The News Roundup For March 20, 2026

This is Terry Gross. When I was celebrating my 50th anniversary hosting Fresh Air, I asked my guest, Roastmaster General Jeff Ross, to roast me. Terry Gross, a barely living legend. Still at it. Listen to Fresh Air on the NPR app or wherever you get podcasts. Hey, everybody. It's Todd, your host for this edition of the News Roundup. Just a quick heads up before we start the show. As you know, the news can change rapidly and something you hear in this episode might have new developments. You can always stay up to date with all the latest by listening to your local NPR station and by visiting npr.org. I'm Todd's Willick, and it's the 1A podcast. You're listening to the Weekly News Roundup. First, the president called the war in Iran an excursion and said America had already won with no boots on the ground. Now, the administration is considering boots on the ground to open up, choked off oil supplies, and the ask to fund the war to Congress and taxpayers, reportedly, 200. billion dollars. We want to be sure, and it's a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy top. But how and why the president plunged the country into this conflict still murky. We'll talk about what his intelligence officials said and wouldn't say on Capitol Hill this week. Plus, More of the week's top stories like the very confrontational confirmation hearing for Trump's pick to be the new head of the Department of Homeland Security. We'll get to all of it with Megan Scully, Congress Editor at Bloomberg News. Hi, Megan. Hi, thanks for having me. Great to have you. Anita Kumar is around the table. Head of Standards and Practices and former managing editor and White House correspondent at Politico. Hi, Anita. Hi, great to be back. Taylor Poplars is also here. The whole gang is around the table. National Political Reporter for Spectrum News based at the White House again. Taylor, as always, hi. Great to be here. All right, gang, first, our friends, Phil Stewart and Idris Ali at Reuters broke a big story this week. The Trump administration is considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops in a new phase of this war, including, according to some plans, on Iranian soil. Anita Kumar, what did we learn? Well, we learned, as you said, thousands of troops. We learned that there are a couple places that they are focused on, the Strait of Hormuz, which a lot of people are familiar with now, that very important corridor there, that everybody's kind of focused on how to open that up when Iran says it's open, but it's kind of effectively closed it. And so we know that that's being considered. There's also some possibility of air and naval forces there, but also. the possibility of ground troops. But we don't know a lot because when asked President Trump said, well, we're considering it. We're not considering it. And then said he wouldn't tell us if he was considering it. So we don't actually know a lot of the details. Well, meanwhile, the number of the week is a big one. I've already mentioned it. It's $200 billion.

That's in dollars. That's the number the White House is floating as it prepares to go to Congress to get the emergency money to fund this war. Here's the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, on Thursday. As far as $200 billion, I think that number could move, obviously. It takes money to kill bad guys. So we're going back to Congress and folks there to ensure that we're properly funded for what's been done, for what we may have to do in the future. Taylor Poplar's, this is over and above the big funding boost, the Pentagon already got this past year. Even in the world of Congress, I want to say $200 billion is an extraordinary amount of money. What's this money actually for? Do lawmakers know? the details of what it's for. I think so far, they only know what Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump have said publicly, which is not a lot. The Pete Hegseth, the most substantive thing he said is that sound bite you just played, where he said it takes money to kill bad guys. President Trump, a couple hours later on Thursday, was asked about it. And he started by saying, we're going to use that money to make sure we have enough ammunition because we've been using so much of it in Iran and we want to kind of restock the pile. But then the president said, this is for broader funding beyond our current... project in Iran, which comes into question about, okay, is this for this current war or is this for something beyond that? And to put into perspective for people, $200 billion, that's about a fifth of the Pentagon's overall yearly budget, which is about a trillion dollars. And a lot of people on the president himself have scrutinized how much money we've sent to Ukraine over the last few years. But $200 billion is far higher than what has gone to Ukraine annually. Megan Scully, we ask about what Congress knows about the details here. And I'm sure the ask will contain details. But it begs the question of hearings, public hearings, justifications for the war, officials informing Congress and the public about what they're up to. It hasn't happened. No, it has not happened. And there has been very little communication between the Hill and between the Pentagon in terms of the or even the White House in terms of the administration's objectives here. To kind of put more perspective on the $200 billion number, I went back and crunch some figures from the long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which did, of course, involve heavy ground troops. The highest of the war spending during those years was in 2008 during the surge, as they called it. That was $194.6 billion, which is about $280 billion today. In 2003, which is probably what we could kind of equate where we are now, which was, you know, the beginning of the war in Iraq, year two in Afghanistan, it was only 80.7 billion that they needed for the wars, which was about 143 billion today. And again, that involved heavy, heavy deployments of ground troops. So the $200 billion figure is going to...

It's going to prompt a lot of questions on Capitol Hill. Are they replacing F-35? Are they buying more F-35s? Are they replacing the Ford aircraft carrier that, of course, they're going to fire on? You've been telling people you want $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon. So are you just padding your other desires? Absolutely. That would certainly be a hefty down payment towards that $1.5 trillion. Well, lawmakers are waiting for the request. In the meantime, they're also looking for answers about why. Trump decided to go to war along with Israel now. The Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, she was up on Capitol Hill this week. Here's an exchange with Senator Jon Ossoff, Democrat from Georgia. Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no? Once again, Senator, the intelligence community has... provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment. You won't answer the question. It is the nature of the imminent threat that the president has to make that determination based on a collection and volume of information and intelligence that he is provided with. You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. Exactly what I'm doing. So you could hear it there, Megan Scully. Tulsi Gabbard's testimony is getting attention, not just for what she said, but for what she would not say. What are we hearing there in that exchange? Well, frustrations, again, about what's going on with this war, why we started it and where it's headed. Of course, her testimony came just one day after Joe Kent, a high-ranking counterterrorism official, who worked under Tulsi Gabbard, resigned, saying there was no imminent threat. So what you saw was lawmakers really trying to pin her down on, you know, what... why we started this, why we struck when we did, what was Israel's involvement in terms of pushing the U.S. towards this, and what are the objectives to get out? And Taylor, Tulsi Gabbard's own past positions on the war in Iran are a factor. Lawmakers wanted to know if her intelligence, if the IC, her directorate, told the White House that the threat is imminent or whether they didn't. And she would repeatedly deflect and she would say the president, any president in her view as the director right now gets to determine if a threat is imminent or not, which a lot of lawmakers took issue with. You have to remember, Tulsi Gabbard served in the U.S. House for years. So a lot of these lawmakers who were questioning her have served alongside her. And it was just five or six years ago that she was a member of Congress campaigning for president saying in her view that Donald Trump was going to bring the U.S. into war against Iran. She even sold T-shirts about it at one point. Right. She completely flipped. on that. And now it seems that she is deferring in her acting capacity as saying it's up to the president to decide these are not my personal opinions. I mean, this is an annual event that happens, right? They go to the Hill. They have this hearing to talk about worldwide threats. It's not just Iran, obviously. It's China. It's other places. So she's now saying that the sort of the purpose of the hearing is changed or that's what the senators are thinking. They get the same briefing every year. Now she's saying, look, we don't do this anymore. It's up to the president. Megan just mentioned it, Joe Kent, top aide to Tulsi Gabbard and director of the National Counterterrorism Center quit this week. He said over the war in Iran. He wrote this on X. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nature, and it's clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby, Joe Kent's words. Kent's letter had a lot of implications. It should be said, he has longstanding ties to anti-Jewish white nationalists, including Nick Fuentes and others.

Blaming U.S. foreign policy decisions on scheming by Israel is, to many observers, a trope. But Kent, aside, many people are against this war. Many people are questioning the American relationship with Israel as a matter of policy. So what is Kent's departure? Tell us, Megan, about the intelligence community right now and about how Republicans especially are digesting this decision to go to war. So it certainly is highlighting the fractures here within not just the intelligence community, but within the Republican Party writ large. Joe Kent, of course, is considered kind of in the Tucker Carlson camp of the Republican Party. Very isolationist, very frustrated that Trump keeps getting into these foreign conflicts. after campaigning not to. And repeatedly towing the line going over the line of anti-Semitism. Let's say that. Yes. So, you know, and then you have the much more hawkish members of the Republican Party, the Lindsey Graham, for instance, who and the Tom Cottons, who've been agitating to go to war with Iran for the better part of the last decade. So this is really spotlighting kind of, you know, Trump's base, this MAGA base that he courted that got him elected, who wanted to. to, you know, isolate the U.S. from the world stage against, you know, the more tried in the international conflict folks like Lindsey Graham. It's happening in the base, too, Anita Kumar. Megyn Kelly, other characters from the MAGA online universe, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Mark Levin are going to war with each other. Megyn Kelly, even insulted Mark Levin's. manhood this week over this question of Iran, it's really divided at least the superstars of the base. Totally. I mean, the base is still behind President Trump generally on the war when you look at the polls, but it's conditional, right? So they want it to be quick. They want an answer, like, what's the end game here? And they want it not to drag on. They want it not to bring down the economy. So it's all of that is wrapped up into this. We got this comment from Chris. This war is illegal. Military actions must be authorized by Congress. And the present conflict with Iran has not been authorized by Congress. Much more to Congress. On Iran on the Department of Homeland Security with our expert panel after the break. Stay with us.

This message comes from Jerry. Noticing your car insurance rate creep up even without tickets or claims, you're not alone. That's why there's Jerry. Jerry handles the legwork by comparing quotes side by side from over 50 top insurers so you can confidently hit buy. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Jerry even tracks rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. Drivers who say with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Don't overpay. Download the Jerry app or visit jerry.a.ai slash NPR today. Maybe you read The Odyssey in school and found that a pretty dry, dusty academic exercise, but the new movie adaptation is Pure Hollywood. It's a gorgeous, spectacular take on the material that's bursting with big names like Matt Damon, Tom Holland, Anne Hathaway, and Zendaya. We'll tell you why you should check it out on NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour, listen via the NPR app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Let's get back to our weekly news roundup on the 1A podcast. We're talking all about Iran, about the intelligence on Iran and the money the president wants to go toward Iran. We got this from Nick in New Hampshire, who has a question about the $200 billion ask that we mentioned that appears to be headed toward Congress. Nick references March 26 reporting that the Department of Defense under Pete Hegseth was reported to have spent. roughly $22 million on high-end food items, including approximately $7 million on lobster tail, $15 million on ribby steaks in September of 2025, and the list goes on. So Nick wants to know, given the size of the ask and given the news that we've gotten on the spending habits so far, furniture was a big part of that report as well. I guess... It goes again to the question of how lawmakers, Megan Scully, are going to be looking at the size of this request. Sure. So there has always been instances of waste, fraud, and abuse within the Pentagon budget going back to, in the 1980s, you know, reports of $500 toilet seats. And certainly when... any government department, particularly one as large as the Pentagon, suddenly becomes flush with cash. There is going to be problems along the way, whether it's issues with contracting or ill-gotten gains. And if you look back to what happened during the Iraq and Afghanistan war, there were whole... inspectors general set up to essentially monitor the appropriation and the use of those funds. We don't have anything like that in place right now for the Iran War specifically. The department itself does have its own inspector general, of course. But it is... It certainly does raise questions about, A, how quickly could this money be spent, and what would it be spent on? I want to flag one other report that may have flown under the radar, actually quite literally for a lot of people. The Washington Post reported this week that the military detected unidentified drones over Fort McNair right outside Washington, D.C. This is an area army base where Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Defense Secretary both live. Taylor, what do we know about?

this detection about these drones and what it might imply. So the Pentagon has been fairly tight-lipped about it in response, unsurprisingly, but the Washington Post broke this story. And to your point, there are several very prominent administration officials who have been living in military housing on this base. A lot of them say they had to move there and move their families there because of the amount of threats that they've been getting since they took office over the last year. So there is kind of a power center of top White House officials who are residing there right now. Obviously, drones have been. become more and more a part of daily life in warfare, in regular, you know, layman's terms lifestyles. And so that's something that the military is having to factor in because it's unclear right now who those, who might have been operating those drones. Is it some type of foreign power? They obviously knew that the base was in this area and that those officials could potentially be there. So there's a lot of concerns. And it's a reminder, especially as we're talking about Pentagon funding of this new style and new age of, you know, military technology. and threats that the military and the government are having to factor in. Asymmetrical is the word of the day. Have they mentioned it? Does the U.S. government have any information that Iran is able to mobilize or launch drones inside the United States? I have personally not seen that. And I don't know if they would disclose that right now because even in the daily Pentagon or the somewhat frequent Pentagon briefings, they've been pretty tight-lipped about Iran's capabilities. But we know, and President Trump has talked about how a lot of the funding for these munitions have gone to missiles and drones that, you know, are not, are leading, preventing troops from being on the ground. That's just the new style of warfare. There are many, many fronts to this conflict as we're figuring out both in the Gulf and here at home. We got this from Jim. on the economy. It seems obvious that Iran will exercise its ability to keep the strait of Hormuz closed until oil costs become so high that the pressure for settle the conflict becomes so great politically in the U.S. and from the rest of the world that Iran will be able to negotiate a settlement. And that brings us to the pressure they're trying to apply. Thanks for your comment, Jim, on the U.S. economy. The Fed this week held interest rates steady against Donald Trump's wishes. But the bigger shock, oil prices, surging to $119 a barrel on Thursday before easing down a bit. They continue to fluctuate each day. Anita, how is the White House reacting this week to this volatility? what it means for Americans, and what it means for the ongoing debate and the real pain of affordability for Americans. Yeah, I mean, you see Republicans really wanting the president to talk about the economy and focus on the economy, and they are concerned about how this is going to impact the midterms. So they are looking at what they can do. They are trying to look at... ways to reduce those costs on oil, but they are really, really focused on the strait, as we've talked about before. That's why you hear them talking about ground troops. That's why you hear them asking allies, people, you know, European countries, China, come help us free this up so that we can start getting things, you know, through the strait. And you've seen a lot of pushback there. There are a lot of military concerns, other concerns about sort of opening that up and the administration is kind of stuck. Taylor, it was only

one video and only one person, but it said a lot. NBC News had a little stand up with a voter in Pennsylvania standing next to a gas pump today. This voter said she voted for Trump three times, and it must be because I'm an idiot. Like she was, her message was, I'm done because of this. Yeah, it's only one person, but. Only one person, but a lot of people are feeling that pain because gas prices have largely risen about a dollar since the war started. And if you have to fill up, that could be an extra 15, 20 bucks, and you're trying to deal with grocery prices that remain high. And that's something the White House, to Anita's point, is very attuned to. But President Trump and his public comments has been... all over the map on this, because in one breath, he says that the U.S. doesn't need any help from any allies and does not need to source oil from elsewhere. He talks about the Strait of Hormuz a lot, where 90% of the world's oil is transported through from the Middle East, and he says, The U.S. doesn't use a lot of it, but then he says, I wish our allies would come and help us. He hosted the Japanese prime minister this week, and he's been frustrated with Japan, for example, for not sending naval vessels to the strait. But then he said, we don't really need the help from Japan, but it would be nice because they get their oil from there. And on Thursday, something that stood out to me, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went on Fox Business News Channel, and he said that the U.S. was considering undoing sanctions on Iranian oil that was already in transit, kind of already at sea. Remarkable. Remarkable. And who knows if it'll actually happen, but undoing sanctions on oil from the place that we are at war at because he said that oil's already out in the water and we really need help lowering prices over the next two weeks. So that's the political and policy balancing act they're trying to do. And it's really notable when the president keeps saying, we don't need the help, but we might. And I want people not to feel the pain at the pump, but also it'll be worth it and it'll be short term. We got this comment from Pat in North Carolina. I'm tired of the so-called grilling this administration's representatives are getting, which is just white noise when Congress can't even use their power to curtail this president's actions. Three branches of government and it's Congress's job to approve a war and approve the spending for it. Thanks for that comment, Pat. Well, let's talk about Congress's other powers to confirm or not. members of the cabinet, other administration appointees, because a single vote made the difference on Wednesday to send Oklahoma Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin out of committee and to the full Senate to be Donald Trump's next. Secretary of Homeland Security replacing Kristi Noem, of course, who was fired recently. Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman voted for Mullen. Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul voted. Very much against him. Now, let's go to Mullen's confirmation hearing in the Senate Homeland Security Committee that Rand Paul chairs because Rand Paul and Markwayne Mullin do not get along. One issue between these two guys when Mullen said he understood why a neighbor violently assaulted Senator Paul and sent him to the hospital over apparently a gardening dispute in 2017.

You got a chance today. You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record. You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified. So today you'll have your chance. Today I'll give you that chance to clear the record. Tell it to my face. If that's what you believe, tell it to me today. Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents. And here was Markwayne Mullin's response. I don't believe in political violence. I've made that very clear. But sometimes people do need, theoretically speaking, sir, I get it. It's about character assassination for you. That's the way this game is played. I understand it. And you are making this about you, which is fine, but that doesn't keep me as sex care about my security. It's character assassination when you were the one lauding the assault. Who do you think started that character assassination? I'm just repeating what you have done in character assassination. I'm repeating your support for the assault. So that's somehow something I started? No, sir. What I'm saying is you're adding a lot to it. There are a lot of other sources of tension between these two guys. They don't like each other. Let's just put that aside. That was obvious. Rand Paul voted against him. Markwayne Mullin is headed to the full Senate. Let's talk about what's really important here. How is he going to lead? What did senators learn? about how Markwayne Mullin will handle the administration's immigration crackdown, ICE abuses of power, plans to turn massive warehouses into detention centers for mass deportation, and a lot more. What kind of DHS secretary will he be? Yeah, I would say that exchange was remarkable because he's actually going there and asking for their vote, right? So for him to go into that prolonged back and forth was a little bit. surprising. But generally we saw someone coming forward and saying to the Senate that he was going to sort of turn the page on how the Department of Homeland Security has been run the last year. I was going to say years. It's only been a year. And really sort of kind of said he would do things in a different way. He would. take a not a lighter touch, but sort of a lighter touch. He sounded very different than President Trump. So a lot of people have said, and we've all reported, that a lot of the immigration enforcement is coming straight out of the White House from Stephen Miller, who's one of the hardline immigration folks that President Trump has, had him in Trump won. And he's kind of saying... You know, he just wants to do things a little bit differently. I think one of the biggest things we heard is something about whether they needed judicial warrants to go into houses. Megan Scully, what did you see in that confirmation hearing, aside from the fact that the chairman and the former MMA fighter, Senator Markwayne Mullin, they hate each other. Okay.

How is he going to be different from Kristi Noem? It takes a lot for this president to fire a cabinet secretary, especially one as high profile as Kristi Noem, but he did it. That says a lot. So what's Markwayne Mullin's job here? Well, his job is going to be the same as the rest of the cabinet, which is, you know, the whole audience of one. Don't get crosswise with Trump. Don't go to the hill unprepared. And I think that we're going to see him, as Anita said, you know, direction on this comes from the top direction, particularly on Homeland Security. He's not going to be pushing his own policies. He's going to be following orders from Trump, from Stephen Miller, from Tom Homan. You know, he comes at it a little differently than Kristi Noem in that he's a current member of Congress. He has relationships on the Hill. He has been sort of the administrations go between the Senate and the House. He's a first-term senator and a former House lawmaker. He has a lot of friends over in the House. So when the big tax bill, the one big beautiful bill was being negotiated, he was kind of going back and forth between both chambers, leveraging his friendships in both areas. So he comes at this with. with more connections within the current Republican Party in Congress than Kristi Noem did as a former House lawmaker and who went on to be governor of South Dakota. So therein lies the difference. Where there are some similarities, though, are his lack of experience, certainly in law enforcement. As you said, he's a former MMA, professional MMA fighter. And he is a, you know, he ran a plumbing business in Oklahoma. So this is definitely a new, new terrain for him. Meanwhile, still in the background, DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, remains in shutdown mode, not funded. That's primarily over ICE. TSA, the Coast Guard. FEMA, all bargaining chips, Taylor, in this ongoing partisan war, which is really about ICE. The White House this week released a letter detailing five changes it's willing to make to DHS policy in order to get DHS funding moving. What did we learn? How significant an offer was it? I wouldn't call it super significant because the negotiations largely remain stalled, mostly because Democrats feel, especially after the tense and the violence that we saw in Minnesota at the start of the year, they feel they still have political capital to keep this shutdown going unless they get many of their demands accepted by the Trump administration. The Trump administration, to Megan Ananita's point, does not want to cede any more ground on homeland security because they still view that as one of the president's north stars. But the shutdown is, I think, now the second. longest ever of a government institution. And people, we talked about gas prices before, where people are really seeing it as if they're going to the airport and they're sitting in TSA lines for three hours where agents have not been paid for over a month and they're really struggling. But having this confirmation hearing for Mullen play out during this is striking because you're seeing where Democrats are not really willing to budge. And the Trump administration has sort of been negotiating, but that five point plan they laid out was kind of viewed as a non-starter by a lot of Democrats. Democrats have been

trying this gambit all week long, putting up funding for T. Let's just fund TSA. Fund it. You can fund TSA. No more lines at the airport. You can fund the Coast Guard. This is only about ICE. Megan, Republicans have knocked all those efforts down. They want to negotiate on the whole thing. Absolutely. And when you look at what the White House has offered, these, you know, it provides some wiggle room and some national security outs in terms of things like judicial warrants before entering private properties. It also doesn't address Democrats. key demands, including not allowing these officers who are patrolling U.S. streets to be masked. Right. Masked and immunity for their actions on the streets. We've actually gotten a lot of questions about John Fetterman from Pennsylvania, who I mentioned voted for Markwayne Mullin in the committee. Sarah asks, what's his deal? And Angela says, who is John Fetterman really? Is he an undercover Republican? A lot of people are asking, anyone? Well, as a Pennsylvania native, I can say I'm hearing from a lot of family members who are asking exactly that question for sure. You know, John Fetterman kind of came in in 2022 as a straight talker. And in the last few years, he has become the Democrat who has been more than any other embracing Trump's agenda. Much more to come on the roundup, including the Trump administration detaining, arresting DACA recipients here legally. We'll be right back.

This message comes from Jerry. Are you tired of your car insurance rate going up, even with a clean driving record? That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side by side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit jerry.a.a.a. slash NPR today. This week on Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me, we asked rock legend Vicky Peterson from the Bengals why she once filled in for the go-go's lead guitarist, Charlotte Kathy. My friend Charlotte Kathy was pregnant with my ex-boyfriend's baby. I like to put it up. What? Yay! Don't miss our full conversation in the rest of our games. Listen to the Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me podcast in the NPR app, or wherever you get your podcast. You've got a lot of ways to get news and a lot of podcasts in your feed that take a long time to get to the point. Here and now anytime gets to the heart of the day's big story all in about 20 minutes every afternoon. Get smarter and expand your world fast. Listen to here and now anytime on the NPR app or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Welcome back to the weekly news roundup. We got this question from Heather. A lot of people are still on the cost, the $200 billion, the war in Iran. We're going to talk about other stuff, but Heather says this. Why should the electorate Americans believe that Social Security, SNAP, and health care for everyone can't be funded when they casually throw trillions at another forever war? How does this money compare to what they cut from these American programs? Megan Scully. Sure. So this obviously was a huge part of the Republican tax bill that went through just this past summer. And we saw cuts of this order to Medicaid programs that will go into effect after the midterms. We saw cuts to snap, which were much smaller than on a yearly basis anyway than what we're seeing in this $200 billion request. And I think these are a lot of questions that Democrats are going to be asking if and when the Pentagon has to come to Congress to. justify this massive request. $200 billion, that is the largest sort of emergency tranche of spending that we have seen, if that is what it materializes as, since the first COVID-era emergency spending that was pushed through six years ago now. Taylor? The Trump administration, both the president and his advisors, their argument for all of this, because a lot of people are asking about these cuts to domestic programs that people are relying on, the president's argument is that, and this goes back to us talking about Tulsi Gabbard's testimony, that there was such an imminent threat from Iran when it comes to nuclear weapons that this is an emergency and that kind of all other discussions have to be pushed aside and Congress has to focus on funding this emergency now. The big question to Megan's point is, will lawmakers buy that? We've heard from some Some MAGA Republicans like Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert already say, I'm a no on this. This goes against what the president can't. But some other Republicans are quietly saying, okay, we might fund this year. We support the president, commander in chief. But it's going to have to be paid for. And we should look at domestic programs. What they're quietly saying already is if you want this $200 billion, we want to go back to SNAP, back to Medicaid, back to these social programs that they've already cut. To find $200 billion in discretionary spending, so that takes out a lot of the, like, Medicare and Social Security, to find that size cut and not cut within the Defense Department would be impossible on a yearly basis. Kit has an idea. Kit says any additional funding for the military needs to be paid for with tax increases on the wealthy. This ballooning debt is not sustainable. That's Kit's idea, Anita Kumar. I don't think that's going to go anywhere. I don't think we've seen an appetite from the administration and Congress to do that. So I don't think that's going to happen. But remember, this isn't an official ask yet. I will be very interested to see what the White House comes to Congress with. Perhaps they're just floating this and waiting to see what the reaction is. They've seen a lot of it. And we'll, you know, we'll, we'll tailor it. We got this comment from Helen. Today's discussion fails to comprehend the very real threat from Iran. It's long-term, uncurtailed threat of international terrorism, but now being addressed.

by the Trump administration. That's Helen's remark. I'll add CIA director John Ratcliffe was one of the other officials testifying in these worldwide threat hearings. Another official we don't hear from a lot on camera. And he was asked about the overall threat from Iran. And he said in his experience leading the CIA, Iran was a legitimate threat for decades against the United States. And in his view, there was an imminent threat that popped up over the last few months. But then he couldn't disclose much further in terms of public testimony. So that the administration is trying to encourage people. We did this for a reason. to that listener's point, but then they're saying it's classified and it's up to the president to determine and you just have to trust us on that. The definition of imminent this week gave me memories of a different era when the president told people that it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is. And it scrambled the brains of Americans everywhere when the stakes were a lot lower than they are now. It just reminded me of that. We'll have much more on the war in Iran. I'm sure we'll be talking about it all next week. I want to get back to immigration and an important story that broke this week on MS Now. MS Now reported that a recipient of the deferred action for childhood arrival program. You've heard of it. It's DACA was arrested and detained by immigration agents this week. Now, that program, which was enacted under the Second Obama administration, 2012, allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States. children to work legally while protecting them from deportation. Now, this is part of an increasing trend. Hundreds of so-called dreamers being detained, even deported, as part of the president's immigration crackdown. Anita, MS now. MSNal's story focused on one young man who was on his way to the Nike. He has three American citizen children and an American citizen wife and a child in the neonatal intensive care unit. And he is on the verge now of being deported, a DACA recipient. He was sent to a detention center in Laredo. And you're right about that reporting. I thought the most remarkable thing about that is the administration actually saying in there. You're not automatically protected. And I don't think we've really heard that before. I mean, we've heard a lot about immigration, about different types of immigrants that are here and where they fit in. But I don't think we've heard from the administration before that, hey, you're not automatically protected like you had been since the Obama administration. How is DACA enforced then? Does the Trump administer, can they do this as the question? Do they have discretion over whether DACA, which people are removable, DACA protected them? from removal. They're deportable. DACA said, don't worry about it. Now the Trump administration says worry. Yeah, and remember, this is a program where you have to keep renewing. So it's every... Which he did. Yeah, which is every couple years, people come forward and they have to submit paperwork and so forth. So if they're facing long delays, hey, they don't have their paperwork then, right? So I think it's they do have some authority here or they have some...

options here on how to not protect them anymore. Many attorneys for these immigrants also believe that administration delays are intentional. People are applying for their docker renewals. They face long delays. Then all of a sudden they've lapsed. Then all of a sudden, they're in handcuffs, according to their lawyers. I want to go back to Congress because while the war rages in the Persian Gulf and with all the economic consequences and immigration stories that we've been discussing still. The Epstein files remains in the news. On Tuesday, Democrats and Republicans on the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. They wanted her to testify about how she's handled the Epstein investigation and the release and the withholding of those Epstein files. Then Pam Bondi appeared behind closed doors for a briefing, not a hearing with lawmakers on Tuesday, not part of the subpoena, not under oath. Dems. walked out. Here's California Congressman Robert Garcia, the top Democrat, on that oversight committee. We opened up what was supposed to be a briefing by asking the Attorney General, which I did multiple times, if she would commit to follow the subpoena that is in place, that compels her to answer questions that's under oath, transcribed, and then made available to the American people, and she refused on multiple occasions. to commit to following the subpoena that Chairman Comber actually just put out. Pam Bondi later said she will follow the law. Megan Scully, why did Pam Bondi appear for this briefing now and will she appear in April to testify under oath as the subpoena requires? Well, as you said, this was not part of the subpoena. This was essentially kind of an information session with lawmakers and a precursor to the subpoena deposition, which we're expecting on April 14th. She kind of was squirly in her response to... to questions as to whether or not she would appear for that deposition. I'm just going to pull up her quote here to journalists afterwards in the hallways. I made it crystal clear. I will follow the law that was short of a simple yes or no of whether she's coming. And certainly there are lingering questions about the department's handling of the release of the Epstein files, what has been redacted, what hasn't been redacted, and the pace at which these files have been released. They were all supposed to be released back in December. and we're seeing it sort of roll out on a on a small you know in small tranches now you know three four months after the deadline for the department there are also lingering questions particularly among democrats but but some Republicans as well as to what Pam Bondi knew or didn't know in in the run up to all of this much more to come I'm sure on the Epstein files will be following that story as well but now we have to go back over to the Senate because day after day hour after hour on the Senate floor the Save Act continues to tread water. That's the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, so called. It tries to enforce strict new requirements for voting before the midterms, forcing Americans to show proof of citizenship. In other words, show your documents in order to vote. It does a lot more besides. Trump has said he'll sign nothing else besides funding for DHS until the SAVE Act passes. He's told his MAGA base to expect nothing less. But as we said more than once here on the show, Taylor,

Math, the SAVE Act, does not have the votes. GOP leader John Thune has said it over and over. Thom Tillis, retiring Republican of North Carolina, has now called this whole episode among Republicans a circular firing squad. Why is he saying that and what's... happening here? Because the Senate Majority Leader John Thune is correct in saying he does not have the votes to pass this. But through this weekend, the Senate is going to stay in session. And among other things, we'll be debating on and conducting votes that are expected to fail related to this legislation because President Trump is unwilling to move past it. And he has a few key allies in the Republican caucus in the Senate, like Utah Senator Mike Lee, who are leading the charge and saying, we have the president's back on this and we're not going to back down. And we want constant debates on this. The legislation voting rights advocates are really concerned about because it's not just show your documents. It shows something like a passport or a birth certificate. And that leads to a lot of hurdles for people if they get married and they change their name. They might not have those particular documents updated. They might have lost them as they were kind of going through life. And the president is saying this is imperative to have before the midterm election. Trump has really raised expectations on this. Elon Musk has been attacking directly John Thune on this issue. Yes, amplifying it like he has. in previous instances like when he was leading Doge. So it's a striking conversation, but the votes expected to fail. That's Taylor Poplar's of Spectrum News. Anita Kumar is here in Megan Scully. I'm Todd's Willick. It's the roundup on 1A. Well, the Save Act continues to languish in the Senate as Republicans battle Republicans over that issue. It drops. Right in the middle of primary season for the rest of America, Illinois had some high-profile primary results this week, especially on the Dem side. One was to fill the seat of retiring Democratic Senator Dick Durbin in Illinois. Lieutenant Governor Julianne Stratton came out on top in that race after an endorsement. and a lot of money from the governor, J.B. Pritzker. Anita, what can you tell us about the lieutenant governor Stratton, the significance of her victory and what it says about democratic politics right now? I will tell you about the governor because I think our headline at Politico called him the king of Illinois. I mean, he... kind of showed what he wanted to show. He put his money where his mouth is. He endorsed. This is someone who's been with him, worked with him, and he wanted to show who he supported. He got some pushback on that. Yes, some $14 million from J.J.B. Pritzker and his family, a political action committee in which they support. Huge amount of money put up against Congressman Christina Morthy, who himself was really, really benefited from a political action committee funded by crypto interests. There was also an important race in the Illinois 9th district, a house race, where a lot of outside money poured in. What happened there?

We saw a ton of outside money across Illinois. APAC, crypto, heavy-hitters. AI, artificial intelligence, not to be confused with AI. And APAC, right, and APAC, the American pro-Israel lobby is just a major divisive issue in the democratic world right now. Absolutely. And what we saw were these were all seats that are safe democratic seats. which would not see this sort of infusion of cash. And they suddenly became these races with tens of millions of dollars in some cases poured into them. All right. We're going to round up the roundup in just a moment. Before we do, I want to take you guys north to the tundras of Alaska. There was a heat dome in southwest of America, 108 degree temperatures just this past week. Forget about that for just a moment, if you could, and follow me, to the frozen world. of the Iditarod sled race. There's the cheers at the finish line. This week, Mushers wrapped up the 1,000-mile Editarod. The winner? 44-year-old Jesse Holmes, he crossed the finish line in Kristi Noem, Alaska, after nine days, seven hours, 32 minutes. Now, this was a repeat for Jesse Holmes. He won last year, in fact. Holmes has finished in the top 10 every year since his first Iditarod back in 2018. But get this. He's not from Alaska. Bro's from Alabama. He moved to Alaska, and he's now a world champion musher. All right, enough about the humans. Let's talk about the real winners here. The dogs. I'm really proud of these dogs. I love them. And they did it. They deserve all the credit. Holmes had a 12 dog team captain by Zeus, who's three years old. Polar, who's eight. And Jesse Holmes, he got $80,000 in prize money. What did the dogs get as soon as they finished? Big, raw, rib-eye steaks. And that's what a winning dog deserves. He has a reality show. There's a musher show that I wasn't aware of that Jesse Holmes is a star of. I did not know that. It's cool, though. But let's celebrate the dogs. I mean, you know, to run from Anchorage to Gnome. To get a bunch of dogs to run toward Gnome. Oh, yeah. My dog wants a greenie for like. Megan Scully gets it. Anita Kumar gets it. Sorry for that one. Congratulations to Jesse and the team. Megan Scully Congress, editor at Bloomberg News. Anita Kumar, head of standards and practices and former managing editor and White House correspondent at Politico and Taylor Poplar's national political reporter for Spectrum News. Thanks to you all, as always. Up next, we'll have a new panel and some news from around the world. We'll be right back.

This message comes from Jerry. Many people are overpaying on car insurance. Why? Switching providers can be a pain. Jerry helps make the process painless. Jerry is the only app that compares rates from over 50 insurers in minutes and helps you switch fast with no spam calls or hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Before you renew your car insurance policy, download the Jerry app or head to jerry.a.ai slash NPR. Welcome back to the 1A podcast. Let's get into the international edition of the Weekly News Roundup. It's been 21 days since the United States and Israel began striking Iran. Last week, President Trump said the strait of Hormuz would be open soon. But this week, the Iranian government effectively closed it. Last week, Iran's top security official, Ali Larijani, was marching at the head of a crowd along the streets of Tehran displaying defiance. This week... He was assassinated by Israel, leaving behind a regime less predictable than ever, but still very much intact. The war has illuminated the cost of shunning allies and further complicated the world order. And it remains unclear how or when the conflict might end. More than 1,300 Iranians and 13 American service members have been killed since strikes began. on February 28th. We're going to talk about the Strait of Hormuz about devastating new attacks on energy infrastructure in Qatar and Iran and all over the region, and where all of this could go for the economy, for America's relationships, and for you. Here to break it all down with us this week. Michelle Jem Riscoe is on the line. She's White House and National Security Editor at Bloomberg News. Hi, Michelle. Hi, good to be with you, Todd. Great to have you here. Here in the studio with me, Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent at Huff Post. He's also author of the upcoming book, Crossing the Red Line, Biden, his advisors, and Israel's War in Gaza. Akbar, welcome back. Thanks, Todd. And Phil Stewart is here for the second time this week, National Security correspondent at Reuters, Phil. Great to have you on the roundup. Thanks for being here. Exclusive reporting from Reuters this week. that the administration is considering deploying thousands more U.S. troops to the Middle East, including potentially, onto Iranian soil to open oil shipments or even possibly to retrieve nuclear fuel. Phil, that exclusive reporting was yours, along with colleagues at Reuters. And that's a big part of the reason why we wanted to make sure you are around the table. Tell us about your reporting what you've been finding out about administration plans for the next phase of this war. So, you know, I think when the war started, before the war started, and people thought there might be a conflict, there was a lot of folks thinking, maybe it'll be limited strikes, maybe it'll be, you know, kind of this, kind of that. And we reported that it was, no, it was going to be weeks long, a week's long campaign. And now that we're already in this week's long phase, I think a lot of us are coming to the realization that it's not about to end anytime soon unless... you know, President Trump has an abrupt change of heart. And what we're seeing right now from military planners and the sources who are talking to us about these military plans is there are some very detailed options that are being discussed at the White House, in the U.S. military, about lots of scenarios. And one of them includes opening the strait. And that means putting Marines possibly on the ground, on the shores of Iran, which is a very risky endeavor to put it, you know.

mildly. And all of this requires more forces into the region. And what we're seeing, what we reported on Wednesday that you were talking about, and what we're reporting right now, actually, which is the confirmation of that, is that there are now thousands more troops that are headed to the Middle East to reinforce operations already underway. And we'll keep reporting because we think there will be more flowing in. As early, as late as last week, there were 2,500 Marines, 2,500 sailors headed. to the Gulf from the area of the Philippines, you're reporting that more troops are leaving from U.S. bases. That's correct. Yeah. You know, this morning we're reporting that the USS Boxer, along with its Marine Expeditionary Unit, and accompanying warships are moving from the west coast. I don't know how long it's going to take. It's going to be a kind of a long ride. What could a boots-on-the-ground operation the thing that I think Americans reliably were led to believe would never be the case in Iran? What could a boots-on-the-ground operation look like realistically? Well, I think that's one of the big differences is that right now people aren't talking about an Iraq style or Afghan-style operation where you had U.S. forces dividing up the country into the kind of regional command. North, south, east, west. What we're seeing is kind of limited goals for different scenarios that the president might. pick out of a hat, right? So if he wants to, you know, put the U.S. thumb on the Iranian energy jugular at Karg Island and cut off Iran's access to, you know, 90% of its oil exports, then it could do that. It would be a, you know, a tremendous escalation. But, you know, it could do that and put troops there. You got this comment from the White House in your story, Phil. The president is focused on achieving all of the defined objectives of Operation Epic Fury, destroy Iran's ballistic missile. capacity, annihilate their Navy, ensure their terrorist proxies cannot destabilize the region, and guarantee that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon. Now, yesterday, the president, responding largely to your reporting, said he's not putting troops on the ground. He often, though, he also, as he often does, left things open so that he could say something different. at another time. Do we know what kind of advice the president is getting now about how to reopen, for instance, the Strait of Hormuz without troops or how many options he thinks he has to get oil flowing again? You know, the Strait of Hermuz and the Iranian ability to effectively close it has been the big conundrum that's long made U.S. presidents over the years refrain from doing what's going on right now. And, you know, the options to reopen it are all kind of problematic. And I think that's why, you know, he doesn't really want to talk about it. And there hasn't been this commitment to really, you know, full-throat to go in there because, you know, people could die. vital reporting from Reuters, from you, Phil Stewart, from your colleagues, including Adris, a friend of the show. So we're happy to have you here. Thanks for coming on to talk about it. And we'll have you back, of course, as you continue to shed light on American plans for this war in Iran. Let's take a step back now and look at views of this from around.

the world. I mean, it's a huge risk, the potential for American boots on the ground, Akbar. 13 U.S. troops, as I said, have been killed so far in this war. Around 200 have been wounded. That's according to the U.S. military. How are allies watching next moves, one that could completely change the scale of the war, especially if the president makes a decision to try to free up oil with American feet on the ground? Well, I'll just start off very quickly with the Iranian perspective on this, too, in terms of the international reaction, because what's really alarming, I think, to a lot of folks. I talk to you on the inside is there's still not an understanding of how the Iranians perceive what the Americans are doing. So President Trump might say this is a calibrated boots on the ground thing. We're not doing, as you said, Phil, we're not doing Iraq, we're not doing regional commands, we're not doing occupation. However... For the Iranians, this is a huge red line, right? And the way that they might retaliate could be disproportionate and huge. What we know from them is their clear motivation now is we do not want you to be in a position where you can keep attacking us. Three months, six months a year down the line. This is not going to be Israel more alone in Palestine, right? So the Iranian calculus, I think, is really concerning here. And that leads into what the US allies are thinking because there's such a sense of... Who is actually advising President Trump? And this is a consistent refrain you here from foreign interlocutors with the administration, from administration officials. It does seem that expertise on Iran, expertise on energy is not getting up to the White House, and then there's kind of hawks in the president's era. Senator Lindsey Graham, Mark Levin, conservative radio hosts, and of course, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Well, while the administration mulls its next options on troops to secure the Strait of Hormuz and other infrastructure around the Gulf, This week, the president. Made several statements. Let's recap a bit on Monday. He said this. We strongly encourage the other nations to get involved with us and get involved quickly and with great enthusiasm. After silence from those other nations and a rebuff from several European and Asian allies on Tuesday, the president said this. Well, we don't need too much help. We don't need any help, actually. In fact, we just put out a notice. I was watching over the last couple of weeks. All of our NATO allies were very much in favor of what we did. They thought it was very important. We were just discussing it, actually, very important that we take out the nuclear threat from Iran, and we've done that very strongly, very powerfully. Now, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi heard all of that. and responded this way. They are asking other countries to come and help them, so that the Strait of Hormuz remains open, which, of course, from our perspective, it is open. It is only closed to our enemies. Michelle Jammarisco, what has this war shown about traditional allies' willingness now to work with the Trump administration?

Well, we've seen a lot this week, Todd, and we can talk about the complications with Japan with the Prime Minister Takichi visiting the White House yesterday. It was a whole other line of narrative on how allies are reacting to this. But we're definitely seeing a sea change in how European leaders are confronting Trump directly and indirectly here. And even just this week, we had, you know, the talk of sanctioned waivers to move Russian oil and the call for NATO allies to help police the Strait of Hormuz all. kind of pushing them into this corner where you've got people like German Chancellor, Frederick Byrds, saying we will not participate in this war. The Greek and Norwegian prime ministers also saying their answer is no. Even, you know, Trump's pal Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, has said Italy will not participate in the war. So it's kind of coming to this point where the tensions that European nations, many of them have had with the Trump administration, are coming to a point of real. disagreement over where this war is going and whether or not they'll contribute anything to the effort economically, politically, or militarily. We got this message from Osborne, 1A listener who says the issue isn't whether Iran is a dangerous threat. The problem is the inept, incoherent approach that the administration is taking. Why would any of these allies seriously consider putting troops or naval vessels under the control? of Donald Trump. Osborne, thank you for that comment. We're going to talk a lot more about energy infrastructure around the Gulf and around the Middle East. It has become a target with consequences for those countries and consequences for us all. Put that aside. just for a moment because this week Israel killed Ali Larijani, a top Iranian security official. He was senior advisor to the former Supreme Leader and a key negotiator in talks between Iran and the United States mediated by Oman that were going on in Geneva when Donald Trump decided to start bombing. Ali Larijani is the most senior Iranian official to be killed since the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself. Now, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbasargarji, reacted on Al-Jazeera. I do not know why the Americans and the Israelis still have not understood this point. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a strong political structure with established political, economic and social institutions. The presence or absence of a single individual does not affect this structure. Of course, individuals are influential and each person plays their role, some better, some worse, some less. But what matters is that the political system in Iran is a very solid structure. We have not had anyone more important than the leader himself, and even the leader was marty. Yet the system continued to work and immediately provided a replacement. If anyone else is martyed, it will be the same. Michelle Jemresko, Ali Larijani had influence in all three pillars of the Iranian regime, the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Islamic clerics and in the bureaucracy. How does his death affect stability there? The foreign minister wants to send the message. It doesn't affect it at all because our bench is deep. What do you say?

Well, I think where you start is with those comments. And if you talk to any analysts closely watching Iran, and I remember this was true back in 2009, 2010 during the Iranian Green Revolution, they always give two cautionary notes to U.S. observers. One is that the Iranian regime, and especially those in the IRGC, it seemed to have a thousand heads. It's decentralized. There's plenty of people, as the foreign minister notes, to take up the roles that are removed by assassinations. And secondly, that Iran is a millennial old civilization that always plays the long game, which is something that's hard for U.S. strategists to tackle at times because we're a relatively young country. So it was initially surprising to me that the U.S. didn't openly celebrate or even confirm Larry Johnny's killing, but perhaps there's also an element here of being aware that while it's a high-profile killing, there are more to come after. And this is kind of echoing what Trump cautioned actually in the early days of the war when he noted that someone like Amani. could just pop up after him, which indeed happened. Indeed was the case with his son taking the role of supreme leader. So it also could be just another instance of Trump distancing himself from some of the Israeli attacks. You know, we had with the South Pars contradiction the other day after the Israeli strike on that energy site. You know, we did hear from a person familiar that the U.S. was aware of the strike before it occurred. And we're actually going to talk. We're going to attack. talk more about that disagreement and whether Israel and the United States are still on the same page. You raise a very important point, Michelle. Akbar, what do you want to say about the killing of Larjanie and what it means? I think it's really important for an American audience to understand that... The way this messaging resonates around the Muslim majority world, in particular among Shia communities who are close to Iran, this is cementing the kind of martyrdom narrative that Iran has always benefited from. So this also gets to the question of, is this a strategic benefit for the US, for its allies? It makes the Trump administration and Israel look a little more drift. And don't forget that Ali Larijani, by benefit of being so central to that system, was someone who... Iran's other assets, other proxies in the region are looking to the Houthi militias in Yemen have not yet entered the war. As this escalation continues, I think you'll see a greater risk of Iran's various other streams of influence getting into it. Akbar is pointing toward what will potentially be a much longer conflict than initially sold to the American public. And the ask coming from the Pentagon via the White House to Congress. seems to confirm that. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed that the Pentagon will ask Congress for $200 billion to fund this war. And he said that no time has been set on ending the conflict. The media here, not all of it, but much of it wants you to think just 19 days into this conflict that we're somehow spinning toward an endless abyss or a forever war or a quagmire. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth, Phil Stewart. I assume you were there to hear that statement from the defense secretary. I was. So attacking the media, saying they're spinning a forever war, it's not that. But the size, the $200 billion, the ask, is by any standard, even by congressional standards, even by Pentagon standards, staggeringly large. It does not point toward planning for a conflict that is several weeks long. You know, there was a moment in that press conference where it was sort of an aha moment for me. And it was when Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke about, he compared what was going on in Iran to the tunnels that Hamas had in its campaign. And at that moment, you sort of realized, oh, they're gearing up for a long fight in Iran. And the U.S. is coming to grips with that. In other words, comparing it to tunnels means counterinsurgency, an entrenched enemy going into cities. Now, we have no window into whether that's the plan, an IDF-style fight like in Gaza and the carnage there. Yeah, but, but, you know, a war against Hamas wasn't a three-week war. And it's not an air war in the end. And it's still not over today. Israel yesterday bombed Gaza City, right? So when you get to this question of endless war, if you don't have a clear goal and a clear off-ramp, you are perpetually fighting, especially when you're tens of thousands of miles away fighting someone in their own homeland. We got this comment from Michael who said, aside from what may be necessary to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which we talked about, ground action will be necessary to confirm the status of Iran's nuclear facilities and to remove or destroy. whatever remains of them. Whatever you think of this war, now that we've started it, we need to ensure that any attempt to restart their nuclear program begins from zero and that nuclear materials did not fall into unknown hands if the government collapses. Michael pointing to the potential of weapons of mass destruction, Michelle Jamrisko, and raises the point that like the war or not, there is real danger in Iran. Well, yeah, I mean, I think you've heard from the U.S. administration, too, that let's remember why we got into this, which at times may have seemed murky. I think Trump has been leaning most recently, again, on the nuclear threat on pushing that, you know, in his view, as he said, Ron was just two weeks away from nuclear capabilities. You know, others will criticize that and we'll disagree with that. But that is now the central focus, I think, strategically on the mission. And you have, as we noted European allies earlier, not agreeing with the tactics, not getting on board with contributing in any way to this war from here forward, but also recognizing, as Giorgia Meloni once again, has done, that they don't want Iran to be a nuclear threat. They don't want missile capabilities to be expanded. And I think that's going to be a central focus in talks with allies and other officials going forward as the U.S. tries to get some support. for continuing this mission as we think now is inevitable. Michael's comment points to a long-term concern of enriched nuclear material that maybe still be buried in Iran. Most experts think that it is. I just want to note that this week, on Capitol Hill, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, asked directly, would not say,

that her directorate advised the White House and the commander-in-chief that the threat from Iran was imminent, was given several opportunities. In fact, poked several times to say it. She wouldn't say it. Now, these are separate things. The long-term threat of nuclear material, of course, the imminent threat, the Director of National Intelligence Akbar, would not say it. Right. And this gets to the question of what the Trump administration knew about the nuclear capabilities when they were doing that diplomacy you talked about. In fact, Iran had said they might wind down some of this enrichment back two days before the war. So if you're the Trump administration, what are you actually playing at here? We'll talk a little bit more about talks in Geneva and what some of the reporting was around that. And it goes to the question of imminence. We've mentioned several times. Let's talk about it now. Attacks on energy infrastructure. all around the Gulf since February 28. This week, more strikes on energy. Wednesday, Iran struck the Roslifan facility in Qatar. It produces 20% of the world's supply of liquid natural gas, LNG. And now the state-owned LNG company says the attack knocked out 17% of its production for the next three to five years. Phil, talk about the economic impact of that attack, what it could mean around the world. Iran targeted oil-producing areas in Saudi. In addition, Iran targeted the airport in Dubai. Missiles were intercepted in Kuwait this week. We're going to talk about other attacks as well. You know, it just reminds me that old saying, you know, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I think like when you're in a region full of energy infrastructure that is at the end of the day out and in the open, you know, you really are running this risk that if you start, you know, having a back and forth, you're running tremendous risk. And the world runs still on... on oil. You know, there's increasing renewable energy consumption, but it really, the whole world economy is based on having this free flow. I want to repeat that the Qatari-LNG concern said supplies interrupted for three to five years, 17% of their production. That is no small amount. Akbar, what about the security guarantees that these countries? have expected by partnering with the United States, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, all of this was supposed to be protection from them, stability so they could grow their economies. Yes, sell carbon fuel, but also move away from it. Look, these countries have not only made a decades-long investment in the United States. They've made personal investments in Donald Trump, his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and their businesses. So what I am hearing from Gulf sources is this was a terrible deal for us, right? And there is a lot of... talk of where do we re-diversify, how do we start retalking to Russia, China, others to look to our security, to look to our weapons systems. Are they maybe even going to work more closely with Pakistan and the Chinese again on fighter jets? So I do think for a lot of these countries, the U.S. prospect of having bases, having troops being aligned against Iran, that bargain doesn't stand up as much anymore. The Qataris gifted a $400 million plane to Donald Trump. The Emirates.

made a multi, hundreds of millions of dollars investment directly into his crypto company before he took office. What are they saying about what they've been getting for their money? Or I should say, does it show that you can't buy Donald Trump? You can lavish him with gifts and he's still going to do things you don't want. I think it shows that Donald Trump wakes up every day and has a different idea depending on who he may have talked to, right? I mean, because certainly assurances were given in the first year of this administration. Yes, we are going to be really friendly to you. Yes, the Saudis are finally going to get the nuclear enrichment that, by the way, they have wanted, not just the Iranians, not to mention Israel, the only nuclear power in the region. So a lot of those countries. did think that their bet was worth it. Now, I think it's just that much harder to deal with them. And, of course, Donald Trump has fired that almost every ambassador in the region is only conducting diplomacy through his son-in-law. Who do you talk to? That's Akbar Shahid Ahmed of Huff Post. Phil Stewart is here from Reuters and Michelle Jamrisko from Bloomberg News. I'm Todd's Willick. You're listening to The Roundup on 1A. Well, as Akbar mentioned a moment ago, more reporting on communication channels between the United States and Iran this week. Something rejected by the regime with no comment from the White House, even more remarkable. This reporting from the UK, from the Guardian, Britain's national security advisor, Jonathan Jerome Powell, attended final talks between the United States and Iran in February, in Geneva, and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear program was significant enough to prevent a rush to war. You just mentioned this, Akbar, that Iran had offered to dilute its uranium and many other offers as well. What happened? Why did we end up here? So what we know from this new reporting from the Guardian of... from Amuaj media, a really strong regional news outlet, is that the Iranians were saying not only will be watered on somewhere, uranium, we actually will agree to... a better deal than the Obama-era-nuclear deal, which has always been a fixation for President Trump, who, of course, precipitated this whole crisis by tearing up that deal unilaterally. The Iranians offered that to Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. What the reporting tells us is that Steve Witkoff then came back and said, no, we want even longer guarantees, we want even more concessions and capitulation. And from the Iranian perspective in that moment, they had felt they were making, they were giving the Americans what they wanted, they were not going to go for a full capitulation. What we also know, and this gets back to the regional question, Qataris were involved in those discussions and Omanis, and they're coming out saying, we really thought we were going for another round of diplomacy just two days later in Vienna. Now the question of Israel and the United States, what motivated them then to attack when they did? If so much was on the table in Geneva, as the Guardian and Akbar describe, what led to the attack? There's a theme in this country that Israel dragged.

the United States into this war. I think that robs Donald Trump of his agency as commander-in-chief. Nobody drags America anywhere. He made decisions. He is the commander-in-chief. Benjamin Netanyahu, however, the prime minister said on Thursday that Israel didn't lead the U.S. into war at all. Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do? Come on. Okay, so that's Benjamin Netanyahu's opinion on whether Israel could drag Donald Trump anywhere. Benjamin Netanyahu also said that Iran can no longer enrich uranium or manufacture ballistic missiles. So here's the point now as energy infrastructure is attacked all over the Gulf. Michelle Jammarisco, Phil, mentioned it a few moments ago. An Israeli attack... on Iranian energy production along the Gulf. There was a disagreement this week. Israel said the United States knew about it. Donald Trump says, I didn't know anything about it. Now Benjamin Netanyahu says, no, we didn't tell them. Israel and the United States on the same page are their incentives diverging here. You know, this is one thing that experts are really, you know, divided on. And there's a concern that Israel would benefit from long-term instability in Iran in a way that wouldn't benefit the United States or its Gulf allies. And, you know, Reuters has done reporting in this week that some Gulf allies actually are really hoping that the U.S. doesn't stop just now because that would leave the Iranian government strengthened, the Iranian military strengthened in a sense. because they would find that they could declare victories. So they don't want that. But I guess it is a big question right now over whether the U.S. and Israel will be on the same page in the end game in Iran. Whether they expect the same things from the end of this war. And indeed what you mentioned from the Gulf allies may be wanting to push even further now to make sure that remnants aren't left. That could strangely align more with Israel's desires. It's unclear. Akbar. I'd just say two very quick things. We saw three years of the Biden administration leaking that they were frustrated with Benjamin Netanyahu and not being able to break away. Are we going to see a repeat of that with Donald Trump? And of course, the Israeli off-ramp here is truly unclear. The American off-ramp is potentially there too. It's Trump's choice to take it. And as you say, he has agency, it's not just Benjamin Netanyahu. I want to talk about yet another front. in this war that we've been discussing all hour long between Israel and Hezbollah, southern Lebanon, the conflict reignited when Iran-backed Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel. Earlier this month, when the attacks on Iran kicked off. Lebanese health officials say Israeli airstrikes have now killed more than a thousand people in southern Lebanon, and more than a million are displaced. The AP reports there isn't enough shelter, people sleeping in tents and cars. That's as Muslims around the world celebrate Eid al-Fa-Al-Fidhar, marking the end of the holy month of Ramadan. Israel launched what it called limited ground invasion in southern Lebanon this week, but Israel's defense minister has said,

the military could occupy parts of southern Lebanon comparing the operation to its war in Gaza. Michelle, do we know what's next? Are there any diplomatic developments here between the government of Lebanon, which has not been able to reign in Hezbollah, the Israelis, and Hezbollah itself? Well, Todd, I'm not sure about the status of the talks there, but I'm glad you bring up the Hezbollah front because I think it also connects back to what we were talking about of divergence between the U.S. and Israelis to the extent that there is some. I think we can talk about that more in the sense of the prioritization of either side on the Iran war conflict. So here we have this other front opening up that Israel very much sees and that foreign affairs advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu has. said that earlier this month, that the Iran conflict is for Israel, a war of redemption that began on October 7th, of course, in reference to the Hamas attacks of more than two years ago. And this expansion of military presence across southern Lebanon is part of that Iran conflict in the sense that they're pushing back on the threat that they see from Iran-backed Hezbollah. So these are all kind of overlapping and connecting. And I think, you know, whether you're talking about moving on to face of the Gaza-Israel ceasefire, you know, or talks among the entities you described that are involved with Lebanon and Hezbollah, it doesn't seem like the right time to be expecting more advancement in peace. Akbar. And just very quickly, on Lebanon, we were supposed to have a ceasefire here, right? The U.S. helped negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, which was repeatedly violated. And so to me, this is a canary in the coal mine of kind of bipartisan patterns of failure. Biden, through Trump administration, post-October 7th, working with the Israelis, have not been able to figure out a reasonable settlement that doesn't lead to continued conflict. An optimist, at least an anti-Hizbullah optimist, would say Iran is being weakened. Syria has been weak. Hezbollah's arteries are being choked off. One last push could weaken them maybe to a significant amount. And this, of course, was the same argument in the fall of 2024. I was covering it then and talking to people on the ground, right? And what you've seen is... The Lebanese have only been further immiscerated, further diminishing their capacity to push back against his military as takeover of their state. So if you are the Lebanese government or just a civilian, potentially sleeping on the street, displaced again, who do you look to for support here? And the Trump administration, I think it's so telling, has not ever indicated. I've tried so many sources in the administration asking, do you have a plan for Lebanon? They don't even want to talk about it. It's just not on their radar at all. Well, tens of millions more people will face acute hunger around the world if the Iran war continues through June and oil remains above $100 per barrel. That's according to an analysis from the World Food Program released on Tuesday. And you can see why. Increased fuel prices mean more expensive food, transportation, water all over the world. And people on the cusp.

are the first to suffer. People in Asia and the African continent would be hardest hit, according to the report says. We talk about energy infrastructure, Karg Island, the Strait of Hormuz, liquid natural gas, and oil boots on the ground. We also talk about the effects on the most vulnerable around the world, which are almost certain to be acute. Let's move around the world, unfortunately, to more conflict. On Wednesday, Afghanistan and Pakistan, paused fighting ahead of Eid of the agreement brokered by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar lasts through midnight on Monday. But this follows Pakistan striking Kabul on Monday. Afghan officials said the bombing killed hundreds of people at a drug rehabilitation hospital. Islamabad disputed the death toll and the target saying their strikes on Kabul and eastern Afghanistan targeted military facilities only. Phil, what should we be watching in this conflict, which appears to have troublingly bubbled up to the east of Iran? You know, I just think it's just another sign of just global instability. You know, you're seeing the world kind of come apart at the seams in different ways. And this is just another flashpoint, an unfortunate flashpoint in a country that's suffered a lot, you know, during decades of war. So it is something that people need to watch. And more instability in the Middle East region and that part of the world is a... concern. What's your angle on what we need to know about Pakistan and Afghanistan and their conflict now? Just a quick thing on, the Trump administration has become so close to the Pakistani government, right? And particularly its military leadership. There's certainly a sense in Pakistan of a green light from Washington. And I just invite people to look at the broader picture of what Phil's saying, global instability. There's been a lot of talk of... Trump has revealed the hypocrisy of the U.S.-led liberal order. There's been a lot of this. You heard Marconi say that Davos, no one ever really believed that, you know, it was about peace or human rights or stability. Sure, but... There was a veneer that that was the goal. There was language that that could be held to and standard. And that America could deploy if it wanted to. Precisely. And now what we're seeing is the consequences of a more naked and really less principled approach to foreign policy is deep, deep in civility and deaths really globally, which is quite a lot. Well, we move then, as we often do, we skip around the world here on the roundup from Pakistan and Afghanistan to much closer here to home. Because next on Donald Trump's target list, according to him, is Cuba, just 90 miles south of Florida. 10 million Cubans lost power this week due to a massive blackout that lasted 29 hours on Monday. The president said Cuba was on the brink of collapse. You know, all my life I've been hearing about the United States and Cuba, when will the United States do it? I do believe I'll be the honor of having the honor of...

Taking Cuba. That's a big honor. Taking Cuba. Taking Cuba. In some form, yeah. Taking Cuba. I mean, whether I free it, take it, I think I can do anything I want with it. You want to know the truth? They're a very weakened nation. I can do anything I want with it if you want to know the truth, says the President of the United States about Cuba. Phil Stewart, what has the administration said? about what it might look like if the president, indeed, wants to take control of Cuba. So it's fascinating. There was a hearing yesterday where the general who oversees the U.S. military Southern Command was asked, are you rehearsing to take over Cuba? And he said, no. We're not rehearsing to do that. Are you, is there any way in which you're planning to potentially occupy Cuba, assume control of Cuba? No, he said no. So, you know, we're left with this question about whether they're just going to. kind of oversee the collapse from afar. You know, the U.S. has a military base, a major base, Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba. The U.S. has an embassy. And so the question is, you know, what would it do if there was a crisis, a mass migration crisis? And so there are ways the U.S. could be involved, but the military is saying they're not getting ready to go in. And so we're left with a big question mark. Michelle Jem Risko, U.S. negotiators have told the Cubans that President Miguel Diaz-Cannell must step down as a precondition to any deal. The communist government has, of course, ruled Cuba for more than 65 years. Military leaders, as Phil Stewart said, say they are not planning for any action, not rehearsing any action for Cuba, but the president wants everyone to think that a takeover is imminent. What's going on here? What is the United States trying to do? What is it going to do? Well, I think that's broadly consistent with two things that we continue to hear openly from U.S. administration officials. One being that they see Cuba as extremely vulnerable, even before the Venezuelan operation, but certainly after that, given that Cuba was very connected and sponsored in some ways by Venezuela, and now is that that certainly not the case. The humanitarian situation has gotten much worse. The oil blockade has in the U.S. view is part of trying to cripple the regime, which is the second point I was going to make is that the U.S. is insistent that this is all about, you know, ending the regime. They think it's on its last legs, that it's, you know, in its last days already. So they're looking to finish the job. And I think the only question we have is when will we see those further steps, you know, kinetically, militarily, in some way that kind of set aside these talks they've been having with the regime. and move forward in trying to finish the job in that region. And we just don't know that. I mean, we've gotten all the signals, as you mentioned from Trump, that it could be imminent. But who knows with the Iran war raging whether he'll turn his attention in the coming days to Cuba or wait a little longer. Donald writes in to ask this, why is the U.S. trying to starve Cuba of oil?

If their communist economy is failing, why not let it fail on its own instead of adding to the misery of the Cuban people? Wouldn't we look better by offering humanitarian assistance rather than twisting the knife? Akbar Donald's question and his comment also goes to widespread blackouts. Now, Cuba's energy grid is reliant on burning oil. I don't know if it's actually proven that the blackout is related directly to the blockade. or not. But Donald asked the question, if the country's teetering, why not help become a friend to the Cuban people instead of twisting the knife? Well, massive immiseration in Cuba throughout the Trump administration, as it's kind of tightened sanctions enforcement. What I see now is... It's important to think about who's driving this conversation. And for the Trump administration, a lot of that has been Cuban diaspora communities, of which Secretary of State Marco Rubio is, of course, a member. The narrative from a lot of those communities has been, got to be tougher, got to be tougher, got to be tougher, which of course is easy to see when you're not on the island. Phil? You know, a lot of people thought before the January raid where they swooped in and took the president of the country and flumed into New York. In Venezuela. Yeah, Venezuela. That that was all about Venezuela situation was all about Cuba. And it was really about cutting off the lifeline, the economic lifeline that Venezuela gives to Cuba. And now you're seeing that policy play out in real time. So they've done that. They've severed the economic lifeline. And they want to see, I think, this government collapse. And as Trump said, on his watch. And again, this is another kind of generational thing that people have. War with Iran, the collapse of the Cuban regime. As a young reporter, I spoke to Fidel Castro, the idea that I'm going to live through the end of the... It is an incredible series of events that President Trump is putting into motion, and we don't know where they're going to end. You interviewed Fidel Castro? I spoke to Fidel Castro in Brazil, yeah. Wow. When was that? 98 maybe and here we are 2026 the Cuban regime and the US is the United States trying to recreate decapitate in Venezuela make a deal with the vice president nothing much changes we're not looking to democratize or reform these places we want concessions we want their stuff and we want a leader who answers to the White House I mean that seems to be you know the explicit policy goal All right, I want to take just a moment before we round up, the roundup here, just to get one idea from each of you on what stories you're watching for next week in your notebook. What do we need to know? Michelle Jermarisco, you go first.

Well, certainly the day-to-day on Iran, especially what happens next with Karg Island. But also, you know, we want to keep in mind the interesting things moving forward on U.S.-China relations. Of course, the Trump's trip to Beijing already affected and, you know, the implications of that on his eventual summit with President Xi Jinping. Trump's trip to China for at the end of this month postponed for now. Phil Stewart, what about you? Well, I'm going to be obviously watching for the next steps in this war with Iran. We need to learn more about what the U.S. is prepared to do and what sacrifices it might be prepared to make. What do we need to know about Karg Island? Critical for energy infrastructure, this is where Iran fills tankers. It appears to be... potentially on the list if we're talking about troops on the ground. It would be really great if we could learn what the intelligence assessment really says about, you know, what would Iran do if the U.S. occupies Kark Island? You know, would they, would it be no holds barred on any, in any number of ways? Iran has said no restraint. That's the term they've used. Akbar, what about you? splintering on the U.S. side. I'm very curious. We saw the Joe Kent, an ally of the president, stepped out this week. I think it's interesting to see if we see more people come out and say President Trump, you told us no wars. And relatedly to the splintering, I started to talk to service members, reservists, people on the inside who are being asked to go out on these deployments. There is a lot of alarm. There's a lot of concern. There's a lot of fear. And you've already seen the Trump administration downplaying some of the injuries, not just the killed soldiers, but these hundreds of injuries, they're already saying, as they did in the first Trump administration, these are minor. These are traumatic brain injuries for a lot of people. So how are service members thinking about this prospect? American troops already. Very much in harm's way in the Persian Gulf and around Iran. And according to Phil Stewart's reporting and his colleagues at Reuters, potentially soon, many, many thousands more, potentially in much more danger. I want to thank this fantastic panel for this hour. Michelle Jamrisko, White House National Security Editor at Bloomberg News, Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent at Huff Post, and Phil Stewart, senior national security reporter at Reuters. Mike Kidd is our sound designer and engineer. Chris Castano is our digital editor. Maya Garg is our acting executive producer. Alexander Botee is our acting senior managing producer. Aileen Humphreys is our senior producer and editor of 1A On Demand. And Thomas Liu produces our podcast. Special thanks to Arfi Getty and Matthew Simonson for additional on-demand support this week. This program comes to you from WAMU, part of American University in Washington distributed. by NPR. I'm Todd's Willick. This is 1A.

This message comes from NetSuite. They say that every day your business is late to AI, you fall two days behind. Fortunately, there's NetSuite Next. NetSuite Next is where your business meets AI because AI is built into everything you do. It automatically surfaces custom insights throughout your day. AI agents work alongside you to solve problems. It's just like you're having a conversation with a colleague. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, try NetSuite Next for free. Go to netseweet.a.a.a. slash story. This message comes from Designer Shoe Warehouse. You know that feeling when you find shoes you love at a great price and want to tell everyone about it? Find something to brag about at Designer Shoe Warehouse, like the latest styles from brands you love, the trends everyone's obsessing over, and shoes that make you feel like you. Head to a DSW store or DSW.com today for shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. DSW, let us surprise you.