Leaked Iran Call Further Shreds Trump's Narrative: Report
Iranian government officials in a phone call said that the U.S. military strikes against its nuclear facilities were not as damaging or extensive as they had expected, further undermining the Trump administration's narrative that they were 'completely and totally obliterated.' The Washington Post first reported the call, citing four people familiar with U.S. intelligence on the matter.
In the conversation that was meant to be private, Iranian government officials wondered why the strikes did not cause more widespread destruction.
The administration in a statement from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt essentially confirmed the existence of the call but called the paper's reporting 'shameful.'
'It's shameful that The Washington Post is helping people commit felonies by publishing out-of-context leaks,' Leavitt said. 'The notion that unnamed Iranian officials know what happened under hundreds of feet of rubble is nonsense. Their nuclear weapons program is over.'
The U.S. military targeted nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan and definitely caused damage, although how much damage is under debate among the intelligence community.
The news of the call broke on the same day an interview with Donald Trump aired where the president threatened to jail Democratic lawmakers who he says leaked intelligence information. He also said his administration would demand that journalists who reported on the leaks reveal their sources.
'We can find out [who leaked the intelligence],' Trump said on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures. 'If they want to, we can find out easily. You go up and tell the reporter, 'National security, who gave it [to you]?' You have to do that, and I suspect we'll be doing things like that.'
Trump in those comments is referring to journalists from CNN and The New York Times. Both outlets reported on a leaked intelligence summary from the Pentagon that concluded the bombings closed off entrances to two facilities but that the structures underneath remained intact. The attacks only set Iran's nuclear program back months, the report said, contradicting the administration's claims that their facilities were completely destroyed.
'It turned out, no, it was obliterated like nobody's ever seen before,' Trump said in the interview that aired Sunday. 'And that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions, at least for a period of time.'
More from Rolling Stone
Trump Threatens to Force Journalists to Reveal Sources Who Leaked Iran Intel Report
Trump's Big Beautiful Bill Will Destroy America's Climate Progress
Republicans Keep Making Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Worse
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
37 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump administration says Harvard risks ‘loss of all federal resources' due to alleged campus antisemitism
The Trump administration formally accused Harvard University of violating federal civil rights laws and failing to mount an appropriate response to alleged campus antisemitism. Monday's notice marked a stark and renewed threat to Harvard's federal funding amid quiet negotiations between the elite school and government authorities that have otherwise been replete with court fights, threats to Harvard's research funding and foreign student enrollment — and the recent possibility of a detente raised by President Donald Trump. 'Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government,' administration officials, including Justice Department civil rights chief Harmeet K. Dhillon, wrote in a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber. 'Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again,' the officials said. Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The institution could also lose federal student aid — one of the most severe consequences a university can face — if it doesn't agree to a resolution. About a fifth of Harvard's undergraduate students rely on a federal grant reserved for low-income students. The notice from the Justice Department's antisemitism task force marked the completion of a civil rights investigation into the university pursued by the Department of Health and Human Services, which, according to the administration, has awarded Harvard more than $794 million in federal financial assistance since the 2023 fiscal year. The government concluded Harvard has been 'in some cases deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff' since the Israel-Hamas war began Oct. 7, 2023. A 57-page HHS report that accompanied Monday's notice, obtained by POLITICO, detailed what the government said was a 'pattern of unlawful and unchecked discrimination' that included student-on-student harassment, exclusion from campus spaces and institutional-level acceptance of antisemitism. Authorities also acknowledged an effort 'to secure compliance by voluntary means' through extended discussions with Harvard. HHS' civil rights division 'will make additional efforts to persuade Harvard to take appropriate corrective action, including through submission of a voluntary resolution agreement,' the report said. Authorities told Harvard they would refer the matter to the Justice Department 'as soon as possible after the mailing of this Notice absent voluntary compliance.' The Wall Street Journal first reported news of the government findings. The government's latest Harvard threat signals a shift in the administration's tone from just 10 days ago, when Trump declared a 'historic' deal between his administration and Harvard could soon be on the table. 'We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,' Trump said in a post on Truth Social, the social media site he owns. One administration official expressed cautious optimism about talks last week, saying there was 'a level of trust that Harvard wants to resolve the conflict and we can see a resolution by the end of the month.' Now, that administration official said, Harvard 'hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain.' 'Talk is cheap, and the president isn't in the business of agreeing to deals in name only or falling for empty promises,' the administration official told POLITICO. 'He and his administration remain committed to working with Harvard, but it's a two-way street.' Bianca Quilantan contributed to this report.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
GOP Gets Supreme Court Review on Political Party Spending Caps
(Bloomberg) -- The US Supreme Court agreed to consider Republican calls to strike down federal caps on the money political parties can spend on advertisements in coordination with congressional candidates. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sao Paulo Pushes Out Favela Residents, Drug Users to Revive Its City Center Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown Heeding requests from two GOP campaign committees and the Trump administration, the justices said they will review a federal appeals court decision that upheld the 51-year-old spending limits. The case could prompt the justices to overrule a 2001 decision that sustained the restrictions as a means of tackling corruption and ensuring donors don't use parties as a conduit to circumvent separate limits on direct contributions to candidates. More broadly, the new clash could extend a line of decisions in recent years invalidating campaign finance laws as violating constitutional speech rights. In their appeal, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee said the 2001 decision had fostered political polarization by giving more power to outside groups. The ruling 'has stripped the parties of their comparative advantage in the marketplace for campaign contributions: the ability to coordinate with their candidates,' the Republicans argued. 'With that link severed, donors have largely redirected their funds to outside groups such as Super PACs, which are more and more acting as 'shadow parties' today.' The Trump administration said May 19 that it would join the Republican committees in opposing the spending limits. That unusual dynamic prompted the Democratic National Committee and two party campaign committees to ask to take over the defense of the law. The Supreme Court granted the request as part of its order, saying the Democrats could intervene. 'The First Amendment has not changed since 2001,' the Democrats told the justices. 'The anti-circumvention and corruption concerns justifying the statute remain the same.' Depending on the seat, the coordinated-spending limits ranged from $61,800 to almost $3,772,100 at the time of the appeals court decision. The caps, which Congress enacted in 1974, are adjusted for inflation. The case, which the court will hear in the nine-month term that starts in October, is National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 24-621. America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Does a Mamdani Victory and Bezos Blowback Mean Billionaires Beware? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Bloomberg
39 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Republicans Agree to Mask $3.8 Trillion of Trump Tax Bill Costs
Senate Republicans are moving forward with a plan to mask the $3.8 trillion cost of extending expiring tax cuts in President Donald Trump's signature economic legislation by using an unprecedented accounting maneuver. GOP senators voted Monday in favor of the plan to count the extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts as costing nothing, over objections from Democrats and despite concerns raised by economists about the US debt trajectory.
