Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump Takes U.S. to War

Trump Takes U.S. to War

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation accompanied by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from the White House on June 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

Photo by Carlos Barria - Pool/Getty Images

Washington — President Donald Trump announced Saturday evening that the United States had launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, describing the operation as a "spectacular military success."

In a televised address, he stated that key Iranian nuclear enrichment sites had been "completely and totally obliterated". He warned that any future attacks would be "far greater and a lot easier."


Trump also acknowledged Israeli cooperation in the operation, thanking Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli military. “We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel,” he said.

LIVE: Trump addresses nation after US strikes on Iran nuclear facilities www.youtube.com

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the President, "Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history." Netanyahu also said that Trump's leadership has created a "pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace".

Reactions from U.S. lawmakers were divided, with some praising the move while others condemned it.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) voiced strong support, stating, “The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs’ misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped."

“Donald Trump promised to bring peace to the Middle East. He has failed to deliver on that promise," Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. "The risk of war has now dramatically increased, and I pray for the safety of our troops in the region who have been put in harm’s way,” Jeffries added that Trump “misled the country about his intentions.”

What authority does the president have or need to launch such a strike?

John B. Bellinger III, an adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations made these comments:

Whether President Trump has legal authority under U.S. domestic law or international law is highly debatable. As I explained in a testimony [PDF] to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2017, when President Trump was threatening the use of force against North Korea, the president has broad authority under the Constitution to order the use of military force.

His Article II powers include authority not only to order the use of military force to defend the United States and U.S. persons against actual or anticipated attacks, but also to advance other important national interests. Presidents of both parties have deployed U.S. forces and ordered the use of military force, without congressional authorization, on numerous occasions.

In addition to the powers granted to the president in Article II, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “declare War.” But this authority has never been interpreted—by either Congress or the executive branch—to require congressional authorization for every military action that the president could initiate.

President Trump’s decision to directly engage the United States in the conflict follows over a week of hostilities between Israel and Iran. Israeli officials have stated their airstrikes target Iran’s nuclear program, which they claim is aimed at developing weapons.

Iran’s nuclear agency acknowledged the attacks but vowed to continue its operations. "Our work will not be halted," the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran declared.

According to Iran’s health ministry, Israeli strikes have killed at least 400 people and wounded 3,000. Meanwhile, Israel reports 24 fatalities from Iran’s retaliatory attacks.

The U.S. intervention marks a significant escalation, with global repercussions still unfolding.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.


Read More

U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting maps

Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.

Context: in the news

In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )

Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.

Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less