SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Our latest senseless illegal war against brown people, born of ever-shifting lies and fought by the sons of the blithe un-rich, is Trump's ultimate Wag-the-Dog distraction from his crimes, failures and pedophilia at home. Having oafishly declared the Iran regime “a vicious group of very hard, terrible people” - pot/kettle if you add "inept"- his "warriors" are now being told this is "part of God's divine plan," with The Rapture imminent (after killing more schoolgirls.) One sage: "It's a good thing Congress isn't alive to see this."
Leave it to "the world's most famous bone-spur patient," Board of Peace chair, recipient of a fake FIFA peace prize and pilfered real Peace Prize, cornered serial sexual predator facing exposure and pathological liar who vowed "no new wars" while attacking seven nations in a year to launch "the dumbest war in US history" - a tough competition - and the biggest US military operation in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell et al at least tried for months to justify with a pack of lies before making "the worst foreign policy decision in history." Trump: Hold my Coke. Experts have long warned that with his hubris, thin skin, historical ignorance and affinity for heedless demolition of buildings, customs, laws, credibility, he could wreak the most havoc in foreign affairs, where his power is most unbridled - especially now, as he grows increasingly desperate and dangerous.
Thus, having amassed a vast arsenal of US weaponry in the Persian Gulf, did he launch our current "national obscenity." Ever presidential, he did it in a sober, cogent speech at a White House lectern with all the gravity the occasion called for. Kidding: He did it in a histrionic 2:30 a.m post on his crappy platform from his golf bordello after a $1-million-a-plate fundraiser - cue cringe robotic dancing to God Bless the USA - and a bellicose, garbled speech, his face smeared in make-up beneath a tacky baseball cap?! Later, the White House released a photo of a hastily assembled War Room with black drapes around it and some guy peeking in - looking for the omelette bar? Observers: "Looks secure to me," "Looks like the Goodman wedding reception had to be moved," "These clowns seriously started WW lll from a blanket fort at a shitty golf club?!" and, "This is not how democracies go to war."
But we just did - with no (Constitutionally mandated) approval from Congress, no (historically obligatory) public debate, over the objections of his own intelligence agencies and against the wishes of 80% of Americans, including his own base. In a slurred, spurious, deeply Orwellian speech, he "upended half a century of US foreign policy" by proclaiming the $1-billion-a-day-but-who needs-groceries-or-health care Operation Epic Fury (presumably named by a 12-year-old minion), which he randomly called "the single greatest chance for the Iranian people to take back their Country." Citing zero evidence, he said many of Iran’s soldiers "no longer want to fight," are "looking for Immunity from us," and hope to "peacefully merge with Iranian Patriots (to) bring back the Country to Greatness" (like ravaged America) to "achieve our objective of PEACE THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST AND, INDEED, THE WORLD!” Because, bless his moronic heart, nobody ever thought of regime change before.
The world's worst negotiator moved to set the Middle East on fire after walking away from ongoing, reportedly promising talks in which Iran had already made concessions; given the regime's "stupefyingly overt corruption," they included bribes to a deeply unqualified Kushner and Witkoff. Trump's Very Serious, deep-dive analysis: "We were having negotiations with these lunatics, but it was my opinion they were going to attack first." So he did. The death toll in a swiftly spreading conflagration is now over 1,000, including at least six US service members. Gruesomely but not surprisingly, one of the first strikes hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in southern Iran, killing an estimated 170 girls aged seven to 12. In a searing video of the carnage - woe to the murderers of little children - a distraught man stands amidst bloodied books, bodies, backpacks and shouts, "This was a school and they came to study."
Also killed the first day was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and dozens of military commanders - so many, in a sign of Trump's famed proficiency, that he told news outlets he'd had a "beautiful plan" and several candidates for Iran’s new leadership but, oops, "They're all dead." There were other miscalculations. Despite his sanguine gibberish about PEACE, Tehran vowed to unleash "devastating blows" and the intact, powerful, heavily armed, fanatically loyal Revolutionary Guard, showing no interest in laying down their arms or ideology, warned of "a severe, decisive and regret-inducing punishment” of their killers. As in Iraq and everywhere else and one more time, a historian notes, regime change through bombing has never been successful: "Regimes are networks, (and) when an external power kills a leader, networks often consolidate, not fragment. Successors emerge, as do Martyr narratives."
As to the US, what has yet to emerge is a long-term plan, a lucid rationale for the mayhem. They throw spaghetti at the wall, offering wildly shifting goals, timelines, narratives, excuses of "imminent threat" so flimsy they'd be laughable if not lethal. They want to "destroy Iran’s missile capability," "annihilate their navy,” halt their regional hegemony, stop them from building nuclear weapons US intelligence insists are over 10 years away. Trump babbles: He wants "freedom for the people,” Iran "just wanted to practice evil," we have to "get rid of their whole group of killers and thugs," and they blocked his 2020 re-election. He really did "obliterate” their nuclear program in June but "we found they were in a totally different site - totally different, so it was just time.” One analyst: "The lack of any coherent message seems to suggest the lack of any coherent objective." Robert Reich: "He has no fucking clue what he’s doing."
Bizarrely, Trump's reportedly calling journalists to workshop objectives and timelines: 2 or 3 days, four to five weeks? More bizarrely - is it possible? - suddenly-anti-war MTG charges the regime, deep in "the same old bullshit," is even polling voters to ask how many casualties they'd accept: "How about ZERO you bunch of sick fucking liars." Meanwhile, MAGA struggles to define the debacle they've birthed. In a few head-spinning minutes, Mike Johnson claimed Iran "declared war on us," insisted "we're not at war," and clumsily pivoted to, "a very, umm, specific, clear mission, an operation." Enraged Dems were more forthright. Ruben Gallego: "Trump ran on exposing pedophiles and stopping wars, (and) is now protecting pedophiles and starting wars.” Chris Murphy on a vanity war "nobody in this country is asking for: "It won’t be the billionaire children of Trump and his buddies that die." Steve Schmidt, likewise bitter: They'll have "died to change the subject from child rape."
In greasy contrast, dry-drunk war-mongerer, preening macho cartoon, and "colossus of incompetence and extremism" Pete Kegsmith yammers about "our warriors fully unleashed to achieve our objectives, on our terms, with maximum authorities." Also "iron fist," "true force multiplier," "hitting them surgically, overwhelmingly" while seeking "off-ramps and escalations (to) execute what we need" with, "No apologies. No hesitation. Epic fury." What an epic asshole. He snarled at a presser with right-wing hacks: "Why would we tell you - you, the enemy, anybody - what we will or will not do?" He went full psychopath in another, braying of "death and destruction from the sky all day long" and "rules of engagement (that) are bold, precise, and designed to unleash American power. We are punching them while they are down." Also, "War is hell." Though Sherman added, "It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation."
A Christian nationalist, Crusades fan-boy and sexist xenophobe who attends Bible study and Pentagon prayer services, Hegseth is a vital force in an explosive push to enshrine brimstone-breathing - and unconstitutional - Christian fundamentalism in America's military. Thus is our new war of choice being feverishly sold, not as a ploy to distract from Epstein, ICE, inflation etc but as a Biblically-sanctioned holy crusade toward a devoutly-to-be-wished End Times. Or in the more skeptical words of The Fucking News, "Jesus Christ, They Drafted Jesus Christ To Fight Iran." Since the Iran attacks, reports Jonathan Larsen, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has logged over 200 complaints from 50 bases of every military branch about commanders telling troops this is "all part of God’s divine plan," with Trump improbably "anointed" to bring the Rapture, Armageddon and the return of Christ to recreate a white, straight, Republican, gated-community America.
Larson reports one Christian NCO wrote on behalf of 15 troops of multiple faiths, all rejecting the call to embrace a nihilistic, Revelation-based worldview. "This is not what my faith is for," he wrote, "and this is not what my uniform is for." MRFF head Mikey Weinstein, an Air Force and Reagan White House veteran, said he's been "inundated" by calls with "one damn thing in freaking common" - complaints about "the unrestricted euphoria" of commanders urging troops to accept their fundamentalist theology. Declares Weinstein, "Any military (pushing) their blood-soaked, Christian nationalist wet dreams upon the flames of this latest non-Congressionally sanctioned attack against Iran should be swiftly, aggressively and visibly prosecuted." Adds Dean Blundell, raised Evangelical, on a "crusade of low-IQ warriors": "If history has taught us one goddamn thing, it’s that holy wars don’t end when the true believers say they will. They end when there’s nothing left to burn."
Alas, in the case of this ill-conceived holy war, true believers may be embarking not just with epic fury, an iron fist and a blanket fort but irreparably clogged toilets. Adding a surreal twist to an already dark tale of Christofascist empire-building, new reports describe toilet lines of up to 45 minutes for 4,500 sailors on the world's most advanced warship, the US Navy's $13-billion, nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, now facing what are politely termed "significant sanitation challenges" as it idles in the Persian Gulf. The ship's vacuum-based sewage system has long been plagued by repeated failures and lack of maintenance, but the latest breakdown of many of its 650 toilets may be the final straw for sailors already weary from an extended, 8-month deployment; after Trump's illegal Venezuela assault/kidnapping, they were ordered to go straight to his illegal Iran air strikes/mass murder. Some have posted gross videos of flooding shit; reads one, "Join the Navy, they said."
Still, their Commander-In-Chief says everything's swell. "It's going to go pretty quickly," he announced of the widening chaos in the Middle East. "We're way ahead of schedule." Experts warn the Iran war, coupled with the shift of national security resources to immigration, raises the risk of terrorism; says veteran and Rep. Jason Crow, "It just shot through the roof. But Trump just bragged about the "exciting times," and asked how he'd rate the success of the war on a scale of one to ten, he said he'd give it "about a fifteen." As to the likely growing casualties from his "noble mission," he's shruggingly said, "That's the way it is." Talk about epic fury: See the response from Kendall Brown, whose husband is on the USS Gerald Ford. "If you voted for this, I fucking hate you," she says in a now-viral video. "If you still support this, you are a monster."
"America is strong because its leaders are strong. President Trump proves that every day," reads a DraftBarron website by South Park's Toby Morton. "Naturally, his son Barron is more than ready to defend the country his father so boldly commands. Service is honor. Strength is inherited. Dog Bless Barron." Arguing, "Leadership starts somewhere," it offers the loving testimonial from his dad, "People come up to me, with tears in their eyes, and they say, ‘Sir, you’re the strongest. Send Barron off to war.’" For now, Operation What Now lurches on. Trump reportedly bombed Iran because "he had a feeling, based on fact." Melania explained how to achieve "enduring peace." Oil prices quickly spiked, and millions were stranded after airports and sea lanes shut down. Because we are the most exceptional, can-do country on earth, the State Department's Office of Overseas Citizens Services hotline was there to help. Sort of. Dog bless America.
"Five things to remember about war: 1. Many things reported with confidence in the first hours and days will turn out not to be true 2. Whatever they say, the people who start wars are often thinking chiefly about domestic politics 3. The rationale given for a war will change over time. 4. Wars are unpredictable 5. Wars are easy to start and hard to stop." - Timothy Snyder
- YouTube www.youtube.com

Over a dozen young Americans as well as a coalition of environmental and public health groups on Wednesday filed a pair of legal challenges against President Donald Trump's administration for repealing the "endangerment finding" that enabled federal policies aimed at combating the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the long-anticipated move last week. The coalition of groups responded with a petition at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that names him and the EPA.
"The endangerment finding has been the backbone of climate policy for 17 years, protecting us from air pollution that endangers public health and welfare—including greenhouse gases that are driving climate change," explained Lawrence Hafetz, legal director at Clean Air Council, one of the groups behind the case, in a statement.
"By repealing the finding, we are sweeping the single deadliest type of pollution, climate pollution, under the rug," Hafetz continued. "Deadly floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes are harming our health, our communities, and our economy. This climate chaos plan is decimating the EPA's ability to act when we need protections more than ever."
Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists, another plaintiff, argued that "EPA's repeal of the endangerment finding and safeguards to limit vehicle emissions marks a complete dereliction of the agency's mission to protect people’s health and its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act."
"This shameful and dangerous action by the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Zeldin is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science," she noted. "Heat-trapping emissions and global average temperatures are rising—primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels—contributing to a mounting human and economic toll across the nation."
In the lead-up to the repeal, institutions worldwide concluded that 2025 was among the hottest years on record, a group of global experts declared that "current economic models systematically underestimate climate damage," and another international team of scientists warned in a review of climate tipping points that Earth is at risk of a hothouse trajectory.
Despite such findings, Trump has waged a sweeping war on the climate since he returned to office last year, thanks in part to campaign cash from the fossil fuel industry. In addition to repealing the 2009 endangerment finding—which the administration celebrated as the "single largest deregulatory action in US history"—he has declared a "national energy emergency" and ditched a long list of organizations and treaties, including the Paris Agreement.
Friends of the Earth legal director Hallie Templeton said Wednesday that "today's lawsuit makes clear that we will not idly stand by while EPA blatantly refutes its core mission to protect the environment and public health from dangerous pollution."
Templeton and David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, stressed that with the repeal, the Trump administration is unlawfully choosing big polluters at the expense of the public and the planet."
"We're suing to stop Trump from torching our kids' future in favor of a monster handout to oil companies," said Pettit. "Nobody but Big Oil profits from Trump trashing climate science and making cars and trucks guzzle and pollute more. Consumers will pay more to fill up, and our skies and oceans will fill up with more pollution. The EPA's rollbacks are based on political poppycock, not science or law, and the courts should see it that way."
Other organizations involved in the case include the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and more.
Also on Wednesday, 18 children and young adults from across the United States filed a separate petition at the same court challenging the EPA repeal. They are represented by Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, which have worked on various youth climate cases.
"My Catholic faith teaches me to care for all life and protect the most vulnerable, and it teaches that children are a gift," said lead petitioner Elena Venner. "I now struggle to imagine bringing a child into a world where the air is unsafe and the climate is increasingly unstable. The EPA's repeal of the endangerment finding violates my First Amendment right to practice my faith and my Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty."
"I have asthma, and worsening pollution harms my health and makes it harder for me to breathe and live fully outdoors," Venner explained. "When the air is thick with the pollution of fossil fuel-burning cars and trucks and ever-increasing wildfire smoke, I feel it in my chest, and I am reminded that something as basic as breathing is no longer guaranteed. That is not the life today or the future my generation deserves."
President Donald Trump will soon be hosting a ritzy fundraiser even as many Americans say they're still struggling to afford weekly groceries.
As flagged by New York Times reporter Teddy Schleifer, Trump on Friday is scheduled to have a fundraising dinner at his Mar-a-Lago resort where attendees must pay $1 million each for the price of entry.
According to a Times report published last year on the planned fundraiser, the money raised from the dinner "will flow to a super PAC devoted to Mr. Trump, MAGA Inc., which has vacuumed up hundreds of millions of dollars since he was reelected last year."
The Times noted that it's unclear what Trump plans to do with the vast sums he's raising since he is constitutionally ineligible to serve another term, although that hasn't stopped him from saying he wants to run again in 2028.
The fundraiser is occurring as a new report from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is projecting that US consumers will get little relief from food prices in 2026.
According to the USDA Economic Research Service forecast for February 2026, "prices for all food are predicted to increase 3.1%" this year, "with a prediction interval of 0.7 to 5.7%."
The USDA also projects that seven categories of food are project to see their prices increase faster this year than their 20-year historical average rate of growth: "Beef and veal, other meats, fish and seafood, processed fruits and vegetables, sugar and sweets, cereal and bakery products, and nonalcoholic beverages."
Leor Tal, campaign director at Unrig Our Economy, said on Friday that Republican policies including Trump's tariffs and cuts made to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are exacerbating the affordability crisis for US families.
"Families are already struggling to put food on the table and, instead of relief, they’re getting hit with even higher costs because congressional Republicans continue to prioritize billionaires over working Americans," said Tal. "Thanks to Republican-backed tariffs and devastating SNAP cuts, working Americans are not only facing higher food prices but millions of people are also losing the assistance they rely on to put food on the table."
An Associated Press poll released last year found that 53% of Americans believe the cost of groceries is a “major source of stress,” which is higher than the percentage of Americans who say the same thing about the cost of housing, healthcare, and childcare.
Anxiety about grocery prices is particularly strong among Americans earning $30,000 or less per year, as nearly two-thirds of them described paying for groceries as a “major source of stress.”
James Talarico's victory in the Democratic US Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday shows why it would be a mistake to think Latino voters who jumped ship to support President Donald Trump in 2024 are a lost cause, according to Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha.
Rocha, who worked on Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign and who is a senior adviser for Talarico's campaign, told the Wall Street Journal that the Democratic Senate hopeful won over Latino support in Texas by focusing on a populist economic message first and foremost, such as when he accused US billionaires of "stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created."
"Latinos are an aspirational people, and they want to aspire," said Rocha. "And they are also religious people, and they're... for economic populism."
The Journal noted that Talarico easily bested his rival for the nomination, US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), by roughly 27 percentage points in Texas counties whose populations are 60% or more Latino, including counties in the southern part of the state that were longtime Democratic strongholds that swung to Trump in 2024.
The lesson of the election for Democrats, Rocha told the Journal, is "don’t write off Latinos that voted for Donald Trump."
In a video posted on social media Wednesday, Rocha elaborated on how Talarico and his campaign secured the nomination, calling the Texas Democrat "a special candidate" who "ran the right kind of race at the right time."
The facts about how @TeamTalaricoHQ won last night pic.twitter.com/1IUd9VpPUh
— Chuck Rocha (@ChuckRocha) March 4, 2026
Beyond that, Rocha said, Talarico and his staff were simply relentless campaigners willing to seek votes wherever they could find them.
"He won because he showed up in communities," Rocha said. "He ran advertising in those communities. He had an amazing field team of 28,000 volunteers, over 600 community events in just eight weeks. They sent over 4 million peer-to-peer texts."
Rocha said that it was too soon to say whether Talarico's message meant that Latino voters were returning to Democrats more broadly, but added, "They will move back for James Talarico if you show up and give them a hopeful message."
Rocha's enthusiasm for Talarico was echoed by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"James Talarico is the future of the Democratic Party," Casar declared in a social media post. "He unites working people of all kinds to take on the billionaires who are making life unaffordable. He’s going to show Texas Republicans how powerful working people are when we stand together. On to victory in November."
Mark McKinnon, a one-time Texas political operative who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, said in an interview with Politico that Talarico's victory would be an unwelcome development for the Texas GOP, which will have to work harder to defeat him than other prospective Democratic nominees.
"A perfect storm is lining up for Texas Democrats," McKinnon said. "They have a nominee who can appeal to moderates and soft Republicans. Talarico could be Moses who leads the Lone Star Democrats out of the desert they’ve been in for 35 years."
Just four major data broker breaches in recent years have cost US consumers over $20 billion, according to a Thursday report from a key leader in Congress that argues "additional action is needed to protect Americans from scams."
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC), launched a sweeping investigation into financial scams last July. As part of it, she's examined data brokers, which collect and sell individuals' personal information. These companies often operate with limited transparency, her report explains, making it "more difficult for individuals to secure their information online and, ultimately, protect themselves from the growing threat of scams."
"Data brokers, for example, can enable scams by making consumers' personal information available to bad actors, who can then use details like Social Security numbers, home addresses, or banking information to develop customized and convincing scams," the report explains. "In some cases, data brokers have allegedly sold this information directly to scammers; in others, cyber hacks of data brokers have exposed individuals' data to uncontrolled circulation online."
Last August, after Wired reported that some data brokers took steps to hide their opt-out pages, Hassan issued investigative requests to Comscore, Findem, IQVIA Digital, Telesign, and 6Sense Insights. The report states that all of the companies but Findem responded with "actions to make their opt-out options more accessible to consumers and other parties," which "included removing 'no index' code that had blocked opt-out pages from search engine results, adding opt-out links in more prominent locations, and publishing blog content explaining how people can exercise their privacy rights."
"Notably," the report continues, "Findem did not respond to the ranking member's requests or written outreach from committee staff and has not removed the 'no index' code from its opt-out page—raising serious concerns about its responsiveness to opt-out requests and commitment to data privacy."
While recognizing the other companies for their positive responses, Hassan's report also stresses that more must be done. For instance, she requested information about efforts "to audit or assess the visibility of opt-out options or the success rates of opt-out requests," and "only 6sense stated that it contracts with third-party auditors to conduct both of these assessments."
Highlighting the need for further action, Hassan's staff estimated that identity theft stemming from four large data broker breaches—Equifax in 2017, impacting 147 million US residents; Exactis in 2018, impacting 230 million; National Public in 2023, impacting 270 million; and TransUnion in 2025, impacting 4.4 million—cost American consumers $20.9 billion.
"As international criminal syndicates increasingly use scams to target Americans, data brokers shouldn't make it harder for people to protect themselves," Hassan said in a statement. "This report shows the scope of the threat that people face from data broker breaches and underscores the importance of protecting Americans' private data."
She added that "it is encouraging that after we launched our investigation, many companies took steps to improve opt-out options for Americans, which in turn can help more consumers keep their information out of the wrong hands."
As a related webpage from the Electronic Privacy Information Center details: "There is no federal law in the United States that adequately regulates the data broker industry. As a result, private companies invade our private lives, spy on our families, and gather our most intimate facts, on a mass scale, for profit. EPIC supports state and federal legislative efforts that set limits on data brokers’ collection, use, retention, and disclosure of personal data."
In recent years, members of Congress have introduced various legislative proposals aimed at reining in data brokers—including in the Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act, introduced on Monday. The bipartisan bill would, among other things, close the so-called "data broker loophole" that, as Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) put it, "intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment" to the US Constitution.
There are some limits that have passed, including in Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024. Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission sent letters reminding 13 companies of their obligations to comply with the PADFAA, which "prohibits data brokers from selling, licensing, renting, trading, transferring, releasing, disclosing, providing access to, or otherwise making available personally identifiable sensitive data of a United States individual to any foreign adversary country or any entity that is controlled by a foreign adversary."
However, as Lartease Tiffith, an expert at American and George Mason universities, laid out in an article for Just Security last November, while Congress enacted the PADFAA "with the right goal," the law, as written, "could penalize legitimate US companies for routine global operations while failing to deliver the targeted national security tool Congress intended."
US investigators reportedly believe that American forces were behind the bombing of an Iranian girls' school that killed more than 160 people—mostly young children—during the initial wave of attacks launched Saturday by President Donald Trump in coordination with the Israeli military.
Citing two unnamed officials, Reuters reported Thursday that US military investigators have found it is "likely" that American forces were responsible for the deadly strike on the school in the southern Iranian town of Minab, though the investigation has not yet been completed. Schools are protected under international law, and targeting them is a war crime.
"Reuters was unable to determine more details about the investigation, including what evidence contributed to the tentative assessment, what type of munition was used, who was responsible, or why the U.S. might have struck the school," the outlet noted. "The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive military matters, did not rule out the possibility that new evidence could emerge that absolves the U.S. of responsibility and points to another responsible party in the incident."
"If a US role were to be confirmed," Reuters added, "the strike would rank among the worst cases of civilian casualties in decades of US conflicts in the Middle East."
HuffPost's Akbar Shahid Ahmed echoed Reuters' reporting, writing that Pentagon officials "told Congress in multiple briefings this week that they believed the US was most likely responsible (though probe ongoing)."
The reporting came on the heels of a New York Times analysis that concluded the US was "most likely to have carried out the strike," given that American forces were simultaneously bombarding an adjacent Iranian naval base. The Times also rejected the claim that an Iranian missile hit the elementary school.
"The strikes were first reported on social media shortly after 11:30 am local time," the Times reported. "An analysis of those posts—as well as bystander photos and videos captured within an hour of the strikes—helps corroborate that the school was hit at the same time as the naval base. One video, pinpointed by geolocation experts, showed several large plumes of smoke billowing from the area of the base and the school."
Beth Van Schaack, a former State Department official who currently teaches at Stanford University’s Center for Human Rights and International Justice, told the Times that "given the US' intelligence capabilities, they should have known that a school was in the vicinity."
Trump administration officials have said very little about the Iranian school strike in their triumphant rhetoric about the war, which Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth hailed as the "most lethal, most complex, and most precise aerial operation in history." Hegseth has also openly dismissed what he's called "stupid rules of engagement," rejecting constraints on US forces that are designed to prevent the killing of civilians.
Asked about the school strike during a March 4 press conference, Hegseth responded: "All I know—all I can say is that we're investigating that. We, of course, never target civilian targets, but we're taking a look and investigating that."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred reporters to the Pentagon when asked about the attack, but added that "the United States would not target, deliberately target, a school," in purported contrast to the Iranian government, which Rubio claimed is "deliberately targeting civilians" because "they are a terroristic regime."
Two first responders to the scene of the attack, as well as a parent of one of the killed children, told Middle East Eye earlier this week that the school was hit by two strikes, a possible "double-tap" attack. An Al Jazeera investigation concluded the attack on the school was likely deliberate.
Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, called the school attack "a horrific US war crime, up there with My Lai," referring to US soldiers' massacre of Vietnamese civilians in 1968. The US military initially covered up the massacre.
"In a sane world, Hegseth would resign, Congress would hold immediate hearings and establish an investigation, and the US would come clean," Konyndyk wrote on social media. "None of that is likely, so international mechanisms should kick in, including the [International Criminal Court]. And Hegseth should probably talk to a lawyer."
On Thursday, as US and Israeli officials vowed to ramp up their assault on Iran, two boys' schools southwest of Tehran were reportedly bombed.
"The targeting of civilians, educational facilities, and medical institutions constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law," a group of United Nations experts said earlier this week.
"Nothing short of a halt to the data center rollout will suffice... to ensure that people and the environment are fully protected."
Several Big Tech CEOs met with President Donald Trump on Wednesday and pledged to fund their own energy infrastructure needed to power their artificial intelligence data centers that have caused US utility bills to spike over the last year.
That same day, Food and Water Watch slammed the pledge as "wholly inadequate" and released what it described as a "first-of-its-kind report" outlining the massive environmental and human costs imposed by the AI data center explosion.
Among other things, the report states that data centers' vast energy needs are throwing a "lifeline to the fossil fuel industry," while undermining the many gains made from the revolution in clean power technology.
"AI expansion is largely fueled by dirty energy sources," the report notes. "In the US, over 40% of energy for data centers comes from natural gas, 24% from solar and wind combined, 20% from nuclear, and 15% from coal."
The report also pours cold water on Trump's plan to have Big Tech build its own energy infrastructure to power its data centers.
"Power plants can’t come online fast enough to fuel this growth," the report explains. "Data centers in New York state are seeking more than 9,000 megawatts (MW) of new demand—about 1.5 times the power consumption of every household in the state in 2024. Georgia Power predicts that energy sales will almost double by the early 2030s, largely driven by data centers. This steep demand increase can raise residential electricity costs—regardless of whether the new data centers pull from the grid or not."
Electricity isn't the only resource consumed in vast quantities by AI data centers, and the report also shines a light on the enormous amounts of water required to keep the facilities from overheating.
"The amount of water consumed by data centers more than tripled from 2014 to 2023," the report explains. "By 2028, US data centers could use as many as 720 billion gallons of water each year just to cool AI servers. This is equal to over 1 million Olympic-size swimming pools—or enough water to meet the indoor needs of 18.5 million American households."
Food and Water Watch says that the report's findings point to only one solution: A moratorium on AI data center construction along the lines of what US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed last year.
"The well-documented harms of AI data centers cannot be resolved with piecemeal regulations or vague promises from AI enthusiasts of a utopian future," the report concludes. "Nothing short of a halt to the data center rollout will suffice until a comprehensive regulatory framework is developed to ensure that people and the environment are fully protected."
Meghan Pazik, senior policy advocate with Public Citizen’s Climate Program, also criticized Trump's AI data center pledge on Thursday and argued that the president's plan "isn’t doing anything binding to cut energy bills."
"Data centers increase residential energy bills by upwards of 250% and many communities are left in the dark on these projects from the start," said Pazik. "Asking corporations to sign meaningless ‘agreements’ fits Trump’s tired pattern of seeking fake concessions from corporations that translate to zero action or relief."
Trump's AI data center pledge comes at a time when US voters are facing increasing economic pressure across multiple fronts. In addition to data centers' impacts on utility bills, Americans are also facing increased costs from Trump's global tariffs on imported products and a spike in gas prices caused by the president's war against Iran.
While Trump has claimed to be prioritizing cutting costs with the data center pledge, he was dismissive of Americans’ concerns about paying more for gas this week, telling Reuters in an interview that “if [gas prices] rise, they rise.”
“Not merely negative-number-so-what unpopular, but worst-ever-support-for-war-when-it-started unpopular.”
President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran is historically unpopular among US voters.
In an analysis published Friday, polling expert G. Elliott Morris calculated an average of eight high-quality polls conducted over the last week about the war and found just 38% of Americans approve of the military strikes against Iran, while 49% are opposed.
Morris noted that there is simply no precedent for a US war being this unpopular from the very outset.
"The big takeaway from these numbers is that the new war in Iran is very unpopular," he wrote. "Not merely negative-number-so-what unpopular, but worst-ever-support-for-war-when-it-started unpopular. With just 38% of Americans in favor, support for bombing Iran is lower than retrospective support for the war in Iraq was in 2014."
Morris then offered some comparisons to past US military conflicts to show that the lack of support for Trump's Iran war is simply in uncharted territory.
"No president in modern polling history has launched a major military operation with the public already against him," he wrote. "After the September 11 attacks, a November 2001 Gallup poll found 90% of Americans approved of military action in Afghanistan, with just 5% opposed. The Gulf War in 1991 hit 79-80% approval. Gallup measured 76% support for the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 (Pew had it at 71%)."
Even comparatively unpopular operations, such as Trump's strikes against Syria in 2017 or former President Barack Obama's 2011 military operation in Libya, still had net-positive approvals at the times they occurred.
Morris added that Trump should be concerned about this because historically "wars only get less popular" over time as "casualties mount and costs become clear."
CBS News polling director Anthony Salvanto on Tuesday also highlighted this phenomenon when analyzing a poll on the Iran war commissioned by his network that showed US voters' support for the conflict dropped precipitously the longer they believed it would last.
"If you think it's going to be a long conflict, months, even years... the numbers tilt toward disapproval overall," he said.
The longer Americans believe the conflict in Iran will last, the more they disapprove, a new CBS News poll finds. Half the country believes it'll be months, or even years before it's over. CBS News' @SalvantoCBS breaks down the new findings. https://t.co/KyjZB3PriP pic.twitter.com/N4yXnlKgLS
— CBS News (@CBSNews) March 3, 2026
Trump so far has not offered any kind of timeline for his war against Iran, and Politico reported on Wednesday that the US military is preparing for the conflict to last until at least September.
Trump on Friday insisted he would not end the conflict with Iran until its government offered its "unconditional surrender."
The president has stacked a planning commission with three of his staffers, but organizers hailed a "huge victory" Thursday after the panel delayed a vote following an outpouring of public opposition.
President Donald Trump has gone to significant lengths to ensure the 90,000-square-foot, $400 million ballroom he wants to replace the East Wing of the White House with is constructed swiftly—appointing his own associates and staffers to key commissions that must approve the project.
But even under the leadership of chairman Will Scharf, Trump's former personal lawyer and the White House staff secretary, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) on Thursday was forced to delay a planned vote on approving the ballroom until April 2—unable to ignore tens of thousands of public comments that have poured in denouncing the proposed ballroom as well as a parade of dozens of people who showed up at the commission's meeting to express opposition.
Scharf “cited the expected length of testimony from the more than 100 people who had signed up to say what they thought of the project, which he said might require the meeting to stretch into Friday," reported the Washington Post.
A longtime architect, David Scott Parker, told the panel that he had "grave concerns" about the exaggerated size of the planned ballroom, which "is nearly three times the original White House, in violation of classical architecture principles mandating balance.”
Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, told the commission—which also includes two other White House staffers, deputy chief of staff James Blair and chief statistician Stuart Levenbach—that the proposed ballroom "is disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterized presidential events for centuries,” while Kyle Rowan, who described himself as an "ordinary citizen," had a succinct criticism.
“It’s ugly,” Rowan told the commissioners. “It’s too much.”
Just one speaker out of 30 expressed approval of the project.
The critics who arrived at the commission's meeting in person represented just a fraction of the criticism that has inundated officials since the panel began collecting public comments on the proposed ballroom.
More than 35,000 comments were sent in, and a New York Times artificial intelligence-powered analysis of the responses found that 98% of them were negative. The Post also used AI to determine that more than 97% of the comments were critical, and measured that finding against a sampling of comments that were manually checked.
Some of the remarks alluded to Trump's plan to fund the ballroom construction through private donations, which he has insisted will benefit taxpayers—but which Democratic lawmakers and government watchdogs have warned is an example of blatant corruption, as companies with billions of dollars in federal contracts, including Amazon, Google, and Palantir, are among the donors.
"I am sick that Trump has torn down the East Wing of the People’s House, our house, and plans to build a monstrosity ballroom funded by not 'We the People' but by corrupt, out of touch, unaccountable to anyone, billionaires. It is beyond sickening," wrote a commenter named Donna Smith.
Julie Mason added that the ballroom plan has "opened the door to excessive corruption by the president and his billionaire backers through quid pro quo," and a South Carolina resident named Barbara Bryant added that the "financing of the project is perhaps its most troubling aspect."
"The $400 million private corporate donation scheme is a blatant attempt to evade congressional oversight," Bryant wrote. "By allowing corporations with active business before the government to fund a presidential vanity project, the administration has created a fertile ground for corruption, turning a national landmark into a billboard for private interests."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed without evidence on Thursday that the public comments "are clearly stemming from an organized campaign of Trump-deranged liberals who clearly have no style or taste."
"It’s a shame that some people in this country are so debilitated with Trump derangement syndrome, they can’t even recognize or respect beauty when they see it," said Leavitt.
An Economist-YouGov poll taken last month found that 58% of Americans opposed tearing down the East Wing to build the ballroom, while just 25% supported it.
The public comments echoed those of protesters who assembled outside the NCPC's offices on Thursday at a demonstration organized by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The group has closely followed Trump's decision to staff the commission with his own administration officials and the "myriad of conflicts of interest concerns" that have arisen as wealthy corporations have lined up to fund the ballroom.
Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate for Public Citizen who testified at the NCPC meeting Thursday, noted that one federal judge had accused the Trump administration of erecting a "Rube Goldberg contraption" to collect donations from "corporations, billionaires, and an unknown number of secret donors" while evading "congressional and public oversight and [shielding] the donors and recipients of the money from scrutiny."
“According to news reports, the expectation is that those names will be etched on the White House as part of the ballroom's brick or stone," said Golinger. "It is outrageous that the Trump administration would engrave the names of corporations with government contracts who gave them checks on the White House like a big tacky advertising billboard. I urge NCPC to explicitly prohibit them from doing so.”
At the meeting, Golinger condemned Trump's decision to stack the commission with his own staffers and said Scharf, Blair, and Levenbach lack the legally required experience in city or regional planning to sit on the panel.
“The fix is in for this project and this vote,” said Golinger.
Scharf argued he is qualified for the position due to his past work in the Missouri governor's office.
At the protest, Golinger said the commission's decision to delay the vote on the ballroom was a "huge victory," considering Trump has filled the commission with his "cronies."
"Public pressure has mattered," he said. "It's not the end of the fight, no doubt they're going to come back and try to ram it through next time, but this [delay] isn't something I even conceived."