Trump contradicts US intelligence on Iran, doesn’t address regime change as before
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026, in Washington, DC. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration’s tariff strategy, and amid a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran. (Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Monday claimed the U.S. was “very nearly under threat” from Iran, contradicting U.S. intelligence assessments as he sought to justify his administration’s ongoing attack.
“An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people,” Trump said at a medal of honor ceremony at the White House, marking his first public remarks on the military operation.
“Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat,” Trump continued.
American intelligence agencies, however, believe Iran would not have had missiles capable of reaching the U.S. for another nine years, until 2035.
And sources confirmed to ABC News that Trump administration officials told congressional staff that U.S. intelligence did not suggest Iran was preparing to launch a preemptive strike against the United States interests.
The officials said there was more of a general threat in the region from Iran’s missiles and proxy forces, sources told ABC News.
Still, Trump argued Iran would have “soon” had the capability to reach the American homeland and that “this was our last best chance to strike.”
“The regime already had missiles capable of hitting Europe and our bases, both local and overseas, and would soon have had missiles capable of reaching our beautiful America,” Trump said.
Trump, in Monday’s remarks, laid out U.S. objectives for the military campaign.
“Our objectives are clear,” Trump said. “First, we’re destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, and you see that happening on an hourly basis, and their capacity to produce brand new ones and pretty good ones they make. Second, we’re annihilating their navy. We’ve knocked out already 10 ships. They’re at the bottom of the sea. Third, we’re ensuring that the world’s number one sponsor of terror can never obtain a nuclear weapon … And finally, we’re ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”
Trump notably did not address the issue of regime change after speaking extensively on leadership change over the weekend, as he called for Iranians to rise up and take over the government.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also shifted focus away from regime change in a press conference at the Pentagon earlier Monday, telling reporters the operation was not a “so-called regime-change war.”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, was killed in an attack launched by Israel and the United States.
“The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates,” Trump told ABC’s Karl. “It’s not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead.”
As for what’s next, Trump again promised not to drag the U.S. into prolonged foreign conflicts but said the operation will go on for as long as needed.
“We’re already substantially ahead of our time projections, but whatever the time is, it’s okay. Whatever it takes. We will always, and we have right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. We’ll do it.”
“Somebody said today, they said, ‘Oh, well, the president wants to do it really quickly, after that, he’ll get bored.’ I don’t get bored,” Trump added. “There’s nothing boring about this.”
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to members of the media as he leaves the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Top congressional leaders — comprising the “Gang of 8” — did not receive a briefing from the administration before the U.S. strike in Venezuela began, multiple sources told ABC News Saturday morning.
Per one source, the Department of Defense notified congressional staff after the operation started.
Weeks ago, President Donald Trump indicated he wouldn’t brief lawmakers in advance of any land operations in Venezuela because he was worried they would “leak.”
Early congressional reaction largely split along party lines.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked the phones Saturday morning to shore up support among Republicans on Capitol Hill.
Notably, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee initially seemed critical of the action being taken without authorization by Congress.
“I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee posted on X.
But later, Lee followed up his post saying he had spoken by phone with Rubio about and was now comfortable with the administration’s authority to take action.
“Just got off the phone with @SecRubio He informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack Thank you, @SecRubio, for keeping me apprised,” Lee wrote.
He also said that Rubio told him he anticipates “no further action in Venezuela now that Maduro is in U.S. custody.”
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, echoed Lee’s comments after saying he, too, had spoken with Rubio.
“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator; he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation. That’s why he was indicted in U.S. court nearly six years ago for drug trafficking and narco-terrorism,” Cotton posted on X. “I just spoke to @SecRubio, who confirmed that Maduro is in U.S. custody and will face justice for his crimes against our citizens. I commend President Trump and our brave troops and law-enforcement officers for this incredible operation.”
Later, speaking to Fox News, Cotton said, “Congress doesn’t need to be notified ever time the executive branch is making an arrest. And that’s exactly what happened this morning in Venezuela, and now Maduro is going to come to the United States, and he’s going to face justice.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement he has spoken to Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in “the last several hours” — calling the military action in Venezuela “decisive” and a “justified operation that will protect American lives.”
Johnson said the Trump administration is working to schedule briefings next week when Congress returns to Washington after the holiday break.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said in a statement that he had spoken with Rubio as well and argued Trump’s actions were undertaken as part of “the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant.”
“President Trump’s decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Maduro, through the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States,” Thune said.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, countered that Rubio had denied regime change was the administration’s goal.
“Maduro is an illegitimate ruler, but I have seen no evidence that his presidency poses a threat that would justify military action without Congressional authorization, nor have I heard a strategy for the day after and how we will prevent Venezuela from descending into chaos,” he said in a statement. “Secretary Rubio repeatedly denied to Congress that the Administration intended to force regime change in Venezuela. The Administration must immediately brief Congress on its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”
In a statement Saturday morning, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, one of the Senate’s most vocal advocates for congressional war authorizations, issued a scathing statement on Trump’s actions in Venezuela and called for Congress to take up his resolution that would block the use of the U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
“Where will this go next? Will the President deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza To battle terrorists in Nigeria To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies?” Kaine said.
“Trump has threatened to do all this and more and sees no need to seek legal authorization from people’s elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk,” he said.
Kaine, along with California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff and co-sponsor GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, introduced a war powers resolution last month to block the use of the U.S. military to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.
That legislation is ready to be called up for a vote. The Senate returns to Washington next week on Monday, while the House returns on Tuesday.
Last month, Republicans defeated two Democratic war powers resolutions that attempted to reign in the president’s military actions in the Caribbean and East Pacific.
The first measure, H. Con. Res. 61, would direct the president to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted.
That resolution was authored by the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks. A vote failed on Dec. 17 by a count of 210-216, with two Republicans voting in favor and two Democrats opposed to the measure.
“This action is also a violation of international law and further undermines America’s global standing,” Meeks, D-N.Y., stated Saturday following the operation. “Congress must reassert its constitutional role before this escalation leads to greater instability, chaos, and unnecessary risk to American lives.”
A separate war powers resolution, H. Con. Res. 64 — championed by Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern and written to address hostilities with Venezuela, narrowly failed by a vote of 211-213, with three Republicans voting in favor — at odds with the rest of the House Republican Conference. One moderate Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, voted to defeat the measure alongside Republicans.
On Saturday, McGovern argued the strikes are illegal.
“Without authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela,” he posted on X.
While congressional Republicans overwhelmingly expressed support for the Trump administration’s operation to capture Maduro, at least three House Republicans put out critical statements of the action.
GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky posted on X: “If this action were constitutionally sound, the Attorney General wouldn’t be tweeting that they’ve arrested the President of a sovereign country and his wife for possessing guns in violation of a 1934 U.S. firearm law.”
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska posted on X, in part, “My main concern is now Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan. Freedom and rule of law were defended last night, but dictators will try to exploit this to rationalize their selfish objectives.”
Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia posted, in part, “If U.S. military action and regime change in Venezuela was really about saving American lives from deadly drugs then why hasn’t the Trump admin taken action against Mexican cartels?”
She added, “And if prosecuting narco terrorists is a high priority then why did President Trump pardon the former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez who was convicted and sentenced for 45 years for trafficking hundreds of tons of cocaine into America Ironically cocaine is the same drug that Venezuela primarily traffics into the U.S.
Greene continued, “Americans disgust with our own government’s never ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going. This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”
.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with oil and gas executives in the East Room of the White House on January 9, 2026 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty Images
(MINNEAPOLIS) — President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to send in the U.S. military as tensions intensify in Minneapolis following a second shooting in a week involving a federal officer amid Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in the city.
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote in a social media post.
On Wednesday night, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, needed to be stopped from “terrorism.”
“Minnesota insurrection is a direct result of a FAILED governor and a TERRIBLE mayor encouraging violence against law enforcement. It’s disgusting,” Blanche posted on X. “Walz and Frey — I’m focused on stopping YOU from your terrorism by whatever means necessary. This is not a threat. It’s a promise.”
ABC News has reached out to Walz and Frey’s offices for comment on Blanche’s statement.
The deputy attorney general’s blunt post came after Walz earlier on Wednesday evening had issued a sharp rebuke of the federal government’s law enforcement presence after a federal officer shot a person who they said had fled a traffic stop and then, along with two other people, began attacking the officer.
The shooting came one week after Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother, was fatally shot by an ICE agent. The Department of Homeland Security has said that Good was allegedly attempting to run over law enforcement officers, a claim disputed by local officials.
“It’s a campaign of organized brutality against the people of Minnesota by our own federal government,” Walz said in an address on Wednesday. He urged residents to “protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully.”
Frey, who has called on ICE to “get the f— out” of Minneapolis, said on Wednesday “the situation we are seeing in our city is not sustainable.”
Trump previously threatened to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act last summer when protests were unfolding in Los Angeles over the administration’s immigration crackdown and deployment of the National Guard.
The law, which authorizes the use of the military on U.S. soil for certain purposes, hasn’t been enacted for decades. It was last implemented was in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush during the Los Angeles riots following the murder of Rodney King at the request of the governor. It hasn’t been used without coordination with a governor since the 1960s.
Overall, the Insurrection Act has been used in response to 30 crises over its history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, including by Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education.
The Insurrection Act states, in part: “Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.”
U.S. President Donald Trump attends an event in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on February 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Majorities of Americans with various income backgrounds, men, women and Americans of all age groups disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, along with majorities of white, Black, Hispanic and Asian Americans, according to the poll.
A majority of those who did not vote in 2024 disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs along with almost all of those who voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. Over 9 in 10 Americans who disapprove of Trump oppose how he is handling tariffs.
While most Republicans approve of how Trump is handling tariffs (75%), that drops to 43% among self-described non-MAGA Republicans (which include independents who lean Republican and call themselves MAGA supporters). A 55% majority of non-MAGA Republicans disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs. Most MAGA Republicans (87%) approve of how he is handling tariffs on imported goods.
In all, 54% of Republicans and Republican- leaning independents say they are supporters of the MAGA movement and 42% say they are not.
While majorities of those with college degrees and without disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, White people without college degrees are split. White people with college degrees disapprove by a more-than 2-to-1 margin.
Rural Americans are also split over whether they approve or disapprove of how Trump is handling tariffs, while most suburban and urban people disapprove.
Opinions on tariffs have remained stable since ABC/Post/Ipsos first asked in April last year; the same share approved and disapproved of how Trump was handling the issue then as they do now.
Methodology — This ABC News-Washington Post-Ipsos poll was conducted via the probability-based Ipsos KnowledgePanel, Feb. 12-17, 2026, among 2,589 U.S. adults and has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. The error margins are larger among partisan group subsamples.
