And the Interesting Thing is on June 13

Israel Strikes Iranian Nuclear and Military Sites, Threatening Major Regional War and Rattling Global Financial Markets

Early this morning, the Israeli military launched a massive attack on Iran, targeting its nuclear program, military facilities and killing its top two commanders in a devastating large-scale attack that potentially pushed the Middle East into a new war.

Images on Iranian state television showed thick black smoke rising from the area around Natanz, Iran’s largest nuclear site. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog confirmed Natanz had been struck but that there was no increase in radiation levels observed there. Three other nuclear sites—the Fordow, Isfahan, and Bushehr sites—had not been impacted.

According to Reuters, at least 20 senior Iranian commanders—including the head of the revolutionary guards and the armed forces chief of staff—and six nuclear scientists were killed in the attacks.

On his Truth Social platform, President Trump warned Tehran that the next “already planned attacks” on it would be “even more brutal”, adding that “Iran must make a deal on its nuclear program, before there is nothing left”.

In a separate Truth Social post, the said that he had warned Iran that Israel had a “lot” of lethal US-made military equipment “with much more to come — And they know how to use it”. In a later post, he added: “Two months ago I gave Iran a 60-day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it! Today is day 61.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel “should expect a severe punishment”. “The Zionist regime, through this crime, has created a bitter and painful fate for itself — one it will certainly face,” he said. “With God’s permission, the powerful hands of the Islamic republic’s armed forces will not leave it unpunished.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel “struck at the heart of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program”, saying it targeted Natanz, the republic’s “leading nuclear scientist” and its ballistic missile plants. An Israeli military official said the attacks could last for as long as two weeks.

The strikes drew swift condemnation from Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Turkey. Riyadh said the attack violated international laws. The US sought to distance itself from the attack. US secretary of state Marco Rubio said Washington was “not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region”. “Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense,” Rubio added. “Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.”

Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said the strikes could not have happened without a green light from the U.S., adding that Washington, as “the primary supporter” of Israel, was “responsible for the dangerous repercussions of this aggression.” President Trump told The Wall Street journal this morning that he had spoken with Prime Minister Netanyahu Thursday evening and was aware of the impending attacks.

CNN reports that Netanyahu will speak to President Donald Trump later today. Netanyahu spoke to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron, the statement said, adding that the Israeli leader is expected to later speak to Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The United Nations Security Council will meet later today. Reuters reports that Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi requested the meeting in a letter to the 15-member body, saying Israel "has now crossed every red line, and the international community must not allow these crimes to go unpunished."

"Iran reaffirms its inherent right to self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter and will respond decisively and proportionately to these unlawful and cowardly acts," Araghchi wrote.

Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, surged as much as 12.5% before paring back to trade 7% higher at $72.76 a barrel following the strikes, the highest level since early April. Major stock indexes fell in pre-market trading. As of 10:30 EDT Friday morning, the three largest stock indices were down about 1.5%. Gold prices also reached a new monthly high, rising more than 1% to as much as $3,440 an ounce. The price of bitcoin fell almost 1% to less than $105,000. U.S. bond prices were little changed.

And the interesting thing is, the attack came ahead of a sixth round of negotiations on Sunday between the Trump administration and Iran in an effort to resolve the nuclear crisis. Trump said on Thursday that Washington was “fairly close to a pretty good agreement,” adding that he did not want Israel to attack Iran because it could “blow” the chances of a deal. But Netanyahu, who had been lobbying the U.S. to support military action against Iran, said in his statement that Tehran was just stalling. “That is why we have no choice but to act and act now,” Netanyahu said. Perhaps not surprisingly, Iran announced that it will not participate in Sunday’s scheduled talks and until further notice.

Courts Rule on California Troop Deployment, U.S. Senator Forcibly Removed from DHS Press Conference

A federal appeals court granted a temporary reprieve to the Trump Administration, allowing the ongoing deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles to remain in effect despite a lower court ruling that deemed the move illegal and unconstitutional.

Late Thursday night, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer—issued only 2 hours before—that granted a temporary restraining order against the president’s deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles, essentially ordering the president to return command of the Guard to Governor Gavin Newsom. The panel’s decision ensures that the troops will remain under federal authority at least through a hearing scheduled for June 17, where the court will consider whether to continue blocking Breyer’s order or allow it to take effect.

The three-judge appeals panel includes Trump appointees Mark Bennett and Eric Miller and Biden appointee Jennifer Sung. Their swift administrative stay came in response to an urgent request from the Justice Department, which argued that Breyer’s decision amounted to a dangerous erosion of the president’s constitutional powers as commander in chief.

Earlier in the day, Judge Breyer issued a scathing 36-page opinion rejecting the Trump administration’s rationale for deploying the Guard. Citing the president’s invocation of a federal statute meant to suppress rebellions and uphold the rule of law when civilian forces are overwhelmed, Breyer found the justification baseless.

“While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole,” Breyer wrote. “The definition of rebellion is unmet.”

Breyer’s ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Governor Newsom earlier in the week, challenging Trump’s federalization of California’s National Guard troops amid widespread protests over immigration raids. The protests, sparked by intensified Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in the Los Angeles area, have stretched into a sixth day and have remained largely peaceful, though some incidents of violence have been reported.

The judge concluded that these events fell far short of the “rebellion” threshold required for federal military intervention and emphasized the constitutional principle that policing power resides with the states — not the federal government.

“It is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws,” Breyer wrote.

In court filings, the Justice Department justified the deployment by citing the need to maintain law and order amid what they termed “civil unrest,” framing the situation as a potential rebellion under federal law. However, Breyer rejected this characterization outright, ruling that the president could not use the military merely to enhance ICE operations in the face of public protest.

The judge also highlighted that ICE had successfully conducted operations without military support, arresting 44 individuals since the protests began. “Whether ICE could have detained more people in the absence of the protests is mere conjecture,” Breyer wrote, adding that the law only permits federalization of the Guard when the president is “unable” to execute the laws — a threshold not met in this case.

Breyer gave the Trump administration just 18 hours to comply with the ruling—far less than the 48 hours the DOJ had requested—prompting the Justice Department to seek immediate emergency relief from the 9th Circuit.

During the hearing, Judge Bryer had some choice words for the government’s court filing and arguments. “We live in response to a monarch. This country was founded in response to a monarch.” Breyer also forcefully resisted the Justice Department’s contention that Trump’s claim of a potential rebellion is unreviewable by the courts. “That’s the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,” Breyer said. “It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.”

“This is a country that champions the right to free speech and champions the right to redress grievances.”

The governor responded to his short-term win last night, saying in a statement, ““Our success today in court is a win for all Americans. The President’s action to turn the military against its own citizens threatened our democracy and moved us dangerously close to authoritarianism. We will continue to stand up for our democracy and the rights of all Americans. The country is watching.”

Also on Thursday, California’s senior U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D) was shoved, taken to the ground, and briefly handcuffed by federal agents during a Department of Homeland Security press conference held by Secretary Kristi Noem. Padilla attempted to question the Secretary—identifying himself as “Senator Alex Padilla”—but was abruptly restrained. Footage shows him being tackled and handcuffed despite his public identification.

It's worth emphasizing that Sen. Padilla is the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee's panel on immigration, citizenship, and border safety. His oversight responsibilities on matters of immigration enforcement should be obvious.

The DHS defended its actions, characterizing his intervention as “political theater” and claiming he lacked a security pin and resisted orders. White House Press Secretary got the message discipline memo and also attacked the senator on social media. “Democrat Senator Alex Padilla should be ashamed of his childish behavior today,” she wrote on X. “He crashed the middle of an official press conference being held by a cabinet secretary, recklessly lunged toward the podium where Secretary Noem was speaking and then refused to leave the room and follow the directions of law enforcement officers.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson called for the Senate to "censure" Alex Padilla, adding that it is "wildly inappropriate behavior." Earlier, he said the American people “saw a senator acting like a thug.”

“To look at this video and see what happened reeks of totalitarianism,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in floor remarks delivered shortly after the incident. “This is not what democracies do. “It’s despicable. It’s disgusting. It is so un-American, and we need answers. We need answers immediately.”

While much of the public response has fallen along party lines, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) of Alaska said in response to the incident, "It’s horrible. It is shocking at every level. It’s not the America I know.”

“I don't know what preceded it," Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) told reporters, "but it looks like he's being manhandled and physically removed, and it's hard to imagine a justification for that."

And the interesting thing is, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Thursday shows that just 35% of respondents approve of the president’s response to the protests in Los Angeles, with 50% disapproving (and 15% undecided). While 52% of respondents—including one in five Democrats and nine in 10 Republicans—backed the idea of ramping up deportations of people in the country illegally, 49% of people in the poll said Trump had gone too far with his arrests of immigrants. Finally, Americans took a dim view of Trump's threats to arrest Democratic officials like California Governor Gavin Newsom; just 35% of respondents said Trump should order arrests of state and local officials who try to stop federal immigration enforcement.

Congressional Budget Office Reaffirms that One Big Beautiful Bill is a Giant Wealth Transfer from Poor to Rich

In a letter to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle (D-PA), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the top 10 % of earners would, on average, see their incomes rise by $12,000 (or 2.3%) annually if the Senate passes the House version of the president’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” in its current form. Meanwhile, the lowest 10 % would see their resources fall by $1,600 a year, or 3.9% of their income from the bill’s proposed $1.6 trillion in spending cuts—the largest cut in American history.

“The changes [in the bill] would not be evenly distributed among households,” said CBO director Phillip Swagel in the letter. “The agency estimates that, in general, resources would decrease for households towards the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and the top of the income distribution.”

For middle-income households, the bill is projected to increase resources by $500 to $1,000 a year, an increase of less than 1 percent of their income.

And the interesting thing is, a new Quinnipiac University national poll released yesterday found that only 27% of registered voters surveyed support the bill, while 53% oppose (20% have no opinion). Not surprisingly, the bill is overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats (89%) and independents (57%), but in what should be a red flag for GOP leadership, only 2/3 of Republicans support the bill.

The poll found overwhelming support for Medicaid, as 87% of respondents said they oppose cuts to the health care program, while just 10% said federal Medicaid spending should be cut—compared to the 47% that believe that funding should be increased. The House-passed bill would trim $700 billion in Medicaid spending over the next decade and results in millions losing health coverage.

79-Year-Old President of the United States Calls Fed Chair a “Numbskull,” Threatens to do Something to Lower Interest Rates

President Donald Trump intensified his criticism of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell yesterday, calling him a “numbskull” as he ramped up pressure on the central bank to lower interest rates. Trump’s remarks, delivered at the White House on Thursday, reflect his growing frustration with Powell’s reluctance to cut rates despite recent economic data showing moderating inflation.

Trump claimed that reducing interest rates by two percentage points would save the U.S. $600 billion per year. He expressed disbelief that Powell has refused to act, stating, “We’re going to spend $600 billion a year, $600 billion because of one numbskull that sits here and says ‘I don’t see enough reason to cut the rates now.’”

While Trump acknowledged that raising rates would be appropriate if inflation were rising, he insisted that inflation is down and hinted that he “may have to force something.” His comments came just hours after the Labor Department reported that U.S. producer prices rose less than expected in May

Trump’s attack on Powell was the third in two days by members of his administration. On Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick went to the administration’s favorite hangout—Fox News—and criticized Powell, accusing him of being “asleep at the wheel,” and arguing that cutting rates would provide significant economic benefits. Vice President JD Vance also weighed in, calling the Fed’s refusal to lower rates “monetary malpractice” in a post on X.

And the interesting thing is, despite these criticisms, markets remained largely unmoved by Trump’s remarks. Traders have priced in virtually no chance of a rate cut following the Fed’s upcoming meeting, though expectations for a September cut have increased slightly. For his part, Chairman Powell has said that the law does not permit the president to fire him, and the Supreme Court ruled in May that Fed governors have more protection against termination than other federal agency heads.

That’s all for today. See you back here again tomorrow!