Michigan lawmakers respond to Trump's declaration of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities
Michigan officials on both sides of the aisle are reacting to President Trump's announcement Saturday evening that the United States launched strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities.
According to a post on Truth Social, Mr. Trump said the U.S. has completed a "very successful attack" on sites in Iran, including Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.
A full payload of bombs was dropped at Fordo, according to Mr. Trump, who said in a follow-up post that "This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISTAEL (sic), AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!"
In response to Trump's declaration, Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan's 4th Congressional District said the following in a post on X Saturday night.
"After attempting to negotiate peace through diplomacy, President Trump took decisive action. We must ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon and usher in a new age of nuclear terrorism. I commend the men and women of our Armed Forces for their performance in this operation to make the world a safer place. It is now time for Iran to come to the table and abandon its nuclear ambitions."
Democratic U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan's 12th Congressional District said Mr. Trump violated the Constitution by sending U.S. troops to bomb Iran without consent.
"The American people do not want another forever war," Tlaib said in a written statement. "We have seen where decades of endless war in the Middle East gets us — all based on the lie of 'weapons of mass destruction.' We are not falling for it again. 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. Congress must act immediately to exert its war powers and stop this unconstitutional act of war."
Iran has pledged to retaliate if the U.S. joined the Israeli assault, which began with airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites and military targets on June 13. Iran has responded with missile and drone attacks on Israel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to hear case of Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the case of a Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials in Louisiana who cut off his dreadlocks while he was incarcerated. The case is the latest that involves religious rights to catch the high court's attention, and it could have significant implications by allowing prisoners to sue government officials for damages when their religious rights are burdened under a federal law enacted 25 years ago. Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who began serving a five-month prison sentence in 2020 for drug possession, had taken a religious vow years earlier to not cut his locks. But his situation took a turn for the worst after arriving at a new prison weeks before his release. He handed officials a copy of an appeals court ruling from 2017 that allowed prisoners to have dreadlocks. The guards tossed it in the trash. They then handcuffed him to a chair and forcibly shaved his head. Following Landor's release, he sued Louisiana prison officials and guards for damages under a decades-old law that protects the religious interests of inmates. But lower courts dismissed his case, ruling that the law doesn't allow individuals to pursue damages against prison officials for alleged violations of it even though, in one court's view, he had the victim of a 'grave legal wrong.' The conservative New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous decision last year that it 'emphatically' condemned 'the treatment that Landor endured,' but an earlier appeals court precedent settled the case against him. The full 5th Circuit divided on whether to hear the case. President Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan law in 2000 that protects the religion interests of state prisoners but it's not clear whether that law allows people who were harmed to sue for money damages. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a similar law with nearly identical language allows people whose religious rights have been burdened to seek damages against government officials acting in their individual capacity. 'Without a damages remedy,' lawyers for Landor told the justices in court papers, inmates 'will often be left without meaningful protection for their religious exercise.' In other words, once Landor's head was shaved, the only way for him to have some legal remedy is through money damages. 'The no-damages rule ensured that respondent officials would not be held accountable for violating the religious rights of a prisoner set for release in just three weeks and prevented him from obtaining any relief for the abuse he suffered,' his lawyers said. Attorneys for the Louisiana state officials urged the court to not take up the case, arguing among other things that Landor could bring his claims under state law. They also told the justices that permitting the lawsuit to move forward could hamper the state's ability to hire staff in its prisons. Siding with Landor, they told the court, 'would almost certainly deepen the problem by driving down staffing levels and dissuading job applicants.' 'That, in turn, inevitably would lead to worse prison conditions and perhaps lessened protections for religious liberty, as understaffed prisons attempt to survive the growing prison populations,' they added. 'No one wins in that situation.' The Trump administration, meanwhile, had asked the justices to take up the matter. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court in May that the federal government has an interest 'in ensuring that prisons or other institutions receiving federal funds do not substantially burden religious exercise, and damages liability is closely connected to that interest.'
New York Times
34 minutes ago
- New York Times
Democrats to Protest Trump's Takeover of Kennedy Center With Pride Event
Five Democratic senators have rented a small theater at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and invited the producer of 'Hamilton' to stage a gay pride concert there as a form of symbolic protest against President Trump's takeover of the institution. The event, scheduled to take place on Monday night before an invited audience, will feature Broadway artists performing songs and readings. The concert, hosted by Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado, is being called 'Love Is Love,' a slogan used by the gay rights movement and quoted by the 'Hamilton' creator Lin-Manuel Miranda when his show won at the Tony Awards in 2016. 'What's happening in the world is deeply concerning, but even in our darkest hours, we must continue to seek out the light,' Mr. Hickenlooper said in a statement. 'The L.G.B.T.Q. community has long embodied this resilience, maintaining joy and creativity in the face of adversity.' Mr. Trump took over the Kennedy Center in February after purging its previously bipartisan board of Democratic appointees and replacing them with his allies. He denounced its programming as too 'wokey' and promised to usher in a 'Golden Age in Arts and Culture.' The senators, who exercised a prerogative extended to members of Congress to rent space in the center, chose this week for the event because June has long been when supporters of the gay community have celebrated Pride Month. Mr. Trump, in a departure from previous presidents, has not acknowledged Pride Month, and some of his actions in recent months have prompted concern in the L.G.B.T.Q. community. Since his takeover of the center, several groups have canceled events there, saying they no longer feel welcome. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court agrees to hear case of Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials for cutting his dreadlocks
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up the case of a Rastafarian man seeking to sue prison officials in Louisiana who cut off his dreadlocks while he was incarcerated. The case is the latest that involves religious rights to catch the high court's attention, and it could have significant implications by allowing prisoners to sue government officials for damages when their religious rights are burdened under a federal law enacted 25 years ago. Damon Landor, a devout Rastafarian who began serving a five-month prison sentence in 2020 for drug possession, had taken a religious vow years earlier to not cut his locks. But his situation took a turn for the worst after arriving at a new prison weeks before his release. He handed officials a copy of an appeals court ruling from 2017 that allowed prisoners to have dreadlocks. The guards tossed it in the trash. They then handcuffed him to a chair and forcibly shaved his head. Following Landor's release, he sued Louisiana prison officials and guards for damages under a decades-old law that protects the religious interests of inmates. But lower courts dismissed his case, ruling that the law doesn't allow individuals to pursue damages against prison officials for alleged violations of it even though, in one court's view, he had the victim of a 'grave legal wrong.' The conservative New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous decision last year that it 'emphatically' condemned 'the treatment that Landor endured,' but an earlier appeals court precedent settled the case against him. The full 5th Circuit divided on whether to hear the case. President Bill Clinton signed the bipartisan law in 2000 that protects the religion interests of state prisoners but it's not clear whether that law allows people who were harmed to sue for money damages. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that a similar law with nearly identical language allows people whose religious rights have been burdened to seek damages against government officials acting in their individual capacity. 'Without a damages remedy,' lawyers for Landor told the justices in court papers, inmates 'will often be left without meaningful protection for their religious exercise.' In other words, once Landor's head was shaved, the only way for him to have some legal remedy is through money damages. 'The no-damages rule ensured that respondent officials would not be held accountable for violating the religious rights of a prisoner set for release in just three weeks and prevented him from obtaining any relief for the abuse he suffered,' his lawyers said. Attorneys for the Louisiana state officials urged the court to not take up the case, arguing among other things that Landor could bring his claims under state law. They also told the justices that permitting the lawsuit to move forward could hamper the state's ability to hire staff in its prisons. Siding with Landor, they told the court, 'would almost certainly deepen the problem by driving down staffing levels and dissuading job applicants.' 'That, in turn, inevitably would lead to worse prison conditions and perhaps lessened protections for religious liberty, as understaffed prisons attempt to survive the growing prison populations,' they added. 'No one wins in that situation.' The Trump administration, meanwhile, had asked the justices to take up the matter. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the court in May that the federal government has an interest 'in ensuring that prisons or other institutions receiving federal funds do not substantially burden religious exercise, and damages liability is closely connected to that interest.'
