Active-duty U.S. military chaplains say leadership under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is evaluating whether faith leaders are ideologically aligned with Donald Trump’s administration and Hegseth’s Christianity.

Several chaplains, who serve as officers in the branches, said they fear unconstitutional retaliation and other professional repercussions if their views don’t align with Hegseth, an Evangelical Christian who has implemented sweeping changes to the military’s Chaplain Corps.

“There appears to be an ongoing effort to determine whether subordinate chaplains ideologically align with the Secretary of Defense and the current leadership,” one chaplain wrote to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit group supporting service members’ rights to religious expression. “The messaging is consistent enough that many of us understand what is being rewarded and what is not.”

Acting Pentagon Press Secretary Joel Valdez told The Independent that “these claims are false,” but the complaints follow Hegseth’s overhauling of the Chaplain Corps over the last year.

Under Hegseth’s leadership, the Department of Defense has diminished chaplains’ military ranks and narrowed the Pentagon’s list of recognized faiths to “streamline” how chaplains minister to other service members. The secretary also tossed out “Spiritual Fitness” guides he said were too focused on “new age” concepts.

Those guides are ostensibly designed to help service members identify their personal faith, foundational values and moral grounding to better prepare them for conflict, whether those ideas stemmed from religion, philosophy or other modes of thinking.

But in a video announcing plans to overhaul the Chaplain Corps and spiritual fitness initiatives, Hegseth said chaplains are “not emotional support officers” or “therapists.”

“Faith and virtue were traded for self-help and self-care,” he said.

He derided the Army’s spiritual fitness program for promoting secular humanism, saying it “mentions God one time” and “mentions feelings 11 times.”

“It even mentions playfulness, whatever that is, nine times,” he said. “In short, it’s unacceptable and unserious. So we’re tossing it.”

Spiritual fitness “is now being presented as inherently religious,” a chaplain wrote to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. The complaints were first reported by The Daily Beast.

“Chaplains are increasingly expected to promote it, and the pressure to support its current direction is becoming difficult to ignore,” the chaplain said.

The chaplain also warned against reforms that have significantly expanded the influence of “supervisory chaplains” over their ministry, which could impact their promotions.

“If those determining what constitutes ‘effective ministry’ also expect alignment with a particular religious or ideological perspective, the evaluation system becomes more than a measure of ministry performance — it becomes a mechanism for shaping the future composition of the Chaplain Corps,” the chaplain wrote.

Another pair of military chaplains said they were pressured by administrative staff in their command to join a “commander’s crisis prayer phone tree.”

“It was more than obvious that the only religion associated with this so-called ‘crisis phone tree’ was Christian by the many statements made by the command section administrative staff,” they wrote.

The staffer’s attempts to recruit the chaplains was “clearly an attempt just as we joined this unit to make sure we were Christians in sync with I guess our commander’s obvious Christian religious views,” they said.

The Trump administration has repeatedly been accused of dismantling the church-and-state firewall and violating First Amendment protections by sharing explicitly Christian messages.

Hegseth has explicitly framed war with Iran through the lens of his faith and has rejected the founding principle of the separation of church and state. He has repeatedly invoked scripture and Christian prayer in his remarks while promising violence against his enemies.

The secretary also invited self-described Christian nationalist pastor Doug Wilson — who has defended slavery, wants to criminalize homosexuality and has advocated for repealing women’s right to vote — to preach at the Pentagon in February.

Last month, the Pentagon reduced a list of more than 200 previously recognized faith traditions to 31. The list no longer includes atheists and Unitarian Universalists, among others.

“Secretary Hegseth is not ‘streamlining’ anything. He is elevating one narrow religious worldview from the top of the chain of command,” according to said the Rev. Paul Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and head of the progressive Interfaith Alliance.

“That is dangerous, discriminatory and fundamentally un-American,” he said in a statement. “The First Amendment does not allow the government to create a hierarchy of faiths, and it certainly does not allow the Pentagon to decide which beliefs are worthy of recognition.”

Chaplains fear what appears to be “ideological alignment” could develop into a “broader narrowing of who is considered acceptable within the Chaplain Corps,” one chaplain wrote.

Among those likely to be impacted are chaplains from racial minority backgrounds and minority faith traditions, as well as women, the chaplain told the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“I sincerely hope I’m wrong. But from my perspective, the combination of the Spiritual Fitness initiative and the new evaluation system appears to create a structure that could reward ideological conformity while discouraging theological and cultural diversity,” the person said. “That would be a profound shift for a Chaplain Corps whose mission is to provide for the free exercise of religion across a pluralistic force.”

Photos taken at the Lincoln Memorial’s drained Reflecting Pool last week appear to show government employees gathering evidence in at least a dozen places, including three that were identified in a Washington Post analysis as locations where newly applied coating had peeled.

Administration officials have repeatedly claimed vandals are to blame for the damage that appeared just two weeks after the $14 million renovation was completed in early June. President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post last week that “the slashes were 300 yards long.” Other officials have offered varying descriptions, raising questions about the cause and extent of the damage.

The analysis published by The Post last week found that the pool’s lining had peeled away in at least seven spots along seams that were created when the material was applied in large rectangular sections. Experts said the pattern likely indicated problems in how the material was installed, but they stopped short of diagnosing a definitive application error.

An FBI evidence team visited the pool on July 15, after it had been drained, to assist the U.S. Park Police in investigating damage to the pool, the New York Times reported.

Photos taken that day and examined by The Post show individuals in the Reflecting Pool using survey equipment and taking photographs and measurements. It was not clear if they were members of the FBI or worked for another federal agency, though most wore beige and green clothing resembling the colors frequently worn by National Park Service employees. One person had a gold-colored law enforcement badge fastened to their waist, according to the photos.

In a statement to The Post, the FBI confirmed that it is assisting the U.S. Park Police in the investigation and referred questions to the Interior Department, which houses the National Park Service. The Park Police also directed questions to Interior, which did not reply to questions about the team visible in the photos reviewed by The Post.

Two days after the crew’s visit, Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, “We are looking for a Vandal Proof material” to recoat the basin. He threatened to prosecute the alleged perpetrators, “to the MAX.”

On Monday, a Post reporter observed and photographed what appeared to be at least one contractor from a coating-inspection company standing at the edge of the pool alongside National Park Service employees. Two Parks Department employees later peeled up part of the pool’s lining in at least one spot along the south side, while one man in military uniform and another wearing a shirt with the logo of the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training — part of the National Park Service’s National Center for Cultural Resources — looked on.

An Interior spokesperson said the areas that were inspected Monday were damaged sections of the expansion joints — gaps between slabs in the concrete basin — where the soft top layer of the coating “is easily cut by a box cutter.” There are multiple expansion joints in the pool — one that is located on the perimeter and several that are transverse across the pool. In its analysis, The Post found three failure points that occurred at expansion joints that go across the pool.

“President Donald J. Trump is an expert builder who fixed the Reflecting Pool permanently before deranged people vandalized it,” the spokesperson said.

Lawyers working at the Department of Justice are refusing to put certain information in writing out of fear that it could be used against them.

The DOJ is prosecuting two journalists over their coverage of an anti-ICE protest at Cities Church in Minnesota in January, and one of them, Georgia Ellyse Fort, is charged with three felonies, including a hate crime. Fort’s defense counsel is accusing the government of spying on her, and a judge barred the government from using toll records and cell phone simulators that include Fort’s phone activity.

A Homeland Security Investigations agent, Timothy Gerber, allegedly began using customs summonses to get information about Fort, whose lawyers said that the prosecutors would not say whether the government was continuing to use those summonses. The prosecution is supposed to turn over its evidence to defense counsel in any legal case, but only described the cell phone data from Fort’s phone without turning over the data itself.

In a letter to DOJ prosecutors, first flagged by independent journalist Mary Wheeler, Fort’s lawyers referred to a phone call with DOJ lawyer Ned Hedley in which they got the indication that “the government does not intend to respond to our correspondence in writing, out of the concern expressed on the call that what it represents to us could be put before the Court and/or otherwise used against it.”

It’s an astounding thing for government lawyers to say, especially considering that documenting conversations is a basic requirement in the legal profession. Hedley’s words seem to indicate that the Trump administration is trying to hide something, or knows that its activities might not be legal.

Fort was arrested alongside journalists Don Lemon and Michael Beute—and the case against all of them is weak. The three are accused of rioting and protesting, while they say they were merely covering the event. Refusing to put certain things in writing would seem to undermine the government’s case.

The Trump administration is facing a spike in departures of powerful Cabinet department officials compared with his first term, according to the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.

More than two dozen Senate-confirmed officials have left their Cabinet department positions so far during President Donald Trump’s second term, the nonprofit’s analysis found.

The departure of 27 officials in high-ranking positions far outpaces the total numbers in recent prior administrations, including Trump’s first term, when 11 Senate-confirmed officials in Cabinet department positions left their roles over the course of the four years.

The data analyzed by the Partnership for Public Service did not include departures of Senate-confirmed Cabinet department officials who were nominated under different administrations, nor did it include U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals or ambassadors. Using the same parameters, only one Senate-confirmed Cabinet department official left during the Biden administration, as well as seven during President Barack Obama’s second term and five during President George W. Bush’s second term, according to the nonprofit.

Senate-confirmed officials depart their roles for a variety of reasons, including moving to other government positions and jobs that also require Senate confirmation.

Billy Long, for example, had served as IRS commissioner, a Cabinet department position that required Senate confirmation. Trump removed him last year, and he was confirmed this year as ambassador to Iceland.

Others have been fired or pushed out.

Navy Secretary John Phelan was fired in April amid internal Defense Department tensions between top officials. Other Senate-confirmed officials in the Defense Department have been fired, too, including Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, who was ousted as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency; Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. military representative to NATO’s military committee; and Joint Chiefs Chairman CQ Brown Jr. Those three officials were not included in the Partnership for Public Service’s count because they were nominated before Trump’s second term began.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez was fired by the Trump administration after she refused to resign under pressure after she alleged that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wanted her removal for political reasons.

Some officials have resigned, sometimes due to unclear circumstances.

Gail Slater, who served as the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust unit, stepped down in February, writing in her announcement that “it is with great sadness and abiding hope” that she left.

Leslie Beyer, who served in a top role in the Interior Department, left just a few months after she was confirmed by the Senate.

Marty Makary resigned as Food and Drug Administration commissioner in May. NBC News previously reported that a source close to HHS leadership said Makary’s resignation was triggered by the FDA authorizing fruit-flavored vapes for adults, which he opposed.

On the top Cabinet leadership level, Trump has seen the departures of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, Pam Bondi as attorney general, Kristi Noem as homeland security secretary and Lori Chavez-DeRemer as labor secretary. Gabbard resigned after her husband was diagnosed with cancer, while Bondi and Noem were fired. Chavez-DeRemer resigned as the Labor Department’s inspector general investigated potential misconduct.

At the same time, Trump has seen turnover at a relatively similar rate as prior administrations when considering top officials in the president’s orbit who are not necessarily Senate-confirmed.

An analysis by Brookings, a think tank, found that in the first year of Trump’s second term, 31% of influential decision-makers in the administration experienced turnover, compared with 8% during President Joe Biden’s first year and 9% during Obama’s first year. However, 7% of Trump’s decision-makers saw turnover so far during his second year, compared with 35% during Biden’s second year and 15% during Obama’s second year.

Trump’s first term, too, saw a slew of departures among top White House officials, including positions that required Senate confirmation. The departures included Cabinet officials such as James Mattis, who was defense secretary; Jeff Sessions, who was attorney general; Rex Tillerson, who was secretary of state; and Tom Price, who was health and human services secretary.

Anthony Scaramucci, who did not require Senate confirmation, served just six days on the job as White House communications director during Trump’s first term.

The U.S. is surging forces, medics and weaponry to the Middle East to give President Trump more muscular military options as he considers expanding the conflict against Iran, according to people familiar with the matter.

In the past week, special-operations forces have deployed to the region from their U.S. bases, according to flight-tracking data and U.S. officials. Squadrons of jet fighters have been staged across the Middle East, and bomber aircraft at bases in the U.S. and U.K. are on high alert to ramp up operations, according to one of the officials.

Additionally, more than 150 medics have arrived at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany in recent days, another official said. The hospital is the primary location for treating troops injured in combat in the Middle East.

The preparations are the latest indication that Trump is considering escalating the conflict after three American soldiers were killed in an Iranian attack in Jordan over the weekend. A fourth servicemember was killed in Iraq during a controlled detonation of an Iranian drone.

U.S. Central Command said on Wednesday that it had launched a 12th consecutive day of strikes against targets in Iran. “The mission will continue to further degrade Iran’s ability to threaten civilian mariners and commercial vessels transiting regional waters,” it said in a statement posted on X.

Retired Gen. Joseph Votel, the former commander of Centcom and of U.S. Special Operations Command, said the surge itself doesn’t necessarily mean major military operations are inevitable.

“The big idea here is to give the president and the secretary [of defense] the most flexibility, and the force the most options to present to them,” Votel said.

A spokesman for the Pentagon referred questions about the troop movements to U.S. Central Command, which declined to discuss details, citing operational security. In a statement, the White House said Trump “always has all options at his disposal.”

The troop surge could also be designed to give Trump more capacity to target Yemen’s Houthi militants, who threatened this week to impose a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia. The president said Tuesday that he would “take care of things” if the Houthis targeted ships in the Red Sea.

Trump launched an airstrike campaign against the Houthis last year, which ended after nearly two months in a simple ceasefire, leaving the Houthis battered but not broken. They continued to target some ships but have mostly stayed on the sidelines since the Iran war began in February. They lashed out last week at Saudi Arabia, which they accused of bombing an airstrip to prevent an Iranian plane from landing at San’a airport.

On Wednesday, a tanker sailing through the Red Sea off the coast of southern Saudi Arabia was struck by an unknown projectile, sparking a fire, according to U.K. Maritime Trade Operations. The Houthis’ military spokesman said in a televised statement that the group had targeted two Saudi oil tankers with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones.

London Stock Exchange Group data indicates that both ships are Saudi-flagged and loaded crude and oil products a few days ago from Yanbu port, which Saudi Arabia has been using to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. They were continuing to head south toward Bab al-Mandeb, a narrow chokepoint between Yemen and Djibouti.

The preparations come despite concerns in Washington about America’s endgame and the mounting cost of the war, which has reached more than $37 billion, according to congressional testimony this week from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Returning to all-out war also risks further draining U.S. munitions and exacerbating disruptions to global oil supplies, as Iran continues to attack commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz and as the Iran-backed Houthis threaten shipping in the Red Sea.

On Wednesday, the GOP-controlled House voted 216-214 to pass a $95 billion budget framework that includes an extra $73 billion in military and intelligence funding, a first step in approving money sought by the White House. Some Republicans have aired concerns that voting for additional funds would be interpreted as approval from Congress for the war itself. Others have sought more information on the war’s costs and the Pentagon’s strategy on how to bring the fighting to an end.

“I want to pay the troops. I do not want to support the war,” said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), who voted for the measure.

The House also approved, 216-212, its version of the National Defense Authorization Act annual policy bill with little support from Democrats, who say Trump has illegally bypassed Congress in waging the Iran war. The NDAA typically draws broad bipartisan support.

Trump and Hegseth have defended the war, now in its fifth month, as necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Trump on Wednesday threatened to bomb a bridge or power plant each time Tehran attacks a vessel traveling through the strategic waterway. Current and former military officials caution it isn’t lawful to strike an adversary’s infrastructure for political purposes, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.

Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said in a social-media post that “any aggression against Iran, including our infrastructure, will compel a powerful and decisive response.”

The U.S. in recent days has deployed cargo flights from U.S. bases that house special-operations forces to the Middle East, the officials said. Special-operations forces were used for combat search-and-rescue operations during the first phase of the war, known as Epic Fury, though they are capable of carrying out a range of missions.

Long-range bombers are also preparing for major combat operations, according to some of the officials. That includes B-1 bombers currently staged in the U.K.

The military also has sent aerial tankers, F-16 jet fighters from Spangdahlem Air Base in Germany and F-35s from the air base at Lakenheath, England, to the region, the Journal previously reported. Jordan and Israel are widely seen as the likely hosts for these aircraft.

Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against Iran, threatening to punish the country for the deaths of Americans and saying on Tuesday that he might order an assault on Pickaxe Mountain, where Iran is suspected to have buried nuclear-enrichment centrifuges.

“The president has many options available to him if they continue to insist on not being cooperative,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters at a summit in Manila, in reference to the Iranian regime.

Despite a tenuous ceasefire since April, the human toll of the conflict is rising. Overall, 18 U.S. troops have been killed during the conflict from enemy fire and accidents, while hundreds more have been wounded.

Iran also has fired on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passed before the war.

The Iranian regime has shown no signs of backing down, and its leaders have pledged to continue attacking U.S. forces and American partners in the Gulf.

In recent weeks, the U.S. military has primarily focused its attacks on targets that degrade Iran’s ability to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. The latest American strikes included attacks on Iranian military-operations centers, maritime capabilities, aircraft hangars, drone storage facilities and military-logistics infrastructure, according to U.S. Central Command. The U.S. has also targeted bridges that it says Iran’s military uses to resupply a naval base on the strait.

Iran, which spent the ceasefire reconstituting its weapons programs that the U.S. and Israel tried to destroy in the early days of the war, has unleashed its arsenal of weapons against American troops and infrastructure across the Middle East.

The additional forces arrive in the Middle East and Europe as the U.S. already has tens of thousands of troops in the region. The U.S. Navy currently has 17 ships in the Middle East, including two aircraft-carrier strike groups, along with their 11 combined destroyers and a Marine Corps expeditionary unit, according to a naval official.

“Every time that the Trump administration has plussed up militarily, they’ve used it,” said Dana Stroul, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East during the Biden administration. “The conundrum of the moment is that there’s just no military solution here with this regime intact. You cannot eliminate every missile and every drone, and limited air power and sea power alone are insufficient to change the regime’s fundamental approach.”

President Donald Trump is so pleased with this World Cup that he wants the U.S. to host another one — but this time without Canada and Mexico sharing the spotlight.

Speaking at a FIFA World Cup reception on Friday, ahead of Sunday’s final match between Spain and Argentina, Trump urged the federation to return the world’s premier sporting event to the United States.

“You should choose the United States of America again,” the president said at the reception in New York’s Trump Tower. “This time we will leave Canada and Mexico out. “

Trump then said FIFA should “pick somebody else for the next one and that will take some of the anger, hatred and steam out of everyone.”

The next men’s World Cup available for bidding is the 2038 tournament.

FIFA has awarded the 2030 World Cup to a six-country hosting arrangement that includes Spain, Portugal and Morocco, with opening matches in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay to mark the 100th anniversary of the tournament. Saudi Arabia has been chosen to host in 2034.

Trump also revealed that FIFA President Gianni Infantino had suggested having the U.S. and China host a World Cup together, quipping that the players would “have a nice short flight in between games.”

The World Cup bidding process starts years in advance — and the competition to host in 2038 could be intense — even with Trump’s apparent attempt at lobbying FIFA. Regions that have hosted more recently must sit out, but countries from North America and Oceania will all be eligible to bid that year.

The president has not shied away from inserting himself into World Cup storylines. During the president’s remarks, he acknowledged calling Infantino to ask for a review after U.S. striker Folarin Balogun received a red card in the U.S. victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina — a decision that would have carried an automatic one-match suspension. FIFA later suspended the ban, allowing Balogun to play against Belgium — a highly unusual move that sparked worldwide criticism.

At the Trump Tower reception, the president praised Infantino for his involvement in the incident.

“You made another great decision,” Trump said, as the FIFA chief stood next to him. “You’ll never get credit for that.”

President Donald Trump said the US would hold Iran accountable for future strikes by the Houthis, after the rebel group backed by Tehran hit commercial ships transiting the Red Sea.

“The US will hold Iran responsible, in that the Houthis are a Surrogate and/or Proxy of Iran, and major military punishment will be inflicted upon Iran and, of course, the Houthis, themselves,” Trump said in a social media post Thursday.

The militant group, which is based in Yemen, said it had targeted two Saudi Arabian oil tankers in the Red Sea with missiles and drones — an action that threatens to further choke vital energy flows and widen the conflict between the US and Iran.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Wednesday he is confident that fresh U.S. tariff threats on Canada won’t jeopardize trade relations with the United States’ northern neighbor.

But he offered no sign that negotiations with Ottawa have advanced, or that the administration plans to abandon its monthslong push for separate, one-on-one talks with Canada and Mexico on extending their North American trade pact.

“For us, this is business,” he told reporters following an appearance before the Senate Finance Committee. “This is trade. This is economics. We’re looking at bottom lines.”

President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will impose a 50 percent tariff on certain Canadian products in response to lingering irritants in the U.S.-Canada trade relationship. The tariffs, which are slated to go into effect Aug. 19, would apply to a raft of Canadian exports, from wine to hockey sticks, fishing rods, furniture and textiles. But the month-long lag before the duties go into effect gives the two sides time to negotiate a detente.

The measure ratchets up the tensions at a critical time for North American trade relations. U.S., Mexico and Canada are in discussions around updating the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement — the tariff-lowering trade deal Trump signed in his first term.

After testifying at the Senate Finance Committee hearing Wednesday morning, Greer is scheduled to travel to Mexico for the next round of bilateral talks, where he will meet with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Secretary of the Economy Marcelo Ebrard. The Trump administration has refused to launch parallel formal talks with Canada, although U.S. officials are in regular touch with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government in Ottawa.

“I’m hopeful that before the end of the year, we could have at least options for President Trump and the leaders of Canada and Mexico to consider potential interim arrangements or things that Canada can do on the one hand and Mexico can do on the other hand to strengthen enforcement and to improve their commitments toward us,” Greer told lawmakers, adding that U.S. demands for stronger rules of origin, as well as labor issues, are likely to be addressed next year.

Greer also downplayed the scope of Trump’s threatened duties on Canada, arguing that the new tariffs would apply to only “a small handful of goods.”

He estimated that about $20 billion of Canadian exports would be subject to the 50 percent tariff rate under the plans. U.S. goods imports from Canada topped $380 billion in 2025, according to USTR.

Greer suggested during Wednesday’s hearing that agricultural trade issues remain a central issue in USMCA talks with Mexico City, highlighting Mexico’s antidumping investigation on U.S. pork leg and shoulder exports. “If they take action on pork, the consequences for them could be quite challenging, given their dependence on us,” Greer told lawmakers.

He also said that progress in the talks are contingent on Mexico’s government taking steps to honor a treaty signed in 1944 to send water to the U.S. from the Rio Grande, an important source of irrigation for Texas’ ag industry. Mexico has persistently fallen short of its commitments in recent years.

“The president is going to have a hard time agreeing to renewal or even revisions if Mexico isn’t playing ball in all areas — and the water treaty is one of them,” Greer said.

Greer was on the Hill just days before the administration’s 10 percent global tariff is set to expire. The tariffs rely on a statute — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — that only allows duties to stand for 150 days to deal with a balance-of-payment crisis. The administration has indicated that after those duties hit their expiration date on Friday, it plans to pivot to alternative tariff authorities to keep its tariff agenda in place.

But Greer’s office has not issued a final report in a trade investigation into forced labor that could justify new replacement duties.

“We’re not focused on a particular timeline. We’re focused on fulfilling the legal and statutory requirements,” Greer told reporters after the hearing. He was equally coy when speaking about whether the administration could reissue a Section 122 proclamation to reinstate the duties.

“You all are just going to have to stay tuned,” he told reporters. ”You’re going to be busy the next few days, probably.”

After months of scandal, Republican Representative Cory Mills is finally under criminal investigation.

MS NOW, citing two anonymous sources, reports that the Department of Justice has launched a criminal probe into the Florida man, who is accused of sexual misconduct, campaign finance violations, financial disclosure violations, accepting inappropriate gifts, and multiple ethics violations.

A third source told MS NOW that the FBI has spoken to at least one person about Mills’s finances and the allegations against him, which are numerous. Mills told the outlet by phone, “This is the first I’m hearing about it.”

“The [Federal Election Commission] dismissed all the campaign stuff,” Mills said, referring to allegations he misused campaign funds. He said that he thought the investigation must be about “all the things stemming from the Ethics investigation.” The House Ethics Committee launched an investigation into Mills last November, and was still gathering evidence about Mills’s misconduct as of May this year.

Mills allegedly harassed his ex-girlfriend, former Miss United States Lindsey Langston, and threatened to release revenge porn of her after she dumped him last year upon learning of his affair. Mills also allegedly assaulted the second woman he was dating, who reported him to police.

Mills didn’t face any criminal consequences in the latter case, as the interim District of Columbia U.S. attorney at the time, Ed Martin, refused to sign the Metropolitan Police Department’s arrest warrant. Later reports found that Mills tried to get out of being arrested by threatening to call then–Attorney General Pam Bondi. Also in 2025, news reports revealed that Mills was caught with sex workers in 2021 in the East European country Georgia while en route to Afghanistan.

Mills has ignored calls to step down, and Republicans in Congress have decided not to pursue expelling him from the House. Mills is still running for reelection, and it remains to be seen if he’ll face any consequences in Florida’s August 18 primary, or the November general election.

The Chinese government is insisting on new conditions to the preliminary agreement that President Donald Trump reached with China’s leader Xi Jinping to purchase 200 Boeing aircraft — putting the high-profile deal at risk, according to three people familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking on negotiations.

Beijing has surprised the White House with demands for long-term guarantees on the supply of Boeing engine parts, bogging down negotiations, according to the three people. All were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The White House intends to raise the stalemate over the Boeing sale this week with visiting Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, the three people said.

“The Boeing deal is falling apart. They’re having a hard time with it,” said one of the people familiar with U.S. thinking on the talks.

The Boeing agreement was one of the few tangible outcomes of Trump’s Beijing summit with Xi in May, one which the White House touted as a major success. Delays or impediments to the agreement could sour the mutual effort by Beijing and Washington to maintain the fragile trade truce the two leaders reached in October.

The White House blames Beijing for the delay in finalizing the sale — valued at an estimated $17 billion to $19 billion — saying post-sale maintenance for those jets was not part of the initial understanding the two leaders reached, said another one of the people familiar with the U.S. thinking on negotiations. But there was no formal agreement out of the meeting, which increased the risk of disagreements on the terms of the sale.

“The sticking points are less about aircraft pricing than the long-term package around engines, spare parts, maintenance and servicing,” the person said. “China wants confidence that it won’t become dependent on a support relationship the U.S. could later restrict.”

Trump heralded the Boeing purchase deal in May as the first step in what he said was Beijing’s pledge to buy a total of 750 aircraft. But the Chinese readout of the meeting made no mention of that larger order. China’s Commerce Ministry instead said at the time that the deal included provision of “adequate supply guarantees for engines and spare parts,” a detail that the White House hasn’t confirmed.

The White House also said at the time that the Chinese government had pledged to purchase $17 billion in U.S. agricultural commodities annually though 2028, which is prorated for 2026. But Beijing’s follow-through so far has been thin, something administration officials plan to raise with China’s foreign minister, the three people said.

Agriculture Department data shows China has so far booked roughly 1.3 million tons of soybeans from this fall’s harvest — the crop covered by its pledge to buy 25 million tons a year through 2028 — though the pace has picked up sharply in recent weeks, and Beijing continues taking heavy deliveries of last season’s crop. Those purchases may or may not count toward the pledge, which was never put in writing.

“The soybean buying only really picked up in the last couple weeks,” said the third person familiar with the U.S. thinking on negotiations, a former official close to the Trump administration. “Right now, people here are looking at what’s actually been delivered since Beijing and getting angry.”

The White House said Beijing is on track to meet its agricultural product commitment for the 2026-2027 marketing year.

China cut its usual multi-billion-dollar U.S. soybean purchases as part of its trade war with the U.S. last year. The White House views a resumption of those sales as key to maintaining support in Midwestern soybean-producing states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Indiana. Iowa in particular is home to a number of hotly contested races for the House as well as for an open Senate seat.

“Trump and his team want to see the beans finalized. China hasn’t placed the order,” said the second person familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking on negotiations.

The office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not respond to a request for comment.

Ali Wyne, a China expert at the nonprofit research organization International Crisis Group who frequently meets with Chinese officials, said the Chinese government sees strategic value in delaying approval of multi-billion-dollar purchases of Boeings and soybeans because it keeps Trump focused on maintaining stable U.S.-China ties as a way to ensure the deals go through.

“Chinese officials believe that Trump wants and needs to maintain a strong rapport with Xi more than the other way around, especially with an eye to avoiding a fresh economic rupture ahead of the U.S. midterms,” Wyne said. “So Xi doesn’t feel a strong sense of urgency to consummate those purchases.”

The Trump administration plans to submit to Congress a pact with Saudi Arabia to share nuclear power technology that does not ‌include safeguards the U.S. has long said would stop materials being used in nuclear weapons programs, two sources told Reuters.

The sources said the administration would submit to Congress within days a document known as a 123 Agreement that will be signed by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi energy minister Abdulaziz bin Salman.

The two signed a preliminary agreement in Riyadh last year.

The agreement refers to Section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and is required to permit ⁠the U.S. government and American companies to work with entities in the kingdom to develop a multibillion-dollar civil nuclear industry.

The agreement does not include the "Gold Standard" that would block the kingdom from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, both of which are potential pathways to nuclear weapons, said the sources familiar with the agreement.

The agreement also does not include the "Additional Protocol" which grants the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency broad and more intrusive oversight of a country's nuclear activities, such as the power to carry out snap inspections at undeclared locations, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues.

One of the sources said the administration would submit the agreement as soon as Wednesday and another said it would be submitted in a week or so. A third who did not say whether the agreement lacks safeguards said it would be submitted ‌soon.

Wright had ⁠said the preliminary agreement was not about enrichment and contained all the nonproliferation standards in the Atomic Energy Act, which are among the strongest in the world.

One of the sources said the agreement provides a legal pathway for cooperation on the nuclear fuel cycle, which includes uranium enrichment, but does not obligate the United States to transfer any related capabilities or technology to Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has long said if Iran developed ⁠a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would too, fueling concern among arms control advocates and some U.S. lawmakers over a civil nuclear deal.

The crown prince told CBS in 2018 that "Saudi Arabia does not want to acquire any nuclear bomb, but without a doubt if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon ⁠as possible."

The kingdom has also said it wants to reserve the right to enrich uranium.

The United Arab Emirates agreed to the "Gold Standard" in 2009 when it signed a 123 Agreement with Washington.

Once 123 agreements are submitted to Congress, they go into a review period of about 90 ⁠days of continuous congressional sessions for lawmakers to object, or they go into force.

To block the agreement, Congress would need to pass a joint resolution and have a two-thirds majority to override any presidential veto.

Many Democrats and some Republicans, including President Donald Trump's Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he served in the Senate, have insisted any agreement include guardrails.

The Trump administration on Wednesday signed an agreement with Saudi Arabia that gives that country a pathway to enriching nuclear fuel and commits it to using U.S. firms to supply its reactors.

The agreement, which the Energy Department announced had been signed, is certain to spark heated debate in Congress, where many lawmakers have long expressed concern that exporting enrichment capabilities will lead to a proliferation of nuclear arms.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has spoken openly about working to develop nuclear weapons if Iran is not stopped from getting them.

While the Trump administration offered little information about the agreement’s contents, three people familiar with it shared details with The Washington Post. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the agreement publicly.

The people familiar with the new agreement say it is designed with safeguards to keep the Saudis from enriching nuclear fuel to weapons-grade level. But they also acknowledge it includes a waiver that exempts the Saudis from the aggressive international inspections required in nuclear reactor deals with other countries, including the United Arab Emirates. Instead, sensitive inspections would be executed by American teams under terms spelled out in the agreement, which was initially worked out when the crown prince visited Washington in November.

“These agreements reflect our two nations’ shared commitment to strengthening U.S.-Saudi commercial relations, delivering prosperity at home and security to our allies abroad,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a statement. “Rest assured, these agreements uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation, while relying on the world’s best nuclear technology and scientists, designed right here in the United States.”

On Wednesday, Wright and his Saudi counterpart signed what is known as a 123 agreement, which lays out conditions for nuclear energy cooperation and includes stipulations aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Unlike with this agreement, other recent deals between the U.S. and countries that are not already enriching their own fuel have precluded or discouraged them from doing so.

Because the deal does not include conventional international inspections, President Donald Trump had to sign a separate national security waiver for it to go forward, according to the individuals familiar with it. Now that the agreement has been signed, the details will be sent to Congress, which has 90 days to act on it.

Ask The Post AI

Dive deeper

Even if Congress votes against implementing the deal, the president could veto that disapproval, and it is unlikely that opponents would have enough votes to block the deal from going forward.

The Wall Street Journal first reported the details of the agreement.

Under the deal, the two countries agree to study for two years whether enrichment on Saudi soil is feasible and necessary. There is enough nuclear fuel manufactured in other countries to power future Saudi reactors. But nuclear energy proponents argue the world’s fuel supply will quickly run out if plans by the Trump administration and other governments to vastly expand nuclear power production around the globe materialize.

They say the deal with the Saudis gives the U.S. an opportunity to expand the enrichment network on its own terms, limiting the associated weapons proliferation risks. The deal stipulates that any enrichment on Saudi soil would be controlled by U.S. companies using technology that is not shared with the Saudis. The aim is to allow Saudi Arabia to achieve its goal of developing a nuclear power economy without giving the kingdom access to tools it could use to develop a nuclear weapon.

Nonproliferation experts have long warned against such a deal, starting back when the Biden administration raised this possibility as part of efforts to establish diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. They continued to speak out as the Trump administration signaled it was heading down the same road, arguing that any safeguards the U.S. establishes will not hold.

“A bad U.S. nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia is coming for congressional review — inexplicably, carried over from the Biden administration,” wrote Andrea Stricker, a nonproliferation scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, in a post on X. “Congress should block it. If it does not, one hopes the policy will be reversed by a subsequent administration before too much damage is done in terms of watering down safeguards, setting negative precedents for other states, and failing to contain the spread of enrichment and reprocessing — which we just put back in the box in Iran via force.”

There are currently 14 nations enriching uranium, according to the think tank, nine of which have nuclear weapons.

The agreement is sparking alarm in Israel, where officials have long sought to keep neighboring nations from enriching nuclear fuel. Unlike the Biden administration’s proposed nuclear energy pact with Saudi Arabia, which U.S. officials had predicated on the Persian Gulf state recognizing Israel’s right to exist, there is no such stipulation in the arrangement Trump negotiated.

Naftali Bennett, who had served as Israeli’s prime minister and now chairs the Together party, said in a statement that the deal “joins a series of diplomatic failures in which Israel is losing influence over its own fate.”

Bennett, who is challenging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the upcoming elections, called the deal “a severe strategic failure that jeopardizes our security” by threatening to trigger a regional “nuclear arms race and a dangerous loss of control.”

Israel Ziv, a former head of the Israel Defense Forces Operations Division, wrote in the daily newspaper Maariv that the agreement “is the final diplomatic nail in the coffin for the future of regional normalization.”

Even analysts who concede that the expansion of enrichment to Saudi Arabia and other countries is inevitable — as countries pursue nuclear power amid fast-rising global energy demand — question the structure of the agreement.

Richard Nephew, who advised Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama on the Middle East, said in an interview that the sidelining of international inspectors would set a worrisome precedent. He said that while U.S. inspectors are capable of robust review of nuclear activities, adversaries of the U.S. are unlikely to trust their findings and may choose to abandon inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“The point is not that Americans can’t do a great job at inspections,” he said. “The point is if you were Iran, how much confidence would you have in American inspections of Saudi operations? How would we feel if the Iranians said, ‘Don’t worry. Russians will inspect us.’ We would not accept that.”

“What if the Russians told us not to worry about nuclear facilities in Cuba because they were inspecting them?” he said. “All of this just doesn’t work in a geopolitical environment with as much mistrust and uncertainty as ours.”

One of the biggest beneficiaries of the deal is the legacy U.S. nuclear firm Westinghouse, which builds the large light-water reactors Saudi Arabia is seeking. While officials familiar with the agreement said it does not specifically name the company, the deal’s provisions requiring that U.S. firms are contracted for the nuclear work effectively steer the Saudis to the firm and its AP1000 reactors, each of which is capable of powering hundreds of thousands of homes.

There are also supply chain provisions that aim to give other U.S. firms an advantage, including those mining uranium and building components used in reactor construction.

But the nuclear supply chain in the U.S. has severely atrophied over the years, as utilities stopped building plants following project cost overruns and construction delays that cost ratepayers tens of billions of dollars.

The agreement states a strong preference for U.S. suppliers at all stages in construction and development of nuclear plants, according to the individuals familiar with it, but does not prohibit the Saudis from seeking materials, parts and expertise elsewhere when needed.

Members of Congress are already criticizing the framework. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California) noted during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday that Iran’s nuclear program, which the White House says it is now being leveraged by Iranian leaders to build a weapon, is rooted in U.S. technology given to that country when it was still run by the shah.

“We have no idea who is going to be running Saudi Arabia 10 years from now,” Sherman said. “We are bombing Iran because they insist upon enriching and reprocessing. We are entering into an agreement with Saudi Arabia, giving them the green light to reprocess and to enrich, and the only difference I see here is that Westinghouse stands to make an awful lot of money on this deal, whereas the Iranians were not enriching American companies.”

Sherman pointed out that when Secretary of State Marco Rubio served in the Senate, he joined Sherman in co-sponsoring the “No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act,” which would have required that Congress affirmatively approve any deal with the Saudis before it could move forward.

In a gaggle with reporters Wednesday during a trip to the Philippines, Rubio declined to answer questions about the deal in detail, saying the U.S. would not sign any agreement that risks proliferation.

President Donald Trump’s latest threat to bomb Iranian infrastructure is unlikely to rattle Tehran — and instead underscores the limits of what an air war alone can accomplish.

The Trump administration has become increasingly frustrated by Iran’s refusal to capitulate, as the two sides have escalated attacks over the past month in a fight for control of the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for world energy supplies. Now, Trump has pledged to hit “one bridge or power plant” for every ship attacked in the Arabian Gulf.

But five months into the massive U.S. air campaign, a ceasefire lies in tatters, Tehran hasn’t relinquished its claims on the Strait, and the Pentagon has been unable to fully eliminate the regime’s ability to launch drone and missile strikes — a reality underscored by the deaths of three U.S. servicemembers over the past weekend.

Unless the administration is willing to sharply up the ante — perhaps by substantially expanding the list of acceptable targets or even deploying ground forces — the current cycle of attack and counter-attack will likely continue without a clear endgame or offramp from the White House.

“We’ve seen that when the U.S. applies force hesitantly or incrementally, what it does is it prolongs conflict and it increases risk,” said one former military officer, who, like others interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity to speak frankly. “If you don’t have the threat of force and are willing to follow it up, you’re not going to convince the enemy of anything.”

So far, there has been no buildup of ground forces that would suggest a land invasion is on the horizon. The American force posture remains what it was in February when the U.S. and Israel launched their first airstrikes, with rotations of air wings and ships keeping the number of troops in the region at around 50,000, one U.S. official said.

“Right now, the President is focused on making Iran pay for their violations of the MOU and their continued acts of terrorism in the Strait of Hormuz,” a White House official said. “In addition, the President will make Iran pay for the recent deaths of U.S. soldiers. These devastating blows will continue until the President deems otherwise, but talks between our countries are continuing.”

Historically, air power has been successful at eliminating specific targets, but it’s proven less effective when it comes to regime change or achieving strategic victory over an enemy.

“I think we’re understanding the limits of air power here because we’re basically at a stalemate,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chair of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine in a hearing on Tuesday.

Caine himself acknowledged during the hearing that “airpower has its limits, and we always have to be mindful of those” when it comes to trying to achieve a military victory.

And Tehran has shown its willingness to endure the American bombardment.

Rachel VanLandingham, a retired Air Force judge advocate who has advised military commanders on the laws of war, said that “the expansion or intensification of the strikes to more civilian infrastructure isn’t going to change the regime’s mind,” adding that the strikes would be legal provided there is some military use for any bridges or power plants that are hit.

“Even if these strikes that are expanding to greater numbers of civilian infrastructure targets are lawful, they’re ineffective” in convincing Tehran to give up, said VanLandingham.

So far, there aren’t clear indications that top officials on either side have embarked on a clear path to finding a way out of the fighting. Instead, they’re looking to win what advantage they can in a relatively small-bore conflict.

“Certainly, air power can do a lot” on its own, said former Central Command commander (ret.) Gen. Joe Votel. But the Iranian leadership has seemingly “made the determination that it is worth actually continuing to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz, and I think they believe that maintaining that control is worth going back to this limited but escalating air campaign.”

A new POLITICO poll shows that not only are the Iranians not convinced, but there is some bleeding of support among Trump’s MAGA base.

In May, half of them thought the Iran war was worth its economic costs, but today only around a third holds the same opinion. That steep 13-point drop in just two months suggests that the president’s most ardent supporters are inching closer to the majority of Americans who have long opposed the U.S. involvement in the war.

An expanded air campaign raises the risk of civilian deaths. Upon entering office in 2025, Hegseth gutted the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, which is tasked with limiting civilian harm during American military operations, over the objection of military leadership.

Opponents of the cuts argued that the office was critical for preventing risk to civilian populations, but Hegseth moved forward anyway, reducing the number of employees working on the issue from 200 to less than 40.

The current staff is almost exclusively focused on investigating reports of civilian casualties, and are no longer working on briefing ahead of upcoming strikes, according to a person familiar with the current office.

Independent estimates put the civilian death toll from the war inside Iran at around 1,700.

Hegseth, who’s long maintained that the Iranian military had been dealt a massive blow, admitted during Senate testimony Tuesday that “they still have capabilities, no doubt … But the amount of damage that we’ve done to them over the course of these series of operations has put them in the worst place they’ve ever been.”

The war has run $37.5 billion so far, Hegseth said, while making the case for an additional $67 billion from Congress for war costs and other expenses, over and above the administration’s record-breaking $1.5 trillion budget request for next year.

He declined to offer a timeline for when the war might end.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted on Tuesday that Iran was on the defensive, even as he declined to offer a timeline for when the war might end — and acknowledged that Tehran still poses a threat in the region.

Iran’s military capabilities are “at the weakest point militarily” after nearly two weeks of new American airstrikes, Hegseth said. And he insisted that the White House is achieving its objective of preventing Iran from rebuilding its nuclear weapons programs and terrorizing countries throughout the Middle East.

“They still have capabilities, no doubt,” he told members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “But the amount of damage that we’ve done to them over the course of these series of operations has put them in the worst place they’ve ever been.”

Hegseth’s appearance before the panel represented an attempt by the administration to sell the unpopular conflict as a necessary expense, one that the Defense secretary said has now totaled about $37.5 billion over the last five months.

He pressed lawmakers to supply supplemental funds as soon as possible to cover those expenses and preserve military readiness. But Senate Democratic appropriators questioned both the success of the war so far and the need for more military money, citing $75 billion in unused funds from last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

They flatly rejected the administration’s request for $67 billion in supplemental funds before the end of the fiscal year in September, calling it a tacit approval of the administration’s decision to attack Iran.

“This administration has tried to sell this as an emergency request, but it may be better understood as an attempt to skirt the normal appropriations process,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “A lot of this request does not feel like an emergency.”

U.S. military forces have conducted 10 straight nights of strikes against Iranian military sites since President Donald Trump declared an end to the ceasefire between the countries. Central Command officials said the moves came in response to Iranian aggression against civilian ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

Three U.S. service members were killed in retaliatory strikes by Iran over the weekend. Trump has vowed to continue the assault until Iranian leaders submit to American demands.

Hegseth testified that some of the $37.5 billion in war costs — including military pay and personnel support — assume operations through Sept. 30. He cited compensation, mission critical fuel shortfalls and replacing equipment used in recent operations as the most urgent needs for funding.

Those costs would total about $21.3 billion, according to figures released by the Defense Department.

But the administration is also seeking almost $46 billion more for the multi-year procurement of high-demand munitions, hypersonics and counter-drone capabilities — all priorities that also demand near-term funding, Hegseth said.

The Pentagon chief panned former President Joe Biden for a “bureaucratic” and “negligent” approach to defense spending during the previous administration. In the final year of the Biden presidency, the defense budget rose by just 1 percent — less than the rate of inflation.

Hegseth also confirmed reports that China and Russia were assisting Iran in its fight against the U.S., telling lawmakers the two nations were “enabling some things Iran is doing.” The full extent of Beijing and Moscow’s involvement ought to remain classified, though, he said.

House lawmakers are attempting to push through a third budget reconciliation measure to cover the war costs, but Senate Republican appropriators have already cast doubt on how realistic that plan is. Both chambers are scheduled to break for the summer in the next few weeks, making passage of any war funding package unlikely.

President Trump on Wednesday witnessed the return of four young Army soldiers recently killed overseas, telling reporters beforehand that each had died supportive of the deadly war he was waging with Iran.

“All of them said very strongly, ‘We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,’” Mr. Trump said as he traveled to Dover Air Force Base to attend the dignified transfer. “They won’t have a nuclear weapon. So we’re going to honor them.”

Later, Mr. Trump took one soldier’s grieving family to his political rally in Georgia.

The president did not say how he knew the fallen soldiers’ views, but he decided to speak for them at a perilous political moment. Americans, including Republicans, have grown increasingly critical of the war in Iran, and the killings of U.S. service members was a grim, high-profile reminder that the president had failed to end a war that he had promised would only amount to “a little excursion.”

The excursion has left at least 18 service members dead, a number that Mr. Trump has tried to both defend and diminish in recent days as the conflict grows bloodier.

In a social media post on Tuesday, he compared the number of troop deaths in the Iran war with death counts in other conflicts, including the Vietnam War and the single-day mission that ousted Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan president, last winter.

Mr. Trump has been proud to say that the Venezuela mission resulted in zero deaths, and he has repeatedly pointed out that conflicts in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq resulted in thousands of them. But when he traveled to Delaware on Wednesday, Mr. Trump was met with a stark reminder of the cost of each casualty.

Flanked by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other senior military officials, including Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Trump approached the back ramp of the C-17 transport plane that had carried the soldiers home. He and the others bowed their heads for a moment.

Then the men walked away from the plane, assembling themselves into a line nearby and looking straight ahead as soldiers began to carry each American flag-draped case from the plane. Several White House officials stood behind Mr. Trump, including Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, who put her hand on her heart. Also standing nearby was Natalie Harp, the aide who drafts many of the president’s vitriolic social media posts and prints out flattering news articles for Mr. Trump’s review.

A woman wailed as the fourth case was loaded into a waiting transfer van. At several points, Mr. Trump tapped his right hand against his right thigh. When it was all over, the president climbed into an armored car that took him to his waiting plane.

The president is adamant that Americans support the Iran war.

“A poll just came out: Americans don’t want high gasoline prices, but they’re not against the war — that just came out loud and clear,” Mr. Trump said earlier on Wednesday before he traveled to the transfer. He did not specify the poll he was talking about.

In reality, pollsters for months have been tracking growing frustration over the war, including within the Republican Party. According to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll released last week, only 29 percent of Americans support the conflict. That poll also showed that most Americans do not believe their economic outlook will improve.

As he defended the war and praised the soldiers who had been killed in action, Mr. Trump also told reporters that attending dignified transfers was a difficult thing for him.

“It’s one of the hardest things to do as a president,” Mr. Trump said, adding, “It has to be done.”

The families of the service members who were killed have not talked about their support for the war.

Instead, Sgt. Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, who was killed while disposing of an Iranian drone in Iraq, was described as a jokester, according to his mother.

Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, who was 19 years old when she was killed by an Iranian missile at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base last week in Jordan, was simply described by her uncle as a “soldier.”

First Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, was also killed in that attack. He was described as a mentor to others.

“He believed deeply in the power of military service, especially what it builds in a person: discipline, leadership, character,” his family said in a statement. “Everyone who knew him loved him.”

The family is trying to raise money for a scholarship in Lieutenant Feehan’s name.

Sgt. Angel S. Rampersad, 28, who is also believed to have been killed during that attack, was called a “gentle giant” by her family.

Mr. Trump has released several seething statements promising retribution against Iran for their killings.

“Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing ⁠many times over. This directive has been passed on to Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Daniel Caine,” he wrote on social media on Monday.

On Tuesday, U.S. Central Command said on social media that the U.S. military had begun striking targets for the 11th straight day, an effort meant to hinder the Iranian military’s threats against commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

As he prepared to leave Dover on Wednesday, Mr. Trump invited several members of Lieutenant Feehan’s family to travel with him aboard Air Force One. The president was on his way to a political rally in Georgia, and a White House official told reporters that he had decided to give them a lift to their home state.

By Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Trump had traded the difficulty of witnessing a dignified transfer for an environment where he felt more comfortable. As he took the stage at his rally in Georgia, Mr. Trump basked in applause and swayed to the music of Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA.”

Lieutenant Feehan’s mother, father and uncle were seated in the audience as the president recounted the day, including the family’s awed reaction — “‘Wow!’” the president recalled — when he offered them a ride on his plane.

“This was a person who was going all the way,” Mr. Trump told the grieving family from the stage. “He would have been a general very quickly.”