Trump denies reaching out to Iran, threatens to ‘come down so hard’ if Tehran strikes US assets
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump denied early on Tuesday having had contact with leaders in Iran, saying he hadn’t reached out about a potential ceasefire and that he was “not too much in the mood” to negotiate with Iran.
“I’ve been negotiating. I told them to do the deal,” Trump said. “They should have done the deal. The cities have been blown to pieces, lost a lot of people. They should have done the deal. I told them do the deal, so I don’t know. I’m not too much in the mood to negotiate.”
The comments came as Trump returned early Tuesday to the White House, where he’d asked his top national security staff to assemble in the Situation Room, after he departed the Group of Seven leadership summit in Canada early.
He also seemed to dismiss a recent assessment from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who had said Iran wasn’t working on a nuclear weapon. Trump said on Tuesday he thought Iran was “very close” to having such a weapon.
Trump in a post on his Truth Social network also said that he hadn’t reached out to Iran “in any way, shape or form,” calling reports that he had done so “fabricated.”
“If they want to talk, they know how to reach me,” Trump said in a post early on Tuesday. “They should have taken the deal that was on the table — Would have save a lot of lives!!!”
Israel on Friday began an attack on Iran, launching a series of aerial strikes that Israeli officials described as a preemptive strike. Israeli leaders and Trump have separately called for Tehran to put an end to efforts to create nuclear weapons.
Diplomats from the United States and Iran held a series of talks in Muscat, Oman, beginning in April, with the sixth round due to begin last Sunday. Those talks were cancelled as the conflict between Israel and Iran began.
Trump was asked on Tuesday about Gabbard’s testimony in March in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, where she said Iran was not building a nuclear weapon.
When pressed about Gabbard’s comments, Trump dismissed them.
“I don’t care what she said, I think they were very close to having one,” Trump said.
Trump has not ruled out American participation in the conflict, although the U.S. has remained on the sidelines so far. Trump has issued, however, a stern warning to Iran on Tuesday over U.S. troops and assets in the region, instructing Tehran “not to touch our troops.”
“We’ll come down so hard if they do anything to our people,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
John McDonnell/For The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — In an exclusive interview with ABC News to mark his 100th day in office, President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he “could” secure the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man his administration said in court was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
“Now the Supreme Court has upheld an order that you must return him to the– facilitate his return to the United States. What are you doing to comply?” ABC News anchor and Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran asked Trump in the Oval Office.
“Well, the lawyer that said it was a mistake was here a long time, was not appointed by us– should not have said that, should not have said that,” Trump argued. The president then said that Abrego Garcia is a member of the criminal MS-13 gang and “is not an innocent, wonderful gentleman from Maryland.” Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have maintained he’s not MS-13 and has not been charged with or convicted of a crime.
“I’m not saying he’s a good guy. It’s about the rule of law. The order from the Supreme Court stands, sir,” Moran told the president.
“He came into our country illegally,” Trump maintained.
“You could get him back. There’s a phone on this desk,” Moran told Trump, pointing to the phone on the Resolute Desk.
“I could,” Trump conceded.
“You could pick it up, and with all–” Moran began to say.
“I could,” Trump said again.
“–the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, ‘Send him back right now,’” Moran explained.
“And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Trump offered, before saying, “I’m not the one making this decision.”
“You’re the president,” Moran told him.
“I– no, no, no, no. If– follow the law. You want me to follow the law. If I were the president that just wanted to do anything, I’d probably keep him right where he is—” Trump said.
“The Supreme Court says what the law is,” Moran said.
Trump replied, referencing immigration, saying he “was elected to take care of a problem” that was an “unforced error that was made by a very incompetent man,” – an apparent jab at President Joe Biden.
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is urging the New York-based Court of International Trade to delay its order blocking President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, warning that enforcement of the ruling will cause a “foreign policy disaster scenario.”
In an opinion on Wednesday, the three-judge panel struck down Trump’s global tariffs as “contrary to law.”
The judges found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump used to enact his tariffs — does not give him the “unlimited” power to levy tariffs like the president has in recent months.
“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is by any limitation in duration or scope, exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the President under IEEPA. The Worldwide and Retaliatory tariffs are thus ultra vires and contrary to law,” the judges wrote.
According to the judges, Congress, not the president, has the authority to impose tariffs under most circumstances, and Trump’s tariffs do not meet the limited condition of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” that would allow him to act alone.
On Thursday, a second federal court determined that Trump’s global were “unlawful.”
U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras said in an order the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the power to impose most of his recent tariffs.
Notably, the decision from Contreras – an Obama appointee – only restricts the Trump administration’s ability to collect tariffs from the two companies that filed the lawsuit, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc.
The Department of Justice on Thursday requested a stay to Wednesday’s ruling, saying it’s needed “to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security.”
“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment. The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater,” lawyers with the Department of Justice argued.
According to the administration, the court order would strip the president of leverage in trade negotiations, imperil the trade deals already reached, and make the country vulnerable to countries that “feel a renewed boldness to take advantage of” the current situation.
Responding to the ruling, White House spokesman Kush Desai evoked the trade deficit and said, “It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,” adding that that the administration is committed to using “every lever of executive power to address this crisis.”
The Trump administration had quickly filed a notice of appeal to challenge Wednesday’s decision.
The case now heads to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit where they could ask for a stay of the order.
The Court of International Trade issued the decision across two cases — one filed by a group of small businesses and another filed by 12 Democratic attorneys general.
Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford called the ruling “a win for the rule of law and for Nevadans’ pocketbooks.”
“I am extremely pleased with the court’s decision to strike down these tariffs; they were both unlawful and economically destructive,” he said. “The president had no legal authority to impose these tariffs, and his unlawful actions would have caused billions of dollars of damage to the American economy.”
Since Trump announced sweeping tariffs on more than 50 countries in April, his administration has faced half a dozen lawsuits challenging the president’s ability to impose tariffs without the approval of Congress.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called the decision a “major victory for our efforts to uphold the law and protect New Yorkers from illegal policies that threaten American jobs and economy.”
“The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like. These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families and American businesses that would have led to more inflation, economic damage to businesses of all sizes, and job losses across the country if allowed to continue,” James’ statement continued.
Lawyers for the small businesses alleged that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — which Trump invoked to impose the tariffs — does not give the president the right to issue “across-the-board worldwide tariffs,” and that Trump’s justification for the tariffs was invalid.
“His claimed emergency is a figment of his own imagination,” the lawsuit said. “Trade deficits, which have persisted for decades without causing economic harm, are not an emergency.”
During a hearing earlier this month, a group of three judges — who were appointed by presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan — pushed a lawyer for the small businesses to provide a legal basis to override the tariffs. While a different court in the 1970s determined that the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 — the law that preceded the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — gave the president the right to impose tariffs, no court has weighed whether the president can impose tariffs unilaterally under the IEEPA.
During a May 13 hearing, Jeffrey Schwab, a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs, argued that Trump’s purported emergency to justify the tariffs is far short of what is required under the law.
“I’m asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike; you’re asking me, well, where’s the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab argued. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch and it’s on the other side of the batter and hits the backstop, so we don’t need to debate that.”
The ruling marks the first time a federal court has issued a ruling on the legality of Trump’s tariffs. In May, a federal judge in Florida nominated by Trump suggested the president has the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, but opted to transfer the case to the Court of International Trade.
-ABC News’ Hannah Demissie contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — A flight carrying 59 refugees from South Africa landed in the United States on Monday afternoon — as the Trump administration insists that the expedited process for white South Africans to seek refuge in the United States has nothing to do with race.
The South African refugees’ arrival also comes amid the administration’s efforts to halt refugee programs from other countries.
Hours before the flight arrived at Dulles International Airport, President Donald Trump defended his administration’s decision to offer refugee status to the Afrikaners — a white minority group in South Africa. The president said that the asylum program is because there is a race-based genocide in the country.
“They happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me, but white farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa, and the newspapers and the media, television media doesn’t even talk about it,” Trump said during remarks at the White House.
Last week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said this group of South Africans “has faced racial persecution.” She also went on to claim their farmland is being taken away. However, a law passed by South Africa earlier this year does not allow land to be expropriated without an agreement with the owner.
South Africa’s government has pushed back, saying the “allegations of discrimination are unfounded.”
“The South Africa Police Services statistics on farm related crimes do not support allegations of violent crime targeted at farmers generally or any particular race,” the South African government said in a statement last week. “There are sufficient structures available within South Africa to address concerns of discrimination. Moreover, even if there are allegations of discrimination, it is our view that these do not meet the threshold of persecution required under domestic and international refugee law.
Trump adviser Elon Musk has repeatedly talked about South Africa, his country of birth, on his social media account saying that the country is anti-white.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau greeted a group of about three dozen South Africans, many waving American flags, after they got off the plane at the airport in Northern Virginia.
Asked about the administration’s apparent prioritization of white South African refugees over others who are persecuted in their countries of origin, Landau harkened back to the pause on refugee admissions that Trump implemented when he retook the White House.
“That pause, of course, was subject, from the very beginning to exceptions where it was determined that this would be in the interest of the United States. Some of the criteria are making sure that refugees did not pose any challenge to our national security and that they can be assimilated easily into our country,” Landau said. “All of these folks who have just come in today have been carefully vetted pursuant to our refugee standards, and whether or not the broader refugee programs for other people around the world will be lifted is still an ongoing consideration.”
In March, Trump said that he would give some South African farmers and their families a pathway to citizenship. In the same month, the Trump administration kicked out the South African ambassador to the U.S.
In February, Trump signed an executive order that froze all aid to South Africa.
The South African government said in a statement that the order “lacks factual accuracy and fails to recognise South Africa’s profound and painful history of colonialism and apartheid.”
“It is ironic that the executive order makes provision for refugee status in the U.S. for a group in South Africa that remains amongst the most economically privileged, while vulnerable people in the U.S. from other parts of the world are being deported and denied asylum despite real hardship,” the South African government said in the statement.
The Trump administration quickly gave Afrikaners’ applications the green light – while it has paused refugee programs from other countries, including Afghanistan.
