War Secretary Pete Hegseth responded to Tucker Carlson’s criticism of the war in Iran during a press briefing on Friday.
Timcast’s Elad Eliahu asked Hegseth for his reaction to Tucker Carlson’s recent comments, where he defined “foreign troops get to rape your wife and daughter.”
Hegseth did not attack Carlson but instead shrugged off his comments, maintaining that the mission will continue, “regardless of what people say about it.”
WATCH:
Eliahu: Polls show over 80% of Republicans support the President’s military action in Iran. But there’s some consternation in parts of the party, particularly from your fellow Fox News alum, Tucker Carlson. He called the war disgusting and evil, and then said of unconditional surrender, which the President has called for, means foreign troops get to rape your wives and daughters. Have you heard these comments? And what’s your reaction to them?
Hegseth: We’re busy executing on behalf of great, patriotic Americans with a clear mission that’s 47 years overdue. We’re going to execute on that regardless of what people say about it.
Tucker argued last week that Trump’s goal of Iran’s “unconditional surrender” will be difficult because of the “atavistic” meaning behind the phrase. “Unconditional Surrender means foreign troops get to rape your wife and daughter,” he said. “And so to avoid that, people will do anything. And so that’s why it requires that level of force to get a population subdued to the point of unconditional surrender.”
He further argued that the US doesn’t “have the ground force necessary” or the willing participants to ensure Iran’s complete destruction. “It would require weapons of mass destruction. It would require, presumably, nuclear weapons in order to do that. And let’s not lie to ourselves; we’re moving toward that,” he added.
WATCH:
Hegseth has previously responded to criticisms by right-wing media personalities like Tucker Carlson by maintaining that the Trump Administration’s position is that the war with Iran is putting America first.
A new phase of the Iranian war has begun – drone strikes against IRGC and Basij units are taking place at the street level. This is amazing. The Iranian people … Read more
An armed Muslim man wearing tactical gear was arrested after walking into an elementary school in Spring, Texas, this week.
The suspect, 39-year-old Kyle Najm Chris, AKA, Muhi Mohanad Najm, walked into Zwink Elementary School on Tuesday after another visitor failed to secure the first set of doors to the school.
Although Najm Chris was able to enter through the first set of doors, the school’s double-door security system blocked him from entering the hallways and approaching the school children.
Klein ISD waited until Wednesday evening to notify parents about the breach.
The school district was reportedly working with the FBI before officers arrested him at his home, 4 miles away from the school.
Najm Chris initially told police he was a security guard; however, he is unemployed and does not hold any certifications or licenses to serve as an officer.
A man dressed in military-style clothing and carrying a holstered firearm entered Zwink Elementary School in Spring Tuesday, prompting a multi-agency investigation that led to a felony arrest, according to court documents and a letter from school officials.
Kyle Najm Chris, also known as Muhi Mohanad Najm, 39, of Klein, was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon, a third-degree felony, which prohibits carrying weapons on school premises. The Harris County District Attorney accepted the charges, and Chris was arrested at around 6:30 p.m. Wednesday.
According to the criminal complaint, Chris entered the front office of Zwink Elementary, which is located off Spring Stuebner and Frassati, at around 1:30 p.m. after slipping through the front entrance when another visitor failed to fully secure the door behind them. A school employee told investigators Chris was wearing full green military or tactical law enforcement attire, including a load-bearing vest, a taser and a holstered firearm.
When the employee asked Chris how he entered without access and whether there was armed security on campus, he told her the front door was not latched. When she asked for identification, he provided none and didn’t identify himself by name or agency. He then left the building, got into a dark blue Dodge Charger and drove away.
More on this story from ABC 13 Houston:
This is not getting enough attention:
3 days ago, Muhi Mohamad Najm went into an elementary school in Klein, TX. He was armed, wearing tactical gear.
Ted Cruz speaks with David Brody during an interview with CBN News, discussing rising antisemitism, the war involving Iran and Israel, and divisions emerging within the Republican Party.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a stark warning during an exclusive interview with David Brody of CBN News, arguing that antisemitism is not only rising on the political left but is increasingly surfacing in parts of the conservative movement online.
During the interview, Cruz called out Vice President JD Vance for his alleged silence on Carlson’s rhetoric, suggesting that silence is complicity.
He also suggested that the popular phrase “Christ Is King” is being weaponized as a code word for Jew-hatred.
Senator Cruz told Brody that he believes the GOP is at a crossroads similar to the one described by Ronald Reagan in 1964.
He specifically pointed to Tucker Carlson as the leader of what he calls a “venomous ideology” that is infiltrating the party.
When asked by Brody if Vice President JD Vance, a close friend of Carlson, should speak out against the former Fox News host, Cruz was blunt:
David Brody:
Let me ask you a bit of an uncomfortable question: J.D. Vance is good friends with Tucker Carlson. I get the friendship part of it, but he has not talked about this. Do you think he should?
Ted Cruz:
Look, everyone’s going to have to decide where they stand. I believe Ronald Reagan, in 1964, gave a very famous speech, “A Time for Choosing,” and I think this is a time for choosing.
David Brody:
Is silence complicity?
Ted Cruz:
I will say, a decade ago, when antisemitism began rising on the left, the Democrat leadership did nothing. They looked the other way, and it’s consumed their party. I mean, there is a very real pro-Hamas contingent in the Democrat Party.
In the last year and a half, I have seen more antisemitism on the right than at any point in my life. And it is dangerous, and it risks consuming our party. I don’t want us to make the same mistake Democrat leaders made a decade ago—of just looking the other way and being silent.
And I will say, listen, it has a very direct—Tucker Carlson is the most vocal proponent of it, but there are a host of influencers online who have very loud voices. And the danger is that they’re being heard, especially by young people—by teenagers and 20-somethings. And you are seeing views change.
And I will tell you, the target of this operation is you and me. It is evangelical Christians. Tucker Carlson has said there is nobody he hates more on planet Earth than Christian Zionists. And he named specifically me and my colleagues.
You know, I think it’s unfortunate that I am the person he says he hates most on Earth.
Cruz also accused Carlson and others of promoting what he described as a deeply troubling theological claim known as replacement theology,the idea that the Christian Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.
Ted Cruz:
This is something Tucker and others are pushing, and this is—look—I think this is a heresy. It is a notion that the promises in the Bible that God makes to Israel are no longer valid; that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people. Instead, replacement theology argues that the Christian church has replaced Israel and the Jews as God’s chosen people, and that all of the promises in the Old Testament are now invalid.
Brody:
So God breaks his promises, apparently?
Ted Cruz:
Yeah. And that—I think that is absolutely wrong. If God breaks his promises to the people of Israel, that suggests that God could break his promises to Christians as well. And I don’t believe God breaks his promises.
WATCH:
Ted Cruz: “Jews are God’s Chosen People. Not Christians — saying anything else is a heresy”
Sorry Ted..
Abraham < Isaac < Jacob < Christ < All who believe the promise
Perhaps the most controversial part of the interview involved Cruz’s assessment of how Christian rhetoric is being used online. While “Christ Is King” is a foundational theological statement for billions of Christians, Cruz claims it has been hijacked by bad actors to target Jewish people.
Sen. Cruz:
Just this last Sunday, a week ago, we were talking about exactly what you just asked. And I said, I’m really troubled by how the phrase “Christ is King” is being used.
Look, I agree with the statement “Christ is King,” although it is being used online in a way that is meant to say, “Screw you, Jew.” It is being used in a context very directly to say, “I hate Jews.” And that’s almost an online code word: “Christ is King” is “I hate the Jews.”
Brody:
Is that your view? Why do you say that?
Sen. Cruz:
Because you see the people who are saying it, and they’re saying it in that context. They’re saying Jews are horrible—like they’re attacking Jews—and they end with “Christ is King” to make it sound like somehow there’s a biblical basis for attacking Jews.
Cruz argued that “influencers” are using the phrase to provide a “biblical basis” for attacking the Jewish people, a move he described as dangerous for the Republican Party and the country.
WATCH:
Editor’s Note:The Gateway Pundithas not independently observed the phrase “Christ is King” being used as an antisemitic code word in mainstream conservative or Christian discourse. For millions of Christians around the world, the phrase is a traditional declaration of faith affirming the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. At the same time, any use of religious language to promote hatred toward any group, including Jews, is wrong and should be condemned.
On Friday, US District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, quashed the Justice Department’s subpoenas issued to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.
Judge Boasberg blasted Trump and US Attorney Pirro and said the subpoenas were improperly issued after the president pressured Powell to lower interest rates.
The Justice Department will appeal Judge Boasberg’s decision.
Federal investigators in January opened a criminal investigation into Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.
Powell is under fire for the cost of renovating the Fed’s DC headquarters. The cost ballooned from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion.
“Powell has asked the central bank’s inspector general to conduct an additional review of the ongoing renovation, CNN previously reported. Last month, some Senate lawmakers grilled Powell over what they depicted as lavish upgrades to its DC headquarters at Powell’s semiannual monetary policy hearing,’ CNN previously reported.
“The Fed’s renovation project was approved by its board in 2017 and originally cost $1.9 billion in 2019. Construction began in 2021, but the cost swelled to $2.5 billion because of “unforeseen conditions” requiring more spending to rectify, such as “more asbestos than anticipated, toxic contamination in soil, and a higher-than-expected water table,” according to the Fed’s website,” CNN reported.
Last July, Jerome Powell was criminally referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.
GOP Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna sent a letter to the DOJ accusing Powell of perjury.
US Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro blasted Judge Boasberg during remarks on Friday afternoon.
“This judge has put himself at the entrance door to the grand jury, slamming that door shut, irrespective of the legal process, and thus preventing the grand jury from doing the work that it does!” Pirro said on Friday.
WATCH:
BOMBSHELL: Jeanine Pirro is holding a press conference after Boasberg, the RADICAL ACTIVIST, blocked a subpoena into Jerome Powell, and IT’S ON!
“This is UNTETHERED from the law.”
Jerome and Boasberg are currently the “ANTITHESIS OF JUSTICE.”
In a recent sit-down interview with YouTuber and boxer Jake Paul, President Donald Trump confirmed a wild story from the 1990s where he stepped in to break up a heated altercation involving NBA legend Kobe Bryant.
The clip, shared widely on social media, shows Trump recounting the incident and emphasizing the risks of de-escalating fights.
“I broke up a fight, which sometimes is more dangerous than being in a fight! Kobe was having a hard time with somebody… yeah, I broke it up. Probably not a smart thing to do,” Trump said.
WATCH:
WOW! President Trump confirms the story where he BROKE UP a fight involving Kobe Bryant and somebody else in the 90s
Once a peacemaker, always a peacemaker!
“I broke up a fight, which sometimes is more dangerous than being in a fight! Kobe was having a hard time with… pic.twitter.com/NMjrQrI7Hp
The clip was shared by journalist Eric Daugherty, who added, “Once a peacemaker, always a peacemaker!”
The story dates back to the 1998 NBA All-Star Game in New York City, where many players were staying at the Grand Hyatt Hotel, then owned by Trump.
According to the legend, Bryant entered an elevator with former New Jersey Nets forward Jayson Williams and Trump.
Williams, an established veteran, greeted Bryant casually, but Kobe’s brief response enraged him, leading Williams to lunge and punch Bryant.
Trump intervened, grabbing Williams and allowing Bryant to exit safely.
Sportswriter Jeff Pearlman told the story on ‘The Ryen Russillo’ podcast years ago.
Pearlman explained:
“And Jayson Williams is in an elevator in the Grand Hyatt, which Trump used to own. He was in the process of selling. He was nearly underselling. It’s Trump who’s involved because he’s always around these things. Trump, Jayson Williams, Charles Oakley, and a very young Kobe Bryant. And Jayson Williams, who obviously went onto some levels of infamy, said something to Kobe. I don’t remember the exact words, it was like ‘what’s up, Kobe?’ And Kobe just gave him like ‘ok, hey’ and Williams was infuriated because he was one of these old-school guys, like Oakley actually, who believes in the code. You know, like the code is supposed to treat someone with respect. And he lunges after freaking Kobe Bryant and just punching Kobe Bryant in the elevator. I’m not a Donald Trump fan, I guess in one of the few things that I would say Donald Trump deserves credit for. He actually broke up. Donald Trump broke up a fight or got in the middle of a fight between Kobe Bryant and Jayson Williams.”
Bryant, who was just 19 at the time and in his second NBA season, went on to become a five-time champion with the Los Angeles Lakers.
Williams, known for his tough-guy persona, later faced a manslaughter conviction in 2010.
Tragically, Bryant passed away in a helicopter crash in 2020.
9th Circuit Court Judge Lawrence VanDyke. Credit: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit YouTube Screenshot
A Trump-appointed federal judge on Friday went viral for an extremely colorful dissenting opinion after the majority of his colleagues bowed down to the woke trans mob, triggering them as a result.
On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rehear the case of Olympus Spa v. Armstrong. Olympus Spa, a Christian-owned, female-only Korean spa in Washington State, was barred from suing the state on First Amendment grounds for forcing it to allow men pretending to be women.
As Courthouse News notes, the state’s ‘Human Rights Commission’ back in 2020 issued a complaint after a so-called ‘woman’ with a p*nis was denied entry. The spa then sued the Human Rights Commission on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the state’s policy violated its rights to the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and association.
A federal judge dismissed Olympus Spa’s claim. Last May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, issued a dissent for the ages that tore into his woke colleagues for chickening out a second time. He began in style.
He first noted this case was about “swinging d*cks” and wrote that the State of Washington insisted on allowing men to do this at the Olympus Spa and ripped the Ninth Circuit for certifying this.
Anticipating a backlash to his politically incorrect language, VanDyke stated that young girls have been “visually assaulted” by these freaks visiting the spa.
Then he turned his attention to his colleagues and did not mince words, saying: “complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls.”
This is a case about swinging d*cks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don’t want them in their spa. Their female employees and female clients don’t want them in their spa either.
But Washington State insists on them. And now so does the Ninth Circuit. You may think that swinging d*cks shouldn’t appear in a judicial opinion.
You’re not wrong. But as much as you might understandably be shocked and displeased to merely encounter that phrase in this opinion, I hope we all can agree that it is far more jarring for the unsuspecting and exposed women at Olympus Spa— some as young as thirteen—to be visually assaulted by the real thing.
Sometimes, it feels like the supposed adults in the room have collectively lost their minds. Woke regulators and complicit judges seem entirely willing, even eager, to ignore the consequences that their Frankenstein social experiments impose on real women and young girls.
Judge Margaret McKeown, a Clinton appointee, issued a scathing statement alongside 28 other members of the Court, scolding VanDyke for his “coarse language” and for seeking “entertainment.”
The American legal system has long been regarded as a place to resolve disputes in a dignified and civil manner or, as Justice O’Connor put it, to “disagree without being disagreeable.”1 It is not a place for vulgar barroom talk. Nor is it a place to suggest that fellow judges have “collectively lost their minds,” or that they are “woke judges[]” “complicit” in a scheme to harm ordinary Americans.
That language makes us sound like juveniles, not judges, and it undermines public trust in the courts. The lead dissent’s use of such coarse language and invective may make for publicity or entertainment value, but it has no place in a judicial opinion. The lead dissent ignores ordinary principles of dignity and civility and demeans this court.
Neither the parties nor the panel dissent found it necessary to invoke such crude and vitriolic language. Decorum and collegiality demand more.
But as Reason notes, VanDyke refused to back down:
Finally, I’ll respond briefly to my colleagues’ discomfort with how I’ve written this dissent. My distressed colleagues appear to have the fastidious sensibilities of a Victorian nun when it comes to mere unpleasant words in my opinion, yet exhibit the scruples of our dearly departed colleague Judge Reinhardt when it comes to the government trampling on religious liberties and exposing women and girls to male genitalia. That kind of selective outrage speaks for itself.
The public deserves a court that is actually trustworthy. We should be earning that trust, not demanding it like petty tyrants. Yes, the introduction to this dissent intentionally uses indecorous language. But that is quite literally what this case is about. Male genitalia is precisely (and only) what the Spa, for religious reasons, objects to admitting into its female-only space. The fact that so many on our court want to pretend that this case is about anything other than swinging dicks is the very reason the shocking language is necessary. The panel majority uses slick legal arguments and deflection to studiously avoid eye contact with the actual and horrific consequences of its erroneous opinion. The “ordinary Americans” affected by the majority’s opinion don’t have that luxury. Squirm as we might, I think it’s only fair for our court to have a small taste of its own medicine.
Sometimes “dignified and civil” words are employed to mask a legal abomination. Or, to put it in vernacular perhaps more palatable to my colleagues’ Victorian sensibilities: “In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, / But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, / Obscures the show of evil?”
Sometimes coarse and ugly words bear the truth. I coarsely but respectfully dissent from our court’s willingness to leave this travesty in place.
Should either Justices Alito or Thomas retire from the Supreme Court, VanDyke would make a very worthy replacement.
A George Soros-backed district attorney sparked fury across Virginia after blaming pro-gun lawmakers for an ISIS-inspired terrorist attack at Old Dominion University that left a decorated military veteran dead and two ROTC students wounded, ignoring the fact that unarmed students heroically subdued the jihadi attacker without firearms.
Deflecting From Terrorism to Push Gun Control
The Soros-funded district attorney’s statement politicizing the March 12, 2026 Old Dominion University attack represents a dangerous pattern of progressive prosecutors ignoring radical Islamic terrorism to advance gun control narratives. FBI Director Kash Patel explicitly labeled the incident terrorism, praising the brave students who stopped the threat. The shooter, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, deliberately targeted an ROTC class after confirming its military nature, shouted “Allahu Akbar” during the attack, and aspired to replicate the 2009 Fort Hood massacre. These facts demolish any attempt to frame this as a gun policy failure rather than terrorism and prison release negligence.
ISIS Convict Released Early From Federal Prison
Jalloh served in the Virginia Army National Guard from 2009 to 2015 as a combat engineer before turning to terrorism. In 2016, at age 26, he contacted ISIS members in Africa and plotted an attack inspired by the Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 Americans. He communicated with an FBI informant posing as an ISIS associate and attempted to purchase an AR-15 rifle, which authorities rendered inoperable. After pleading guilty to providing material support to ISIS, Judge Liam O’Grady sentenced him to just 11 years. His early release in December 2024 enabled the Old Dominion attack barely three months later.
You are a complete moron. Blaming pro-gun organizations when you know damn well it was a terrorist attack. Naturalized or not he was a terrorist Soros-backed DA sparks backlash after blaming Old Dominion shooting on pro-gun lawmakers: ‘F— right off’https://t.co/17Y1R9gn7R
At approximately 10:49 a.m., Jalloh entered a classroom in Constant Hall, asked if it was an ROTC class, and opened fire upon confirmation. He killed instructor Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, a retired Army officer who flew helicopters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe. Two ROTC students sustained wounds. Within minutes, unarmed students subdued and neutralized Jalloh without firing a single shot, preventing further casualties. FBI Norfolk Special Agent Dominique Evans credited their “extreme bravery” with terminating the threat. ODU Police Chief Garrett Shelton confirmed the shooter was dead less than 10 minutes after the initial 911 call at 10:43 a.m.
Americans Reject Progressive Prosecutor’s Spin
The DA’s attempt to blame pro-gun lawmakers ignited widespread backlash, including profane public rejections of the narrative. Citizens recognized the absurdity of blaming Second Amendment advocates when an ISIS-inspired terrorist deliberately targeted military students in an act of jihad. The heroism of unarmed ROTC students further undermines gun control arguments, as they stopped the threat through courage and training, not firearms. This incident underscores the real threats Americans face: lenient sentencing for terrorists, early prison releases, inadequate monitoring of convicted extremists, and prosecutors more interested in advancing progressive agendas than holding radical Islamic terrorists accountable for their ideology-driven violence.
Norfolk’s Soros-backed Attorney Ramin Fatehi is blaming the shooting on…. Republicans
Not the foreign islamist who actually carried out the attack and was previously convicted for providing support to ISIS pic.twitter.com/1RD24LsRfH
The political exploitation of this tragedy dishonors Lt. Col. Shah’s sacrifice and the bravery of ROTC students who confronted evil. Americans deserve prosecutors focused on justice and national security, not ideologically-driven narratives that deflect from terrorism. The questions surrounding Jalloh’s early release and post-prison monitoring demand answers, not gun control rhetoric that ignores the documented facts of an ISIS-inspired attack on American military personnel.
The opening phase of the Trump administration’s military campaign against Iran is already revealing the staggering financial and logistical demands of modern warfare. In just a matter of days, the conflict has consumed vast quantities of advanced weapons and billions of dollars in military resources.
According to a new report published by the Financial Times and other outlets, American forces have already burned through stockpiles of critical munitions that would normally last for years. Officials say the pace of weapons usage is raising serious questions inside Washington about the long-term sustainability of the campaign.
During a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill, Pentagon officials told lawmakers that the first six days of the war alone cost at least $11.3 billion. The estimate primarily reflects the value of munitions used during the initial strikes.
The true cost is likely far higher. Additional expenses include the deployment of forces to the region, logistical support, medical care, and the replacement of aircraft and equipment damaged or lost in combat.
The scale of the spending has begun to alarm lawmakers from both parties. Members of Congress are increasingly demanding clarity about how long the conflict may last and what the administration ultimately hopes to achieve.
Much of the early expenditure has been tied to the use of sophisticated long-range weapons. Among the most significant examples are the Navy’s Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were used extensively in the opening phase of the campaign.
Analysts estimate that American forces fired roughly 168 Tomahawk missiles within the first 100 hours of combat operations. Each missile carries a price tag of approximately $3.6 million, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons were expended in a matter of days.
Military analysts say this level of consumption could have lasting consequences for the Navy’s inventory. One source familiar with the situation told the Financial Times that the service will likely “feel this expenditure for several years.”
The concern stems from the fact that these missiles cannot be replaced quickly. Over the past five years, the American military has purchased only a few hundred Tomahawks, far fewer than the number now being consumed in combat. For fiscal year 2026, the Pentagon had planned to acquire just 57 additional missiles. That order, costing roughly $206 million, would replace only a fraction of those already fired during the current campaign.
Other expensive weapons have also played a central role in the early strikes. These include the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon, a precision glide bomb that can cost between roughly $578,000 and $836,000 per unit.
Such weapons allow aircraft to strike targets from long distances with remarkable accuracy. But the technology comes at a steep price, making large-scale campaigns extraordinarily expensive. As the war has continued, the Pentagon has reportedly begun shifting toward less costly munitions. One widely used option is the Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM, which converts conventional bombs into guided weapons.
JDAM systems dramatically reduce costs compared with cruise missiles and other advanced strike platforms. Even so, the financial burden of the campaign remains immense.
During the earliest days of the conflict, analysts estimated that the United States was spending roughly $2 billion per day on munitions alone. That figure has reportedly dropped closer to $1 billion per day as cheaper weapons have been introduced into the strike campaign.
Despite that reduction, the overall burn rate remains extraordinarily high. Modern high-tech warfare relies on precision weapons that are both expensive and difficult to produce quickly.
To replenish depleted stockpiles, Pentagon officials are now expected to seek additional funding from Congress. Reports indicate the Defense Department may request as much as $50 billion in new military spending to sustain operations and rebuild inventories.
Such a request could face significant resistance on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers in both parties are increasingly wary of approving another large defense package without a clear understanding of the war’s scope and objectives.
Some Democrat lawmakers have already raised constitutional concerns, noting that Congress has not formally authorized the military campaign. But skepticism is also emerging among Republicans who worry about the financial and strategic implications of an open-ended conflict.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, recently signaled unease about approving additional spending without clearer answers. She noted that Washington previously warned Ukraine and its European partners that American weapons supplies were limited. Those earlier warnings now appear difficult to reconcile with the massive quantities of munitions being used in the current conflict. The contrast has fueled further debate about whether the United States can sustain such operations indefinitely.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has insisted that American arsenals remain robust. Earlier this month he assured the public that American stockpiles were fully prepared for the demands of the campaign. “Our munitions are full up and our will is iron-clad,” Hegseth said at the time. Yet the early data from the conflict suggests the strain on weapons inventories may be more significant than initially acknowledged.
President Donald Trump has also argued that America possesses the industrial strength to sustain long conflicts. At one point he suggested that the country’s defense capabilities would allow it to fight wars “forever” if necessary.
But modern warfare presents new challenges. Precision weapons, advanced guidance systems, and long-range strike platforms require complex manufacturing processes that cannot be scaled up overnight.
That reality means even the world’s most powerful military must carefully manage its resources. Rapid depletion of advanced weapons could complicate the Pentagon’s ability to respond to future crises elsewhere.
For the United States, which maintains global security commitments across multiple regions, this challenge carries particular significance. Maintaining readiness requires not only military strength but also careful stewardship of resources.
The Iran conflict is now becoming a case study in those pressures. As the war continues, lawmakers in Washington are increasingly confronting the
President Trump does not like the excuses of Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) regarding why he can’t get the SAVE America Act to his desk.
AS TGP readers know, Thune has quashed an effort to use ‘the talking filibuster’ to pass the SAVE America Act, citing opposition from at least four Republicans and doubts regarding the ability to outlast Democrats.
On Tuesday afternoon, Thune performed a U-turn of sorts, telling reporters that there would be a vote, giving those advocating for the SAVE America Act a chance to pass it. The vote will happen next week.
But the Senate Majority Leader quickly poured cold water on its chances of passage.
“We’ll give them (advocates) a chance,” Thune told reporters. “Like I said, they’ll have that opportunity to vote one way or the other on this.”
“But I would be very, very surprised.”
WATCH:
JUST IN: Senate Leader John Thune says he will FORCE a vote on the SAVE America Act, but he can NOT guarantee it will pass because that needs 60 votes
“That debate will happen. But like I said, I can guarantee the debate. I can guarantee a vote. I just can’t guarantee an… pic.twitter.com/GKKPlJDssi
While appearing on Brian Kilmeade’s radio show on Friday morning, Trump expressed exasperation over Thune’s dithering.
Trump noted that he and other Americans are not asking for much. After all, no one should be opposed to Voter ID or proof of citizenship for voting and registering to vote, respectively.
LISTEN:
JUST IN: President Trump responds to Senate Majority Leader John Thune being unable to get the votes for the SAVE America Act
“I mean, how can you NOT get voter ID approved? How can you not get, you know, citizenship approved? Proof of citizenship! That’s ALL we’re asking!”… pic.twitter.com/2zBx6ryDbT
(@GuntherEagleman) 
WOW! President Trump confirms the story where he BROKE UP a fight involving Kobe Bryant and somebody else in the 90s
