SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Fannie Lou Hamer in 1971
Further

Telling It Like It Is

In a devastating blow to what John Lewis called “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy,” a right-wing, illegitimate SCOTUS finally gutted the Voting Rights Act they’ve long been chipping away at, ensuring communities of color will increasingly be denied “a voice in their own destiny.” By striking down a new Louisiana voting map as a bogus “racial gerrymander,” the court’s extremist hacks betrayed generations who fought and bled, said Fannie Lou Hamer, “to live as decent human beings.”

The court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais kneecapped “our nation’s most important federal civil rights law," effectively voiding the last remaining provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 that allowed voters of color to legally challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps. Specifically, they rejected Louisiana's redrawn 2024 Congressional map that created a second majority-Black district - in a one-third Black state - aimed at righting the GOP’s racist wrongs of the past, defying precedent, context and common sense to argue the move, already upheld by two courts, was ”an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.“

In another outlandish opinion, Samuel Alito, the hackiest of a cabal of hacks, didn’t directly strike down Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race; writing for the majority, he argued he was simply “properly” re-interpreting it to require proof of intentional discrimination - which Congress didn’t write into the law, which defies past rulings that redistricting must only result in discrimination, intended or no, and which is almost impossible to prove. Thus, wielding “sleight of hand and legal gibberish,” did Alito give license for corrupt politicians to further rig the system by silencing entire communities of color.

The potential death knoll for a vital law that's curtailed racial gerrymandering and discrimination for 60 years comes, of course, after years of whittling away by Roberts Court zealots, using tactics from voter ID laws to limiting registration. One advocate: "This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more seats they (could) win at the ballot box." One "pernicious" result, writes Rick Hasen: To "bleach the halls" of Congress, state legislatures and city councils, the life's work of judges who see their constituency as aggrieved white men hostile to the rights of minorities - a stance that puts them "at odds with democracy itself."

In a fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan charged the majority “straight-facedly holds the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders." The law they “eviscerate", she wrote, "is - or, now more accurately, was - one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history. It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers, and repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed - not the Members of this Court.”

Above all, critics decry the hubris and perfidy of those heedless Court members blithely stripping from millions of Americans the elemental rights so many of their descendants struggled, suffered and died for. The Rev. William Barber eviscerated a court, ignorant of the painful history of "the rights that cost our people so much," that has "decided their job is to enable extremism and systemic racism by arguing that race has no place in the American Democratic process. Race has always had a place in the process. And claiming that partisan decisions are not racist is a form of racism." "Some of us," John Lewis humbly noted of his lifetime of good trouble, "gave a little blood for (that) right."

John Lewis called the fight for voting rights "the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes." John Lewis called the fight for voting rights "the struggle of a lifetime, or maybe even many lifetimes."Photo from Getty Archives

So did Fannie Lou Hamer, who fought against a Jim Crow South she'd grown up in because, "I was sick and tired of being sick and tired." The granddaughter of slaves and youngest of 20 children of sharecroppers, she was 45 in 1962 when she went to a SNCC meeting at a church in Sunflower County, Mississippi and learned Black people could register to vote. The next day, she took a bus with 17 others to the county seat in Indianola. Police only let her and another person take the literacy test; she failed, but kept going back until she passed: "If I'd had any sense, I’d a been scared. But the only thing (whites) could do was kill me, and it seemed they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time since I could remember."

On the way back, police stopped them and brought them back to Indianola, where the bus driver was fined for "driving a bus the wrong color." Back at the plantation, her children said the owner was angry she'd gone to vote; he told her to leave that night "because we are not ready for that in Mississippi." "I didn’t try to register for you," she said.. "I tried to register for myself." Then she left: "They set me free. It’s the best thing that could happen. Now I could work for my people." For the rest of her life, she did. She joined the voter registration campaign, helped organize Freedom Summer, became SNCC's oldest field secretary, ran for Congress.

Left with a limp after surviving childhood polio, she embraced her identity as a Black working-poor woman with a disability and little formal education, upending preconceptions of both Black colleagues and white foes. When Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. once challenged her expertise, she retorted, "How many bales of cotton have you picked?” In 1963, she became more disabled after she was arrested with other activists in Winona MS, taken to jail and brutally beaten by cops and, on their order, other black prisoners, suffering permanent damage to her eyes, legs and kidneys. She was still in jail when Medger Evers was murdered.

In August 1964, she recounted that ordeal at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, days after the funerals of murdered Freedom Riders Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Testifying to the Credentials Committee, she challenged the seating of Mississippi's all-white delegation - from still-all-white primaries - demanding the party seat Black members of an integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party she'd helped found. In the end, MFDP delegates were not seated - party leaders offered a compromise of 2 seats, which she declined - but she had confronted them on a national stage about their own discrimination, famously asking, "Is this America?"

- YouTube www.youtube.com

During Hamer's testimony, then-president Lyndon Johnson had hastily called a news conference to divert attention for white Dem voters alarmed by her insistence on true equality. Cameras duly cut away from Hamer, but networks later showed her speech. "Hamer had pulled back the curtain," read one account. "The United States could not claim to be a democracy while withholding voting rights from millions of its citizens." Ultimately, Hamer's inclusive political vision, along with a groundswell of civil rights activism, led to Johnson's finally signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ensuring government could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.”

Hamer remained active through the 1960s and 1970s. She spoke with Malcolm X in Harlem, at the '68 and '72 DNC, at 1969's Vietnam War Moratorium rally in Berkeley. In 1971, she helped found the National Women's Political Caucus, aimed at recruiting, training and supporting women to run for office. The titles of her speeches reflected her resolve, her anger, her fierce hope: "We're On Our Way," "Nobody’s Free Until Everybody’s Free,” "The Only Thing We Can Do Is Work Together," ""What Have We To Hail," "America Is A Sick Place," "To Make Democracy A Reality," and, in 1976, "We Haven't Arrived Yet."

Clearly, sorrowfully, we damn sure still haven't. Unlike so many others, Hamer lived to do her work and tell her story, for a while. She died in Mississippi on March 14, 1977, aged just 59, of breast cancer exacerbated by high blood pressure, diabetes, and complications from her jail beatings. She died, too, "from being poor, Black, and an activist in Mississippi at a time when all of that was lethal." Andrew Young gave her eulogy, telling mourners "the seeds of social change in America were sown here by the sweat and blood of you and Fannie Lou Hamer." Then they sang her favorite song: “This little light of mine." Her gravestone reads, "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired." May we honor her labors, and may she rest in well-earned peace and power.

“The wrongs and the sickness of this country have been swept under the rug. But I’ve come out from under the rug, and I’m going to tell it like it is.” - Fannie Lou Hamer

"To the Justices Who Took What Others Bled For: History will have its say. But so will the bridge. So will the blood on the pavement. So will the people who were told to wait, then beaten for praying, then buried for believing the Constitution meant what it said....You’ll wear this shame for the rest of your lives." - Derek Penwell

SEE ALL
Greenpeace Spain activists displayed a giant image of US President Donald Trump vomiting oil
News

'No Oil, No War': Trump's Attack on Iran Condemned Ahead of Global Climate Summit

On the eve of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Colombia, Greenpeace Spain activists roughly 5,000 miles away unveiled an image of US President Trump vomiting oil into a black-stained fountain in Madrid's Plaza de Colón with a banner declaring, "No Oil, No War."

"We are saying no to oil and war!" said Greenpeace Spain climate and energy campaigner Pedro Zorrilla Miras in a Thursday statement. "Current conflicts prove that moving away from fossil fuels is an urgent necessity for security, well-being, and the climate."

Since returning to power last year with help from the fossil fuel industry, Trump has spent his second term attacking already inadequate US climate policies and trying to deliver on his promise to "drill, baby, drill," despite the harm that causes to the planet and its inhabitants.

After sending in US troops to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as part of an effort to take over the country's nationalized oil industry in January, Trump, alongside Israeli forces, began bombing Iran in February. Although there is now a fragile ceasefire in place, Iran responded to the US-Israeli attack by restricting ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route, including for fertilizer and fossil fuels.

As fuel prices have soared, green groups—including Greenpeace—have called for a permanent end to the US and Israel's assault on Iran, a windfall profits tax for fossil fuel giants that have cashed in on the conflict, and making "food and energy secure for all." They have also argued that the war highlights the need for a just shift away from oil and gas.

"Instead of war, ending our reliance on fossil fuels is our best possible defense," said Zorrilla Miras. "That is why governments must show leadership at the Santa Marta conference to accelerate a just transition away from fossil fuels. We are calling for clear and ambitious action from Spain that matches its rhetoric and embraces pathways that show Spain can achieve a 99% decarbonization rate by 2040."

"Fossil fuel dependence is exposing countries to volatile global markets, where conflict, disruption, and political tensions rapidly translate into higher energy, food, and transport prices," the campaigner continued. "The Santa Marta summit is therefore a key political moment for leaders to progress the delivery of energy systems that are affordable, stable, and resilient in an increasingly uncertain world."

Colombia and the Netherlands are co-hosting the summit, which is set to run from Friday to Wednesday and is "intended to support practical action by those already prepared to move forward," according to organizers. "It does not seek to deliver a negotiated outcome, but rather to generate shared understanding and actionable guidance that can help accelerate a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels."

Standing on top of and around the visual of puking Trump in Madrid, Greenpeace activists carried signs calling for such a transition. The messages included: "Renewables, Power, Peace" in English, "No Oil, No War" in Portuguese, and "For a world free of fossil fuels" in Spanish.

A Greenpeace Spain activist holds a sign that says "For a world free of fossil fuels" in Spanish during a protest in Madrid on April 23, 2026. (Photo by Pablo Blazquez/Greenpeace)

"In the midst of a fossil fuel-driven energy crisis, the Santa Marta meeting offers light on the horizon," said Greenpeace International climate politics expert Tracy Carty. "Rather than prolonging exposure to volatile and conflict-prone fossil fuels, governments must use this moment to accelerate a just transition to renewable energy that protects people from price shocks and builds long-term stability."

"The coalition of committed states coming together in Santa Marta has the potential to spark bolder national action and international cooperation," she noted. "That requires the development of national roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels, including ambitious renewable energy targets, and to scale up predictable, accessible, and affordable climate finance to support developing countries in delivering a just transition."

SEE ALL
Analilia Mejia Swear In
News

To End 'New Gilded Age,' House Progressives Unveil Bill to Raise Federal Minimum Wage to $25 Per Hour

A pair of progressive Democrats unveiled a bill on Tuesday that would raise the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour, considered the bare minimum a single adult needs to meet the cost of living in much of the US.

The Living Wage For All Act is the first bill to be introduced by the newly sworn-in Rep. Analilia Mejía (D-NJ), who won a special election earlier this month after helping to lead the fight for a $15 minimum wage in her home state of New Jersey.

Citing data from MIT's Living Wage Calculator, the Living Wage For All campaign backing the legislation argues that $25/hour is needed for a single adult in most parts of the country to afford basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare.

As the cost of living has skyrocketed over the past decade and a half, the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $7.25 and hour since 2009.

"This is unacceptable," Mejía said. "We need an economy that reflects the realities of 2026, not one stuck over a decade ago."

The bill is cosponsored by Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants who, she said, worked multiple minimum-wage jobs just to get by.

“I remember being in the fourth grade, and my mom talked about her job, and she was getting paid $4.75 an hour,” the 42-year-old congresswoman said during a press conference on Capitol Hill Tuesday. “Yet the federal minimum wage is barely $7.25, many years later.”

"Today, as we think about companies reporting record high earnings, working people are still struggling to survive," she said. "People are working full-time jobs and still cannot afford to live."

A USA TODAY survey from January found that around 40% of workers say their paychecks have not grown enough to meet the rising cost of living, which has been further exacerbated by spiking inflation caused by President Donald Trump's erratic tariff regime and war in Iran. Another survey conducted by Resume Now in April found that about half of workers fear their wages will never catch up to the cost of living.

While some states and cities have gradually raised their minimum wages above the federal level and have seen modest declines in poverty as a result, none have been raised to the point of being considered a living wage.

The bill introduced by Mejía and Ramirez would similarly phase in its increase to the federal minimum wage over more than a decade, with larger employers leading the transition.

Companies with more than $1 billion gross revenue or more than 500 employees would be scheduled to increase their minimum pay to $25/hour by 2031, while smaller employers would be on a longer timeline to reach $25/hour by 2038.

To ensure wages don’t lag again in the following years, the bill also requires the minimum wage to automatically grow each year to reach the equivalent of two-thirds the national median hourly wage. It also eliminates the subminimum wage, which is paid to tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities.

The bill is almost certainly dead on arrival in a Republican-controlled Congress. Even if Democrats retake both chambers come November, it would likely face an uphill battle to pass.

In 2021, the last time Democrats had a governing trifecta, eight centrist members of the Democratic caucus killed an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to include a $15/hour minimum wage in then-President Joe Biden's post-Covid budget reconciliation package, the American Rescue Plan.

But as Democrats seek to address rising fears about America's "affordability" crisis, Saru Jayaraman, the president of One Fair Wage, said politics are starting "to catch up to reality."

"Across the country—from California to the Midwest to the East Coast—workers are organizing for $25 and $30 because that is what it takes to live," she said. "The polling shows this is not just popular, it is necessary."

“We cannot talk about affordability without talking about what people are paid,” added Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union.

More than 20 Democrats have signed onto the bill as cosponsors, including Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

The effort is being spearheaded by the Living Wage For All Coalition, a national collective of labor unions, civil rights groups, and other economic justice organizations that are simultaneously pushing legislation to adopt a living wage in states like New York, Illinois, and Maryland, and municipalities such as Los Angeles and Washington, DC.

April Verrett, the international president of the Service Employees International Union, which has more than 2 million members across North America, said that “the introduction of the Living Wage for All Act is a powerful testament to the worker-led movement that is forcing a new baseline for livable wages.”

SEE ALL
After Mills Exit, Platner Vows to Defeat Collins With 'Movement of Working Mainers'
News

After Mills Exit, Platner Vows to Defeat Collins With 'Movement of Working Mainers'

Graham Platner, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for the US Senate in Maine, delivered a preview of his general election pitch to voters on Thursday hours after his top primary rival, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, suspended her campaign.

Speaking to supporters in Augusta, Platner characterized his Senate bid as part of a broader effort to restore power to working-class Americans who for decades have been beaten down by big money interests.

"The race has never really been about me or any one person," said Platner. "It's about a movement of working Mainers who are fed up with being robbed by billionaires and the politicians who own them. We are now taking back our power."

Platner vowed to defeat incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), but he said the ultimate goal is to "start tearing down the system that, for too long, has forgotten and written off the people who make Maine and this country what it is."

Platner was joined by several Maine Democrats who were on hand to endorse his Senate bid.

Maine state Sen. Mike Tipping (D-08) said Platner must be elected to the US Senate because Collins "betrayed the people she was elected to serve."

Tipping warned that defeating Collins won't be easy because "we're about to see an ungodly amount of money spent in Maine, hundreds of millions of dollars more than ever before, and we're going to be flooded with ads."

Rather than being intimidated by the flood of corporate cash in the race, Tipping said that "we should get angrier every time we see, during the nightly news, or during a baseball game, or in the middle of a YouTube video, one of those ads, because we should remember that they were paid for by selling out Maine people."

Maine state Rep. Nina Milliken (D-16) said that Platner is "the type of leader that we don't see often enough," in part because "he understands that the path forward isn't about dropping to our knees for powerful people."

"At a moment when our democracy is under considerable strain," continued Milliken, "we need leaders who are willing to be clear about what's at stake. The answer to rising authoritarianism is not moderate half-measures or Band-Aids on severed limbs. It's building a movement that actually delivers for the people, one that's grounded in fairness, dignity, and economic justice."

While powerful national Democrats had backed Mills' candidacy in the primary, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) endorsed Platner shortly after the Maine governor suspended her campaign.

“After years of allowing Trump’s abuses of power, Senator Collins has never been more vulnerable,” they said, “and we will work with the presumptive Democratic nominee Graham Platner to defeat her.”

SEE ALL
''Journalism is not a crime'' rally in New York
News

US Falls to Lowest-Ever Rank on Press Freedom Index as Trump Pours 'Gasoline on the Fire'

Reporters Without Borders warned Thursday that the United States is facing a "press freedom crisis" as President Donald Trump and his subordinates wage an aggressive assault on the media that has included threats of treason charges and imprisonment against journalists.

The Trump administration's active disdain for press freedom has pushed the US to its lowest-ever rank on Reporters Without Borders' (RSF) World Press Freedom Index, which ranks countries based on numerous indicators including legal protections for journalists, reporter safety, and overall political hostility toward the press. The US landed at 64th out of 180 countries on the latest version of the index, falling seven spots compared to last year.

"The US has experienced a steady decline in the RSF Index over the past decade, but President Trump is pouring gasoline on the fire," said Clayton Weimers, executive director of RSF's North America section. "Trump and his administration have carried out a coordinated war on press freedom since the day he took office, and we will live with the consequences for years to come."

"The index shows that this decline is measurable and ongoing, but preventable," Weimers added. "Our message is clear: Protect legal rights, ensure accountability for attacks on media professionals, and support independent media to restore American press freedom."

RSF specifically cites Trump's efforts to dismantle public broadcasters, weaponization of government agencies to punish media outlets and figures critical of his administration, and lawsuits against "disfavored outlets" as factors contributing to the erosion of press freedom in the US.

The index also points to rising violence against journalists during Trump's second term in the White House. "According to the US Press Freedom Tracker," RSF notes, "there were more than 170 attacks on journalists in 2025, nearly double the previous year, driven by an increase in violence against journalists while covering protests and law enforcement activity."

The precipitous decline of press freedoms in the US comes in the context of growing attacks on and criminalization of journalism worldwide. For the first time in the 25-year history of RSF's index, more than half of the world's countries currently fall in the "difficult" or "very serious" categories for press freedoms.

The country that ranked last on the index for 2026 was Eritrea, a nation that is "sadly notorious for detaining journalists longer than any other country in the world," said RSF.

Norway ranked first on this year's index, with RSF praising the country's "robust" legal safeguards for press freedom, "vibrant" media market, and "extensive editorial independence" for publishing companies.

Anne Bocandé, RSF's editorial director, said that "current protection mechanisms" for journalism worldwide "are not strong enough" to withstand escalating attacks by "authoritarian states, complicit or incompetent political powers, predatory economic actors, and underregulated online platforms."

"How much longer will we tolerate the suffocation of journalism, the systematic obstruction of reporters and the continued erosion of press freedom?" Bocandé asked. "The ball is in the court of democracies and their citizens. It is up to them to stand in the way of those who seek to silence the press. The spread of authoritarianism isn’t inevitable."

SEE ALL
TOPSHOT-US-CONGRESS-HEGSETH-CAINE-WAR-IRAN-ISRAEL
News

61% of Americans See Trump's Iran War as 'Mistake', Far Outpacing Disapproval of Vietnam and Iraq: Poll

More than 6 in 10 Americans now say President Donald Trump's war in Iran was a "mistake," according to a poll out Friday from the Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos.

Within two months, the war—which has inflicted thousands of civilian deaths and caused gas prices to spike worldwide with little tangible gain—has reached levels of unpopularity that previous wars now seen as historic boondoggles took years to reach.

The Post has asked the "mistake" for other major wars. But CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake explained: "In Iraq, it took more than three years to reach that high. In Vietnam, it took six years."

Despite a massive protest movement, voters overwhelmingly supported President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with 81% believing it was the "right thing" in April 2003 and just 16% believing it was a mistake.

But the occupation turned into a long, deadly, and costly disaster, and the administration's pretexts for the war were revealed to be lies. Public opinion steadily eroded to the point where 64% viewed it as a mistake by January 2007.

Vietnam never had the overwhelming support of Iraq, but 60% of Americans still supported President Lyndon Johnson's decision to begin direct US military involvement in 1965, while just 24% said it was a mistake.

While the protest movement against the war is as present in Americans' memories today as the conflict itself, public opinion was still split until 1968 and only reached a high of 61% in May 1971, after more than 50,000 US soldiers had been killed in battle.

Trump's war in Iran is unique in history in that it never enjoyed even a moment of consensus support. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll just days after the opening salvo of what the Trump administration dubbed "Operation Epic Fury," just 27% said they approved of the strikes, which killed 555 Iranians, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other top Iranian officials.

At this point, 43% of Americans already said they disapproved of the strikes, far eclipsing Iraq and Vietnam. But 30% still said they had not yet made up their minds.

In the coming months, they would. It was revealed that an airstrike on a school, which killed at least 155 people, including 120 children, was a double-tap attack by the United States. Iran retaliated by blocking oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which sent US gas prices hurtling above $4 per gallon. And Trump took on an increasingly erratic and at times outright genocidal posture toward Iran that made any peaceful resolution appear increasingly impossible, even with the current fragile ceasefire.

Friday's poll shows that while the war still maintains a core base of support—36% of Americans who say it was the right decision, nearly all of them Republicans—it is dwarfed by the 61% who say it was a mistake.

Majorities of respondents across all demographics show that they believe the war has increased the risks of "terrorism against Americans" (61%), "the US economy going into a recession" (60%), and "weakening relationships with US allies." (56%)

Looking beneath the surface shows an even more worrying sign for Trump: The war has almost no constituency outside of his biggest fans. Self-identified Democrats (91%) overwhelmingly say the war was a mistake. But 71% of independents—many of whom were undecided at the war's outset—now disapprove too, with just 24% in support.

Even within the GOP, there is a decisive split: 86% of those who self-identify as "MAGA Republicans" are still baying for blood. But "non-MAGA Republicans" have grown uncertain—50% still say war was the right decision, while 49% say it was a mistake.

They were particularly rattled by Trump's threat last month that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran did not negotiate a deal to his liking. The threat of genocide was too much even for the majority of Republicans, 53% of whom said they viewed it negatively.

What remains to be seen is whether even Trump's most faithful backers will turn against the war as it drags on. If Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's appearance in Congress on Thursday is any guide, the country may soon find out.

On Thursday, when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) pressed Hegseth about why he has "not sought the support of the American people" and added that "3 out of 5 Americans are against this war today," he appeared in abject denial about the war's unpopularity.

"I believe we do have the support of the American people," he said. "I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort, and many congressional Democrats want to declare defeat two months in."

He specifically invoked lengthy past conflicts, repeatedly emphasizing that this one had only lasted "two months," as if to urge patience with a war Trump had previously said was intended to last only "four to five weeks."

"Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with," he said.

"This is different," he said of a war that has—depending on the day—been described as one aimed at regime change in Iran, defending protesters, destroying its nuclear program, eliminating its ballistic missile supply, taking its oil, defending Israel, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, among other objectives.

SEE ALL