Trump on his ‘unconditional surrender’ demand to Iran: ‘I’ve had it’
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday was not revealing what action he might take related to Iran after multiple sources said he’s been presented with a range of options by his national security team.
Asked by reporters on the South Lawn Wednesday morning, Trump said he wasn’t ruling out using U.S. military assets to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“I may do it. I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do,” he said.
Trump met with his advisers in the Situation Room on Tuesday afternoon after departing the Group of Seven summit in Canada early, citing tensions in the Middle East.
On Tuesday, Trump had demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender” in a social media post. Asked on Wednesday to elaborate what that means, Trump said: “That means I’ve had it, okay. I’ve had it. I give up.”
“No more. Then we go blow up all the, you know, all the nuclear stuff that’s all over the place there,” Trump said.
The president said his patience has “already run out” with Iran, and that Iran wants to negotiate but be said it may be too late.
His message for the regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei? “I say good luck,” Trump said.
The president also sought to push back on prominent MAGA voices who’ve been outspoken about the U.S. not getting involved in the war between Israel and Iran.
“My supporters are more in love with me today, and I’m in love with them more than they were even at election time,” Trump said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration on Tuesday filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to lift what it called “onerous” due process procedures imposed by a federal judge for immigrants slated for deportation to a third country other than their own.
Solicitor General John Sauer told the court in the filing that a nationwide mandate issued last week by Judge Brian Murphy of the District Court of Massachusetts has created a “diplomatic and logistical morass” that is imposing “significant and irreparable harm” on the government’s efforts to remove criminal aliens.
After a group of detainees said to be headed to South Sudan sued over their alleged inability to raise fears of torture, Judge Murphy issued a preliminary injunction halting any future removals unless detainees were given notice of their destination, at least 10 days to raise concerns for their safety, and 15 days to contest an adverse finding by an immigration officer.
The temporary order applies universally to any individual slated for removal to a third country. The government is required under international law to ensure that migrants in its custody are afforded protections under the Convention Against Torture, of which the U.S. is a signatory. The Trump administration insists it has been in compliance.
“Based on what I’ve learned,” Judge Murphy said during a hearing last week, “I don’t see how anybody could say that these individuals had a meaningful opportunity to object. If I was in any of those groups and I was going to be deported to South Sudan, I would need an opportunity to investigate that and to be able to articulate a well-founded fear about why being returned to South Sudan would be would result in torture or death. The department did not do it. In this case, they did not offer any opportunity to object.”
Sauer told the justices Murphy’s move exceeds his authority, “jeopardizes the public interest,” and has upended sensitive diplomatic and national security negotiations with third countries. He said all of the detainees to be removed have already received adequate due process and had final orders for removal entered.
“The district court’s invented process offers little but delay. While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the Nation does not,” he wrote.
As part of its aggressive push to remove unlawful or criminal immigrants, the Trump administration has pursued third-country partners willing to accept those who will not be taken back by their home countries.
Hundreds of migrants in recent months have been sent by the U.S. to the CECOT prison in El Salvador even though they are not Salvadoran nationals. The administration has also sought removals to several African nations.
The Supreme Court — increasingly thrust to the center of escalating disputes over aspects of Trump’s immigration policy — has unanimously ruled that all non-citizens on U.S. soil must be afforded “due process of law”
“Detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard appropriate to the nature of the case,” the justices unanimously stated last month in a per curiam (unsigned) opinion.
The specifics, however, remain contested. Legal scholars say the type of “notice” and “hearing” historically afforded depends on an immigrant’s status and circumstance, such as whether they had been lawfully admitted to the country in the first place, have deep ties to the community, or are seeking asylum.
The court is also currently weighing the ability of individual federal judges to issue binding nationwide orders, blocking the government from executing a policy. After Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship — and three district court judges issued injunctions against it — the administration asked the high court to issue definitive guidance the matter. A decision is imminent.
(WASHINGTON) — A key Republican senator is pushing back against President Donald Trump’s major spending bill, warning that it would add trillions to the nation’s debt.
On Wednesday, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told ABC News he cannot support what Trump calls his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” despite pressure from the White House to pass it by July 4.
“I refuse to accept $2 trillion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see as the new normal,” Johnson said. “We have to address that problem, and, unfortunately, this bill doesn’t do so.”
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit. While Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought claimed there are “massive levels of savings in this bill,” Johnson disagreed.
“We went from $4.4 trillion in spending in 2019 to over $7 trillion this year,” he said, adding that the slight reduction proposed in the bill is “barely a rounding error in this massive spending.”
The senator told ABC News he isn’t worried about political fallout from opposing Trump’s bill.
“I’m worried about our kids and grandkids, the fact that we’re mortgaging their future. It is wrong. It’s immoral,” Johnson said.
Instead of one large bill, Johnson wants to split it into two smaller pieces. His plan would first deal with matters like border security, defense and extending current tax laws. Then, he wants Congress to take time to carefully review government spending and find ways to cut waste.
On possible criticism from Trump, Johnson said he had a “very cordial conversation” with the president about his concerns.
“I want to see President Trump succeed. I’m a big supporter,” Johnson said, but he added that fixing the budget “is going to take time.”
The bill also faces criticism over its impact on healthcare, with CBO estimates showing around 11 million people could lose health insurance coverage.
As the July 4 deadline approaches, Johnson remained firm in his position.
“You have to do the things we agree on,” he said, listing border security, defense and extending current tax law as priorities. “Then come back, do the hard work of forensically auditing spending on these programs, and get serious about reducing that deficit trajectory, bending it down, rather than having it skyrocket upward.”
(MADISON, WI) — Democratic-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford will win the hot-button Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, The Associated Press projected Tuesday. The race was seen as a barometer on how Americans are feeling at this point in President Donald Trump’s second term
While the race is technically nonpartisan, it became the center of a political firestorm, as well as the target of millions spent by groups linked to tech billionaire and key Trump adviser Elon Musk, who supported Republican-backed Brad Schimel.
ABC affiliate WISN reported Tuesday evening that election officials in Milwaukee said there are ballot shortages at some polling sites in the city because of “historic turnout,” but that voters should stay in line and that staff are working on getting resources to the impacted polling places.
In a victory speech to supporters, Crawford acknowledged the immense attention and money that the race for control of the court attracted, particularly from Musk.
“I’ve got to tell you, as a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be taking on the richest man in the world for justice in Wisconsin, and we won,” she said. “So today, Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections, and our Supreme Court. And Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”
Schimel supporters shouted “No!” when he told them he had called Crawford to concede, but he said, “No, no, no, no, you’ve got to accept the results … I’m not up here making any joke. The numbers aren’t gonna turn around. They’re too bad and we’re not going to pull this off.”
Asked earlier Tuesday what it would mean if Musk’s efforts worked, Crawford said, “Well, I think it’ll be a sad day for democracy… but I’m pretty confident that voters are going to see through those tactics, and that we will have a successful day.”
Crawford and Schimel were vying to replace retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, and her apparent victory will cement the court’s liberal leaning.
“This is playing out like a presidential-style election. You turn on your TV, any local broadcast station here across the state of Wisconsin, you are inundated with political-type ads for what is technically a nonpartisan judicial race, but this is a full-on political race … this is becoming a true litmus test for the first 100 days of the Trump administration,” Matt Smith, political director at Milwaukee’s ABC affiliate WISN-TV, told ABC News Live anchor Diane Macedo last week.
Independent voter Eric Sams voted for Trump in November but said he voted for Crawford on Tuesday.
“I believe that women’s rights are issues. Even Trump says it’s a state issue. If you’re going to make it a state issue, then our state needs to have access for women to be able to have access to reproductive rights,” Sams said.
Dwayne Heulse also voted for Trump, but said Tuesday the president’s endorsement of Schimel didn’t matter.
“I don’t care who Trump supports,” he said. “I will go after the guy who I think is the best, and that’s what I look at first. He can support the man on the moon, but I’m not going to vote for him unless I feel that this is a person who is going to meet the qualities I want, especially as a judge.”
Asked Tuesday about the national attention on the race, Schimel said, “If you told me six months ago that this was what was going to be happening, I I would not have believed it. But here we are, and you know, you just have to keep your head down. I’ve been running for Wisconsin voters, it’s been a — I’ve run a 72-county race.”
Crawford will join the bench as the court potentially grapples with key voter issues such as abortion access and redistricting. For example, there is a Wisconsin Supreme Court case regarding if the Wisconsin Constitution protects the right to an abortion, which the court might consider after the new justice is seated.
The race was also seen as a preview of how voters in the battleground state feel a few months into Trump’s second term — especially as Musk and his work with the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency becomes a key issue given his groups’ investments in the race.
Musk continued to push the idea that the Wisconsin election matters because of how potential redistricting cases could impact the balance of power in the House of Representatives. He claimed to Fox News without offering proof that if the conservative candidate loses, Republicans could lose their majority in the House because Wisconsin’s congressional districts would be redrawn.
“Well, the reason tonight’s elections are so important is that the judge race will decide whether the Wisconsin district, districts get redrawn. They’re kind of trying to gerrymander Wisconsin to remove two Republican seats. And as you know, the — the House is currently Republican by a razor thin margin, which means that losing this judge race has good chance of causing Republicans to lose control of the House,” Musk said.
The justice elected won’t take office and order districts to be redrawn, however. The court could revisit congressional districts if the issue comes before the court in a case.
“That is why it is so significant, and whichever party controls the House, to a significant degree, controls the country which then steers the course of Western civilization,” Musk said at a high-profile town hall on Sunday in Green Bay.
On Sunday, the tech billionaire also controversially gave away two $1 million checks to attendees at a rally in his latest effort to support Schimel.
Schimel is a former state attorney general and a circuit court judge in Waukesha County. He received almost $20 million in support (such as spending for TV ads) as of Monday from groups linked to Musk, per a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Schimel has also received endorsements from Trump, Musk, Donald Trump Jr., and other key conservative figures.
Schimel has welcomed the conservative support, yet said at a rally last week that he would treat any case fairly, including if it was a case brought by Trump.
However, Crawford and her allies have alleged he would not treat cases involving Trump or Musk fairly, and she made Musk a main target of her campaign.
Schimel, asked on Thursday by ABC affiliate WISN to share his closing argument ahead of the final days in the race, said, “My closing argument is that people need to take this race seriously. So much is at stake. We have to restore objectivity to this court right now … We have to put the court back in its proper role where it’s not making the law. It’s not going through a political agenda. It is applying the law the way the legislature writes it, to the facts of the case.”
Crawford is a Dane County circuit court judge and a former private attorney. At points, she represented Democratic-aligned groups such as Planned Parenthood, an organization supporting abortion access.
Major liberal donors such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Democratic donor George Soros have given money to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford. The national Democratic Party has also invested in the race. She also has the endorsements of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Crawford told WISN that her closing argument was about an impartial court: “It’s about making sure that we have a Supreme Court that is fair and impartial in interpreting our laws to protect the rights of Wisconsinites. The other choice is an extreme partisan, someone who is selling out to special interests, has a long history of doing that, and has now tied himself to Elon Musk.”
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, as of Monday, more than $90 million has been spent in the race — making it the most expensive judicial election in the nation’s history. That amount includes more than $49 million spent by Schimel or groups supporting him, and more than $40 million spent by Crawford or groups supporting her.
The nonprofit says that the previous record for spending in a state supreme court race was in Wisconsin’s 2023 state supreme court election, when $56 million was spent.
Voters took notice. One Wisconsinite who voted early told WISN, “There’s a lot of outside money coming in, in our state. And I wanted to make sure that my voice is being represented and not other people.”
As of Monday, around 644,000 people in Wisconsin had voted early in person or by mail, according to the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
The Associated Press also projected that the ballot initiative enshrining a requirement to have a photo ID to vote into Wisconsin’s state constitution will pass.
A photo ID is already required by state law to vote in Wisconsin; enshrining it into the state constitution will not establish new requirements, but will likely make it harder to undo the law.
Democratic groups and voting rights organizations criticized the ballot initiative as potentially disenfranchising voters. Supporters of the initiative argue it will strengthen election security in Wisconsin and cement a requirement that has already been in place.
A Marquette University Law School poll taken in late February also found that a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin support photo ID for voting, and separately, a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin said they would support the ballot initiative.
ABC News’ Rachel Scott, Ben Siegel, Will Steakin, Averi Harper, Hannah Demissie, Katherine Faulders and Nicholas Kerr contributed to this report.
