President Donald Trump, speaking about war as he attempts to decide whether or not to actively support Israel by bombing Iran, appeared to confuse America’s war for independence —the Revolutionary War—with America’s Civil War.

Asked in the Oval Office on Wednesday afternoon if he’s made a decision about what, if anything, he will do regarding Iran, the President told reporters, “I have ideas as to what to do, but I haven’t made a final.”

“I like to make the final decisions one second before it’s due, you know, ’cause things change. I mean, especially with war, things change with war, it can go from one extreme to the other.”

READ MORE: ‘Feckless or Complicit’: Hegseth Blasted in Heated Hearing Over Social Media Influencer

“War’s very bad. There was no reason for this to be a war,” he said, apparently about Israel and Iran.

“There was no reason for Russia, Ukraine. A lot of wars, there was no reason for.”

“You look right up there,” Trump said, pointing to the wall, “I don’t know, you see the Declaration of Independence, and I say, I wonder if you, you know, the Civil War always seemed to me maybe that could have been solved without losing 600,000 plus people.”

The Declaration of Independence was America’s declaration it would no longer be ruled by England. It effectively became a declaration of war: the American Revolutionary War, or the American War of Independence, which lasted from 1775 to 1783.

By contrast, the American Civil War was fought in the following century, from 1861 to 1865, over slavery.

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Critics were quick to mock the President.

“I think we all remember our schooling, when we learned how the Declaration of Independence led to the Civil War,” snarked former journalist Landon Hall.

“As a Canadian, even I know that the Declaration of Independence has absolutely zero to do with the Civil War, what is going on down there?” asked filmmaker Robert Fantinatto.

“Does he think the Declaration of Independence was written in response to the Civil War?
What is he talking about?” asked attorney Robyn J Leader.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Trump: “You look right up there. I don’t know, see the Declaration of Independence and I say, ‘I wonder if you know the Civil War. It always seemed to me maybe that could have been solved without losing 600,000 plus people.’” pic.twitter.com/tKaPrvERXA

— Republican Accountability (@AccountableGOP) June 18, 2025

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

Image via Reuters

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth faced sharp and stern criticism during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing over his highly controversial decision to fire Air Force General Timothy D. Haugh, head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. Reports suggested a far-right social media influencer was behind the move to terminate the NSA Director in what some have called a “loyalty purge.”

Calling General Haugh’s dismissal “sudden and inexplicable” and “deeply concerning,” U.S. Senator Jackie Rosen (D-NV) told Secretary Hegseth it “raises significant questions about the decision-making process,” and “its potential consequences.”

“Public reports indicate that the removal of General Haugh, who has served his country proudly, has been influenced by social media influencer, an influencer— a personality on social media, Laura Loomer—spreads conspiracy theories. She’s been denounced even by Republicans,” Senator Rosen charged. “And the idea that any leaders within our agency responsible for out nation’s security—somebody would be dismissed based on the advice of a social media influencer is alarming to say the least. It’s surely not how we should be running our military.”

READ MORE: ‘Middle Finger to Parental Rights’: SCOTUS Conservatives Scorched Over Trans Kids Ruling

Senator Rosen demanded to know if Hegseth was “consulted” regarding the dismissal of General Haugh.

“Well, Senator, I would not advise believing everything you read in the media,” was Secretary Hegseth’s response.

After a heated back-and-forth, Hegseth declared, “I’m the decision-maker for the department. And we all serve at the pleasure of the President, and we have the prerogative to make those decisions.”

Refusing to state specifically that he personally relieved general Haugh, Hegseth served up a more generic response.

“Anyone at that level who was relieved would be relieved by the Secretary of Defense,” he stated.

Hegseth also refused to respond when asked if there was a specific justification for General Haugh’s dismissal.

“Uh, Ma’am, we all serve at the pleasure of the President and the President deserves the type of Commanders and advisers that he thinks will best equip…to accomplish the mission.”

Hegseth also refused to say if he discussed dismissing Haugh with Laura Loomer.

“I don’t discuss who I talk about anything with, but ultimately, this is my decision, and he serves at the pleasure of the president, and that’s why he’s no longer there,” was the Secretary’s reply.

After another question, Hegseth told Senator Rosen, “Uh, I believe your time is up, Senator.”

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

“Oh,” Rosen vehemently responded, “it is not up to you to tell me when my time is up.”

“Well, the time—” Hegseth continued.

“I am going to say, Mr. Secretary, you’re either feckless or complicit. You’re not in control of your department. You are unserious. It is shocking. You’re not combating antisemitism within your ranks. It’s a dangerous and pivotal time in our nation’s history,” Senator Ro9sen warned.

“And I don’t appreciate the smirk, sir. You are the Secretary of Defense.”

Watch below or at this link.

Rosen: Did you discuss General Haugh’s dismissal with Laura Loomer prior to his removal?

Hegseth: I don’t discuss who I talk about anything with..

Rosen: Do you believe it’s appropriate for any social media personality to influence decisions in your department?

Hegseth: Your… pic.twitter.com/39DgM8VtU9

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 18, 2025

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

Image via Reuters

Legal experts, advocates for transgender youth, and the liberal justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are condemning SCOTUS’s 6–3 decision to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors. All six conservative justices sided with the ban—some going further to disparage scientific expertise, dismiss the value of medical consensus, and signal that transgender Americans should not be granted protected class status.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion upholding the ban, known as SB1.

“An estimated 1.6 million Americans over the age of 13 identify as transgender, meaning that their gender identity does not align with their biological sex,” Justice Roberts wrote at the opening of his opinion, acknowledging that transgender youth exist. In his footnotes he also acknowledged their use of pronouns: “We use ‘transgender boy’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is female but who identifies as male, and ‘transgender girl’ to refer to an individual whose biological sex is male but who identifies as female.”

Approximately 25 states across the country have some form of ban on medical care for transgender youth. Those bans—including puberty blockers—likely will now stay in place, affecting more than 100,000 transgender youth (as of 2023), according to the Williams Institute.

READ MORE: ‘It’s Biblical’: House Republican Defends His Support for Israel

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took extra steps to write that “transgender status” does not constitute “suspect,” class deserving of strict scrutiny, a higher level of judicial review.

“The Equal Protection Clause does not demand heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that classify based on transgender status,” she also wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas denigrated what he called “the expert class.”

“There are several problems with appealing and deferring to the authority of the expert class,” he wrote. Justice Thomas added, “whether ‘major medical organizations’ agree with the result of Tennessee’s democratic process is irrelevant.”

“To hold otherwise would permit elite sentiment to distort and stifle democratic debate under the guise of scientific judgment, and would reduce judges to mere “spectators . . . in construing our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent is being praised by transgender advocates and trans-supporting legal experts. And in her dissent she directly opposed Justice Barrett’s claims.

“To give meaning to our Constitution’s bedrock equal protection guarantee, this Court has long subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny any law that treats people differently based on sex,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.

She said in her opinion that Tennessee’s law discriminates against transgender adolescents, and “expressly classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status.” In its ruling, the Supreme Court, Sotomayor wrote, “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.”

“Tennessee’s ban applies no matter what the minor’s parents and doctors think, with no regard for the severity of the minor’s mental health conditions or the extent to which treatment is medically necessary for an individual child,” she noted.

READ MORE: Dr Oz: Americans Must ‘Earn the Right’ to Be on Medicaid

“This case presents an easy question: whether SB1’s ban on certain medications, applicable only if used in a manner ‘inconsistent with . . . sex,’ contains a sex classification,” Justice Sotomayor concluded. “Because sex determines access to the covered medications, it clearly does. Yet the majority refuses to call a spade a cspade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it.”

“The Court’s willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel labeled Sotomayor’s dissent, “Clear, concise, and brilliant.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, responding to the ruling, wrote: “Solidarity with trans people today, who are facing growing state oppression here and globally.”

Writer and former Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Charlotte Clymer wrote on the ruling: “The Supreme Court’s ruling prioritizes the discomfort and fear of some non-trans people over the health and wellbeing of trans youth. It disregards science and every major medical authority. It endorses the state controlling parents and doctors. Every resulting suicide is on the hands of these anti-trans justices.”

Illinois Democratic Governor JB Pritzker, responding to news of the decision, wrote: “Illinois has enshrined protections to meet this very moment. In a time of increasing overreach and hateful rhetoric, it’s more important than ever to reaffirm our commitment to the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. You have a home here always.”

Political scientist Dr. Norman Ornstein, a contributing editor to The Atlantic, declared: “In effect, the Supreme Court has given a middle finger to parental rights by accepting a Tennessee law banning gender- affirming care for youth. This is a decision that should be made within the family. They love parental rights when it fits right wing aims.

READ MORE: Tapper Tells Ex-Viewer Trump’s Behavior Is More About ‘Personality’ Than Cognitive Decline

Image via Shutterstock