Rescue teams work at damaged buildings in Nobonyad Square following Israeli airstrikes on June 13, 2025 in Tehran, Iran.
"I want to thank President Trump for his leadership in confronting Iran's nuclear weapons program. He has made clear time and again that Iran cannot have a nuclear enrichment program," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an address soon after launching Operation Rising Lion, an attack on Iran.
Netanyahu said that Israel targeted Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz and the country’s ballistic missile program, as well as top nuclear scientists and officials, in Friday's strike.
- YouTubeyoutu.be
According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Israel deployed approximately 200 fighter jets in a major aerial operation, striking more than 100 targets across Iran. The IDF stated that over 330 munitions of various types were used in the attack, which remains ongoing. A military source familiar with the operation told CNN that the campaign is not limited to a single day, suggesting further strikes may follow.
The IDF also reported that Tehran responded by firing more than 100 drones toward Israeli territory. The IDF said Israeli defenses were working to intercept the drones.
Soon after news of the military strikes broke, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio put a distance between the US and what he called "unilateral action" by their close ally. Rubio cautioned Tehran against retaliatory strikes targeting American forces. "We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region," he said.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump warned of the possibility of “massive conflict” in the Middle East that could take place “soon.” “I don’t want to say imminent, but it’s something that could very well happen,” Trump told reporters at the White House, CNN reported.
“I want to have an agreement with Iran. We’re fairly close to an agreement. … As long as I think there is an agreement, I don’t want them going in because that would blow it. Might help it, actually, but also could blow it,” he said when asked about a potential Israeli strike.
In recent days, the U.S. has initiated partial diplomatic drawdowns, relocating some personnel from Iraq’s capital and offering voluntary departure options for military dependents across the broader Middle East.
The possibility of the U.S. staying out of the fight in Israel is complex and depends on evolving circumstances. There have been some indications of potential rifts between the U.S. and Israeli leadership. While publicly, the White House has been attempting to signal that it wants to remain out of the immediate fight. The U.S. is Israel's most important ally, making it difficult for Washington to detach itself from the conflict completely. Historical precedents suggest the U.S. may be called upon to defend Israel, as it has in the past.
The U.S. has provided significant military aid and defense support to Israel, including missile defense systems. It has also maintained a military presence in the Middle East, with troops stationed across several countries.
Countries worldwide, including Oman, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, have expressed concern over Israel's airstrikes, with some describing the actions as escalatory. Many nations are calling for both Israel and Iran to de-escalate tensions and to ensure stability in the region.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reacted by saying, “Game on. Pray for Israel.”
In the United States, while many lawmakers voiced their support for Israel's preemptive strikes on Iran, a number of skeptical lawmakers, primarily from the Democratic Party, raised alarms about the potential for these strikes to trigger a broader conflict in the region.
While opinions are divided, a slight majority of Americans (55%) still support the US supporting Israel militarily until all hostages are returned. Polling shows support for taking Israel's side is stronger among Republicans (56%), while majorities of Democrats (62%) and Independents (60%) prefer impartiality.
The U.S. may attempt to avoid direct military involvement, but its strong alliance with Israel, combined with regional dynamics and ongoing support, makes complete detachment from the conflict improbable.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
A doctor and patient holding hands.
It was New Year's Eve 2021, six months before Roe v. Wade was overturned, and I was sitting at my parents' dinner table in La Lima, Honduras, about to have one of the most appallingly memorable nights in my life. The fact was that I, a Latina immigrant from Honduras working in New Orleans, had just had an abortion in the same city, one that marked my life in countless ways. I was quick to address the elephant in the room, my abortion in the face of a deeply Catholic culture, riddled with machismo, and in a country that criminalizes abortions. The table was silent for a moment. Around me were my family and my partner at the time. My mother broke down in tears:
“Mataste a mi nieto.”
“You killed my grandson.”
It pierced my heart to be labeled a murderer by my own mother, a doctor herself, while also assuming a gender for the fetus.
“Si pasa otra vez, dámelo a mi.”
“If this happens again, give it to me,” added my father.
My partner at that time asked me why I brought it up in the first place. I could have kept it a secret and avoided the family fallout. It was simple for me, I want to be loved as I truly am. I didn’t feel loved by my family, I felt ostracized, alone, and on the verge of being shut off from any family support or care I had ever had. All for making what I believed in my heart was the best decision for myself at that particular moment.
My abortion itself was marked by traumatic moments stemming from the multiple barriers to care and reproductive healthcare that already existed even when abortion was still legal in Louisiana. Because of complications and the extended process to actually get an abortion, I ended up going to the clinic three times. Every time I was at the clinic, a different Latina would show up seeking an abortion, and because of a lack of language access, I offered myself as an interpreter for every step of the process, from the payment at the start, to the actual procedure, to the aftercare required. My interpreting skills were so needed that by the third day, the staff already knew me by name and would seek me out when a Spanish speaker came in. I was shocked. If I hadn’t been there, these women would have had to go through such a personal healthcare procedure without knowing what they were being subjected to and what exactly the procedure was—not even for the process that one has to agree to in order to access pain medication. I saw a diversity of abortion seekers who had to endure protesters shaming them outside the clinic, most were mothers already, some had already had abortions, others were in abusive relationships, and some were as young as 15. All of them were convinced that having a child at this moment would be detrimental to their health, well-being, and lives.
The first day I came in for my D&C, I spent the entire day in the clinic. I was nearly the last person. Already drugged up, and shaking a bit from the lack of food, the medicine, and the cold AC, I laid on the surgical table. The doctor attempted to go through my cervix with his instrument and I felt a sharp poking pain. He tried again, but my cervix wasn’t dilated enough. The doctor said that I had to come back on Monday, but I had to be vigilant and go to the emergency room if I started bleeding heavily. I had already taken the drugs to dilate my cervix, so there was a possibility that I could pass the pregnancy throughout the weekend. I’m thankful that I had a community of friends who took care of me throughout the anxiety-ridden weekend. I had a successful procedure when I came back that Monday, and the provider who saw me was the kindest woman I had met, guiding me through each step of the procedure. I kept thinking about the other Spanish-speaking women, who had no idea what was being done to their bodies because of the lack of language access.
My abortion marked my life so profoundly, I can’t not share it. When we talk about abortion and reproductive justice, we seldom mention immigration, but my story goes to show that immigrants, just like everyone else, get abortions. Abortion is now illegal in Louisiana, a state that ranks the highest for maternal mortality and has one of the highest poverty rates in the country. There is also a large immigrant population, and our fight is for access to legal, safe abortion itself but also for language justice in all its forms and in all instances. We all deserve a world where we never feel alone, a world where we have full access to all healthcare services we need, in the language we speak, at the time that we need them.
I lost my work visa in 2022, and now I’m on a deferred action status, one that is under threat of elimination. Because of that, I am not able to travel back home to Honduras. My family and I have worked on repairing our relationship after the fallout. My mother has apologized and even opened up to learning more about reproductive justice. I can’t help but think, if something happened to her, I wouldn’t be able to take care of her. The other day, after reading headlines of the ICE kidnappings happening around the U.S., she told me she had a nightmare about ICE kidnapping me. This is reproductive justice, too; immigrant justice is reproductive justice through and through.
Edith Romero is a Honduran community organizer, researcher, writer, and a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project, The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, and the Every Page Foundation.
The Fulcrum introduces Congress Bill Spotlight, a weekly report by Jesse Rifkin, focusing on the noteworthy legislation of the thousands introduced in Congress. Rifkin has written about Congress for years, and now he's dissecting the most interesting bills you need to know about, but that often don't get the right news coverage.
What do Kobe Bryant, Dr. Seuss, Walt Disney, Alex Trebek, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have in common?
What the bill does
The National Garden for America's 250th Anniversary Act would create a public park depicting 250 sculptures of notable historic Americans. The park would open in July 2026, tied to the “semiquincentennial” 250th anniversary of July 1776’s Declaration of Independence signing.
Who would be depicted in this park? While President Donald Trump’s executive order, which inspired it, contains a list of 250 proposed people, the actual legislative text contains no such names. Vince Haley, chair of Trump’s Domestic Policy Council, would be tasked with finalizing the selections.
Where would it be located? Again, the legislative text doesn’t say, stating that the decision is up to the Interior Secretary. While most “national” landmarks are in the nation’s capital of Washington, D.C., South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden (R) proposes locating it near Mount Rushmore in his state.
The congressional bill was introduced by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL21).
Context
In the summer of 2020, amid a nationwide reckoning on race relations, statues of Confederate generals and other controversial figures with fraught histories on race were torn down around the country. Trump opposed these changes, calling them attempts to “erase our history.”
So that July, against this tumult, he issued an executive order creating a “National Garden of American Heroes.” A subsequent executive order in January 2021, on the third-to-last day of his term, proposed 250 Americans who could be depicted.
Most are some combination of “the usual suspects” like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, plus favorites of the modern right like conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and televangelist pastor Billy Graham.
However, at least a few names might be surprising, like liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The list also includes abolitionist Harriet Tubman, even though Trump opposed putting Tubman’s face on the $20 bill, calling it “pure political correctness.” (President Andrew Jackson, the bill’s current face for now, is also one of the 250 proposed statues.)
A few proposed names are less historical and political but instead more recent and entertaining, such as Jeopardy host Alex Trebek and basketball legend Kobe Bryant.
President Joe Biden revoked Trump’s executive order creating the statue garden in May 2021, only for Trump to reinstate it in January 2025.
Who could be included?
The 250 final statues wouldn’t necessarily match the 250 proposed statues from Trump’s executive order. Still, they provide a rough guide, an assortment of notable Americans from all walks of life.
Here are a few particularly notable names each from various different categories:
Plus a few notable names that don’t neatly fit into any of the above categories: Benjamin Franklin, Betsy Ross, Norman Rockwell, Helen Keller, Annie Oakley, Paul Revere.
What supporters say
Supporters argue the sculpture garden will serve much the same role as other iconic landmarks depicting notable Americans like the Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, and Mount Rushmore.
“The National Garden will be a beautiful site to honor our history and recognize prominent American founders and generations of trailblazers,” Rep. Mast said in a press release. “America’s past and present is filled with heroes from all walks of life and this new garden will soon be open to the public to forever remember their contributions.”
Rep. Mast’s website also includes a survey where the public can nominate anybody for a statue. The poll also includes six specific names to upvote, four of whom are on the original proposed list: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, and Babe Ruth. Two others are not: Trump himself and singer Kid Rock. (Both are still alive; all of the original 250 names are deceased.)
What opponents say
Opponents counter that the sculpture garden would be sycophantic propaganda at a time when the administration is slashing money for more so-called “authentic” arts.
“For 60 years, the [National Endowment for the Humanities] has enhanced education at all levels — K-12, higher ed, and community-based — by supporting a thoughtful and critical engagement with history, art, and culture,” Northwestern University Art History Professor Rebecca Zorach wrote in a Chicago Tribune opinion column. “Diverting NEH funding toward the commissioning of top-down, politically prescribed ‘art’ is an affront to the vital work the NEH has historically done.”
Opponents may also counter that this basic idea functionally already exists, in the form of the National Statuary Hall. Each of the 50 states selects two notable figures for statues representing their home states, totaling 100 statues displayed at the U.S. Capitol Building.
However, each individual legislature selects their own state’s statues, while Trump’s idea would select them at the federal level instead. At least while Trump or a Republican is president, this would make it less likely that certain statues would be taken down, like Virginia’s 2020 vote to remove Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee while Trump was president.
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted two cosponsors, both Republicans: Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) and Barry Moore (R-AL1).
It awaits a potential vote in the House Natural Resources Committee, controlled by Republicans.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his weekly report, Congress Bill Spotlight, every Friday on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Preventing Presidential Inaugurations on MLK Day, Like Trump’s
Congress Bill Spotlight: No Invading Allies Act
Congress Bill Spotlight: Suspending Pennies and Nickels for 10 Years
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump’s Birthday and Flag Day Holiday Establishment Act
National Guard
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
Before President Trump called up the military to stop the L.A. riots this week, has the military ever been called upon to stop protests in the United States?
The military has been deployed to quell protests in the U.S. multiple times throughout history. Some notable instances include:
What is the legal framework that allows the President to deploy the military? :
The legal framework governing military deployment in U.S. protests is shaped by several key laws:
Is the legal framework that allows the President to use the National Guard to stop protests different then the framework for using the military?
The legal framework for the use of the National Guard versus the military in response to domestic unrest is different.
Are the scale of the protests and the commensurate damage and violence much less today than in the other historical examples
The scale of the current unrest in Los Angeles appears to be less destructive than some of the historical examples, but tensions remain high. Reports indicate that protests against federal immigration enforcement have led to vandalism, clashes with law enforcement, and the destruction of property, including five self-driving Waymo vehicles. National Guard troops have been deployed, marking the first federal intervention in Los Angeles without a governor’s request since 1965.
While the damage is significant, it does not yet match the widespread destruction seen in events like the Rodney King riots (1992) where there were 63 deaths and 12,000 arrests or the New York City Draft Riots (1863). However, concerns remain about escalation, as residents fear further violence. Would you like a deeper comparison of the economic impact or law enforcement response across these events?
Where the previous examples were with the support of the Governor of the State
In many cases, governors requested federal assistance, but there have been instances where the president deployed troops without state approval:
Requested by Governors:
Without Governor Support:
