InsiderWire Staff

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a &quot;true peace pact&quot; with Lebanon that would &quot;last for generations&quot; on Saturday, as <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/iran-delegation-arrives-in-pakistan-for-us-talks-despite-ceasefire-skepticism">US-Iran ceasefire negotiations</a> continue in Pakistan.Netanyahu's statement comes as Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,000 people in Lebanon, according to Lebanon's health ministry. The Israeli leader also declared that Iran and its allies are &quot;fighting for survival&quot; while diplomatic efforts unfold in Islamabad.The peace overture faces immediate resistance on Lebanese soil. Hezbollah supporters took to the streets of Beirut to protest any prospect of Lebanon's government entering direct negotiations with Israel. The demonstrations underscore the deep sectarian and political divisions that complicate any potential agreement.Netanyahu's timing appears calculated to pressure both Lebanon and Iran as ceasefire talks progress. By framing Tehran and its proxies as weakened, the Israeli leader may be positioning for more favorable terms in any regional settlement. Iran has used Hezbollah as its primary proxy force against Israel, funneling weapons and funding through Lebanon's porous borders.The casualty figures from Lebanon highlight the military pressure Israel has applied. Over 2,000 deaths represent a significant escalation that has drawn international criticism but may have achieved Netanyahu's goal of degrading Hezbollah's capabilities before any ceasefire takes hold.For American interests, a durable Israel-Lebanon peace agreement would reduce the need for US military involvement in future Middle East crises. It could also diminish Iran's ability to threaten key shipping lanes and oil infrastructure through its Lebanese proxy network. However, any deal would need to address Hezbollah's massive weapons stockpile and its integration into Lebanon's political system.The Beirut protests signal that domestic Lebanese politics remain fractured. Hezbollah's supporters view direct talks with Israel as capitulation, while other Lebanese factions may see negotiations as the only path to ending devastating Israeli airstrikes. This internal division could complicate Lebanon's negotiating position.Netanyahu's framing of Iran as &quot;fighting for survival&quot; suggests Israel believes its military campaign has succeeded in weakening the regional power. This assessment could influence both the pace of ceasefire talks and the terms Israel demands for any lasting agreement.The next critical test will be whether Lebanon's government can overcome internal opposition to engage in meaningful negotiations while ceasefire talks continue in Pakistan.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a "true peace pact" with Lebanon that would "last for generations" on Saturday, as US-Iran ceasefire negotiations continue in Pakistan.

Netanyahu's statement comes as Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,000 people in Lebanon, according to Lebanon's health ministry. The Israeli leader also declared that Iran and its allies are "fighting for survival" while diplomatic efforts unfold in Islamabad.

The peace overture faces immediate resistance on Lebanese soil. Hezbollah supporters took to the streets of Beirut to protest any prospect of Lebanon's government entering direct negotiations with Israel. The demonstrations underscore the deep sectarian and political divisions that complicate any potential agreement.

Netanyahu's timing appears calculated to pressure both Lebanon and Iran as ceasefire talks progress. By framing Tehran and its proxies as weakened, the Israeli leader may be positioning for more favorable terms in any regional settlement. Iran has used Hezbollah as its primary proxy force against Israel, funneling weapons and funding through Lebanon's porous borders.

The casualty figures from Lebanon highlight the military pressure Israel has applied. Over 2,000 deaths represent a significant escalation that has drawn international criticism but may have achieved Netanyahu's goal of degrading Hezbollah's capabilities before any ceasefire takes hold.

For American interests, a durable Israel-Lebanon peace agreement would reduce the need for US military involvement in future Middle East crises. It could also diminish Iran's ability to threaten key shipping lanes and oil infrastructure through its Lebanese proxy network. However, any deal would need to address Hezbollah's massive weapons stockpile and its integration into Lebanon's political system.

The Beirut protests signal that domestic Lebanese politics remain fractured. Hezbollah's supporters view direct talks with Israel as capitulation, while other Lebanese factions may see negotiations as the only path to ending devastating Israeli airstrikes. This internal division could complicate Lebanon's negotiating position.

Netanyahu's framing of Iran as "fighting for survival" suggests Israel believes its military campaign has succeeded in weakening the regional power. This assessment could influence both the pace of ceasefire talks and the terms Israel demands for any lasting agreement.

The next critical test will be whether Lebanon's government can overcome internal opposition to engage in meaningful negotiations while ceasefire talks continue in Pakistan.

Israeli PM Netanyahu calls for lasting Lebanon peace pact as US-Iran ceasefire negotiations continue in Pakistan, while Israeli strikes have killed over 2,000.

Netanyahu Seeks 'Generational' Lebanon Peace Deal Amid Iran Ceasefire Talks

President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to send mail ballots only to voters the agency deems eligible, putting new restrictions on ballot distribution ahead of upcoming elections.The order tasks USPS with verifying voter eligibility before mailing ballots, a departure from standard practices where election officials handle voter verification. Democrats immediately challenged the directive as unconstitutional, arguing it exceeds presidential authority over state election administration.The move puts fresh pressure on the Postal Service, which has faced scrutiny over mail-in voting procedures since 2020. USPS leadership must now determine how to implement voter eligibility checks, a function traditionally managed by state and local election boards with access to voter registration databases.Constitutional law experts question whether the executive branch can direct USPS to alter ballot delivery based on eligibility determinations. The order appears to conflict with established practices where postal workers deliver election materials without vetting recipient qualifications, similar to other mail delivery duties.State election officials expressed concern about operational challenges the order creates. Many states automatically mail ballots to registered voters for certain elections, relying on existing voter rolls maintained by secretaries of state and county clerks rather than federal postal verification.The directive comes as multiple states prepare for upcoming elections with established mail-in voting procedures. Implementation could face immediate court challenges from states arguing federal overreach into constitutionally protected election administration powers.USPS officials have not yet detailed how they would verify voter eligibility or access state voter databases necessary for such determinations. The agency lacks direct connections to most state voter registration systems, potentially requiring new data-sharing agreements with election authorities.Legal challenges will likely focus on the separation of powers between federal executive authority and state election oversight. Courts will need to determine whether presidential orders can reshape ballot delivery procedures without congressional authorization or state consent.The next phase depends on how quickly legal challenges advance through federal courts and whether states seek injunctions to block implementation before upcoming elections.

President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Postal Service to send mail ballots only to voters the agency deems eligible, putting new restrictions on ballot distribution ahead of upcoming elections.

The order tasks USPS with verifying voter eligibility before mailing ballots, a departure from standard practices where election officials handle voter verification. Democrats immediately challenged the directive as unconstitutional, arguing it exceeds presidential authority over state election administration.

The move puts fresh pressure on the Postal Service, which has faced scrutiny over mail-in voting procedures since 2020. USPS leadership must now determine how to implement voter eligibility checks, a function traditionally managed by state and local election boards with access to voter registration databases.

Constitutional law experts question whether the executive branch can direct USPS to alter ballot delivery based on eligibility determinations. The order appears to conflict with established practices where postal workers deliver election materials without vetting recipient qualifications, similar to other mail delivery duties.

State election officials expressed concern about operational challenges the order creates. Many states automatically mail ballots to registered voters for certain elections, relying on existing voter rolls maintained by secretaries of state and county clerks rather than federal postal verification.

The directive comes as multiple states prepare for upcoming elections with established mail-in voting procedures. Implementation could face immediate court challenges from states arguing federal overreach into constitutionally protected election administration powers.

USPS officials have not yet detailed how they would verify voter eligibility or access state voter databases necessary for such determinations. The agency lacks direct connections to most state voter registration systems, potentially requiring new data-sharing agreements with election authorities.

Legal challenges will likely focus on the separation of powers between federal executive authority and state election oversight. Courts will need to determine whether presidential orders can reshape ballot delivery procedures without congressional authorization or state consent.

The next phase depends on how quickly legal challenges advance through federal courts and whether states seek injunctions to block implementation before upcoming elections.

President Trump's executive order directing USPS to verify voter eligibility before sending mail ballots faces constitutional challenges from Democrats.

Trump Orders Postal Service to Limit Mail Ballots to Eligible Voters

Federal agents arrested three Iranian nationals after the State Department revoked their green cards Saturday, targeting individuals with direct family ties to Iran's revolutionary regime from the 1979 hostage crisis.The State Department terminated the legal permanent resident status of Seyed Eissa Hashemi, whose mother served as the Iranian regime's spokesperson during the 444-day hostage crisis that crippled Jimmy Carter's presidency. Authorities also revoked green cards for Hashemi's wife and son, according to the department's announcement.The arrests represent the most direct action against Iranian regime-connected individuals living in America since <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-iran-enter-talks-on-permanent-deal-after-two-week-ceasefire?language_id=1">recent ceasefire negotiations</a> between Washington and Tehran. The timing suggests the administration is taking a harder line on Iranian nationals with documented connections to the Islamic Republic's security apparatus.Federal agents also detained two other Iranian nationals with family connections to high-ranking Iranian military generals and security officials, though the State Department did not immediately release their identities. All three arrests occurred after their green card revocations took effect.The move signals a more aggressive approach to screening Iranian nationals already living in the United States. Green card holders typically enjoy broad legal protections, making revocation rare and reserved for cases involving national security concerns or criminal activity.Hashemi's mother played a central role in the Iran hostage crisis that began November 4, 1979, when Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans captive for 444 days. As the regime's spokesperson during those negotiations, she became one of the most recognizable faces defending Iran's actions to international media.The State Department's action comes as Congress debates Iran policy following recent Middle East tensions. The administration faces pressure from both parties to take tougher steps against Iranian influence operations on American soil, particularly those involving regime-connected families who obtained U.S. residency status.Immigration experts say the revocations suggest federal agencies conducted extensive background reviews that uncovered previously unknown or undisclosed family connections to Iranian security services. Green card holders must disclose foreign government ties during the application process.The arrests will likely intensify scrutiny of other Iranian nationals with permanent resident status, particularly those who emigrated during or after the 1979 revolution. Federal counterintelligence agencies have long warned about Iranian efforts to place operatives or sympathizers in positions where they could access sensitive information or influence U.S. policy.Watch for additional State Department actions against Iranian nationals in coming weeks, as officials indicated this represents part of a broader review of regime connections among permanent residents.

Federal agents arrested three Iranian nationals after the State Department revoked their green cards Saturday, targeting individuals with direct family ties to Iran's revolutionary regime from the 1979 hostage crisis.

The State Department terminated the legal permanent resident status of Seyed Eissa Hashemi, whose mother served as the Iranian regime's spokesperson during the 444-day hostage crisis that crippled Jimmy Carter's presidency. Authorities also revoked green cards for Hashemi's wife and son, according to the department's announcement.

The arrests represent the most direct action against Iranian regime-connected individuals living in America since recent ceasefire negotiations between Washington and Tehran. The timing suggests the administration is taking a harder line on Iranian nationals with documented connections to the Islamic Republic's security apparatus.

Federal agents also detained two other Iranian nationals with family connections to high-ranking Iranian military generals and security officials, though the State Department did not immediately release their identities. All three arrests occurred after their green card revocations took effect.

The move signals a more aggressive approach to screening Iranian nationals already living in the United States. Green card holders typically enjoy broad legal protections, making revocation rare and reserved for cases involving national security concerns or criminal activity.

Hashemi's mother played a central role in the Iran hostage crisis that began November 4, 1979, when Iranian revolutionaries stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans captive for 444 days. As the regime's spokesperson during those negotiations, she became one of the most recognizable faces defending Iran's actions to international media.

The State Department's action comes as Congress debates Iran policy following recent Middle East tensions. The administration faces pressure from both parties to take tougher steps against Iranian influence operations on American soil, particularly those involving regime-connected families who obtained U.S. residency status.

Immigration experts say the revocations suggest federal agencies conducted extensive background reviews that uncovered previously unknown or undisclosed family connections to Iranian security services. Green card holders must disclose foreign government ties during the application process.

The arrests will likely intensify scrutiny of other Iranian nationals with permanent resident status, particularly those who emigrated during or after the 1979 revolution. Federal counterintelligence agencies have long warned about Iranian efforts to place operatives or sympathizers in positions where they could access sensitive information or influence U.S. policy.

Watch for additional State Department actions against Iranian nationals in coming weeks, as officials indicated this represents part of a broader review of regime connections among permanent residents.

Federal agents arrested three Iranian nationals after State Department terminated their green cards, including son of 1979 hostage crisis spokesperson.

State Department Revokes Green Cards of 3 Iranians Tied to 1979 Hostage Crisis

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) expressed willingness Friday to partner with former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene after the Republican broke ranks to criticize President Trump's military threats against Iran. &quot;I'm game,&quot; Khanna said, praising Greene for &quot;speaking out against President Trump's threats against Iran.&quot;The unusual overture highlights growing fractures within the GOP over Iran policy, as some Republicans question Trump's aggressive posture following the <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-iran-enter-talks-on-permanent-deal-after-two-week-ceasefire?language_id=1">fragile two-week ceasefire</a> between the U.S. and Tehran. Greene, known for her staunch Trump loyalty, surprised political observers by publicly opposing military escalation against Iran.Khanna, a progressive who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, has consistently opposed military intervention in the Middle East. His willingness to work across the aisle with Greene signals potential bipartisan resistance to hawkish Iran policies, even as <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/house-gop-kills-democratic-bid-to-block-trumps-iran-military-powers?language_id=1">House GOP leadership killed Democratic efforts</a> to limit Trump's Iran war powers.The California Democrat noted that &quot;as a human being and as an American citizen, I am relieved that Donald Trump has accepted&quot; restraint on Iran policy. This marks a rare moment of agreement between two lawmakers typically on opposite ends of the political spectrum.Greene's position puts her at odds with much of her own party, which has largely supported Trump's tough stance on Iran. Her criticism comes as Trump has <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-threatens-iran-with-military-action-over-fragile-ceasefire-compliance?language_id=1">threatened military action</a> over ceasefire violations and maintained pressure on Tehran through economic and diplomatic means.The potential Khanna-Greene alliance could complicate Republican unity on foreign policy issues, particularly as some GOP members grow wary of military commitments in the Middle East. This dynamic mirrors earlier bipartisan efforts to limit presidential war powers, though such initiatives have faced resistance from party leadership on both sides.Watch for whether other Republicans join Greene's skeptical stance on Iran military action, potentially creating space for broader bipartisan cooperation on restraining executive war powers.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) expressed willingness Friday to partner with former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene after the Republican broke ranks to criticize President Trump's military threats against Iran. "I'm game," Khanna said, praising Greene for "speaking out against President Trump's threats against Iran."

The unusual overture highlights growing fractures within the GOP over Iran policy, as some Republicans question Trump's aggressive posture following the fragile two-week ceasefire between the U.S. and Tehran. Greene, known for her staunch Trump loyalty, surprised political observers by publicly opposing military escalation against Iran.

Khanna, a progressive who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, has consistently opposed military intervention in the Middle East. His willingness to work across the aisle with Greene signals potential bipartisan resistance to hawkish Iran policies, even as House GOP leadership killed Democratic efforts to limit Trump's Iran war powers.

The California Democrat noted that "as a human being and as an American citizen, I am relieved that Donald Trump has accepted" restraint on Iran policy. This marks a rare moment of agreement between two lawmakers typically on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Greene's position puts her at odds with much of her own party, which has largely supported Trump's tough stance on Iran. Her criticism comes as Trump has threatened military action over ceasefire violations and maintained pressure on Tehran through economic and diplomatic means.

The potential Khanna-Greene alliance could complicate Republican unity on foreign policy issues, particularly as some GOP members grow wary of military commitments in the Middle East. This dynamic mirrors earlier bipartisan efforts to limit presidential war powers, though such initiatives have faced resistance from party leadership on both sides.

Watch for whether other Republicans join Greene's skeptical stance on Iran military action, potentially creating space for broader bipartisan cooperation on restraining executive war powers.

Rep. Ro Khanna signals openness to working with Marjorie Taylor Greene after she criticized Trump's Iran threats, exposing deep GOP foreign policy divisions.

Progressive Khanna Eyes Alliance with Greene Over Iran Policy Split

Iran continues charging fees to oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz despite President Trump's Thursday evening warning to stop, as ship traffic through the critical waterway remains far below normal levels following this week's <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-iran-enter-talks-on-permanent-deal-after-two-week-ceasefire">ceasefire agreement</a>.Only six vessels crossed the strait Thursday — two oil tankers, three cargo ships, and one fuel supply vessel — compared to 11 ships on Tuesday when the ceasefire was announced, according to global tracking firm MarineTraffic. The numbers reveal how the fragile truce has failed to restore normal commercial traffic through the chokepoint that handles roughly 20% of global oil shipments.&quot;There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait — They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now!&quot; Trump posted on Truth Social Thursday evening. The warning came after maritime intelligence firm Lloyd's List confirmed Iran has been using Larak Island, located miles off Iran's coast, as a tolling stop for tankers during the conflict.The toll dispute highlights a fundamental contradiction in Trump's approach. Speaking to reporters Monday, the president had floated charging American tolls for strait passage, saying &quot;We have a concept where we'll charge tolls.&quot; Now he's demanding Iran cease similar practices that analysts say have been ongoing throughout the war.Since fighting began February 28, at least 212 oil and chemical tankers have crossed the strait, representing 58% of all vessel traffic. Nearly one-third of those crossings occurred during the first two days of combat. The tanker fleet includes vessels flagged to Panama (43), Iran (37), Liberia (25), and Palau (15), underscoring the international nature of the commercial disruption.British Prime Minister Keir Starmer joined diplomatic pressure on Iran during a Thursday night call with Trump. Speaking from Qatar where he's meeting Gulf leaders, Starmer discussed &quot;the need to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz,&quot; according to his spokesperson. The leaders &quot;agreed that now there is a ceasefire in place and agreement to open the Strait, we are at the next stage of finding a resolution.&quot;Trump has repeatedly criticized Starmer throughout the conflict for being too hesitant to provide military assistance, making their alignment on strait access notable. Starmer is working to &quot;convene partners to agree a viable plan&quot; for the waterway, his office said.The ceasefire's fragility became apparent late Thursday when Israeli forces struck Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, warning that the Iranian-backed group could expand projectile launches across Israel. The military action threatens to unravel the two-week truce before permanent negotiations can begin.For American energy consumers and the broader economy, continued Iranian tolling combined with reduced tanker traffic could maintain upward pressure on oil prices. The standoff also tests Trump's ability to project strength while pursuing diplomatic solutions with Tehran.Watch for whether Iran responds to Trump's ultimatum and if tanker traffic increases in coming days as evidence of the ceasefire's durability.

Iran continues charging fees to oil tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz despite President Trump's Thursday evening warning to stop, as ship traffic through the critical waterway remains far below normal levels following this week's ceasefire agreement.

Only six vessels crossed the strait Thursday — two oil tankers, three cargo ships, and one fuel supply vessel — compared to 11 ships on Tuesday when the ceasefire was announced, according to global tracking firm MarineTraffic. The numbers reveal how the fragile truce has failed to restore normal commercial traffic through the chokepoint that handles roughly 20% of global oil shipments.

"There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait — They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now!" Trump posted on Truth Social Thursday evening. The warning came after maritime intelligence firm Lloyd's List confirmed Iran has been using Larak Island, located miles off Iran's coast, as a tolling stop for tankers during the conflict.

The toll dispute highlights a fundamental contradiction in Trump's approach. Speaking to reporters Monday, the president had floated charging American tolls for strait passage, saying "We have a concept where we'll charge tolls." Now he's demanding Iran cease similar practices that analysts say have been ongoing throughout the war.

Since fighting began February 28, at least 212 oil and chemical tankers have crossed the strait, representing 58% of all vessel traffic. Nearly one-third of those crossings occurred during the first two days of combat. The tanker fleet includes vessels flagged to Panama (43), Iran (37), Liberia (25), and Palau (15), underscoring the international nature of the commercial disruption.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer joined diplomatic pressure on Iran during a Thursday night call with Trump. Speaking from Qatar where he's meeting Gulf leaders, Starmer discussed "the need to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz," according to his spokesperson. The leaders "agreed that now there is a ceasefire in place and agreement to open the Strait, we are at the next stage of finding a resolution."

Trump has repeatedly criticized Starmer throughout the conflict for being too hesitant to provide military assistance, making their alignment on strait access notable. Starmer is working to "convene partners to agree a viable plan" for the waterway, his office said.

The ceasefire's fragility became apparent late Thursday when Israeli forces struck Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, warning that the Iranian-backed group could expand projectile launches across Israel. The military action threatens to unravel the two-week truce before permanent negotiations can begin.

For American energy consumers and the broader economy, continued Iranian tolling combined with reduced tanker traffic could maintain upward pressure on oil prices. The standoff also tests Trump's ability to project strength while pursuing diplomatic solutions with Tehran.

Watch for whether Iran responds to Trump's ultimatum and if tanker traffic increases in coming days as evidence of the ceasefire's durability.

Only six ships crossed Strait of Hormuz Thursday as Trump warns Iran to stop charging tanker fees. British PM Starmer joins calls to restore navigation freedom.

Iran Charges Tanker Fees Despite Trump Warning as Hormuz Traffic Plunges

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., declared President Donald Trump should be removed from office over his handling of the Iran war, joining three other Senate Democrats demanding impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment.&quot;I certainly think the president should be removed,&quot; Kim said Thursday. &quot;I mean, he's unfit for office. I think, the 25th Amendment, and if not, then impeachment.&quot; His comments follow Trump's threat that a &quot;whole civilization will die&quot; unless Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz.Kim joins Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate push. House Democrats have escalated from demanding Congress reassert war powers to outright calls for Trump's ouster, though <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/house-democrat-admits-party-lacks-votes-for-trump-impeachment-push?language_id=1">they lack the votes</a> for impeachment.The political math makes removal virtually impossible. Republicans control both chambers of Congress, rendering impeachment dead on arrival. The 25th Amendment requires an even higher bar: Vice President JD Vance plus a Cabinet majority must declare Trump unfit, followed by two-thirds majorities in both houses.No sitting president has ever been removed via the 25th Amendment, which was designed for cases of genuine incapacity rather than policy disagreements.Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stopped short of impeachment calls but plans his fourth war powers resolution since fighting began in February. The move comes as a <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-iran-enter-talks-on-permanent-deal-after-two-week-ceasefire?language_id=1">fragile two-week ceasefire</a> holds between the U.S. and Iran.The Democratic offensive reflects deep partisan splits over Middle East policy. Trump's supporters argue his tough stance forced Iran to negotiate after decades of regional aggression. Critics contend his rhetoric risked wider conflict that could have drawn in American allies.For American taxpayers, the Iran conflict has already cost billions in military deployments and weapons shipments to regional allies. The war began after Iranian forces targeted U.S. positions in the Gulf, escalating into direct confrontation between the two nations.Watch whether more Senate Democrats join the removal chorus as ceasefire talks continue — and whether Trump's Iran threats resurface if negotiations collapse.

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., declared President Donald Trump should be removed from office over his handling of the Iran war, joining three other Senate Democrats demanding impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment.

"I certainly think the president should be removed," Kim said Thursday. "I mean, he's unfit for office. I think, the 25th Amendment, and if not, then impeachment." His comments follow Trump's threat that a "whole civilization will die" unless Iran reopened the Strait of Hormuz.

Kim joins Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate push. House Democrats have escalated from demanding Congress reassert war powers to outright calls for Trump's ouster, though they lack the votes for impeachment.

The political math makes removal virtually impossible. Republicans control both chambers of Congress, rendering impeachment dead on arrival. The 25th Amendment requires an even higher bar: Vice President JD Vance plus a Cabinet majority must declare Trump unfit, followed by two-thirds majorities in both houses.

No sitting president has ever been removed via the 25th Amendment, which was designed for cases of genuine incapacity rather than policy disagreements.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stopped short of impeachment calls but plans his fourth war powers resolution since fighting began in February. The move comes as a fragile two-week ceasefire holds between the U.S. and Iran.

The Democratic offensive reflects deep partisan splits over Middle East policy. Trump's supporters argue his tough stance forced Iran to negotiate after decades of regional aggression. Critics contend his rhetoric risked wider conflict that could have drawn in American allies.

For American taxpayers, the Iran conflict has already cost billions in military deployments and weapons shipments to regional allies. The war began after Iranian forces targeted U.S. positions in the Gulf, escalating into direct confrontation between the two nations.

Watch whether more Senate Democrats join the removal chorus as ceasefire talks continue — and whether Trump's Iran threats resurface if negotiations collapse.

Sen. Andy Kim becomes fourth Senate Democrat calling for Trump's removal via impeachment or 25th Amendment over Iran conflict, citing 'unfit for office.'

Sen. Kim Joins Growing Dem Push to Remove Trump Over Iran War

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte declared the world is &quot;absolutely&quot; safer than it was five weeks ago because President Trump acted to degrade Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities before Tehran could develop atomic weapons. The former Dutch Prime Minister made the comments Wednesday after meeting with Trump, comparing Iran's situation to North Korea's successful nuclear program.Rutte told CNN that Trump prevented Iran from having its own &quot;North Korea moment&quot; — where endless diplomatic talks dragged on so long that Pyongyang eventually built nuclear bombs before the international community could stop it. The NATO chief backed Trump's Operation Epic Fury strikes, saying the &quot;large majority of NATO allies have been helpful with logistics, basing, overflights&quot; for the mission.&quot;We run the risk that this leads you to the North Korea moment where you talk so long, at a certain moment it's beyond the point where you can still get this done,&quot; Rutte explained. He emphasized that once North Korea obtained nuclear capability, &quot;you cannot negotiate any longer. They have that power.&quot;The NATO leader acknowledged Trump's frustration with alliance members but stressed that NATO understands the stakes. Iran serves as &quot;one of the main enablers of Russia's war effort in Ukraine&quot; through drone supplies and poses &quot;an existential threat to Israel&quot; if it acquires nuclear weapons, Rutte noted.When challenged on whether diplomacy should have been tried instead of military action, Rutte defended the strikes as necessary. &quot;It's great to try and negotiate it away, but we also always knew that with North Korea it took too long,&quot; he said. The NATO chief argued that without Trump's intervention, a nuclear Iran would have created &quot;a big risk for Europe, it's existential for Israel, it's existential for the Middle East.&quot;Rutte praised European allies for recognizing the importance of degrading Iran's capabilities, saying &quot;many in Europe acknowledged and they understand that continuing talking to get this done would have brought us potentially past that moment where you can still deal with it.&quot; The comments represent strong NATO backing for Trump's Iran strategy, following <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-iran-enter-talks-on-permanent-deal-after-two-week-ceasefire?language_id=1">recent ceasefire negotiations</a>.The NATO endorsement comes as Trump seeks to consolidate gains from his Iran operations and negotiate a permanent deal. Rutte's comparison to North Korea underscores the administration's argument that military action succeeded where years of previous diplomatic efforts failed to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte declared the world is "absolutely" safer than it was five weeks ago because President Trump acted to degrade Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities before Tehran could develop atomic weapons. The former Dutch Prime Minister made the comments Wednesday after meeting with Trump, comparing Iran's situation to North Korea's successful nuclear program.

Rutte told CNN that Trump prevented Iran from having its own "North Korea moment" — where endless diplomatic talks dragged on so long that Pyongyang eventually built nuclear bombs before the international community could stop it. The NATO chief backed Trump's Operation Epic Fury strikes, saying the "large majority of NATO allies have been helpful with logistics, basing, overflights" for the mission.

"We run the risk that this leads you to the North Korea moment where you talk so long, at a certain moment it's beyond the point where you can still get this done," Rutte explained. He emphasized that once North Korea obtained nuclear capability, "you cannot negotiate any longer. They have that power."

The NATO leader acknowledged Trump's frustration with alliance members but stressed that NATO understands the stakes. Iran serves as "one of the main enablers of Russia's war effort in Ukraine" through drone supplies and poses "an existential threat to Israel" if it acquires nuclear weapons, Rutte noted.

When challenged on whether diplomacy should have been tried instead of military action, Rutte defended the strikes as necessary. "It's great to try and negotiate it away, but we also always knew that with North Korea it took too long," he said. The NATO chief argued that without Trump's intervention, a nuclear Iran would have created "a big risk for Europe, it's existential for Israel, it's existential for the Middle East."

Rutte praised European allies for recognizing the importance of degrading Iran's capabilities, saying "many in Europe acknowledged and they understand that continuing talking to get this done would have brought us potentially past that moment where you can still deal with it." The comments represent strong NATO backing for Trump's Iran strategy, following recent ceasefire negotiations.

The NATO endorsement comes as Trump seeks to consolidate gains from his Iran operations and negotiate a permanent deal. Rutte's comparison to North Korea underscores the administration's argument that military action succeeded where years of previous diplomatic efforts failed to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says Trump's military strikes prevented Iran from having a 'North Korea moment' where diplomacy fails and nuclear weapons deve

NATO Chief: World 'Absolutely' Safer After Trump Blocked Iran Nuclear Program

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte says Trump's military strikes prevented Iran from having a 'North Korea moment' where diplomacy fails and nuclear weapons develop.

First Lady Melania Trump declared Thursday she &quot;never had a relationship&quot; with deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein or his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, delivering a scripted statement from the White House podium where President Trump <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-iran-enter-talks-on-permanent-deal-after-two-week-ceasefire?language_id=1">addressed the Iran ceasefire</a> last week.&quot;I [have] never been friends with Epstein,&quot; Trump told reporters. &quot;I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump.&quot; The First Lady called on Congress to hold hearings with survivors of Epstein's abuse, though she provided no timeline for such proceedings.Trump acknowledged she and the President attended the same parties as Epstein &quot;from time to time&quot; because &quot;overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach.&quot; She said she first met Epstein in 2000 at a party while dating Donald Trump, when she was known as Melania Knauss.The statement appeared to address Justice Department files released earlier this year containing email exchanges between someone signing as &quot;Melania&quot; and &quot;G. Max.&quot; One October 2002 email with the subject line &quot;HI!&quot; begins &quot;Dear G!&quot; and references &quot;a nice story about JE in NY mag&quot; before asking about travel plans and suggesting a phone call. Maxwell replied she was returning to New York but wouldn't have time to meet, though she would &quot;try and call.&quot;Trump dismissed the correspondence as &quot;casual&quot; and warned Americans to &quot;be cautious about what you believe,&quot; claiming &quot;numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been calculating [sic] on social media for years now.&quot; The emails coincided with a flattering New York Magazine profile of Epstein featuring Maxwell, published October 28, 2002.The First Lady's rare public statement raises questions about what specific accusations prompted her response. She delivered her remarks from the same room Trump uses for major policy announcements, suggesting coordination with the White House communications team.For Americans concerned about government accountability, Trump's call for Congressional hearings with Epstein survivors represents a potential avenue for transparency. However, she offered no specifics about which committees should act or what timeline Congress should follow to make these hearings reality.

First Lady Melania Trump declared Thursday she "never had a relationship" with deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein or his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, delivering a scripted statement from the White House podium where President Trump addressed the Iran ceasefire last week.

"I [have] never been friends with Epstein," Trump told reporters. "I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump." The First Lady called on Congress to hold hearings with survivors of Epstein's abuse, though she provided no timeline for such proceedings.

Trump acknowledged she and the President attended the same parties as Epstein "from time to time" because "overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach." She said she first met Epstein in 2000 at a party while dating Donald Trump, when she was known as Melania Knauss.

The statement appeared to address Justice Department files released earlier this year containing email exchanges between someone signing as "Melania" and "G. Max." One October 2002 email with the subject line "HI!" begins "Dear G!" and references "a nice story about JE in NY mag" before asking about travel plans and suggesting a phone call. Maxwell replied she was returning to New York but wouldn't have time to meet, though she would "try and call."

Trump dismissed the correspondence as "casual" and warned Americans to "be cautious about what you believe," claiming "numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been calculating [sic] on social media for years now." The emails coincided with a flattering New York Magazine profile of Epstein featuring Maxwell, published October 28, 2002.

The First Lady's rare public statement raises questions about what specific accusations prompted her response. She delivered her remarks from the same room Trump uses for major policy announcements, suggesting coordination with the White House communications team.

For Americans concerned about government accountability, Trump's call for Congressional hearings with Epstein survivors represents a potential avenue for transparency. However, she offered no specifics about which committees should act or what timeline Congress should follow to make these hearings reality.

First Lady Melania Trump publicly denied any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, calling emails between them 'casual correspondence.'

Melania Trump Denies Epstein Ties, Calls for Congressional Hearings

Spain accused Israel of violating international law and breaking the fragile US-brokered ceasefire with Iran after Israeli forces launched fresh strikes against targets in Lebanon this week.Spanish officials condemned what they called &quot;the greatest assault on the civilization built upon the humanist ideals of reason, peace, and understanding,&quot; directly challenging Israel's military operations in Lebanese territory. The rebuke comes as the <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-iran-enter-talks-on-permanent-deal-after-two-week-ceasefire?language_id=1">two-week ceasefire</a> shows mounting strain from continued military actions across the region.The Spanish condemnation adds European pressure on Israel just days after the temporary truce took effect. Madrid's sharp language signals growing international concern that the ceasefire framework could collapse entirely if violations continue unchecked.For American taxpayers, Spain's intervention complicates the Trump administration's delicate diplomatic balancing act in the Middle East. The US has invested significant political capital in brokering the Iran ceasefire while maintaining its security commitments to Israel. European allies breaking ranks over Israeli actions could undermine broader Western unity on Iran containment.The timing of Spain's statement puts additional pressure on the ceasefire mechanism at a moment when <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/trump-tells-netanyahu-to-scale-back-lebanon-strikes-to-save-iran-ceasefire?language_id=1">Trump has already urged Netanyahu</a> to scale back Lebanon operations to preserve the fragile truce. Multiple regional powers have accused Israel of sabotaging peace efforts through continued military operations despite the ceasefire framework.Spain's accusation of international law violations carries potential legal implications beyond diplomatic rhetoric. European Union members have increasingly used international legal frameworks to pressure Middle Eastern actors, raising questions about whether coordinated European action could follow.The ceasefire's future now depends on whether the Trump administration can manage competing pressures from European allies demanding restraint and Israeli security concerns driving continued operations. Watch for whether other EU nations follow Spain's lead in publicly condemning Israeli actions.This is a developing story and will be updated.

Spain accused Israel of violating international law and breaking the fragile US-brokered ceasefire with Iran after Israeli forces launched fresh strikes against targets in Lebanon this week.

Spanish officials condemned what they called "the greatest assault on the civilization built upon the humanist ideals of reason, peace, and understanding," directly challenging Israel's military operations in Lebanese territory. The rebuke comes as the two-week ceasefire shows mounting strain from continued military actions across the region.

The Spanish condemnation adds European pressure on Israel just days after the temporary truce took effect. Madrid's sharp language signals growing international concern that the ceasefire framework could collapse entirely if violations continue unchecked.

For American taxpayers, Spain's intervention complicates the Trump administration's delicate diplomatic balancing act in the Middle East. The US has invested significant political capital in brokering the Iran ceasefire while maintaining its security commitments to Israel. European allies breaking ranks over Israeli actions could undermine broader Western unity on Iran containment.

The timing of Spain's statement puts additional pressure on the ceasefire mechanism at a moment when Trump has already urged Netanyahu to scale back Lebanon operations to preserve the fragile truce. Multiple regional powers have accused Israel of sabotaging peace efforts through continued military operations despite the ceasefire framework.

Spain's accusation of international law violations carries potential legal implications beyond diplomatic rhetoric. European Union members have increasingly used international legal frameworks to pressure Middle Eastern actors, raising questions about whether coordinated European action could follow.

The ceasefire's future now depends on whether the Trump administration can manage competing pressures from European allies demanding restraint and Israeli security concerns driving continued operations. Watch for whether other EU nations follow Spain's lead in publicly condemning Israeli actions.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Spain condemned Israeli military strikes in Lebanon, accusing Israel of violating international law and the US-brokered ceasefire with Iran.

Spain Accuses Israel of Breaking International Law with Lebanon Strikes

Senate Republicans will meet with President Trump Friday to craft a party-line budget reconciliation bill that funds Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection for years without a single Democrat vote.The move cuts Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democrats out of immigration funding decisions entirely. Republicans can pass reconciliation bills with just 51 votes, making Democrat opposition irrelevant.Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso and Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham will join Trump at the White House to hammer out the framework. Trump has demanded the bill reach his desk by June 1, giving Republicans a tight timeline.&quot;We're going to have to go it alone because Democrats aren't interested in funding national security at a time of increased concerns around the world,&quot; Barrasso told reporters. Republicans plan to keep the package &quot;targeted&quot; and &quot;focused&quot; to move it quickly.The strategy represents a major shift in how Congress funds border security. Rather than negotiating with Democrats on annual appropriations, Republicans would lock in immigration enforcement funding for multiple years through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process.Republicans face internal coordination challenges. Senate GOP leaders want a narrow bill focused solely on ICE and CBP operations, while some House Republicans push for funding the entire Department of Homeland Security in one massive package.Graham envisions two separate reconciliation bills this year. The first would target immigration enforcement agencies, while a second would tackle GOP priorities including portions of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act and anti-fraud provisions. &quot;We're going to make a down payment on the SAVE Act in reconciliation in the fall,&quot; Graham said Monday on a South Carolina radio show.House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington will not attend Friday's White House meeting, according to sources, potentially signaling the House-Senate divide over scope and strategy.The reconciliation route allows Republicans to bypass the 60-vote threshold that typically gives the minority party leverage over major legislation. Democrats have consistently opposed increased immigration enforcement funding, forcing previous compromises that limited ICE operations.Republicans must first pass a budget resolution establishing the parameters for reconciliation legislation. That process typically takes weeks, putting additional pressure on the June 1 deadline Trump has set.The meeting comes as <a href="https://insiderwire.com/en/news/house-democrat-admits-party-lacks-votes-for-trump-impeachment-push?language_id=1">House Democrats lack support</a> for their own partisan priorities, giving Republicans momentum to advance their immigration agenda unilaterally.Friday's White House session will determine whether Republicans can align their House and Senate strategies quickly enough to meet Trump's ambitious timeline for transforming immigration enforcement funding.

Senate Republicans will meet with President Trump Friday to craft a party-line budget reconciliation bill that funds Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection for years without a single Democrat vote.

The move cuts Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democrats out of immigration funding decisions entirely. Republicans can pass reconciliation bills with just 51 votes, making Democrat opposition irrelevant.

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso and Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham will join Trump at the White House to hammer out the framework. Trump has demanded the bill reach his desk by June 1, giving Republicans a tight timeline.

"We're going to have to go it alone because Democrats aren't interested in funding national security at a time of increased concerns around the world," Barrasso told reporters. Republicans plan to keep the package "targeted" and "focused" to move it quickly.

The strategy represents a major shift in how Congress funds border security. Rather than negotiating with Democrats on annual appropriations, Republicans would lock in immigration enforcement funding for multiple years through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process.

Republicans face internal coordination challenges. Senate GOP leaders want a narrow bill focused solely on ICE and CBP operations, while some House Republicans push for funding the entire Department of Homeland Security in one massive package.

Graham envisions two separate reconciliation bills this year. The first would target immigration enforcement agencies, while a second would tackle GOP priorities including portions of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act and anti-fraud provisions. "We're going to make a down payment on the SAVE Act in reconciliation in the fall," Graham said Monday on a South Carolina radio show.

House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington will not attend Friday's White House meeting, according to sources, potentially signaling the House-Senate divide over scope and strategy.

The reconciliation route allows Republicans to bypass the 60-vote threshold that typically gives the minority party leverage over major legislation. Democrats have consistently opposed increased immigration enforcement funding, forcing previous compromises that limited ICE operations.

Republicans must first pass a budget resolution establishing the parameters for reconciliation legislation. That process typically takes weeks, putting additional pressure on the June 1 deadline Trump has set.

The meeting comes as House Democrats lack support for their own partisan priorities, giving Republicans momentum to advance their immigration agenda unilaterally.

Friday's White House session will determine whether Republicans can align their House and Senate strategies quickly enough to meet Trump's ambitious timeline for transforming immigration enforcement funding.

Senate Republicans will meet with Trump Friday to craft reconciliation bill funding immigration enforcement for years, bypassing Democrat opposition entirely.