President Trump's sweeping agenda reached the court. It climaxed with her final dissent of decision season, when Jackson accused her fellow justices of helping Trump threaten the rule of law at a moment they should be 'hunkering down.' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' Her stark warning came as Trump's birthright citizenship order split the court on its 6-3 ideological lines, with all three Democratic appointed justices dissenting from the decision to limit nationwide injunctions. Jackson bounded farther than her two liberal colleagues, writing in a blistering solo critique that said the court was embracing Trump's apparent request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior.' The decision amounts to an 'existential threat to the rule of law,' she said. It wasn't the first time Jackson's fellow liberal justices left her out in the cold. She has been writing solo dissents since her first full term on the bench. Jackson did so again in another case last month when the court revived the energy industry's effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. Jackson accused her peers of ruling inequitably. 'This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens,' Jackson wrote. 'Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent.' Rather than join Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent that forewent such fiery language, Jackson chose to pen her own. The duo frequently agrees. They were on the same side in 94 percent of cases this term, according to data from SCOTUSblog, more than any other pair except for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court's two leading conservatives. Sometimes Sotomayor signs on to Jackson's piercing dissents, including when she last month condemned the court's emergency order allowing the Department of Government Efficiency to access Americans' Social Security data. 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration, I would proceed without fear or favor,' Jackson wrote. But it appears there are rhetorical lines the most senior liberal justice won't cross. In another case, regarding disability claims, Sotomayor signed onto portions of Jackson's dissent but rejected a footnote in which Jackson slammed the majority's textualism as 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' 'Pure textualism's refusal to try to understand the text of a statute in the larger context of what Congress sought to achieve turns the interpretive task into a potent weapon for advancing judicial policy preferences,' the most junior justice wrote, refusing to remove the footnote from her dissent. Jackson's colleagues don't see it that way. 'It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can,' Chief Justice John Roberts told a crowd of lawyers at a judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his decisions are driven by the real-world consequences. 'If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it,' Roberts continued. 'But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.' Though Roberts wasn't referencing Jackson's recent dissents, her willingness to call out her peers hasn't gone unaddressed. Jackson's dissent in the birthright citizenship case earned a rare, merciless smackdown from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, cosigned by the court's conservative majority. Replying to Jackson's remark that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' Barrett turned that script into her own punchline. 'That goes for judges too,' the most junior conservative justice clapped back. Deriding Jackson's argument as 'extreme,' Barrett said her dissenting opinion ran afoul of centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. The piercing rebuke was a staunch departure from the usually restrained writing of the self-described 'one jalapeño gal.' That's compared to the five-jalapeño rhetoric of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett said, the late conservative icon for whom she clerked. On today's court, it is often Thomas who brings some of the most scathing critiques of Jackson, perhaps most notably when the two took diametrically opposite views of affirmative action two years ago. Page after page, Thomas ripped into Jackson's defense of race-conscious college admissions, accusing her of labeling 'all blacks as victims.' 'Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds,' Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion. It isn't Thomas's practice to announce his separate opinions from the bench, but that day, he said he felt compelled to do so. As he read it aloud from the bench for 11 minutes, Jackson stared blankly ahead into the courtroom. Jackson's boldness comes across not only in the court's decision-making. At oral arguments this term, she spoke 50 percent more than any other justice. She embraces her openness. She told a crowd in May while accepting an award named after former President Truman that she liked to think it was because they both share the same trait: bravery. 'I am also told that some people think I am courageous for the ways in which I engage with litigants and my colleagues in the courtroom, or the manner in which I address thorny issues in my legal writings,' Jackson said. 'Some have even called me fearless.'


New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
To tame Washington, we need a DOGE 2.0 — but done right this time
Elon Musk has repeatedly achieved the impossible, but not even he and his Department of Government Efficiency could tame Washington, DC, and its massive federal bureaucracy. Yet there's still hope — and the need has never been more urgent. The Senate parliamentarian gutted major cost savings at the heart of the Republican reconciliation bill that President Donald Trump signed Friday, so he must resume DOGE efforts immediately. Advertisement In Silicon Valley terms, DOGE had product-market fit; it just didn't have the right tech stack. This time, the White House must get the architecture right. Step 1 is understanding what went wrong. DOGE's failures stemmed from three fundamental flaws that doomed the effort from the start. The first was structural. Don Devine, who ran the Office of Personnel Management for President Ronald Reagan, warned that creating a new agency to shrink government never works — it only causes confusion, diffusion of responsibility and more bureaucracy. Advertisement It also ignores that in Washington, the coin of the realm is power. DOGE was a new agency made up out of thin air with zero inherent legal authority — and Cabinet secretaries naturally bristled at an outside third party meddling in their agencies. They wanted to control the change, and they possessed the legal authority to do so. Indeed, as secretaries were confirmed, they moved quickly to throw off DOGE's yoke. Advertisement By late February, Musk faced a revolt as top officials countermanded DOGE's 'five weekly accomplishments' order. An 'explosive' Cabinet meeting in early March ended with Trump telling Musk to make changes with a scalpel, not a hatchet. Musk's second problem was a legal one. Private-sector experience can't prepare anyone for the labyrinth of administrative law that liberal activists use to stymie progress. DOGE lacked a dedicated legal team within the Justice Department focused solely on its policy reforms and preventing unforced errors. For example, DOGE lowered NIH's cap on allowable research overhead from 69% to 15%, explaining that private foundations allow for zero such funding — but it made the cap retroactive, jeopardizing the reform in court. Advertisement The third sin was flash. Even as DOGE's publicity invited legal challenges, it increased the pressure to meet publicly proclaimed, wildly optimistic targets. DOGE's $1 trillion in promised cuts will strain to hit $150 billion. We had a saying in the White House during Trump's first term, and it proved true here: Whales that surface get harpooned. Musk acknowledged as much on X last week, admitting that his attention-getting antics 'lacked empathy.' Fortunately, the source code exists to reengineer the DOGE mission with bold, swift, high-impact moves. The White House must implement three critical components to make DOGE 2.0 work. First, empower Cabinet control: The White House should give Cabinet secretaries direction, then let them make reforms themselves. Trump must give each Cabinet member mandatory workforce reduction goals, the same way tech sales teams have strict quotas. Faced with a requirement, for example, to trim 25% within six months, agency heads will snap into action — and will feel personal responsibility for performance. The federal government works best when it functions as designed, with the president — not a third party — telling his Cabinet what to do. Advertisement Second, the White House must assemble a dedicated legal defense team within the Justice Department focused solely on reform policies, and get each agency's general counsel on board with the effort. These lawyers will catch pitfalls early — and will go the extra mile to defend policies they helped write. For example, these lawyers must aggressively demand injunction bonds to rein in activists' district-court lawfare. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Advertisement When the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions last week, it left activist judges a 'significant loophole' in the class-action realm. DOJ lawyers should head this off by demanding that plaintiffs pay injunction bonds — upfront money to cover costs should they lose. Finally, DOGE 2.0 must execute in Stealth Mode. Follow the example of the Obama administration, which initially pursued amnesty for undocumented aliens by relaxing enforcement via phone calls, without making a public announcement. This made it much harder for Congress to learn what was happening — or to attack it in court. Advertisement The same quiet execution model applies here: Trump must pursue smart, quiet rollouts, not splashy launches. This was the model my former boss John McEntee used to reform personnel in Trump's first term. He used the authorities inherent in the White House to hold the Cabinet accountable, placed dedicated lawyers in key positions of authority and operated off-the-record. It was a successful model and should be deployed again. Advertisement Watching Musk leave Washington in frustration brings to mind the Roman historian Livy. As the Republic collapsed, he lamented: 'We can endure neither our vices nor the remedies needed to cure them.' America need not repeat Rome's fate — but only if we abandon failed approaches and embrace methods that actually work. The clock is ticking. Daniel Huff is a former White House lawyer in the Office of Presidential Personnel, and was a senior advisor to Project 2025.


CBS News
36 minutes ago
- CBS News
Ken Burns calls it "shortsighted" to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Filmmaker Ken Burns said it's "shortsighted" to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as public media has become a target of the White House in recent months. "This seems foolhardy and seems misguided, mainly because there is a perception among a handful of people that this is somehow a blue or a left-wing thing," Burns said of cutting funds to PBS in an interview that aired Sunday on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." President Trump signed an executive order in May instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the private nonprofit that serves as the steward of the funding to public media, to cease federal funding for PBS and NPR. Then in June, the House approved a request from the White House to claw back $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The package is expected to be taken up by the Senate in the coming weeks as the White House has targeted the public media entities, claiming they have "spread radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news.'" Burns, whose upcoming film "The American Revolution" is expected to air on PBS in November and has had more than 40 documentaries on the public broadcaster, told "CBS Evening News" co-anchor John Dickerson that he's worried about PBS' future, noting that he's "always been worried about it." "CBS Evening News" co-anchor John Dickerson speaks with documentary filmmaker Ken Burns for an interview that will air on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on July 6, 2025. CBS News The filmmaker recalled testifying before congressional committees in the 1990s about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He likened PBS to the "Declaration of Independence applied to the communications world," saying it's "bottom up." The funding cuts are "shortsighted," Burns said, because "it mainly serves rural areas in which the PBS signal may be the only signal they get." Burns stressed that PBS has children's programming, continuing education, information on homeland security, crop reports and weather emergencies, saying, "that, we're going to take away?" "I just think that maybe we're throwing the baby out with the bath water," Burns said. The filmmaker also noted that his films wouldn't be possible without PBS, saying he wouldn't be afforded the time it takes to produce his films elsewhere. "I couldn't do any of the films I've done without them being on PBS," Burns said, noting that streaming services or cable "wouldn't give me 10 years." Of his work, Burns said many of the projects have "taken time to incubate, and that has been under the system that has one foot tentatively in the marketplace and the other proudly out, kind of like the National Parks or the Declaration of Independence applied to the landscape." "These are really good American institutions that represent everybody from the bottom up, which is what it's always about," Burns said. "That's the essence of what Thomas Jefferson was talking about."