A B-2 Stealth Bomber performs a fly over before the NFL game between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Baltimore Ravens at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium on Sept. 5, 2024 in Kansas City, Missouri. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday night that the United States has attacked three nuclear sites in Iran, and all U.S. planes were outside Iran and on their way back to the United States.

“We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” Trump said on social media.

“All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he wrote.

The president is expected to speak to the nation at 10 p.m. Eastern.

At least one U.S. House Democrat, Virginia’s Don Beyer, questioned the legality of the bombing.

“President Trump has no constitutional authority to take us to war with Iran without authorization from Congress, and Congress has not authorized it,” Beyer wrote on X. 

Earlier Saturday, there had been numerous reports that B-2 bombers had been sent from Whiteman Air Force Base in Johnson County, Missouri, and were flying across the Pacific Ocean.

Trump returned to the White House at about 6 p.m. Eastern on Saturday from his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., to attend a national security meeting at the White House.

The attack on the Iran sites supports a key U.S. ally, Israel, while distancing another foreign policy priority for the Trump administration, a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear development.

Trump has repeatedly said Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

GOP backs Trump

Republican lawmakers in national security roles quickly weighed in on social media and in statements Saturday to support Trump’s decision.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a statement: “The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs’ misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped. As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

“Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate—and correct—decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,” U.S. Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss.,  wrote on X. “We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You’re the best!”

House Intelligence Chairman Rick Crawford, an Arkansas Republican, blamed Iran for the conflict.

“As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point,” he wrote on X. “That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line—articulated by Presidents of both parties for decades—was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon.”

Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee who is not always aligned with Trump, also praised the move.

“Thank you to our brave service members who executed this mission,” he said. “The world will be safer if Iran’s nuclear capability is destroyed. I look forward to briefings in the coming days.”

Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, a libertarian who is often at odds with his party leadership, expressed his opposition in a Saturday night social media post.

“This is not Constitutional,” he wrote.

Democrats react

Immediate reaction from Democrats was more mixed.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman called the move “the correct decision,” adding that “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.”

But members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus raised the issue of congressional authorization and called for a vote on a privileged resolution sponsored by California Democrat Ro Khanna and Massie that would block military force against Iran.

“Donald Trump illegally took military action against Iran—without congressional authorization—risking dragging us into another endless war,” Arizona Democrat Yassamin Ansari wrote. “I am calling for an immediate emergency session of Congress to vote on the War Powers Resolution.”

“Instead of listening to the American people, Trump is listening to War Criminal Netanyahu, who lied about Iraq and is lying once again about Iran,” Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib wrote. “Congress must act immediately to exert its war powers and stop this unconstitutional act of war.”

Warning from Iran

Israel began bombing what it said were Iranian nuclear facilities last week, scuttling U.S. negotiations with Iran, which Trump repeated again Wednesday had been close.

In a statement issued through a spokesman on state-run TV Wednesday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the U.S. not to get involved.

“Any form of U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be met with irreparable harm,” the statement said, according to a BBC translation.

Prior to the announcement, congressional Republicans were generally supportive of an aggressive posture toward Iran.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, told reporters at the Capitol that Iran’s nuclear program was meant to threaten the United States.

“When the Ayatollah chants ‘Death to America,’ I believe him,” Cruz said, referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “So does President Trump, and that’s why, as commander-in chief, he is acting decisively to keep America safe.”

The potential of a nuclear Iran has animated U.S. policy debates about the region for more than a decade.

In his first term, Trump withdrew from a deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama’s administration that lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for limiting its nuclear development.

Iran and Israel have not had diplomatic relations since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and each has been a primary antagonist in the other’s foreign policy.

Iran and Hamas

Israel has long prioritized denying Iran a nuclear weapon. Iran has funded Hamas, the militant group that launched the October 2023 attack on Israel that sparked the ongoing war in Gaza, and Hezbollah, a militant group in Lebanon.

U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst raised Iran’s support for Hamas at a Wednesday hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee as a rationale for U.S. involvement in the region.

“Who is the primary funder of Hamas?” the Iowa Republican asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth answered Iran.

“Forty-three Americans lost their lives on Oct. 7 at the hands of Hamas,” Ernst continued. “So when there is a question about whether it’s appropriate for America to be engaged in the Middle East, in defending Americans that live and work abroad, I think there’s our answer.”

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

This is a developing story that will be updated.

At some point, there’s supposed to 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines added to a volatile mix that already includes peaceful protesters, some not-so-peaceful protesters, definitely-not-peaceful peace officers, and a large migrant community already on edge.

Piled on top of this is mindless, harmful rhetoric steadily flowing from the mouths of Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, DHS head Kristi Noem, and pretty much every elected Republican in DC.

None of this mixes well. The GOP seems to desire martial law. Los Angeles residents just want ICE to leave. The LAPD and LASD seemed to have a handle on this before the interlopers arrived, even if they — like seemingly every police force in the nation — are better at picking fights than de-escalating conflict.

The current LAPD chief has already issued a statement that said the deployment of military units was unnecessary at best, and possibly dangerous at worst, given the lack of communication from the federal government. Meanwhile, the Guardsmen who have already been sent to LA are sleeping on floors and going without pay because, with this administration, it’s action first and logistics last.

A former LAPD chief, Michael Moore, says the current situation is a powder keg in search of a lit fuse. Moore would know. He was an officer during the riots that followed the Rodney King beating verdict. What he saw then doesn’t exactly paint a promising picture of the near future:

I was an officer during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when federal troops were last deployed to our streets. I witnessed the confusion and the risks created by sending soldiers trained for combat into a civilian environment. Even basic commands like “cover me” were misunderstood — interpreted by troops as calls for gunfire rather than tactical positioning. Whereas police officers are taught to use time, distance and de-escalation, soldiers are trained to apply overwhelming force.

We can argue about what officers are actually being taught, as well as what teachings they choose to deploy, but we can’t argue the fact that military mindsets are different than law enforcement mindsets, even though those lines have become increasingly blurred over the past couple of decades.

What’s impossible to ignore are the facts on the ground: Los Angeles is not overwhelmed by violent protests. What there is of that is relegated to an extremely small subsection of the city. Given that fact, it’s completely possible for local law enforcement to manage protests on their own.

There is no question that serious unrest and violence have occurred in parts of downtown Los Angeles. Attacks on buildings and threats to public safety must be taken seriously. But this is not an insurrection. These incidents are localized, and local law enforcement agencies are fully capable of addressing them.

The optics of sending in troops is already bad enough. And the Trump Administration has already had its commandeering of local National Guard troops blocked by a federal court. What’s happening here appears to be illegal, and the Trump Administration is openly daring courts to stop its steady march towards a fascism and martial law.

The outcome of this envelope-pushing will have a very human cost. The administration is playing with people’s lives literally as it tests the boundaries of its power. What happened years ago should be a cautionary tale, but it seems like Trump and his GOP enablers would be more than thrilled with this sort of death toll:

History reminds us of the dangers of blurring these lines. The tragedy at Kent State, where unarmed student protesters were gunned down by National Guard troops, offers a stark warning. The federal government’s deployment of military personnel now risks causing the same escalation, tragic error and lasting damage to public confidence.

Kent State appears to be the blueprint, rather than the barricade. If Californians need to be killed by members of the military so ICE can pack another bus with meaningfully employed migrants, so be it. You’d hope that someone in the administration with the power to push it back from this precipice would speak up. But it’s been five months and it appears every single batshit urge of Trump’s has been waved through like a cargo van full of Afrikaners at the Mexican border.

And despite protests to the contrary by California lawmakers and actual law enforcement officials in the state, this is what we’re seeing happen now: a scene that looks like it’s taking place in a foreign country but is actually nothing more than an untargeted ICE raid of a Los Angeles swap meet:

Absolutely chilling. People selling stuff to other people, rudely interrupted by ICE agents and US military members, performing stall-to-stall searches like they’re strolling through an open-air market in Iraq. This is fucked up. And it’s only just beginning.

After more than a decade of fighting for higher pay, the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders have scored a major win. 

Season two of Netflix’s blockbuster series “America’s Sweethearts,” which premiered Wednesday, culminates in the announcement that the cheerleaders will be getting a massive 400 percent pay raise. 

Cheerleader Jade McLean told the New York Times that veterans will be making more than $75 an hour, up from about $15 an hour in the 2024 NFL season. Pay structures for event appearance fees are also changing. The specifics of the new contracts were not revealed.

In season two, the cheerleaders talk openly of fighting for better pay and even consider staging a walkout to put pressure on team management. 

“Our efforts were heard,” said cheerleader Megan McElaney, one of a handful that lead the charge for higher pay, in the show’s final episode. “I get emotional knowing that I was a part of that. Dancers are athletes. They have so much value.”

Last summer, pay was a footnote on the show. Dallas Cowboys Executive Vice President Charlotte Jones waved off the issue: “There’s a lot of cynicism around pay for NFL cheerleaders, and as it should be — they’re not paid a lot. But the facts are they actually don’t come here for the money. They come here for something that’s actually bigger than that to them.”

A pay raise for the Dallas cheerleaders could signal a sea change in one of America’s most gendered professions.

Cheerleaders have been suing their teams for higher pay since 2014, when Oakland Raiderette Lacy Thibodeaux Fields sued her team alleging a violation of state minimum wage and labor laws. 

For the 2014 season she said she earned barely $1,000. Her lawsuit was followed by more than a half dozen others and a congressional inquiry, but ultimately little changed. Then came “America’s Sweethearts.”

“I’m thrilled to hear this news,” Thibodeaux Fields told The 19th. “Artistic talents and hard work should always be well paid. This is a well deserved raise!”

The post The Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders score a 400 percent pay raise appeared first on The 19th.

Eggs Benedict

Planned Parenthood has identified 200 of its clinics in 24 states that are at risk of closure through federal cuts under the budget reconciliation package before the U.S. Senate. (Photo by Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images)

If the budget reconciliation package before the U.S. Senate becomes law in the coming weeks, reproductive health advocates say the provision that would cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood clinics could serve as a backdoor nationwide abortion ban, eliminating access to 1 in 4 abortion providers.

The Republican-led bill, which already passed the House by a slim margin, is more than 1,000 pages and includes sweeping tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy coupled with steep spending cuts to social services, including Medicaid.

On page 339 of the bill, Republicans included a provision prohibiting Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $1 million in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2024. While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood clinics rely heavily on Medicaid funding, not to provide abortions, which is not permitted by federal law (except in cases of rape, incest or life-threatening health emergencies), but to provide standard reproductive health care at little to no cost, including treatment for sexually transmitted infections and cancer screenings, as well as contraception. Planned Parenthood provides services for about 2 million patients every year, and 64% of its clinics are in rural areas or places with health care provider shortages.

A Planned Parenthood spokesperson said people who use Medicaid make up half of the total patient volume nationwide for essential health care services provided by their clinics. Even though those patients aren’t seeking abortion care, funding cuts would affect the financial sustainability of those clinics, the spokesperson said.

The organization already identified that 200 of its clinics in 24 states are at risk of closure with the cuts but told States Newsroom on Thursday that further analysis revealed nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal, and in 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill” would result in nearly 11 million people losing access to health insurance by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and add $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, told States Newsroom she and other advocates have been meeting with senators to lobby against the bill’s passage, emphasizing that it will have an outsized negative effect on rural clinics and hospitals.

“We are encouraging everyone to reach out to their representatives about this,” McGill Johnson said. “They know that they’re doing this under a watchful eye, and we want to make sure their constituents know about it.”

The defunding effort would be a win for several prominent anti-abortion organizations that have long lobbied for this change and nearly achieved it in 2017 with a similar budget bill. Americans United for Life sent a fundraising email to its supporters Thursday saying this is a “crossroads” for abortion in America. 

“So far in 2025 more than a dozen Planned Parenthood clinics have closed, their taxpayer funding is hanging by a thread, and the highest-ranking federal health officials are undertaking a ‘top-to-bottom review’ on the abortion pill,” the email attributed to CEO John Mize said. “It’s possible that very soon, mail-order abortion could be walked back, and more Planned Parenthood locations could be closing their doors for good.”

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, another anti-abortion organization that helped draft the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint for the next Republican president, told States Newsroom in an emailed statement that the budget provision should be no surprise, and there are better uses for the funding, like community health centers.

“Republicans have identified budgetary concerns with funding Big Abortion since 2015, and the bill language to do so has remained substantially the same,” said SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

Closures would affect already fragile health care system, Midwest doctor says

Planned Parenthood has already closed some clinics around the country, including eight clinics across Iowa and Minnesota at the end of May. Dr. Sarah Traxler, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood North Central States, which includes Iowa and Minnesota, said the U.S. Health and Human Services’ decision to freeze Title X family planning funding to many reproductive health clinics at the beginning of May contributed to the decision to close those clinics. The North Central States affiliates serve more than 93,000 patients each year, about 20,000 of which use telehealth services.

About 30% of those patients use Medicaid to access care, she said.

“When Planned Parenthood isn’t able to provide services to patients as an essential safety net provider, it has ripple effects across the health care system at large,” Traxler said. “We are already sitting in a time in our country, and have for several decades, where we have patients who can’t access care.”

Clare Coleman, president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, told States Newsroom that 865 Title X clinics in 23 states are impacted by the federal freeze. She said there are no Title X services in eight states: California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee and Utah. She said the funding freeze affects one-quarter of all Title X funding grantees, translating to about 842,000 patients who have lost access to care.

“In the two months since HHS withheld federal funding for nearly two dozen Title X family planning grants, affected grantees have been struggling with the unknown of whether they will ever receive the vital funds,” Coleman said in an email. “Some have had to close clinics, lay off staff, and reduce essential contraceptive and sexual health care services. … On top of the Title X funding freeze, proposed Medicaid cuts will be devastating for Title X grantees. Rates of unintended pregnancies and STIs will increase, cancer screenings and diagnoses will be delayed, and decades of public health progress will be reversed.”

After the Iowa Legislature axed Planned Parenthood from its family planning program, Traxler said, the rates of sexually transmitted infections increased considerably across the state — an outcome verified by a 2022 medical study. She expects similar effects from these cuts.

People already travel long distances for abortion care, she said, and that will only get worse if more cuts come to pass. But she also expects to see patients start traveling long distances for routine gynecological care.

‘Changes to Medicaid … only adds to the chaos’

Like many independent abortion clinics, the all-trimester Maryland abortion clinic Partners in Abortion Care does not receive Title X funding. But because Maryland is one of 17 states whose Medicaid program covers abortions, they do see a lot of patients who are on Medicaid, at a significant cost to the clinic. Certified nurse-midwife and Partners co-founder Morgan Nuzzo said the clinic did not receive more than $1 million in federal or state Medicaid dollars in fiscal year 2024, and in fact loses about $1 million annually for seeing Medicaid patients.

Nuzzo said Maryland’s Medicaid program reimburses first-trimester abortions at a “decent rate,” but at a very low rate for later abortion cases, which are more medically complex.

“After about 15 to 16 weeks [gestation], we’re losing money on these cases,” Nuzzo said. “We’ve been billing now for almost a year through the state. In second and third-trimester abortion care, we’re losing about 85% of what we would charge for a cash pay fee. So that comes out to about $250,000 a quarter that we are losing just by the under-reimbursement from Maryland Medicaid.”

For that reason, Nuzzo is hopeful about Maryland’s new $25 million Public Health Abortion Grant Program, recently approved by Gov. Wes Moore. The program will be open to clinics like Partners and abortion funds like the Baltimore Abortion Fund, but Nuzzo said it could be a while before that funding is available. Right now she is uncertain and concerned about how the federal reconciliation bill could potentially impact Maryland’s Medicaid program. 

Because Partners provides abortions for all trimesters, they see patients from all over the country, and even the world, and the vast majority need financial assistance, Nuzzo said.

“People are traveling further for their procedures, just like they were before,” she said. “The landscape is constantly changing, almost week to week, about where you can access abortion, which is confusing and chaotic to patients. Changes to Medicaid and insurance coverage of abortion only adds to the chaos.”