Posts claim ICE is removing foster children for deportation. Here's what we know

Videos that circulated on social media in June 2025 claimed ICE was removing children in the country illegally from their foster homes for deportation.
A report published by the Miami Herald (archived) on June 11, 2025, said child welfare authorities in Florida turned over a 17-year-old Honduran foster child to ICE agents. However, the Herald's reporting relied on information from anonymous sources, so Snopes was unable to replicate it.
The Florida Department of Children and Families provided the following statement to Snopes via email: "The individual referenced in your inquiry has been in the care of the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (U.S. ORR). The individual absconded and, due to his actions, was intercepted by Florida law enforcement. The Florida Department of Children and Families may provide temporary care but must work with all partners to return the individual to the appropriate legal custody, which in this case was U.S. ORR."
ICE had not responded to Snopes' request for comment at the time of this writing. A White House spokesperson provided a statement addressing its efforts to "conduct welfare checks" on migrant children "to ensure they are not being exploited and to reunite them with their families when possible." However, they did not directly address the claims about federal agents removing foster children for deportation.
Videos that circulated on social media in June 2025 claimed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was removing undocumented children from their foster homes for deportation.
One of the earliest iterations of the claim was shared on TikTok (archived) on June 10, 2025, with overlaid text that read, "Foster Children Removed for Deportation." In that video, which has garnered more than 800,000 likes and 100,000 shares as of this writing, a user said:
It's time to speak up. ICE is now removing undocumented foster children from their foster homes. Removing foster children from their foster homes for deportation.
Several Instagram (archived) users (archived) shared the video on their accounts, while other (archived) users (archived) on social media used the audio as voiceover in their posts. Snopes readers also emailed us and searched our site looking for information about the claim.
At the time of this writing, Snopes found a report published by the Miami Herald (archived) on June 11, 2025, that said child welfare authorities in Florida turned over a 17-year-old foster child to ICE agents.
The Herald's reporting relied on information from anonymous sources, so Snopes was unable to replicate it. The Herald's deputy investigations editor, who worked on the story, told Snopes via email, "As the story indicates, support for our reporting includes sources whom we are unable to name, and a document we are not at liberty to share."
ICE had not responded to Snopes' request for comment at the time of this writing.
A White House spokesperson provided a statement addressing the administration's efforts to "conduct welfare checks" on migrant children "to ensure they are not being exploited and to reunite them with their families when possible." However, they did not directly address the claims about federal agents removing foster children for deportation.
The statement read:
Under the Biden Administration, countless migrant children were illegally smuggled and sex trafficked across the wide-open Southern Border. Not only did the Biden Administration allow this to happen, but once the children arrived to the U.S., Biden's Administration lost track of tens of thousands of them. DHS is leading efforts to conduct welfare checks on these children to ensure they are not being exploited and to reunite them with their families when possible. Unlike the Biden Administration, the Trump Administration takes the safety of these children seriously.
In response to Snopes' questions about the teen referenced in the Herald report, the Florida Department of Children and Families provided the following statement via email:
The individual referenced in your inquiry has been in the care of the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement (U.S. ORR). The individual absconded and, due to his actions, was intercepted by Florida law enforcement. The Florida Department of Children and Families may provide temporary care but must work with all partners to return the individual to the appropriate legal custody, which in this case was U.S. ORR.
The Florida agency did not confirm whether the teen was in foster care at the time, as the Herald reported.
In its story, the Herald reported that a 17-year-old Honduran boy was removed from his foster home in Pensacola, Florida, "in handcuffs and shackles" and "transferred immediately into ICE custody." He and his mother "had crossed the southwest border into the U.S. without permission," sources told the newspaper.
According to the Herald, the teen traveled from Texas to Pensacola in search of work after being separated from his mother, who was later deported. The report said, in part:
He entered foster care after he was found living in a shed with no source of food, shelter or income, records show. The boy, whose first name is Henry, also may have been a victim of labor trafficking. The Herald is not fully naming him to protect his privacy.
The decision to alert immigration authorities to Henry's status as an undocumented migrant is at odds with decades of child welfare practice in Florida – and it appears to violate a 30-year-old state Department of Children and Families rule that prohibits workers from acting upon a child's status.
Republican Florida state Sen. Ileana Garcia, who co-founded the group Latinas for Trump but has openly criticized the president's immigration policies, declined to name the child but told the Herald she is "concerned his case may be part of a larger pattern in which children in the state's foster care system could be picked up at the homes of their foster parents by federal immigration authorities," the newspaper reported.
In a post on X (archived) on June 9, 2025, Garcia wrote:
Stephen Miller has made it a point to include undocumented minors in foster care, many of whom are victims of human trafficking, in his efforts to fulfill a desperate weekly quota of deportations. These individuals are being picked up at the homes of foster parents. This is unacceptable! Regardless of their citizenship status.
Miller serves as the White House's deputy chief of staff. The White House did not directly address any of Garcia's allegations.
Garcia told the Herald she could "only provide specifics about the Pensacola case," according to the newspaper. Snopes reached out to Garcia via phone and email to ask for additional information about such incidences and evidence corroborating her claim. We will update this story if we receive a response.
Lawyers told the Herald it had been years since they had heard about Florida child welfare agencies, such as the Department of Children and Families, notifying ICE about children in their custody, the newspaper reported.
The Herald report also documented Henry's journey to the United States and his time in Pensacola. Henry, whose father is dead, was 13 when he crossed the border with his mother. A source told the Herald that he was initially released into his uncle's custody, though details about his early time in the U.S. aren't entirely clear, according to the newspaper.
Henry moved in with his mother at some point before she was arrested in Texas and ultimately deported to Honduras. He made it to Pensacola, where his brother lived, and ended up working for $10 a day. Henry "ran away" when he "realized he was being overworked," and may also have been a victim of labor trafficking, records obtained by the Herald show.
In November 2024, a report made to the Department of Children and Families' child welfare hotline alleged Henry was homeless and "did not have a caregiver available," the Herald reported. He was briefly placed with a local family before leaving over disagreements about a visitor and sleeping arrangements, according to the newspaper.
The state agency filed a petition in April 2025 asking a judge to designate Henry as a dependent of the state and he was then placed in foster care, the newspaper reported.
According to sources who spoke to the Herald, a DCF administrator reported Henry to ICE on June 6. Three days later, ICE agents took him from his foster home "in handcuffs and leg irons," a source told the Herald.
Henry is now in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, as DCF mentioned in its statement to Snopes. He does not have a deportation order, according to a source who spoke to the Herald.
The Herald also reported that the Department of Children and Families' decision to report Henry to ICE appears to conflict with state policy.
DCF passed a governing procedure in 1995 called the Undocumented Child Rule, which "requires the agency to screen and respond to child abuse hotline calls 'without regard to the immigration status' of the child or family at the center of the report," the Herald reported.
According to the Herald, the rule reads, in part: "No such status check or other contact shall be made for the purpose of seeking the child's or the family's detention by [immigration authorities] or the initiation or resumption of deportation or exclusion proceedings against the child or the child's family, irrespective of the outcome of the dependency proceeding. No Department of Children and Family Services staff member may attempt to place any alien child in [immigration] custody."
A Florida legal expert told the Herald that "DCF appears to have violated that rule by reporting Henry to ICE."
The state agency did not address Snopes' question about allegations that it violated the Undocumented Child Rule.
ICE typically does not detain unaccompanied children. Instead, the "responsibilities related to the care and custody of unaccompanied undocumented children" falls under the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, according to ICE's website.
The person referenced in Snopes' inquiry "has been in the care of" ORR, the Florida Department of Children and Families said in its emailed statement.
Under federal law, the ORR is required to "feed, shelter and provide medical care for unaccompanied alien children until it is able to release them to safe settings with sponsors (usually family members), while they await immigration proceedings," according to the website for the federal Administration for Children and Families.
All sponsors must pass background checks and agree to ensure the child attends their immigration proceedings. They also have to agree to "ensure the minor reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary departure order," according to the ACF.
Miller, Carol Marbin, et al. "Florida Child Welfare Agency Calls ICE on Teen Migrant in Foster Care, Sparking Criticism." Miami Herald, 11 June 2025, www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article308254995.html. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Kochi, Sudiksha. "'Unacceptable and Inhumane': Latinas for Trump Founder Blasts Immigration Arrests." USA TODAY, 9 June 2025, www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/09/latinas-for-trump-immigration-arrests/84115411007/. Accessed 19 June 2025.
Syra Ortiz Blanes. "'Inhumane:' Latinas for Trump Founder Condemns White House Immigration Crackdown." Miami Herald, 7 June 2025, www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article308111995.html. Accessed 19 June 2025.
X (Formerly Twitter), 9 June 2025, x.com/IleanaGarciaUSA/status/1932112429460128048. Accessed 19 June 2025.
"Detention Management." Www.ice.gov, www.ice.gov/detain/detention-management. Accessed 19 June 2025.
"Unaccompanied Alien Children Released to Sponsors by State." Acf.gov, 10 Jan. 2025, acf.gov/orr/grant-funding/unaccompanied-children-released-sponsors-state. Accessed 19 June 2025.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

14 minutes ago

• Yahoo

3 hurt after shooting in Sacramento early Sunday

The Sacramento Sheriff's Office is investigating a shooting that left three people hospitalized in Sacramento, according to officials. The shooting happened on Little Oak Lane around 1:49 a.m. Sunday.

CBS News

24 minutes ago

• CBS News

Full transcript of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 22, 2025

Rubio says U.S. is ready to meet with Iran after strikes, calls closing Strait of Hormuz "suicidal" On this "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" broadcast: Secretary of State Marco Rubio GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. of California Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia of Virginia Retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former commander of U.S. Central Command and a CBS News contributor Click here to browse full transcripts from 2025 of "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan in Washington. And today on Face the Nation, breaking news overnight, as President Trump delivers on his threat to use American firepower to bomb Iran nuclear sites. Is this a one-and-done mission, or has the U.S. further escalated tensions in the already volatile Middle East conflict? It took American B-2s loaded with bunker-busting bombs in a surprisingly timed mission that President Trump says shows the might and strength of the U.S. military. (Begin VT) DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: Just how successful were those strikes? Can the U.S. keep from getting further involved? This morning, Iran says they will respond and that the U.S. betrayed diplomacy. What's the threat to Americans, especially our troops serving in the Middle East? We will talk with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, plus Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine and two House members with very different political ideologies united now when it comes to U.S. intervention in a war between Iran and Israel. All this and more is just ahead on Face the Nation. Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. Following the U.S. bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran yesterday, Trump administration officials are breathing a sigh of relief that the highly classified bombing mission appears to have gone off without a hitch. But there is also concern now about what happens next when it comes to Iran. Operation Midnight Hammer involved top secret planning and a head fake, as two strike forces of B-2 bombers departed the U.S. flying in opposite directions late Friday night. On Saturday, defense officials confirmed to CBS News that there were in fact B-2s headed to Guam, flying west from their home in Missouri. But those were decoys. A separate fleet of B-2s departed from that same location heading east to the targets in Iran. Pentagon officials say the mission was an overwhelming success, but also concede it is too early to assess if Iran still has nuclear capability. Fourteen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator weapons, or MOPs, dropped on an underground nuclear facility in Fordow and a key uranium enrichment site in Natanz. Additional American Tomahawks struck a third site at Isfahan. (Begin VT) PETE HEGSETH (U.S. Defense Secretary): I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America in Missouri overnight completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities. We believe that will have a clear psychological impact on how they view the future. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: At the White House late last night, President Trump issued his own stern warning to Iran: (Begin VT) PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight's was the most difficult of them all by far and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. (End VT) MARGARET BRENNAN: And those words, go after other targets, have led to confusion and some concern about what is next for the U.S. role in this very volatile crisis. Secretary of State and acting White House National Security Adviser Marco Rubio now joins us. Mr. Secretary, I know it has been an intense few hours, but, so far, it does not appear that Iran has yet retaliated against the United States. What intelligence do you have at this point about their capabilities to respond, the intent of their proxies? Is there any kind of command-and- control structure left to activate them? MARCO RUBIO (U.S. Secretary of State): Yes, well, we will see what Iran decides to do. I think they should choose the route of peace. We have been – we have done everything. We have bent over backwards, OK, to create a deal with these people. Steve Witkoff has traveled the world extensively, met with them – well, not even met with them, met through the Omanis with them and discussed back and forth. We even put an offer to them that they wanted elements of it in writing. And we offered it to them, a very generous offer, by the way. We have done every – and we're prepared right now. If they call right now and say, we want to meet, let's talk about this, we're prepared to do that. The president's made that clear from the very beginning. His preference is to deal with this issue diplomatically. But he also told them we had 60 days to make progress or something else was going to happen. And I think they thought they were dealing with a different kind of leader, like the kinds of leaders they have been playing games with for the last 30 or 40 years. And they found out that's not the case. So this mission was a very precise mission. It had three objectives, three nuclear sites. It was not an attack on Iran. It was not an attack on the Iranian people. This wasn't a regime change move. This was designed to degrade and/or destroy three nuclear sites related to their nuclear weaponization ambitions. And that was delivered on yesterday. What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next. If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready. We can do a deal that's good for them, the Iranian people and good for the world. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: If they choose another route, then there will be consequences for that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me follow up on a phrase you just word – weaponization ambitions. Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the supreme leader had ordered weaponization? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: That's irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media all the time. That's an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon. MARGARET BRENNAN: No, but that is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: No, it's not. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, it was. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: No, it's not. MARGARET BRENNAN: That the political decision had not been made. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: No, I know – well, I know that better than you know that. And I know that that's not the case. MARGARET BRENNAN: But I'm asking you whether the order was given. (CROSSTALK) SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: You don't know what you're talking about. And the people who say that – it doesn't matter if the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury – why would you bury things in a mountain 300 feet under the ground? MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Why would you bury six – why do they have 60 percent enriched uranium? You don't need 60 percent enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60 percent are countries that have nuclear weapons… MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … because they can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements. They have – why are they – why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No. They're trying to build an ICBM, so they can one day put a warhead on it. MARGARET BRENNAN: No, but that's a question – that's a question – that's a question of intent. And you know, in the intelligence assessment, that it was that Iran wanted to be a threshold state and use this leverage. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm talking about the public March assessment. And that's why I was asking you if you know something more from March, if an order was given. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, that – but that's also an inaccurate representation of it. That's an inaccurate representation of it. That's not how intelligence is read. That's not how intelligence is used. Here's what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … for a civil nuclear program. So why would you enrich uranium at 60 percent… MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … if you don't intend to one day use it to take it to 90 and build a weapon? MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Why are you – why are you developing ICBMs? Why do you have 8,000 short-range missiles and 2,000 to 3,000 long – mid-range missiles that you continue to develop? Why do you do all these things? MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: They have everything they need for a nuclear weapon. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: They have the delivery mechanisms. They have the enrichment capability. They have the highly enriched uranium that is stored. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: That's all we need to see… MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Well, and that's – so it was the… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … especially in the hands of a regime that's already involved in terrorism and proxies and all kinds of things that are on – they are the source of all instability in the Middle East. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. And no one's disputing – no one's disputing that. I'm not doing that here. And they were censured at the IAEA for that enrichment and for violating their nonproliferation agreements. I was simply asking if we had intelligence that there was an order to weaponize, because you have said weaponization ambitions, which implies they weren't doing it. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, we have intelligence that they have everything they need to build a nuclear weapon. MARGARET BRENNAN: Got it. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And that's more than enough. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. Can – I want to ask you, on the policy front, there are personnel throughout the Middle East from the United States in Bahrain, in Kuwait, and other bases. If those countries are attacked by Iran because of their association with the United States, will the United States defend them? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, that's exactly why they're there. That's a great point, actually. Do you know why we have bases in Bahrain and Qatar and UAE and in all these places? All of those bases are there because those countries are afraid that Iran will attack them. If Iran was not a threat to the region, if the Iranian regime – because let me be clear, I'm talking about the Iranian people. If the regime was not a threat to the region, we wouldn't have to have any of these bases. Those bases are there because those countries are petrified that these – that the Iranian Shia clerics that run that country will attack their country. MARGARET BRENNAN: Will the United States defend them if they are? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: As you know, they've got a very difficult history. Well, that's why we're there. That's why we're there. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, yes, we will defend them? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: But they'll attack us, is what they're threatening to do. So we'll defend our people, obviously. We'll defend our people. Well, they'll attack our bases. And those are our bases, and we're going to defend our personnel. We're prepared to do that. But we'll do more than just defend. We'll impose costs on Iran if they attack American personnel, whether they do it directly, or whether they do it through some of these proxies that they try to hide behind. And that includes the Houthis, so… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Another proxy of theirs. So – but let's hope they don't choose that route. Let's all hope that they actually decide, OK, let's go negotiate, because we want a diplomatic and peaceful solution. We have achieved our objectives. We're ready to negotiate this in a peaceful, in a diplomatic way. We've been prepared to do that for days. They are the ones that played games… MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … as they have done for 40 years, as they have done to multiple presidents. They tried to play games with President Trump, and they see what happens. This is not a game-playing president. MARGARET BRENNAN: I… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: When he says he's going to do something, he will do it. MARGARET BRENNAN: I hear you saying here you want to de-escalate when you are talking about diplomacy. You are looking for Iran to pick up that offer that was put on the table you mentioned by Steve Witkoff. Can you just clarify, does that mean the U.S. would still allow for Iran to have a civilian nuclear program if it does not enrich on its own soil? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: But that – but that's never been an issue. There's countries all over the world that have a civil nuclear program. No one here is saying that Iran can't… MARGARET BRENNAN: But that's still the offer on the table? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Sure. That's always been there. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Any country in the world has a right to have a civil nuclear program. What they don't have a right to do is to enrich it at 60 percent, hide it under a mountain… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … and develop long-range and short-range and mid- range missiles and sponsor terrorist proxies all over the world. They don't have a right to do that, and that's what they've been doing. And no one's dealt with it, and it's continued to linger. And they've played games with multiple presidents and multiple countries around the world, and they've gotten away with it for 40-something years. This is very simple. The president wants to resolve this diplomatically and peacefully. He gave them a chance to do that. They delayed. They had all these kind of delay tactics. They wouldn't even meet with us directly. We had to go through third countries. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: This is very simple. Let's meet directly. Let's work on agreements that we can – that are good for Iran, good for the Iranian people, in particular, good for the safety and security of the world and the United States. That's always been our preference. That continues to be our preference. But they're the ones that were playing games with this. And these are the consequences. We had to achieve those objectives. We had three objectives yesterday, Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. We conducted a brilliant military operation under the command of President Trump, and obviously great credit to Secretary Hegseth and General Kurilla and General Caine and all of our - - all the airmen and phenomenal people in the U.S. military. No other military in the world could have done this. We achieved those objectives. MARGARET BRENNAN: No. It was astounding. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: What happens next is up to the regime, OK? MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: The regime wants peace, we're ready for peace. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: They want to do something else, they're incredibly vulnerable. They can't even protect their own airspace. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, clearly. Clearly, they could not. But what is the U.S. assessment of how much nuclear material at those sites was moved prior to the attack? There has been talk for days about bombing of Fordow. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, look, we – we don't – no one will know for sure for days, but I doubt they moved it, because you really can't move anything right now, and they can't move anything right now inside of Iran. I mean, the minute a truck starts driving somewhere, the Israelis have seen it, and they've targeted it and taken it out. So our assessment is, we have to assume that that's a lot of 60 percent enriched uranium buried deep under the ground there in Isfahan. And that really is the key. What they should do with that is, they should bring it out of the ground and turn it over. Multiple countries around the world will take it and down-blend it. That's what they should do with that. And what they should do is say, we're not going to have any enrichment capability in our country. Instead, what we're going to have is a civil nuclear program, like dozens of countries around the world have, where we build reactors that create electricity and we import enriched material. And we've made very generous – I'm not going to get into all the details of the offers. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: But there are other avenues here that would be acceptable to them, if that's what they wanted. If what they want is a civil, peaceful nuclear program, the route has always been there. The problem is that everything they're demanding has nothing to do with a peaceful program. They are all the things you would want if you want to retain the option of one day weaponizing the program… MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … which has been their clear intent. To me, that's indisputable. I have followed this issue for 15 years… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … including the intelligence on it for 15 years, OK? I have followed it. And the intelligence, these are assessments, and sometimes they've been wrong. I have seen them revised multiple times. These guys want a nuclear weapon one day. They do. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, to that point… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And it isn't going to happen, not while Donald Trump is president. MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood. You've said this is not about regime change, but you are describing a regime that you have said for decades, I mean, for upwards of 40 years, has chanted "Death to America," has done all the things you just described. Isn't a diplomatic deal with them a lifeline? Aren't you offering to negotiate with the same people you're saying did all these things? So, therefore, are you actually looking for regime change? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: But that's not the point. Well, that misses the point. I don't like that they chant those things. But one thing is that they chant those things. Another thing is that they chant those things, and they have terror proxies are all over the world, and they have long-range missiles that can reach the United States one day, and they have the potential to be one step away from a nuclear weapon. MARGARET BRENNAN: One day. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Yes, well one day could be tomorrow. Could be a week from now. Could be a month from now. MARGARET BRENNAN: Do… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: You know, all it takes is the flip of a switch. By the way, they're not going to broadcast that to the world. MARGARET BRENNAN: So… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: By the time we figure out that they're doing it, you have all the pieces in place. OK?. MARGARET BRENNAN: So are there still targets you want to hit? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: It's like you have a loaded – a gun here and the ammunition. It only takes one second. We have other targets that we could hit, but we achieved our objective. The primary targets we were interested in are the ones that were struck tonight in devastating fashion,the ones that were struck, I guess, yes, tonight over there their time, in devastating fashion. And we've achieved that objective. There are no planned military operations right now against Iran unless, unless they mess around and they attack American or American interests. Then they're going to have a problem. Then they're going to have a problem. And I'm not going to broadcast what those problems are. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: But suffice it to say, know this. The United States flew halfway around the world, right into the heart of Iran, over their most sensitive locations. These things got rocked. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And then we left, and we were out of their airspace, we were over the ocean before they figured out what had happened. MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And there are plenty of other targets. We don't want to do that. That's not our preference. We want peace deals with them, and that's up to them to decide. MARGARET BRENNAN: You said defend American interests. Would the United States military take action to keep, for example, the transit point the Strait of Hormuz open? If there are attacks on oil installations, would the United States consider that a direct act by the state, even if it was carried out by a militia? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, I'm not going to take options away from the president. That's not something we're talking about right now in terms of being immediate. But if they do that, the first people that should be angry about it are the Chinese government, because they take – a lot of their oil comes through there. So they should be the first ones that are saying, if they mine the Straits of Hormuz, the Chinese are going to pay a huge price and every other country in the world is going to pay a huge price. We will too. It will have some impact on us. It will have a lot more impact on the rest of the world, a lot more impact on the rest of the world. That would be a suicidal move on their part, because I think the – the whole world would come against them if they did that. MARGARET BRENNAN: Will the Chinese and Russians stop trading with Iran? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: You have to ask the Chinese and the Russians. MARGARET BRENNAN: You haven't' asked them? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Probably not. I mean, they're getting – you know, they're – well, the Russians are getting a bunch of these – you know, these drones that they're using are coming from Iran. MARGARET BRENNAN: Exactly. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: They're coming from Iran. So I saw the foreign minister, instead of meeting with Steve Witkoff, is headed to Moscow to meet with Putin, which was a prescheduled meeting, which is fine. You know, they can go meet. And you the – the Russians, at the end of the day, I mean, they buy drones from them. But, look, this is very simple. They – we want to have an agreement with them, a diplomatic agreement, in which they have a civil nuclear program, but are not enriching and don't have weapons-grade material or weapons- grade capabilities laying around. It's that simple. MARGARET BRENNAN: But they're… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: That's our interest here. MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Who they trade with, who they deal with, those are other topics. Our objective here is very straightforward. They're not going to have a nuclear weapon. They're not even going to get close to a nuclear weapon. They're not even going to be in the neighborhood of a nuclear weapon, because these people are dangerous. This is the radical Shia clerics who run that country. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And they are the source of all instability in the region, all of it. MARGARET BRENNAN: And you're offering to negotiate with them. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Without this regime, there is no Hamas, there is no Hezbollah. Well, because we don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, but let me – but… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: But that's the core objective. But the – no, no, but I'm going through the things they've done, because that's why they can't have a nuclear weapon, OK? They sponsor Shias. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, I'm just trying to… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: I'm sorry. They sponsor these Shia militias, Hamas, Hezbollah, all these other terrorist groups. These people aren't getting – are never going to get anywhere close to a nuclear weapon, not while Donald Trump is president. MARGARET BRENNAN: For the Americans – for the Americans at home who are going, are we at war, you know, I'm trying to suss out some of the facts here. So why would – why would Iran agree to any peace deal if the United States has already pulled out of one that they had, as President Trump did in 2018, and now launched two surprise attacks? Both Israel and the United States have done so. There is such a massive trust deficit there. How could you possibly come to an agreement? SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Yes, but the trust deficit started with Iran. MARGARET BRENNAN: I know. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, the trust deficit – the ones that shouldn't be trusted are the Iranians, because they're the ones that sponsor terrorism. Did they forewarn us before they blew up the embassy in Lebanon and killed over 200 American servicemen? Did they forewarn us before they built IEDs and blew the legs and arms off of American servicemen in Iraq? I mean, these are the people that are doing this forever. They're the ones that no one should trust. They're the ones that have lied about their nuclear program. They're the ones that have hidden things from the international organisms. MARGARET BRENNAN: But that sounds – all sounds like we're – but that all sounds like we're headed towards regime change or the desire to get these people out of power. Are you… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: No, but – no, no, no, no, no. No, a serious foreign policy is one that's focused on identifying what our national interest is. You don't have to like the regime. There are a lot of regimes around the world that we don't like, OK? But, in this particular case, what we are focused on is not the changing of the regime, OK? That's up to the Iranian people if they want to do that, but that's not what we're focused on. Our national interest is about one thing, and that is Iran not getting anywhere near the capability to weaponize and have nuclear weapons. They're not going to get anywhere near that capability. The president has made that clear from day one. Our preference for solving that problem, that very specific problem… MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: … is through diplomacy. We've said that. We've given it every opportunity. They played games. They tried delay tactics. They're trying delay tactics now on the Europeans because of the snapback provisions. MARGARET BRENNAN: When did the president make this… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And you talked about the JCPOA. That was a crazy deal. MARGARET BRENNAN: When did the president make this decision? Because he said he was giving two more weeks of diplomacy on Friday, and, on Friday, these jets took off. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: Well, the president retains the opportunity to pull out of this at any moment, including 10 minutes before. But the president ordered options. The president – look, the decision, in my view, was made when he wrote a letter to the supreme leader and he said over the next 60 days we want to do a deal with you and solve this problem of nuclear weaponization and we want to do it peacefully. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. OK. SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: If, after 60 days, we don't see progress or it isn't solved, we have other alternatives. He made that very clear. MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Mr. Secretary… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: I think what some people struggling with here is that we today have a president who does what he says he's going to do, and that's what happened here. MARGARET BRENNAN: Mr. Secretary… SECRETARY MARCO RUBIO: And, hopefully, the Iranian regime got that message. MARGARET BRENNAN: … we're going to hit a commercial break, so I have to wrap you there. Thank you very much for your time. We will be back in a minute. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We're back now with two reports from the region. Debora Patta is in Tel Aviv. (Begin VT) BENJAMIN NETANYAHU (Israeli Prime Minister): Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history. DEBORA PATTA (voice-over): It's mission accomplished, according to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who congratulated President Trump for the overnight strikes on Iran. (SIRENS BLARING) DEBORA PATTA: Two hours later, Iran retaliated with a barrage of at least 30 ballistic missiles. At least three broke through. Buildings were reduced to rubble in Haifa and here in Tel Aviv. This scene has been cordoned off after a direct hit from Iran's retaliatory strike, some of the worst damage in this area. The missile decimated an apartment block and homes in this neighborhood, but there were no fatalities. Israel has said its main goal was to destroy Iran's nuclear capability. As world attention is diverted to Iran, Gaza is sinking into an even greater catastrophe, with the Hamas-run Health Ministry reporting over 200 deaths in the past 48 hours alone. The injured wait to be treated on hospital floors. Children's screams fill the emergency rooms. (SCREAMING) DEBORA PATTA: Gaza remains stuck in a bloody limbo of misery and death. (End VT) DEBORA PATTA: Israel remains on high alert. Most of the country is shut down, and only essential services are permitted to operate. MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Debora Patta, in Tel Aviv. We go to Erbil, Iraq, with Holly Williams. HOLLY WILLIAMS: Iran's foreign minister said this morning that the U.S. has committed a grave violation of international law and Iran has to respond. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned last week that any U.S. military intervention would be met with irreparable harm. It's thought that he is now in hiding in a bunker. Now, U.S. military bases here in the Middle East are obvious targets for Iranian retaliation, and they are scattered across this region, along with around 40,000 American troops. A second carrier strike group is on its way to the Middle East to boost U.S. firepower. It is widely thought that Israel did not have the firepower to target the Fordow nuclear site, where Iran's been enriching uranium and which is buried inside a mountain. But now that the U.S. has bombed it, the question is, what comes next? One outcome is that Iran capitulates and agrees to give up its nuclear program. But another outcome is that Iran may be more motivated than ever before to develop nuclear weapons to protect itself from further attack. One Iranian lawmaker posted on social media overnight, apparently speaking to that possibility, saying – quote – "Knowledge cannot be bombed." MARGARET BRENNAN: That's Holly Williams in Iraq. We will be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Coming up next, we will be talking with two of the most vocal critics of the U.S. engaging in foreign conflict, especially without congressional authorization. But these two are very far apart when it comes to the political spectrum. California Democrat Ro Khanna and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie are standing by, and we will bring you that conversation in a moment. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will be back with more. Stay with us. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION. Democratic Ro Khanna joins us from San Francisco, and here in studio is Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie. And good morning to both of you gentlemen. I'll start with you, Congressman Massie. You know, I know – this is an unlikely pairing. You are on completely different ends of the political spectrum, but you both worked on this war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. forces from engage in hostilities against Iran without authorization from Congress. The president just blew right past that. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Well, you know, I think I represent part of the coalition that elected President Trump. We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East, and tired of wars in east – eastern Europe, and we were promised that we would put our veterans, our immigration policies and our infrastructure first. And so what Ro and I did, we did this last week when, you know, they were rattling the sabers, because we saw this coming. We put forward this war powers resolution. I've teamed up with Ro Khanna before on this, to his credit, when Joe Biden was president. We tried to rein in the executive and reassert Congress' authority – soul authority to declare war and to – and to engage or authorize the engagement of acts of war. MARGARET BRENNAN: Something we talked to other lawmakers about as well in the Senate, and I know there's efforts to support you, but the speaker of the House, who is from your own party, has really rejected this. He says, "the Article One power of Congress really allows for the president to do this. It was a limited, necessary, targeted strike," he says. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: Well, he's probably referring to the War Powers Act of 1973, but that's been misinterpreted. There were no imminent threat to the United States, which was what would authorize that. And I think that's peculiar to hear that from the speaker of the House. Look, Congress was on vacation last week when all this was happening. Speaker – MARGARET BRENNAN: You haven't been briefed on any of the details. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: We haven't been briefed. They should have called us all back. And, frankly, we should have debated this war powers resolution that Ro Khanna and I offered, instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers and saying, oh, well, the president's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority. MARGARET BRENNAN: Ro Khanna, Congressman Khanna, and we didn't hear from the secretary, the explanation as to why now. We haven't heard that from anyone other than a reference to the president had a roughly 60-day timeline on diplomatic talks. But we also know he had more talks scheduled when Israel launched this attack. So, it's just – it's not exactly clear the emergency. You will be briefed, along with other members of Congress, Tuesday. What are the questions you have? REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, first of all, the tragedy in this country is that we keep entering these overseas wars. We triumphantly declare the mission is accomplished the day after. And then we're left with Americans burdening the consequences for decades. Now, Thomas is absolutely right in showing courage. I mean the headlines all across this country says, the United States enters war with Iran. He is actually representing a lot of the people in the MAGA base. People like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Theo Von, who has had them on, who is saying, we don't want this war. And I heard your interview with Secretary Rubio. He's saying, well, we want a peace deal. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: We want to make sure that Iran can enrich uranium through civil purposes. Well, we had that. We had that in the JCPOA. And there was not a single violation that the IAEA found during that time. So, my question, I guess, is, now you're going to force Iran to go covertly into developing this nuclear material. Now you've put American troops at risk. Now 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? MARGARET BRENNAN: But, Congressman, are you open to the idea that there could be intelligence that is disclosed to you in this classified setting on Tuesday that could justify this, or is any military action, in your view, you know, war? REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: Well, I'm always open to new intelligence, but the procedures should have been that Congress be briefed before we decided to enter war and that we actually had a vote on it. You had Tulsi Gabbard, who just months ago, the director of intelligence, saying that was not the case. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: The reality is, and – and we should just speak up, there are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail. We need to pass Thomas Massie and my war powers resolution to make it clear that we're not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East. MARGARET BRENNAN: And – and, Congressman Massie, it's interesting because you were talking about a part of the party you represent. The secretary of state comes from a different part of that same party, as you know. And – and I did hone in on the question about intelligence, and wat it showed. He called it an ambition to weaponize. Weaponization ambition. That's different than they're making a nuclear weapon. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: Yes. MARGARET BRENNAN: But are you open to intelligence and persuasion here? REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: I'm open as well. But, look, in the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan, Congress first got the briefings. Congress met and debated. It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an authorization of the use of military force. We haven't had that. This has been turned upside-down, this process. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you heard from Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader, the Senator, saying it was a bad week for the isolationists. He was talking about Tucker Carlson and he was talking about Steve Bannon. Do you think that the president is making a choice here, or is he trying to have it both ways? Both saying, I'm going to please the hawks of the party by bombing, but them I'm going to say I want a peace deal and make the isolationists happy by saying, you know, I'm not committing to anything more than one and done? REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: Well, I'll concede this, it was a good week for the neocons in the military industrial complex who want war all the time. I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base isolationists. We are – we are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars. And we're non- interventionists. I mean this is what – this was one of the promises. I mean are you going to call President Trump's campaign an isolationist campaign? What he promised us was, we would put America first. And I – and I think there are still voices in this administration, you've still got J.D. Vance, you've still got Tulsi Gabbard, you've still – RFK Jr., you've still got calmer heads that could prevail. MARGARET BRENNAN: They were not persuasive in this case, clearly. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: Well, somebody was persuasive. APAC is very persuasive, for instance, the Israeli lobby in Congress. If you – if you look at my colleagues' feeds now, there's – they all look the same. They're all tweeting the same message, that we've got to support Israel and we've got to do this. My question is, does, you know, three bombings and we're done with Iran's nuclear ambitions – MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: Is that the two weeks to slow the spread of 2025? Is this, you know, we were told two weeks to slow the spread then. Now we're told it's just going to take three bombings. MARGARET BRENNAN: So – REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: But what happens when Israel gets bombed again? Is – is Trump going to sit by and say, no, we're not going to further engage in this war? MARGARET BRENNAN: I tried to get answers from the secretary on that question. But when you say the pro-Israel lobby, APAC, do you see a difference between Israel's interests and American interests? REPRESENTATIVE THOMAS MASSIE: Absolutely. Yes. I mean, look, the – Iran – the reality is, they don't have a missile that can reach the United States. They're not near to getting a missile that can reach the United States. I think this – what has happened, what has transpired this week has been planned for months. That – that, you know, this administration, and maybe even the administration prior to that, said, you go in and soften them up, take out their air defense capabilities, and then we'll send in the big bombers. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Congressman Khanna, you – I know you have raised objections on this program in the past about Israel's operations in Gaza, for how it has conducted that war against Hamas. That was a different context. But now you very well may be asked to provide more weaponry to Israel to defend itself. Do you oppose that as well? REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: Well, first, let me just say that it's a totally unfair smear to call people isolationists. The vast majority of Americans who don't world war and want diplomacy. Diplomacy and engagement is not isolationism. But, look, on Israel, I have supported aid and support defensively. And even the war powers resolution says that if Iran is striking Israel, they – you – we can provide defense so that Israel isn't hit. MARGARET BRENNAN: Got it. REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: What I opposed was giving Israel offensive weapons to go and kill more people in Gaza, I think that war needs to end. But I think the bottom line, Margaret, is, what have we achieved here? We have – we're going to push Iran to now be like Pakistan and North Korea, go in and try to develop a nuclear bomb covertly. We have put more American troops at risk. We're going to spend more resources put – MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: Going and getting more entrenched in the Middle East. And we've created a generation of hate. It's like, can this country learn? MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: We keep voting for people for president who say we're not going to get into wars. MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. REPRESENTATIVE RO KHANNA: And then they keep getting pushed by the Washington beltway to get us into this mess. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, Congressman Khanna, Congressman Massie, thank you. In a rare, bipartisan meeting of the minds, at least on this issue. We'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who joins us from Richmond, Virginia. Good morning to you, Senator. SENATOR TIM KAINE (D-VA): Good morning, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: I know you sit on the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee. But what we just heard from the Pentagon was that Congress was notified after this strike on Iran was concluded, after the U.S. jets were back and in safety. Is this sufficient? SENATOR TIM KAINE: Margaret, no. Congress needs to authorize a war against Iran. This Trump war against Iran. We have not. Congress should be consulted with it. We were not. And Congress needs to be notified, not after the fact, but in advance. We were not. That's why I filed a war powers resolution that will ripen and be brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate this week. Senator Schumer is working with Leader Thune to make that happen. The United States should not be in an offensive war against Iran without a vote of Congress. The Constitution is completely clear on it. And I am so disappointed that the president has acted so prematurely. The foreign minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back, quote, "at least two or three years," closed quote. There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the vice president was on another network earlier this morning and said, "we are not at war with Iran. We are at war with Iran's nuclear program. There seems to be a lot of legal parsing on the definition of the word"war" here. What do you make of that description. SENATOR TIM KAINE: I think it's – it's B.S. And I think anybody hearing it would conclude the same thing. When you're – when you're bombing another nation, ask them if they think it's war. They do. Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would. And the U.S., you know, we – we've invaded two neighbors of Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq, to topple their regimes since 2000. Those were wars. This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops' lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, just on the facts, though, the president has not authorized ground forces. In fact, he's said he really doesn't want to send in ground forces. When it came to what was just described to the public by the Pentagon, it was really characterized as limited in scope. It sounds like you believe those early hour descriptions are going to turn out to be false. SENATOR TIM KAINE: I do. The war powers resolution says that a member of Congress can challenge the president if the president initiates hostilities against a foreign nation. It doesn't use the – even though the – the title is war powers resolution, the statute says if you initiate hostilities without congressional authorization, even a single member of the House or Senate can force a vote on the Senate floor. There is no doubt that the U.S. sending this massive set of Tomahawk missiles and B-2 bunker-busters on three Iranian nuclear sites is hostilities. Now again, some in the Senate may say this is great and we want to vote for it. I happen to think that getting into a third offensive war in the Middle East in the last 25 years is absolutely reckless and foolish. And I'm going to be doing everything I can to convince my colleagues of that. I may or may not succeed. But Congress should have the debate and vote on this before we escalate the risk to American troops, which this action has done. MARGARET BRENNAN: We know that prior to this action Northern Command had already directed additional security measures on all U.S. military installations. You've got a lot of military installations in Virginia. What do you know about the threat to the homeland at this point? SENATOR TIM KAINE: We're going to have a briefing Tuesday, Margaret, and I'll learn more then. But what I do know, I also have a lot of Virginians deployed in the Middle East. There are about 40,000 U.S. troops deployed all over the Middle East, sailors on Navy ships in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, folks in land bases in Syria and Iraq. And, yes, this action dramatically raises the risk to them. And the question is, for what? If the Iranian nuclear program – Vice President Vance says it's a war against their nuclear program. Of course, we had curtailed that diplomatically a few years ago until Donald Trump tore up the diplomatic deal. But even if you needed to wage war, when the Israeli foreign minister is saying we've set the nuclear program back at least two or three years. Why launch this strike, escalating risks to Americans and American troops over the weekend with no real discussion with Congress, no real debate before the American public. I don't want to be lied into another war in the way we were with Iraq in 2002. MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you, Senator. We'll be back in a moment. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to the former commander of CENTCOM, which controls U.S. forces in the Middle East, our CBS News contributor, retired general, Frank McKenzie. Welcome back to FACE THE NATION, General. And – and your former colleagues at CENTCOM extremely busy over these last few hours. From the operation as you've heard it described, what are the questions that – that come to your mind about "Midnight Hammer" and being able to assess its success? GENERAL FRANK MCKENZIE (Former Commander of CENTCOM): So, it looks like it was a successful operation from what we know now. It will take a little while to build the battle damage assessment. And that will come out here in the next – in the days ahead and we'll get a much better picture. But I think we've done significant damage. Significant, perhaps irreversible damage to the Iranian nuclear program. I think right now, though, at CENTCOM, everyone is focused on the next step. And the next step will be, will there be an Iranian response? What will that response look like? What can we do to defend our forces, our embassies, our citizens in the region. And what options can we give the president should we choose to respond as a result of an Iranian attack? So, they're extremely busy down there right now. And what – but one of the key things they want to do is, you want to make it very clear to Iran that we possess significant combat power in the theater and will be able to use it against them should they attack us. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that's – that's the hope that they don't do something. Are you surprised that there has been no retaliation in the past few hours? And where would you be looking as an areas of concern? There are a lot of Americans who have family members in the region. GENERAL FRANK MCKENZIE: Absolutely, Margaret. So, for one thing, I think the Iranian decision making is a little crippled right now because of the loss of senior leaders. And as you're well aware, the Iranians don't have good succession planning. People tend to go into jobs and stay there for a long period of time while they enrich themselves and their families. So, cronyism is what – how you get to the top in their system, which is bad news if suddenly that person is no longer there. There's no one ready to step in. So, the supreme leader probably has trouble talking to people and getting his orders followed. Now, to your question about where they might strike. I think we're certainly vulnerable in Iraq. I think we're certain venerable in Syria. And I'm certain that Central Command has done all the things we need to do to harden ourselves against those potential attacks. The same for our other bases across the region. I don't know that it would be localized to the region, though. Iran has long harbored the desire to attack us in the United States. They typically have not been effective when they've done that. We've caught them in a couple of plots that are very public that you're well aware of. So, I think all those things are on the table. But it may take the Iranians a little while to work through this process because nobody's excited about going to a meeting in Iran right now. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you're talking about some of the intelligence actions taken by the Mossad to convene some of these leaders and then kill them all at once. When it comes to what the secretary of state said earlier in this program, I asked him specifically if the U.S. would take military action to reopen the Strait of Hormuz if Iran tried to close it. We know that's been talked about, at least in the public space in Iran right now. What would that operation look like? Rubio said they're not exactly talking about it in this moment, but they are worried about the – the Iranians mining it. GENERAL FRANK MCKENZIE: The Iranians do have the capability to mine the Strait of Hormuz. But we have very good plans to clear that if we had to do it. We work on those plans all the time. It would be a – it would be a blow to world commerce for a period of time. But at the end, the Strait would be cleared. And I'm pretty confident the Iranian navy would all be sunk at the end of that operation. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, the CIA – the former CIA director, Bob Gates, the former secretary of defense, who was on this program very recently. And I asked him about bombing the Iranian nuclear program. He said, when he had looked at it, he thought it would at best delay Iran's nuclear ambitions, not end them. You have looked at this problem set in great detail. Do you agree that military force is not enough to end the program? GENERAL FRANK MCKENZIE: Ultimately, you need a policy decision from Iran to end the nuclear program. So, I think the secretary's right in that – in that – in that position. Now, if – if you don't get a policy decision from Iran, you've got to commit yourself perhaps to revisiting striking the nuclear program as the Iranians begin to spread out and – and – and continue to pursue the nuclear option. Here's the one thing, though. We have pretty good knowledge of what goes on in Iran. And that good knowledge is going to continue. So, they're not likely to be able to do something in secret that would suddenly creep up on us. We – we – we tend to keep very close track of this. MARGARET BRENNAN: But it comes up again and again and the concern, as we were talking about with our lawmakers, this creeping towards a broader war, this creeping towards America getting drawn into a war that Israel started to take out Iran's nuclear program, I'm not asking about the intent of the state itself, but what is the end goal here? How do you judge success? Have you even heard the Israeli government, or the U.S. government, say what success is? GENERAL FRANK MCKENZIE: Well, I think we've been pretty clear that we don't want Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. They are close to possessing a nuclear weapon. I heard all the exchanges back and forth with the – the other guests on your show this morning about how close they might or might not have been. But I think that's the one absolutely non-negotiable thing here. And you can get that through an Iranian policy decision and not pursue a nuclear weapon, or you can get that through removal of that capability to such a level that they can't do it. The second case is not the preferable case, obviously. But you – but there are ways to do this. And I – the one thing I would add about the strike that occurred here over the last few hours, it was carefully crafted, narrowly designed against the nuclear program to give Iran room to maneuver, diplomatic room to maneuver, if they want to seek a way out. So, I think that was very clever. Let's see what happens. The principal goal of Iranian state craft is today, as it has always been, survival of the regime. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. GENERAL FRANK MCKENZIE: Under certain of these scenarios, if you go forward and the war widens, I think the survival of the Iranian state is very much on the table. And that's something they're going to want to avoid, Margaret. MARGARET BRENNAN: But as you were just saying, there's – there's no clear succession plan that the U.S. knew of, at least recently, and they can't get ahold of the boss, he's in a bunker. So, how do you actually get a policy decision, and then can orders actually be given? GENERAL FRANK MCKENZIE: So, it's a – it's a very difficult time for Iran right now, I – I – I acknowledge all your points. But the – the commander (ph) remains alive, at least as far as I know, he remains alive. He's probably having trouble having meetings. He's probably having trouble getting his orders followed. But he still asserts that he's in charge, as of a couple of days ago. And we – I don't think we've made any effort to strike him, nor have the Israelis. MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. Well, right. And CBS had been reporting that President Trump advised the Israelis not to take out the supreme leader. We'll leave it there. And we'll be right back. (ANNOUNCEMENTS) MARGARET BRENNAN: That's it for us today. Thank you all for watching. Until next week. For FACE THE NATION, I'm Margaret Brennan. (ANNOUNCEMENTS)

Yahoo

24 minutes ago

• Yahoo

This LinkedIn Message Could Cost You Your Life Savings—How To Avoid The Crypto Scam The FBI Says is Targeting Professionals

Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Federal authorities have filed to seize nearly $680,000 in cryptocurrency connected to a sophisticated romance scam that devastated two victims, highlighting the growing threat of crypto-enabled fraud targeting everyday investors. The case, filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio, reveals how scammers are weaponizing both human psychology and cryptocurrency's complexity to steal life savings. The seizure involves 679,981.22 Tether, a stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar, representing the traceable portion of funds stolen from victims in Ohio and Arizona. Don't Miss: — no wallets, just price speculation and free paper trading to practice different strategies. Grow your IRA or 401(k) with Crypto – . The primary victim, a Solon, Ohio resident, fell prey to 'Kristina Tian,' who initiated contact through LinkedIn in July 2024. The scammer followed a methodical playbook: Platform Migration: Moving from LinkedIn to WhatsApp to avoid platform monitoring Trust Building: Developing a friendly relationship before introducing financial topics Credibility Establishment: Showcasing supposed cryptocurrency trading successes Proof of Funds: Getting the victim to reveal significant assets, including $500,000 in his Kraken account Confidence Building: Allowing a small withdrawal to establish trust before the larger theft When confronted after FBI intervention, the alleged scammer revealed the cruel reality with mocking messages: 'I feel for you. But thank you for you giving me half of your savings' and 'Glad to use your life savings." The second victim demonstrates how these scams transcend demographics. An Arizona woman met her alleged scammer on the Coffee Meets Bagel dating app. After building trust, he allegedly convinced her to invest in cryptocurrency through then transfer funds to a fraudulent platform. Her losses tell a devastating financial story: $15,000 withdrawn from her 401(k) retirement account $48,000 from a home equity loan her daughter secured Total loss: $63,000 representing her retirement security and family debt Unlike traditional financial fraud, cryptocurrency transactions create permanent public records on blockchain networks. Investigators leveraged this transparency to: Track Fund Movement: Following transactions across multiple cryptocurrency addresses Identify Conversion Patterns: Tracing how stolen funds were converted to USDT Map Criminal Networks: Discovering additional funds beyond the traceable victim losses Establish Money Laundering: Identifying patterns consistent with criminal proceeds laundering, The investigation revealed that criminals had converted stolen cryptocurrency to Tether, or USDT, across two addresses on the Tron blockchain, a common technique for moving illicit funds due to USDT's stability and liquidity. Trending: New to crypto? on Coinbase. Platform Progression Warning Signs: Initial contact through professional networks, such as LinkedIn or dating apps Requests to move conversations to encrypted messaging apps Unsolicited investment advice from new online connections Pressure to use unfamiliar trading platforms Investment Red Flags: Guaranteed returns with no risk Requests to transfer funds from legitimate exchanges to unknown platforms Complex withdrawal processes or fees Limited-time investment opportunities Psychological Manipulation Tactics: Building romantic or friendly relationships before financial discussions Sharing 'proof' of trading success Requesting screenshots of your account balances Creating urgency around investment opportunities Before You Invest: Verify Platform Legitimacy: Only use established, regulated cryptocurrency exchanges Independent Research: Never invest based solely on recommendations from online contacts Start Small: Test any new platform with minimal amounts first Professional Consultation: Discuss significant investments with licensed financial advisors During Conversations: Maintain Skepticism: Be wary of unsolicited investment advice, especially from new contacts Protect Private Information: Never share account screenshots or balance information Verify Identity: Video calls and reverse image searches can help verify online contacts Trust Your Instincts: If something feels too good to be true, it probably is If You Suspect Fraud: Stop All Transactions: Immediately cease further investments or communications Document Everything: Save all messages, transaction records, and platform details Report Immediately: Contact the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center and your local field office Professional Help: Consult with cybercrime attorneys or financial recovery specialistsThis case represents a fraction of the estimated $5.6 billion lost to cryptocurrency scams in 2023, according to Federal Trade Commission data. Romance scams specifically accounted for $1.3 billion in losses, with median individual losses of $9,000. Why Crypto Appeals to Scammers: Irreversible Transactions: Unlike credit cards or bank transfers, cryptocurrency transactions cannot be reversed Pseudonymous Nature: While transactions are public, wallet addresses don't directly reveal personal identity Global Reach: Criminals can operate across international boundaries with reduced law enforcement coordination Technical Complexity: Many victims don't fully understand cryptocurrency mechanics, making deception easier If successful, the Department of Justice's forfeiture action demonstrates that law enforcement is developing sophisticated cryptocurrency tracking capabilities. The seized funds would be returned to victims, though recovery is never guaranteed and often partial. The Legal Process: Asset Identification: Investigators trace stolen funds using blockchain analysis Civil Forfeiture: Government files civil complaints against the cryptocurrency itself Court Proceedings: Government must prove by preponderance of evidence that funds are proceeds of crime Victim Restitution: Recovered funds are distributed to verified victims While cryptocurrency offers legitimate investment opportunities, it also provides new tools for sophisticated criminals. The Ohio and Arizona victims' experiences demonstrate that education, skepticism, and proper security measures are essential for anyone entering the crypto space. As federal authorities develop better tools for tracking and recovering stolen cryptocurrency, the message to both investors and criminals is clear: blockchain technology that enables crime also provides the evidence trail for prosecution. For investors, the best protection remains old-fashioned due diligence combined with modern security practices. Read Next: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Image: Shutterstock This article This LinkedIn Message Could Cost You Your Life Savings—How To Avoid The Crypto Scam The FBI Says is Targeting Professionals originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data