Trump and Hegseth Are Melting Down Over Leaked Iran Strike Intel
The details of the intelligence report — which found that the strikes only partially damaged their targets and likely only set back Iran's nuclear program a few months — went public as Trump was attending a NATO summit in the Netherlands, and his comments at the meeting of the allied nations largely revolved around the Iran strikes and how 'disgusting' and 'horrible' the media is for reporting on the government's early findings about what happened. Trump's Truth Social account has meanwhile been rife with all-caps attacks against CNN and the Times, as well as calls for everyone involved to be fired. 'FAKE NEWS REPORTERS FROM CNN & THE NEW YORK TIMES SHOULD BE FIRED, IMMEDIATELY!!! BAD PEOPLE WITH EVIL INTENTIONS!!!' he wrote this morning.
Trump also used Truth Social to tease an early-morning press conference from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who berated the media today alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine. 'How many stories have been written about how hard it is to fly a plane for 36 hours?' a visibly enraged Hegseth asked the congregated press, referring to the mission to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites, which he described as 'the most complex and secretive military operation in history.'
'How about we celebrate that?' Hegseth continued in his screed about the media's coverage of the strikes. 'How about we talk about how successful America is, that only we have these capabilities? I think it's too much to ask, unfortunately, for the fake news.'
Hegseth even went after one of his former colleagues, Jennifer Griffin of Fox News, who asked about the administration's confidence that Iran did not preemptively move uranium from the sites of the strikes, which the Pentagon's preliminary report indicated was likely. 'Jennifer, you've been about the worst, the one who misrepresents the most, intentionally, what the president said,' he said.
The chaotic scene today at the Pentagon, and on Trump's Truth Social feed, is part of an administration-wide effort to defend the strikes, discredit the leaked intelligence report, and inflate the president's ego while chastising or threatening those casting the strikes as anything short of a historic success.
The president has been especially sensitive about the prospect of Iran having moved uranium ahead of the strikes. In recent days, a person with direct knowledge of the situation tells Rolling Stone that the president has been sensitive about any reporting suggesting stockpiles had been moved, in part because Trump essentially tipped off the Iranians by teasing that the U.S. could take action. 'It really pisses him off when people say that,' this source says, noting that would undermine Trump's assertion of how 'perfectly' this operation was conducted.
Trump claimed on Truth Social as Hegseth berated the media today that 'nothing was taken out of the facility' and that the trucks appearing on satellite imaging ahead of the strikes 'were those of concrete workers.'
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and other top officials have leapt to Trump's defense in response to the leaked report — but Hegseth may be the tip of the spear.
One Trump adviser tells Rolling Stone that they chuckled at the former Fox News host's seemingly prepared line about how Trump's bombing operation was 'the most complex and secretive military operation' ever — or, in this source's paraphrase, even 'better than D-Day.'
This adviser says it immediately reminded them of former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's much-ridiculed declaration that Trump's first 2017 inauguration had 'the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.'
Trump has joined Hegseth in pushing absurd exaggerations about the efficacy of the strikes, and, not surprisingly given that the intelligence report did not parrot the president's talking points, the current propaganda blitz is accompanied by yet another one of Trump's sprawling leak crackdowns. As Rolling Stone first reported, the leak of classified material to outlets such as CNN and The New York Times quickly triggered a particularly aggressive investigation, with Trump and other senior administration officials fuming that this could have happened.
The leak hunt was launched concurrently with the Trump team's broader clampdown on intelligence and sensitive information. Staff at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the federal government were personally warned by superiors that if they had anything to do with this disclosure to the media, they could be facing serious prison time, two sources with knowledge of the matter say.
Additionally, Trump lieutenants moved to put an even tighter stranglehold on the amount of classified information it shares with Congress. 'We are declaring a war on leakers,' one senior White House official told Axios. Leavitt said Wednesday that 'the FBI is investigating who was the source of that leak because it's an illegal leak to CNN.'
It's still too soon to know the reality of the operation's effectiveness. Caine was asked about this uncertainty during the press conference with Hegseth today. 'General, on Sunday you said final battle damage will take some time … and it would be way too early for me to comment on what may or may not still be there,' a reporter began before asking Caine, 'What has changed? Would you use the term 'obliterated,' as well?'
Caine began to answer before Hegseth cut in and started attacking the media's 'irresponsible' coverage of the operation.
More from Rolling Stone
Republicans Keep Making Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Worse
Trump Demands Republicans Crack Down on Nonprofits That Protest ICE
Trump Admin Says ICE Agents are the Real Victims Amid Violent Immigration Raids
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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
41 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
Iran prepared to mine Strait of Hormuz last month amid Israel tensions, say US sources: Report
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on July 2, 2025, 09:35 IST Iran's military loaded naval mines onto vessels in the Persian Gulf last month, raising concerns within Washington that Tehran was preparing to blockade the Strait of Hormuz following Israeli strikes on Iranian sites, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing two US officials familiar with the matter. The mine-loading activity, which had not been publicly disclosed earlier, took place shortly after Israel launched a missile attack on Iran on June 13. The US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the intelligence, stated that the mines have not been deployed but their movement indicates serious Iranian consideration of blocking the strategic waterway. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most vital shipping lanes, with nearly 20% of global oil and gas shipments passing through it. Any disruption could have sent global energy prices soaring. However, oil prices have fallen by more than 10% since US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, largely due to relief that shipping through the strait has remained unaffected. Following US airstrikes on June 22 that targeted three key Iranian nuclear sites, Iran's parliament reportedly supported a non-binding resolution to close the strait. However, the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council, as noted by Iran's Press TV. Historically, Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz during periods of heightened geopolitical tension but has never acted on those threats. Reuters reported that it remains unclear whether the mines remain aboard the Iranian vessels or if they have since been removed. US intelligence gathering on the matter likely involved satellite imagery, human intelligence, or a combination of both, the sources added. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
44 minutes ago
Trump says the GOP mega bill will eliminate taxes on Social Security. It does not.
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump keeps saying that Republicans' mega tax and spending cut legislation will eliminate taxes on federal Social Security benefits. It does not. At best, Trump's 'no tax on Social Security' claim exaggerates the benefits to seniors if either the House or Senate-passed proposals is signed into law. Here's a look at Trump's recent statements, and what the proposals would — or would not — do. Trump repeatedly told voters during his 2024 campaign that he would eliminate taxes on Social Security. As his massive legislative package has moved through Congress, the Republican president has claimed that's what the bill would do. Trump said on a recent appearance on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures" that the bill includes 'no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.' But instead of eliminating the tax, the Senate and House have each passed their own versions of a temporary tax deduction for seniors aged 65 and over, which applies to all income — not just Social Security. And it turns out not all Social Security beneficiaries will be able to claim the deduction. Those who won't be able to do so include the lowest-income seniors who already don't pay taxes on Social Security, those who choose to claim their benefits before they reach age 65 and those above a defined income threshold. The Senate proposal includes a temporary $6,000 deduction for seniors over the age of 65, contrasted with the House proposal, which includes a temporary deduction of $4,000. The Senate proposal approved Tuesday would eliminate Social Security tax liability for seniors with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less or $150,000 if filing as a married couple. If passed into law, the tax deduction would last four years, from 2025 to 2029. The deductions phase out as income increases. Touting a new Council of Economic Advisers analysis, the White House said Tuesday that '88% of all seniors who receive Social Security — will pay NO TAX on their Social Security benefits," going on to say that the Senate proposal's $6,000 senior deduction 'is estimated to benefit 33.9 million seniors, including seniors not claiming Social Security. The deduction yields an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per senior who benefits from it.' Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation think tank, said conflating the tax deduction with a claim that there will be no tax on Social Security could end up confusing and angering a lot of seniors who will expect to not pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. 'While the deduction does provide some relief for seniors, it's far from completely repealing the tax on their benefits,' Watson said. The cost of actually eliminating the tax on Social Security would have massive impacts on the economy. University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits 'would reduce revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase federal debt by 7 percent by 2054" and speed up the projected depletion date of the Social Security Trust Fund from 2034 to 2032. Discussions over taxes on Social Security are just part of the overall bill, which is estimated in its Senate version to increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Administration officials have said the cost of the tax bill would be offset by tariff income. Recently, the CBO separately estimated that Trump's sweeping tariff plan would cut deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period while shrinking the economy, raising the inflation rate and reducing the purchasing power of households overall.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Paramount agrees to pay $16M to settle Trump lawsuit over '60 Minutes' interview
NEW YORK - CBS parent company Paramount on July 1 settled a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump over an interview broadcast in October, the latest concession by a media company to a president who has targeted outlets over what he describes as false or misleading coverage. Paramount said it would pay $16 million to settle the suit, with the money allocated to Trump's future presidential library, and not paid to Trump "directly or indirectly." "The settlement does not include a statement of apology or regret," the company statement added. Trump filed a $10-billion lawsuit against CBS in October, alleging the network deceptively edited an interview that aired on its "60 Minutes" news program with then-vice president and presidential candidate Kamala Harris to "tip the scales in favor of the Democratic Party" in the election. In an amended complaint filed in February, Trump bumped his claim for damages to $20 billion. CBS aired two versions of the Harris interview in which she appears to give different answers to the same question about the Israel-Hamas war, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas. CBS previously said the lawsuit was "completely without merit" and had asked a judge to dismiss the case. The White House did not immediately respond to a Reuters' request for comment. Edward A Paltzik, a lawyer representing Trump in the civil suit, could not be immediately reached for comment. A spokesperson for Paramount Chair Shari Redstone was similarly unavailable for comment. The case entered mediation in April. Trump alleged CBS's editing of the interview violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, which makes it illegal to use false, misleading, or deceptive acts in commerce. Media advocacy groups said Trump's novel use of such laws against news outlets could be a way of circumventing legal protections for the press, which can only be held liable for defamation against public figures if they say something they knew or should have known was false. The settlement comes as Paramount prepares for an $8.4-billion merger with Skydance Media, which will require approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. On the campaign trail last year, Trump threatened to revoke CBS's broadcasting license if elected. He has repeatedly lashed out against the news media, often casting unfavorable coverage as "fake news." The Paramount settlement follows a decision by Walt Disney-owned ABC News to settle a defamation case brought by Trump. As part of that settlement, which was made public on December 14, the network donated $15 million to Trump's presidential library and publicly apologized for comments by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who inaccurately said Trump had been found liable for rape. It also follows a second settlement, by Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta Platforms, which on January 29 said it had agreed to pay about $25 million to settle a lawsuit by Trump over the company's suspension of his accounts after the January 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol. Why Trump sued CBS: What to know about complaint dating back to Kamala Harris interview Trump has vowed to pursue more claims against the media. On December 17, he filed a lawsuit against the Des Moines Register newspaper and its former top pollster over its poll published on November 2 that showed Harris leading Trump by three percentage points in Iowa. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an order barring the Des Moines Register from engaging in "ongoing deceptive and misleading acts and practices" related to polling. A Des Moines Register representative said the organization stands by its reporting and that the lawsuit was without merit. On June 30, Trump dropped the federal lawsuit and refiled it in an Iowa state court. (Reporting by Helen Coster and Jack Queen in New York, Kanjyik Ghosh and Surbhi Misra in Bengaluru; Editing by Noeleen Walder, Rod Nickel and Kate Mayberry)
