House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is demanding President Donald Trump and his senior officials "justify" the U.S. military's recent strikes in Iran."We've seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution," Jeffries said."But the whole reason for the Trump administration to undertake that process is to come up to Capitol Hill and convince the American people and their elected representatives in the House and in the Senate. That hasn't happened."Trump officials have maintained that the strike was in compliance with the War Powers Act, which requires the White House to notify Congress within 48 hours of a military action and blocks that operation from continuing for more than 60 days without approval from lawmakers.ISRAELS ACTIONS AGAINST IRAN CREATE STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY FOR US IN NUCLEAR TALKS, EXPERTS SAYJeffries claimed he had not seen "a scintilla of evidence to date" that shows "there was an imminent threat to the United States of America.""If the administration has evidence to the contrary, come up to present it. We're not hard to find. I'm not hiding," he said.The House Democratic leader said he requested a briefing Tuesday for the Gang of Eight, the informal name for the top party and intelligence leaders in Congress.Trump green-lit airstrikes on three of Tehran's major nuclear sites over the weekend. The president said on Truth Social Monday that the areas hit were "completely destroyed."The move has sharply divided Democrats, with some pro-Israel moderates backing Trump's move while several progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have called for the president's impeachment over the operation.Dozens of left-wing lawmakers have gotten behind a bipartisan war powers resolution by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to limit Trump's ability to strike Iran.A FULL BREAKDOWN OF OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER, THE LARGEST B-2 OPERATIONAL STRIKE IN US HISTORYMeanwhile, Jeffries side-stepped multiple questions on those calls for impeachment during his press conference, instead reasserting his demand that Trump officials come before Congress."A tool that's on the table right now is to continue to demand that the administration present itself before the United States Congress and make the case to the American people as to why this extraordinary step has been taken. That's step one," Jeffries said."Step two is for the War Powers Resolution, whether that's the one that has already been introduced or others that may subsequently be introduced, for those resolutions to be debated on the House floor, as should have occurred already. And then we'll see where we're at thereafter."Pressed again on whether he was taking calls for Trump's impeachment seriously, Jeffries said, "This is a dangerous moment that we're in, and we've got to get through what's in front of us. And what's in front of us right now is the Trump administration has a responsibility to come to Congress, justify actions for which we've seen no evidence to justify its offensive strength in Iran."SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWS FORDOW NUCLEAR FACILITY AFTER MASSIVE BOMB STRIKEWhen reached for comment on Jeffries' demands for justification, the White House referred Fox News Digital to press secretary Karoline Leavitt's comments on Fox News Monday morning."The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn't be reached. We tried him before the strike, and he didn't pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as [Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.], who was briefed prior to the strike," Leavitt said."We gave these calls as a courtesy, and the Democrats are lying about this, because they can't talk about the truth of the success of that operation and the success of our United States military and the success of this president and this administration in doing something that past administrations Democrats too have only dreamed about."

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough defended President Donald Trump on Monday over his decision to strike Iran's nuclear program, suggesting other presidents might have made the same choice."I said on Thursday or Friday, the president had no good options. What would Monday look like if he hadnt have moved? If Iran wasnt already at 60% and an ability to create nuclear weapons in a short matter of time, right?" Scarborough began. "I find it hard to believe that Bush 41, Bush 43, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, you know, go down the list, any presidents, wouldnt have felt compelled to take that strike."Scarborough, a former GOP congressman and longtime critic of the president, asked Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, about Trump's decision during "Morning Joe."TRUMP'S DECISION TO STRIKE IRAN'S NUCLEAR SITES A 'BOLD, AND GOOD MOVE,' RETIRED GENERAL TELLS MSNBC"Im not championing either side of this. Although I ask you, David, how difficult would it have been for any president to not take that shot if they knew that Iran was even being attacked by the United Nations?"Ignatius said that past presidents have also considered this scenario."Three previous presidents have considered precisely this scenario. Theyre the ones who developed the weapons and the battle plan. This was something inherited by President Trump. And each of them pulled back because of the uncertainties associated with the action. They decided it just wasnt worth doing," he said."If President Trump decided last Friday, there is no chance that the negotiated settlement that I want to resolve this is going to work, the Iranians are jamming me, theyre just pushing me along, theyre stonewalling, is the word that J.D. Vance used. He, in a sense, did have no choice but to move it on to a different terrain," Ignatius said.He warned that the U.S. just doesn't know what might come of the move."The problem is on that different terrain. We just dont know whats ahead. But I take your point, right. Its his choices were debased at the moment he had to make the decision," Ignatius said.SCHIFF CONDEMNS TRUMP'S IRAN STRIKES, SUGGESTS ONLY POSITIVE IS SETBACK OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMScarborough noted that past presidents didn't have Iran in a degraded and "cornered" position. He said Iran was "even getting condemned by the United Nations for how quickly they were moving towards developing a nuclear weapon."MSNBC contributor Katty Kay agreed with Scarborough and said Iran had been weakened over the last year, putting Trump in a unique position."You look at the situation with Hezbollah being degraded, the situation with Syria and Assad falling, Hamas being degraded in Gaza, all around the region, Iran has suffered blows over the past year, not just the past week, and so gave Donald Trump a different set of circumstances in than those three previous presidents have faced," she said.CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURETrump earned praise from other prominent critics as well, including former National Security adviser John Bolton, who said on Sunday, "President Trump made the right decision for America."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP"It was a decisive action. It was the right thing to do. I thought somebody should do it for a long time. But better late than never," Bolton told CNN's Kasie Hunt.

The United States of America is home to some of the world's best beer and ciders.American brews claimed most of the top prizes in their respective categories at the 2025 World Beer Cup.Brewers along the West Coast led the way in this year's World Beer Cup which has been dubbed "the Olympics of beer."CRAFT BREWERS NAVIGATE RISING COSTS WITHOUT PASSING HEFTY PRICE HIKES TO CUSTOMERSThe 2025 World Beer Cup attracted 8,375 entries from 49 countries.An international panel of judges rated beers across 112 categories to determine the medalists. Entries were evaluated based on style, color, appearance, aroma and flavor.California beers received 76 total medals the most of any U.S. state followed by Oregon (35), Washington (24) and Colorado (21).Texas rounded out the top five states with 13 awards.A total of 1,761 breweries or cideries participated in this year's event, which was in May.GRATEFUL DEAD AND NEW BEER CELEBRATE 'LONG STRANGE TRIP' TOGETHER"The World Beer Cup competition continues to showcase the global industry's dedication to innovative craftsmanship, diverse flavors and technical excellence," competition director Chris Williams said in a statement."This roster of 2025 winners represents the pinnacle of craft brewing and cideries, demonstrating what's achievable through dedication and passion."Juicy or hazy India pale ales (IPAs) had the most entries (290) and the U.S. swept this category by winning gold, silver and bronze medals.Shifted Visions from an Orange, California-based brewery called Everywhere won the gold medal in this category.For more Lifestyle articles, visit www.foxnews.com/lifestyleHow to Make Friends from Hana Koa Brewing Co. in Honolulu, Hawaii, took home the silver, while Riverside NEIPA from Guggman Haus Brewing Co. in Indianapolis won the bronze.Cider also made its debut in the 2025 competition and one Oregon-based brewery stood out.2 Towns Ciderhouse in Corvallis, Oregon, medaled in four out of the five possible categories and earned six of the 15 total cider medals awarded globally, including three golds.CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR LIFESTYLE NEWSLETTERThe cidery, which launched in 2010, claimed gold for its Cidre Bouche in the tannic cider category, Raspberry Cosmic Crisp in the fruited cider category and 2019 Pommeau in the category for experimental, barrel-aged or specialty cider.It also tied for the most medals of any entrant in this year's competition across all categories.Fox News Digital reached out to the Brewers Association and World Beer Cup for comment.

The Founding Fathers were clear about lots of things, but in the era of modern warfare, who calls the shots and has the final say to head into battle was not the Founders' most crystalline moment.Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "declare War." But Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution anoints the President "Commander in Chief."Constitutional scholars argue that Congress must adopt a resolution before sending service personnel into hostilities abroad under the aegis of "war." But what if you just dispatch B-2 bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to fly halfway around the world and slingshot 14 bunker buster bombs into three of Irans nuclear facilities? Or if you greenlight Ohio Class subs to fire 30 Tomahawk missiles into Iran as well?TRUMP RECEIVES MIXED SUPPORT FROM CONGRESS FOR IRAN STRIKES AS WAR POWERS DEBATE RAGESAre you "at war?" Does the president have the authority to do that? What about Congress?Well, if you say the president or Congress both can be right.Or wrong."I'm someone who believes in the Constitution and the War Powers Act," said Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Fox. "(President) Donald Trump did not declare war. He has the right as commander-in-chief to execute a very surgical process."SENATE GOP AIMS TO APPROVE MAJOR LEGISLATION NEXT WEEK AS TRUMP TOUTS PARTY UNITYMace noted "there were no troops on the ground."But then the South Carolina Republican added this:"The 2001 AUMF is still in place. If we didn't like it, then Congress should get rid of it," said Mace.OK. Hold on.We know what "troops on the ground" is. We think (think) we understand what "declaring war" is (or do we?).But pray tell, what in the world is an "AUMF?"Thats congressional speak for an "Authorization for Use of Military Force."Its kind of like Congress "declaring war." Both the House and Senate must vote to "declare war."Transom windows, pie safes and coal chutes in homes all started to become obsolete in the 1940s.So did "declaring war," apparently.Congress hasnt "declared war" since 1942.And that was against Romania.In fact, the U.S. has only "declared war" 11 times in history.And Congress doesnt just "declare war." Both the House and Senate must vote. And so what the modern Congress does now is approve an "authorization" to send the military into harms way overseas. That could be by sea. Troops on the ground. In the air. You name it.Congress authorized the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. That was the gateway to years of fighting in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. More recently, Congress blessed an authorization to invade Afghanistan and wage the "war on terror" in 2001 after 9/11. Lawmakers followed that up in the fall of 2002 for authorization to invade Iraq on suspicion that Saddam Husseins regime had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. and its allies found nothing after the 2003 invasion.To Maces point, the 2001 AUMF is so broad that four American presidents have deployed it for various military action around the world. Maces argument would be that Iran or its proxies could launch terrorism attacks or even a nuclear weapon somewhere. So, the 2001 AUMF is justification for American involvement.That said, most foreign policy and military experts argue that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs are calcified, legislative relics.This is why its a political kaleidoscope about how various lawmakers felt about launching attacks on Iran and if Congress must get involved.Democrats who usually oppose President Trump supported airstrikes."I've been saying, Hell yes for I think it's almost six weeks," said Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa.Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is one of the most pro-Israel lawmakers from either party."This window is open now," said Wasserman Schultz before the attack. "We can't take our boot off their neck."But possible strikes worried lawmakers even before the U.S. launched them. Theres concern the conflagration could devolve into a broader conflict."The idea that one strike is going to be adequate, that it's going to be one and done, I think is a misconception," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.Before the conflict, bipartisan House members just returned from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain."They are worried that this will escalate," said Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. "And it wouldn't take a whole lot for it to spiral out of control."This is why Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., wanted the House to vote on their resolution before the U.S. attacked Iran."I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base isolationists. We are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars. And were non-interventionists," said Massie on CBS."You're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars?" said Khanna, also on CBS.Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., didnt mention Trump by name, but in a screed posted on X, she excoriated the decision to strike Iran."Only 6 months in and we are back into foreign wars, regime change, and world war 3. It feels like a complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities that MAGA hates and who were NEVER TRUMPERS!" wrote Greene.Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, also questioned the authority of the president to fire on Iran."While President Trumps decision may prove just, its hard to conceive a rationale thats Constitutional," wrote Davidson on social media.But when it came to Republicans criticizing those who went against Trump, most GOPers took on Massie."I'm not sure what's going on with Thomas. He votes no against everything," said Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., on Fox Business. "I'm not sure why he's even here anymore.""He should be a Democrat because he's more aligned with them than with the Republican Party," said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt on Fox about Massie.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPShooing away Republicans toward the Democratic Party could be a questionable strategy considering the narrow GOP House majority. Its currently 220 to 212 with three vacancies. All three vacancies are in districts heavily favored by the Democrats.Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., plans to compel the Senate to vote this week on a resolution to determine if the U.S. should tussle militarily with Iran."We will have all members of the Senate declare whether or not the U.S. should be at war with Iran. It's unconstitutional for a president to initiate a war like this without Congress," said Kaine on Fox. "Every member of Congress needs to vote on this."Whether the U.S. is involved in "war" with Iran is an issue of debate. And heres the deepest secret: Lawmakers sometimes preach about exercising their war powers authorities under Article I of the Constitution. But because votes about "war" or "AUMFs" are complicated, some members would rather chatter about it but cede their power to the president. The reason? These are very, very tough votes, and its hard to decide the right thing to do.The Founders were skeptical of a powerful executive. They wanted to make sure a "monarch," or, in our case, a president, couldnt unilaterally dial up hostilities without a check from Congress. But over time, Congress relinquished many of those war powers. And thats why the executive seems to call the shots under these circumstances.Is the U.S. at war? Like many things, it may be in the eye of the beholder.And whether this responsibility ultimately lies with Congress or the president is in the eye of the beholder, too.

Indiana Pacers star Tyrese Haliburton reportedly suffered a devastating Achilles injury during the teams NBA Finals Game 7 loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder on Sunday.Haliburton tore his Achilles tendon in his slip in the first quarter and will likely miss the entirety of the 2025-26 season, ESPN reported on Monday. The Pacers guard was the third player to suffer the devastating injury, with Boston Celtics star Jayson Tatum and Milwaukee Bucks star Damian Lillard also dealing with torn Achilles tendons during the playoffs.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COMThe Pacers announced after Haliburton left the game that he wouldnt return due to a lower right-leg injury. Haliburtons father, John, told ESPNs Lisa Salters that it was an Achilles injury."He will be back," Pacers head coach Rick Carlisle said after the 103-91 loss. "I don't have any medical information about what's what, what may or may not have happened. But he'll be back in time, and I believe he'll make a full recovery."Haliburton started to heat up for Indiana early in the game. He scored nine points on three 3-pointers and was about to drive past NBA Finals MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander when he fell to the ground.PACERS STAFF CONFRONTS ESPN CAMERA CAPTURING EMOTIONAL TJ MCCONNELL AFTER NBA FINALS LOSS TO THUNDERIt appeared Haliburton knew how devastating the injury would be as he pounded his fist onto the floor in frustration. He was already dealing with a calf injury before the game.Haliburton emerged as one of the top stars in the playoffs through his clutch shooting."A lot of us were hurting from the loss, and he was up there consoling us. That's who Tyrese Haliburton is," Pacers guard T.J. McConnell said. "He's just the greatest."Indiana will have a few offseason decisions to make regarding the look of its roster and whether they will decide to go for another championship run in 2025-26.The Associated Press contributed to this report.Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

As the dust still settles following the U.S. attack on Irans nuclear sites, analysts say the next steps will determine whether the Islamic Republics atomic ambitions have truly been crippled.Commenting on the mission, President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social that: "The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be "monumental." The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. Thank you!"Also on Sunday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine told reporters, "Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction." He added it was far too early to comment "on what may or may not still be there."A senior Israeli security source told Fox News Digital, "Its still too soon to know for sure, but it appears the sites were seriously damaged it looks excellent."HERES WHAT A POST-AYATOLLAH IRAN COULD LOOK LIKE IF WAR WITH ISRAEL LEADS TO REGIMES FALL"History is being written," said Reserve Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and a former IDF intelligence chief. "This is a powerful development that significantly weakens the Iranian threat and highlights the deep cooperation between Israel and the United States. But the journey is far from over."According to Kuperwasser, the strikes caused heavy damage to core parts of Irans nuclear infrastructure. "But I dont think the program is destroyed," he told Fox News Digital. "They still have enriched uranium, the ability to produce centrifuges, and scientists. We killed many, but not all. And even the bombed facilities we dont know for sure that nothing remains."Kuperwasser emphasized that while Tehran may retain some nuclear assets, a key strategic threshold has now been crossed. "Until now, everything was covert: sabotage, diplomacy, sanctions. But now, military action has proven far more effective. If Iran tries to restart its program, they know we and the Americans are prepared to strike again."Sima Shein, a former senior Mossad official and Iran expert at Israels Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), agreed that Irans capabilities have been degraded, but not eliminated."Theres no doubt these were the three most important sites," Shein told Fox News Digital, referring to the U.S. strike Saturday night that hit Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, but claimed "Iran has dispersed its enriched uranium both 60% and 20% across various unknown locations. Theyve likely hidden advanced centrifuges as well, because production oversight hasnt existed for years."She added that if a future diplomatic agreement is reached, the first condition must be "full disclosure and removal" of all remaining fissile material.EXPERT CONFIDENT IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS 'NO LONGER' AFTER MASSIVE US STRIKEMark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Fox News Digital that all remaining Iranian nuclear facilities must be completely dismantled and referred to FDD expert's plan, which outlined a strategy for the permanent dismantlement of Tehrans nuclear weapons enterprise.The report calls for the destruction of all enrichment sites, the removal or seizure of enriched uranium, the dismantling of advanced centrifuges, and a permanent halt to weaponization efforts. It also demands unrestricted inspections, irreversible disarmament, and strict enforcement through snapback sanctions. FDD argues that anything less would leave Iran capable of rebuilding its nuclear program.Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence and president of the Mind Israel think tank, called the American strike a "game-changer.""Trumps doctrine of peace through strength is in action," Yadlin said. "Geopolitically, this changes the entire war and sends a message to China, Russia, and others."But Yadlin also believes Iran's nuclear capabilities havent been wiped out completely. "There are two possible Iranian responses: retaliation and changing nuclear policy. Retaliation may come via terror attacks in the Gulf, or pressure through proxies like Hezbollah or the Houthis. But I think the more likely shift is in nuclear posture perhaps withdrawing from the NPT.""Theyre in a dilemma," Shein told Fox News Digital. "They dont want to drag the U.S. further into military conflict, and they cant risk harming ties with Gulf neighbors. A military retaliation like closing the Strait of Hormuz would invite overwhelming force. Expelling inspectors or quitting the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] may be their next moves."Kuperwasser added that military pressure alone may not bring lasting resolution unless paired with either a diplomatic agreement with intrusive inspections, or a credible threat of continued strikes."If theres an agreement, it must be based on verification not trust," he said. "Anywhere, anytime inspections. But if they refuse, we can continue striking any new facility they build."As Israel and the U.S. prepare for potential cycles of response and counter-response, Kuperwasser believes the Israeli public is ready."These are historic times," he said. "We understand the sacrifice and were ready to see it through."

An experimental weight-loss medication was shown to help people lose nearly 25% of their body weight in early-stage 1a/2b trials.The drug, amycretin developed by Novo Nordisk works by replicating two hunger hormones amylin, which regulates appetite and creates a feeling of fullness, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), the same hormone that is used in Ozempic and Wegovy to suppress appetite and boost insulin secretion."Amycretin is the first treatment to harness the two distinct biological pathways stimulated by amylin and GLP-1 in a single molecule," Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president and head of development at Novo Nordisk, previously said in a statement sent to Fox News Digital.GRANDFATHER'S SIMPLE CHANGES REVERSED PRE-DIABETES DIAGNOSIS THAT LEFT HIM 'PETRIFIED'In the study, which included 125 overweight or obese adults, participants who received weekly injections of amycretin lost more weight than those who took a placebo, according to a press release from Novo Nordisk.Those who got the highest doses (up to 60 mg) lost up to 24.3% pounds after 36 weeks, compared to just 1.1% for the placebo group, per the release.A previous phase 1 trial of the oral (pill) version of amycretin also showed that treatment was "safe and tolerable," with an "observed reduction in body weight" compared to placebo, the company stated.Taking the pill once a day led to around 10% weight loss, and those who doubled the dose lost 13%.YOUR DNA COULD BE STOPPING YOU FROM LOSING WEIGHT, NEW STUDY SUGGESTSAnother benefit the researchers highlighted is that people taking amycretin did not appear to hit a "weight-loss plateau," continuing to shed pounds as long as they took it."The lack of weight loss plateauing indicates the possibility of achieving further weight reductions with extended treatment," Agnes Gasoirek, a senior clinical pharmacology specialist at Novo Nordisk, wrote in the phase 1 study findings.Novo Nordisk presented the latest findings at the American Diabetes Association in Chicago on June 22; they were also published in the medical journal Lancet."We are pleased with the promising results of amycretin and the feedback from regulatory authorities and are excited to advance both subcutaneous and oral versions of this molecule into phase 3 development for weight management," said Martin Holst Lange, executive vice president for Development at Novo Nordisk, in the release."These results reflect our robust pipeline in obesity, [and] our focus on progressing scientific innovation and expanding the range of options available to patients and healthcare professionals."The most common side effects of amycretin, similar to other GLP-1s, were gastrointestinal symptoms primarily nausea, vomiting and decreased appetite.Adverse events were "mild to moderate" in severity, according to researchers. More frequent doses resulted in greater side effects.Its important to monitor these side effects closely, experts advise, as GI issues are common among patients with obesity."While the initial weight-loss outcomes are indeed encouraging, further studies are needed to ensure that the therapeutic benefits consistently outweigh the potential risks, especially with long-term administration," Dr. Christine Ren-Fielding, director and chief of bariatric surgery at the NYU Langone Weight Management Program, previously told Fox News Digital.CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTERWhile GLP-1-based drugs including this new experimental pill may show promising results, Ren-Fielding, who was not involved in the study, emphasized that theyre "not a cure-all for obesity.""Obesity is a chronic, multifactorial disease that requires a comprehensive, long-term approach," she said at the time.For more Health articles, visitwww.foxnews.com/health"Pharmacological treatments can play a significant role in managing the condition, but they are often most effective when combined with other interventions."Next, Novo Nordisk plans to prepare for phase 3 trials of the medication, in both oral and injectable forms, for the management of obesity.

CNN chief law enforcement analyst John Miller wrote in an op-ed Sunday that President Donald Trump could go down as the "hero" after launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities."[Trump] could come out as the herothe hitman who delivered the kill shot to the Iran threator as a supporting player in the final scenes of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahus boldest act," Miller wrote in the Wall Street Journal.Trump revealed on Saturday that the U.S. had successfully carried out strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, in a move celebrated by Israel."Mr. Netanyahu may go down in history not as the leader who missed the warnings of the Oct. 7 attack but as the leader who delivered Israel from its three greatest threats by crushing Hamas, breaking Hezbollah and eliminating the nuclear threat from Iran," Miller added.MISDIRECTION AND 'DECEPTION' LIKELY KEY IN TRUMP ADMINS SURPRISE IRAN STRIKEMiller pointed to the viral clip of Tulsi Gabbard from March, in which the Director of National Intelligence said "we have seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran of discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear-weapons advocates within Irans decision-making apparatus."Gabbard insisted she was taken out of context.Miller wrote that Gabbard also said Irans enriched-uranium stockpile was the highest it had ever been.Miller argued that Iran was likely getting ready to deliver a nuclear weapon quickly if Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, gave orders to construct an actual weapon.PROMINENT TRUMP CRITICS LAUD PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO STRIKE IRAN NUCLEAR SITES"Whether or not Mr. [Ali] Khamenei gave the order for development of an actual nuclear weapon, there seems to have been little disagreement in any intelligence estimate that the people working underground in places like Natanz and Fordow were getting Irans nuclear program ready to deliver a weapon quickly if and when that call came," Miller wrote.The CNN analyst noted that reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran had "exceeded the agreed limits, quantity of uranium, enrichment levels, the number and types of centrifuges," as well as the continued expansion of metal compounds that are used to create missiles."No country without a nuclear-weapons program operates facilities buried under remote mountains and strives for faster centrifuges and more-highly enriched uranium. None of that makes sense for civilian energy programs," Miller wrote. CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTUREWhile Trump's decision earned derision from Democrats and isolationist MAGA figures, he also earned praise from some of his biggest critics.John Bolton, a former national security adviser for Trump who's become one of his staunchest foes, said Sunday that Trump made the right decision.

Sean Strickland, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump during his reelection campaign and a former UFC middleweight champion, expressed his issue with the U.S. militarys strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend.Strickland wondered in a post on social media how the military action in Iran helps the average American.CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM"What happened to America first? Cost of living, staggering wages, inflation," Strickland wrote on X. "How does spending 100s of millions to bomb the desert people help the average America? Regime change?"I didnt vote for my tax dollars to defend Israel. I voted for my tax dollars to help Americans."Strickland also urged Trump to not get "involved in Israels war." But on Saturday, U.S. military aircraft struck three key nuclear sites in Iran. Trump touted the bombings as a great success that helped hamper Irans development of a nuclear weapon.WNBA CHAMP SEEMINGLY CALLS FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT AFTER US STRIKES IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIESOn Monday, Iran attempted to retaliate by firing missiles at the United States al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Qatar's foreign ministry called the attack "brazen aggression," but said it had successfully intercepted Iranian missiles.Trump called Irans response "very weak."Iran has officially responded to our Obliteration of their Nuclear Facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered," he wrote on Truth Social. "There have been 14 missiles fired 13 were knocked down, and 1 was "set free," because it was headed in a nonthreatening direction. I am pleased to report that NO Americans were harmed, and hardly any damage was done."Most importantly, theyve gotten it all out of their "system," and there will, hopefully, be no further HATE. I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"Follow Fox News Digitalssports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Florida's attorney general asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow it to proceed with enforcing a controversial immigration law that seeks to criminalize the arrival or reentry of illegal migrants to the state teeing up yet another high-stakes, immigration-focused court clash between the Trump administration and immigration advocates.Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked justices on the high court to intervene immediately and allow the state to implement Senate Bill 4C, or the Florida law that seeks to criminalize the arrival of undocumented immigrants who had been previously been deported, or who were previously denied entry to the U.S.That law was blocked earlier this year by a federal judge in Miami. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also declined to lift the injunction, paving the way for Uthmeier to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDAUthmeier on Monday urged justices to reverse the federal courts injunction, which he described as detrimental to both state and national interests."Illegal immigration continues to wreak havoc in the state while [the] law cannot be enforced," Uthmeiers office said in the filing Monday.Absent Supreme Court intervention, Uthmeier argued that Florida and its citizens "will remain disabled from combatting the serious harms of illegal immigration for years as this litigation proceeds through the lower courts."The request comes after U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued an injunction earlier this year blocking Florida from enforcing the law, which she described as likely unconstitutional, and conflicting with existing federal laws.APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUITThis was opposed by Floridas attorney general, who argued Monday that"nothing in [S.B.C] poses a conflict with federal law."That failed to convince Judge Williams, however.Williams, an Obama appointee, took the extraordinary step of initiating contempt proceedings against Uthmeier earlier this month for allegedly violating her injunction and allowing police to make arrests under the law.Uthmeier, meanwhile, argued Monday that the Supreme Court should intervene and reverse the lower court rulings, which he described in his appeal as a measure "designed to protect future victims of the violence, drugs, and trafficking fueled by the entry and re-entry into Florida of unauthorized aliens.""Without this Courts intervention, Florida and its citizens will remain disabled from combatting the serious harms of illegal immigration for years as this litigation proceeds through the lower courts," he said.It is unclear if the Supreme Court will take up the case.The emergency appeal from Florida's attorney general comes at a time when the Supreme Court is already weighing six emergency applications from the Trump administration, including on weighty issues such as birthright citizenship, universal injunctions, and Trump's executive branch authorities, among other things.