Noem Sex Worker Leak Is Worse Than You Think & What Trump Is Not Telling You About the Iran War
PDS Published 04/01/2026
-
Balloon breasts, skin-tight leggings and the bimbofication of Kristi Noem’s husband left her vulnerable to blackmail by hostile intelligence groups as she led DHS.
Bryon Noem also apparently knew about his wife’s alleged affair, but that seems small compared to the tens of thousands of dollars he’s been accused of sending to sex workers during their marriage.
And all of this broke in the Daily Mail yesterday. So, no, it’s not an April Fool’s joke.
They reviewed messages between Mr. Noem and three women from the “bimbofication” scene, a sort of sexual community where people turn themselves into Barbies by pumping large amounts of saline into their breasts. []
One of the models he contacted, using the pseudonym “Jason Jackson,” reported that his fetish was “3000 cc-plus boobs.” []
And he would trade photos with these women, some of which show him with what seemed like balloons in his shirt to get that bimbofication look. []
He also reportedly sent at least $25000 to “online acquaintances” during the 14 months his wife led DHS. []
Reports say that he admitted to being married with kids, even telling one model that he loved his wife and wanted to get better before disappearing and then coming back to start the cycle over again. []
Even when a model found out who he and his wife were and asked him about the risks, she says he didn’t care. []
But that’s pretty reckless given the stakes here.
Reports say if payments were delayed, things would “quickly turn sour,” and at one point, someone even exposed him online, but she later deleted the post. []
Leaks like that are exactly what could’ve compromised his wife’s career.
Jack Barsky, a former US counterintelligence asset, said, “It's astounding that somebody whose spouse is at that level has that kind of bad judgment.” []
Other national security experts said, “If a media organization can find this out, you can assume with a high degree of confidence that a hostile intelligence service knows this as well.” [] []
Now, Mr. Noem didn’t deny having explicit conversations or sharing photos of himself. [] []
However, he did deny making any comments that could have exposed his wife to blackmail. []
But that doesn’t add up, as a model also claimed to talk to him about his wife’s alleged affair with Corey Lewandowski.
She reported that he knew about it, but said there was nothing he could do. []
And we knew he was at least aware of these allegations, considering his wife’s recent congressional hearing. []
“Have you had sexual relations with Corey Lewandowski? (Noem) Mr. Chairman, I am shocked that we’re going down and pedaling tabloid garbage in this committee today. And, ma’am, one thing that I would tell you is that he’s a special authority that works for the White House (crosstalk)” (:07-:30)
Even under oath, Noem never outright denied these allegations.
And despite the rumors, she and Lewandowski have still been seen together publicly, even during her recent trip to Guyana. []
But, focusing back on the big picture, all of this has brought a mixed bag of reactions.
Yes, there are plenty of jokes about it online, but the New York Times talked to the Noem’s community in Castlewood, S.D., and people seemed to have a bit more sympathy.
Former Senator Nancy Turbak (Ter-back pronunciation 1:16) said, “I am sorry that Bryon is now the subject of so much attention himself, and for any embarrassment he’s experiencing. He never asked for the public life in the first place, and I know him to be a kind and decent man. I wish he were not going through this.” [] []
Mr. Noem seems to still be in the community’s good graces, known for being your quintessential smalltown guy, running an insurance agency that he advertises in the town newspaper every week. []
People who know him personally have had a hard time believing these photos are even real.
One person told the Times, “Must be AI. I grew up playing ball with Bryon. I’ve never known him to be part of stuff like that. I don’t believe that at all.” [] []
However, The Daily Mail says that they ran the photos through specialist software that found no evidence of AI. []
Even as allegations poured out about the affair, people in the town said, “People know Bryon as the supportive husband who worked to maintain a normal family life as Kristi’s profile skyrocketed. It shows the price of power and fame is very high.” [] []
On the other hand, his wife didn’t get as much support, with people saying, “Kristi invited this type of coverage by her actions at the Department of Homeland Security.” [] []
And she’s reportedly devastated by this news, with representatives saying, “The family was blindsided by this, and they ask for privacy and prayers at the time.” []
And while this has already become the internet’s favorite joke of the day, there is something to be said here about a father of three grown children going through this kind of thing after already becoming one of the faces of government extramarital affairs recently. []
But also, there’s a real national security concern here that shouldn’t be dismissed.
Last year, Trump’s team halted FBI background checks, making it easier for people to slip by the Senate to get security clearances for sensitive information.
Now, the person running the Department of Homeland Security — the agency overseeing ICE, CBP, TSA, FEMA, and the Secret Service — had a spouse engaged in activity that national security professionals say made her an obvious blackmail target.
He was caught using a fake name, sending money to sex workers, and trading explicit photos — all while his wife held one of the most sensitive positions in the U.S. government.
As experts said, if a reporter at the Daily Mail can find this, a foreign intelligence service absolutely can.
And unlike a reporter, an intelligence service doesn't publish the story — they use it as leverage.
The question isn't whether Bryon Noem's personal life is anyone's business.
The question is whether this kind of vulnerability left by the spouse of a cabinet secretary was ever flagged, investigated, or considered a risk by anyone responsible for protecting the integrity of U.S. national security.
Because if it wasn't, that's a failure that goes well beyond one man's fetish.
But strangely, this isn’t the only story from a tabloid today that actually has political consequences…
Go to ZBiotics and use code DEFRANCO at checkout to get up to 15% off your first order.
-
Because it seems TMZ’s decided to use their gossip rag powers for good - at least as far as holding members of Congress accountable goes.
Right, federal lawmakers are currently on their 2-week long spring recess despite DHS still being shut down.
And strangely enough, TMZ has decided to take a stand about it.
With Harvey Levin, TMZ’s founder, encouraging their normally celebrity-rabid tipsters to send in photos of members of Congress doing anything that isn’t their jobs.
[“... anywhere on vacation and you see one of the 535 members of Congress, take a picture and send it to us at TMZ. We will post that picture on our website, on our social media, and on our television shows. We want to show what they are doing at your expense.” 0:15-0:41]
And people have done just that - sending in pictures of Congress members from across the country and across the aisle.
With TMZ roasting Seth Magaziner for hosting a party to celebrate the inaugural season of “The Real Housewives of Rhode Island,” Amy Klobuchar for attending a high school robotics conference, and Robert Garcia for showing up at a casino in Vegas.
Along with Republicans like Ted Cruz - who was caught in the Fort Lauderdale airport - and Marsha Blackburn slipping out before everyone else even left.
And that’s just a few examples - TMZ is posting about any and every member of Congress wherever they’re being found.
But no one has gotten it worse than Senator Lindsay Graham - with TMZ extensively tracking his vacation to Disney World.
Specifically highlighting this image of him holding a bubble wand - though Graham’s office quickly clarified that the bubble wand was for a child.
Even later sharing his own photo of him skeet shooting - because his masculine image is obviously the biggest concern here.
Now, some lawmakers have been more receptive to this than others - with Garcia saying on X,
“Actually I don’t mind what tmz is doing here. Like the story says my dad has lived in Vegas for 15 years and I had just finished lunch with him. I try to see him whenever I can. And like I said a few days ago, Speaker Mike Johnson should have never sent us all home.” []
But Lindsay Graham’s response was a bit more defensive and hostile - saying he was in Florida for a meeting with Trump and Steve Witkoff and he stopped at Disney World to meet up with friends.
Adding,
“I voted 7 times to fully fund the government. Call a Democrat.” []
Though Levin isn’t about to let either party off the hook here - saying in a separate video posted yesterday,
[“There has to be some kind of a movement, because they are insulting our intelligence by thinking, ‘Oh, we can get over on them by blaming it on the other party.’ It’s not the other party, it’s both parties, and we are kind of sick of the way they are patronizing us and that’s why we’re doing this.” 3:10-3:33]
And as strange as it is for TMZ to take on the mantle of watchdog, someone definitely had to do it.
Because while Congress is on spring break, we’re stretching well past 40 days on this DHS shutdown with no compromise in sight.
And for that, we’ve got GOP infighting to thank - with Senate Majority Leader John Thune and House Speaker Mike Johnson clashing hard on how the Republican party is going to handle this.
Right, last week, Thune and the Senate decided to move forward with a package that would fund all of DHS except for ICE and border patrol.
Which has been described as, quote, “the only deal [Thune] believed was possible to end the shutdown.” []
But the House GOP was absolutely not having it and completely shut it down and now Johnson is leading a public campaign to pressure the Senate to come back to Washington to push a hardline shutdown strategy.
With Johnson saying,
“We have got a dilemma. … The Senate has to do their job and help us on this heavy lift. We have to get the government funded, and they are playing games with real people’s lives.” []
He notably stopped short of any public criticism against Thune though reports say he and other House GOP leaders believe Thune botched the negotiations and triggered a clash that could last through the midterms. [
And he notably stopped short of any public criticism against Thune though reports say he and other House GOP leaders believe Thune totally botched the negotiations.
But apparently they were able to find some common ground thanks to Trump breathing down their neck.
With an announcement coming from both Thune and Johnson today as we were recording saying they’ve got a solution for the shutdown.
Right, their plan functions on what they call “two parallel tracks” - the first one being to get the Senate bill that the House so violently rejected last week passed for real this time. []
The one that excluded funding for ICE and border protections so they can get Democrat support.
And it appears their plan is to then turn around and stab Democrats in the back with a reconciliation bill to fund immigration enforcement.
Because a reconciliation bill only requires a simple majority. []
With the big thing on that one being that Republicans plan on funding ICE for the next 3 years - to make sure those operations are, quote,
“insulated from future attempts by Democrats to defund those agencies.” []
Right, they're trying to cover their asses in case Democrats take the House in the midterms.
However, this is the closest thing to a resolution to this shutdown we’ve seen so far - to this point, the only attempt to address the fallout was Trump’s promised executive action from Friday.
So that was really just a bandaid on a bullet hole.
Though whether this new plan from Republicans will be any better is still up in the air.
Right, if Democrats know they’re going to get undercut, are they going to give the thumbs up for the Senate bill they supported in the first place?
We’re just going to have to see how this plays out from here.
-
But jumping back into the news, we’ve finally learned why the Trump administration has been demanding lists of registered voters for months from states across the country.
Right, this has been an ongoing legal issue, with some red states complying, the White House suing more than two-dozen that didn’t, and federal judges in three states tossing out those suits.
Well now, using whatever data it has, Trump has directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to draw up a nationwide list of certified eligible voters. [Headline and B roll]
Then, using that list, the U.S. Postal Service is barred from delivering mail ballots to anyone the administration deems ineligible. [Same B roll]
Which Trump claims is necessary to prevent fraudulent voting by non-citizens, even though there’s no evidence they vote in any meaningful numbers. [Image]
Right, just last year the Brookings Institution found that mail voting fraud occurred in only 0.000043% of cases, or about four per 10 million. [Quote, find “10 million”]
Also, the DHS system for verifying citizenship that Trump wants to use has been criticized not only for privacy concerns, but also because it’s been shown to contain unreliable data sets. [Quote, find “unreliable”]
Right, even after just a few states began using the system, it reportedly flagged hundreds of people as non-citizens who were actually citizens. [Headline]
So you’ve got the Brennan Center for Justice saying, “Our government's citizenship lists are incomplete and inaccurate. The United States Postal Service is overburdened and inadequate. This combines a car crash with a train wreck.” [Quote]
And that’s not to mention the dubious legality of all this; right, for one thing, the Constitution gives the states broad authority to run elections as they see fit.
And even to the extent that the federal government can intervene, it generally requires an act of Congress, not just the president signing a decree.
Also, on the mail ballots in particular, the Postal Service is run by a board of governors that’s supposed to be independent from the president’s direct control.
So as experts point out, he’s not meant to be able to tell it what mail it can and cannot deliver.
Now Trump’s been trying to erode the agency’s independence for a while now, just like he’s done for pretty much the entire executive branch, appointing loyalists to the board.
In fact, he’s even proposed absorbing the service into the Commerce Department, whose secretary, Howard Lutnick, was there when Trump signed this executive order. [B roll]
And then as for the states, Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from any that refuse to comply with the order.
In fact, he said the DOJ will investigate and prosecute anyone “engaged in, or aiding and abetting, the printing, production, shipment, or distribution of ballots to individuals who are not eligible to vote in a Federal election.” [Quote]
Now of course, the minute this thing was signed, the legal objections came flying, with several states pledging to sue, including Arizona’s Secretary of State.
[Clip, 00:09 - 00:24]
And adding elsewhere, “It is just wrongheaded for a president of the United States to pretend like he can pick his own voters. That’s just not how America works.” [Quote]
But from Trump’s perspective, it’s equally bewildering that anyone would think he can’t pick his own voters.
Now this isn’t the first time Trump’s tried to control elections via executive order.
He signed another one last year that’s since been tied up in the courts but tried to limit mail ballots and require documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voter registration form. [Headline]
Meanwhile, he’s been trying to restrict who can become a citizen and even strip citizenship from certain people.
Which brings us to yet another executive order that’s now before the Supreme Court: the one seeking to overhaul birthright citizenship.
Right, for some 125 years, the courts have consistently agreed that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to nearly everyone born on American soil, even if their parents aren’t citizens.
But then Trump came along and was like, nah, that’s stupid.
With him arguing that the rule’s become outdated and is now exploited by non-citizens running across the border right before they give birth.
[Clip, 29:17 - 29:21 - 29:23 - 29:35] Caption: “It had to do with the babies of slaves. … It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get an American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.”
And apparently he feels so strongly about this that today he actually attended the Supreme Court’s hearing in the case, something no sitting president has done ever. [Image]
With him sitting right up in the front of the room alongside several cabinet members including Pam Bondi and Howard Lutnick.
And reportedly the justices never acknowledged his presence, even though the man sitting across from them has repeatedly insulted them and questioned their legitimacy.
[Clip, 30:53 - 31:08] Caption: “But you have the ones that were appointed by Barack Hussein Obama and Biden. I don’t care how good your case is. You could have the greatest case ever. They’re gonna rule against you. They always do, and it’s not supposed to be that way.”
[Clip, 01:12 - 01:17, 01:59 - 02:13] Caption: “They also are a frankly disgrace to our nation, those justices. … They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.”
Now according to reporters who were there, the justices seemed much more skeptical of Trump’s lawyers’ arguments than they were of the other side’s.
[Lead into Lili’s doc]
With Chief Justice John Roberts telling them that some of the historical examples they cited are “very quirky.” [Quote]
And liberal justice Elena Kagan [Pronounce] saying the text of the amendment doesn’t support Trump’s argument. [Quote, find “Kagan”]
Even some of the court’s conservatives seemed unconvinced, with Brett Kavanaugh pointing out that Congress codifying the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause in the 1940s and ‘50s. [Quote, find “1940”]
As well as Neil Gorsuch suggesting that a person’s legal status was irrelevant in 1868 when the amendment was passed. [Quote, find “own test”]
Right, the only justices who seemed at least somewhat sympathetic were Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Though when it was the other side’s turn to defend themselves, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett grilled them as well, so it looks like they may be swing votes here.
Go to Saily and use the code “phil” to get an exclusive 15% discount on Saily data plans! ⛵
-
But while it might be a little while before we know the outcome of that case, we just saw Trump being dealt two other incredibly significant legal losses.
First up, you had a federal judge ordering the president to stop construction on his prized White House ballroom until Congress approves its completion.
Right, the lawsuit in question was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is a nonprofit chartered by Congress to preserve historic buildings.
And in their suit, the National Trust argued that Trump acted illegally when he tore down the East Wing and began building his ballroom without approval from Congress, with him instead using at least $350 million from around two dozen massive corporations in tech, cryptocurrency, and defense industries.
Corporations that just so happen to have a collective $275 billion in government contracts before the Trump administration… you know… just coincidentally…
And in an absolutely scathing decision, you had U.S. District Judge Richard Leon — who notably was appointed by George W. Bush — agreeing with the National Trust.
Arguing that, from the start, the administration has provided shifting and dubious accounts of what legal authority the president has to fund this project with private donations and zero input from Congress.
Claiming that Trump has failed to identify a law that allowed him to demolish the White House’s East Wing without congressional approval, and ruling that Trump likely didn’t have the authority to replace entire sections of the White House without Congress, saying:
“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!”
And adding: “No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”
Leon also went on to directly contradict Trump’s claim that Congress had implicitly given him the power to make changes because it set aside several million dollars for the White House as part of a law that allowed “alteration” and “improvement.”
With the judge noting that the law in question only allows the president to spend an annual budget on the building’s “care, maintenance, repair” and specifically lists examples like air conditioning, heating, and lighting.
And beyond that, Leon also hit back at the administration's repeated claim that the project must go forward because of unspecified matters of national security that could imperil President Trump.
Right, while the administration hasn’t elaborated on those claims, it’s long been known that there are secure facilities for the president and staff under what used to be the East Wing before Trump demolished it.
But in his ruling, Leon pointed out that Trump was literally the one who created a potential vulnerability in the first place, writing:
“Please! While I take seriously the Government’s concerns regarding the safety and security of the White House grounds and the President himself, the existence of a ‘large hole’ beside the White House is, of course, a problem of the President’s own making.”
Now, that said, the judge did say that he would allow construction to continue for “the safety and security of the White House” — a line that some believe is a reference to the military bunker that’s being built under the ballroom.
Additionally, Leon also paused his own order from taking effect for two weeks, noting that the administration was likely to appeal — which it did just hours later.
With Trump repeatedly railing against the decision, going on an extended rant during a public event at the White House, where he insisted that the project wasn’t any different from previous renovations that were done without consulting Congress, and claiming:
“Congressional approval is not necessary to put up a ballroom.”
With him also noting that Leon had said the White House could proceed with efforts to ensure safety and security, arguing that, as a result, many parts of the project will still be moving forward.
This including installing bulletproof glass in the ballroom and anti-drone installations on the roof.
So as far as the actual practical effects of this ruling, we’ll have to wait and see.
But that brings us to the second legal L that Trump was hit with — though it might not be as big of a loss as the headlines make it seem — let me explain.
So yesterday, another federal judge ruled that the president's executive order barring federal funding for NPR and PBS was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment.
Right, Trump initially signed that order last May, alleging that the two public broadcasters were spreading what he called left-wing bias.
And two months later, the Republican-controlled Congress voted to claw back $1.1 billion that had already been allocated to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which used to distribute money to the broadcasters, but has since shut down.
But in his decision today, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss halted the federal government from permanently cutting off funding for NPR and PBS.
With him ruling that the executive order was a clear violation of press freedoms under the First Amendment because it amounted to viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional retaliation, writing:
“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch.”
And going on to say that Trump can express his views and criticize certain reporting, but adding: “He may not, however, use his governmental power to direct federal agencies to exclude Plaintiffs from receiving federal grants or other funding in retaliation for saying things that he does not like.”
And, as expected, you had the two public media broadcasters and their lawyers cheering the move as a major victory for press freedoms.
And while that is certainly true, it might not go as far as they had hoped.
Right, the ruling doesn’t override Congress, so there’s no way to get back the $1.1 billion in funds that have already been revoked — nor does it say that Congress has to fund NPR and PBS in the years to come.
But it DOES remove a major hurdle that a future Congress would have faced if it wanted to restore funding.
And if things go well in the midterms and Democrats take over, it’s a real possibility that they could start funding the two entities again as soon as next year.
So hey, even if it’s not as big of a win as some would have hoped, it’s still a nice middle finger to Trump and his efforts to undermine basic Democratic principles.
Any win for press freedoms is a loss for Trump and authoritarianism, and it’s important to celebrate the small victories where we can.
-
Donald Trump says the mission has been accomplished, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and the US will be out in two to three weeks.
And he will not only leave American allies to clean up his mess with the Strait of Hormuz, he may just abandon them altogether—saying he’s “strongly considering” pulling out of NATO.
And, on top of all that, gas prices are still at their highest point since 2022, but Trump wants you to know it’s okay because you’re safe:
“$4 yeah? And we have a country that's not going to be throwing a nuclear weapon at us of course.”
“Of course, but Americans are feeling the effect in the interim—"
“And they’re also feeling a lot safer.”
“What is the plan to bring them back down?”
“All I have to do is leave Iran and we'll be doing that very soon. And they'll become tumbling down.” (19:22-19:38)
And now that’s less than a twenty second clip but there is a lot of bullshit to wade through.
But let’s start here: He says Americans are safer.
And he says it’s because the US has achieved one of the primary objectives of this war: the elimination of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon:
“I had one goal.”
“They will have no nuclear weapons, and that goal has been attained.They will not have nuclear weapons.” (22:51- 22:57)
But, of course, far from making Americans safer, more than a dozen American lives have been lost, hundreds have been injured, and an American journalist has now been kidnapped in Iraq—possibly by members of an Iranian-backed militia.
And regarding the threat of nuclear weapons? He may only be pushing Iran and other nations to pursue them.
Right, let’s go back to 2015.
That’s when the Obama administration negotiated a deal that led to Iran shipping about 97 percent of its nuclear stockpile out of the country.
Leaving it with so little material that intelligence agencies figure it would need at least a year to make the fuel for a bomb and months or years more to make the weapon itself. []
But Trump pulled the US out of that agreement in 2018—which he has called one of the worst deals in history while also claiming Iran would now have a nuclear weapon had he not withdrawn from it.
Except Iran—as far as we know—was complying.
And once it no longer had any reason to, it started building up a stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Which is believed to now be around 970 pounds—enough for around ten to twelve bombs—-while the country is also hanging on to an even larger stash of medium-enriched uranium. []
Now, all that said, it’s not clear Iran is currently able to access that material, and its enrichment capabilities have been significantly degraded—largely thanks to US and Israeli strikes last June.
Which Trump claimed had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities—also claiming just a few weeks ago that Iran had been “within one month” of being able to make a nuclear weapon before those strikes.
Except, while experts have said Iran could have gotten bomb-grade fuel within a month, they say it would have taken months, and maybe more than a year, for them to build a weapon—not that there was any clear sign they had any intention of doing so.
And, in any case, the Pentagon’s own assessment said the strikes only set back Iran's nuclear program “one to two years.”
And so in the weeks leading up to the current war administration officials were actually talking up Iran's capabilities.
With Trump envoy Steve Witkoff—who’s also just a fucking real estate developer—telling Fox News a week before the first strikes:
“They’re probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb making material." (3:11-3:19)
And then after the war began Trump claimed Iran "rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions” and had “attempted to rebuild their nuclear program.” (BROLL: 3:26)
Even though before the US and Israel attacked most intelligence officials continued to report little risk that Iran was about to have a bomb.
And now, despite little evidence that the situation has fundamentally changed, with there being no evidence that the US or Israel have removed or destroyed Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, Trump has changed his tune.
And you have people like Secretary of State Marco Rubio making the case that it’s enough to go after Iran’s conventional weapons.
With him outlining he said were the “clear objectives” of the operation—including destroying Iran’s air force, navy, and factories and severely "diminishing" its “missile launching capability”—and saying:
“All of this so they can never hide behind it to acquire a nuclear weapon.” (0:27-0:31).
And ultimately, of course, Rubio? He has a point.
It’s undoubtedly harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon now than before the war.
But while its ability may be degraded, its incentive too may be much higher—and other governments may also be wondering the same thing.
With some experts arguing Trump’s willingness to attack adversaries is threatening to push the world into a new nuclear age.
Now, with all that, the rhetoric we’re seeing? It may be about giving Trump an off-ramp.
Something Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu may also be preparing for.
WIth him declaring yesterday that Israeli and American attacks on Iran had “smashed” Iran’s industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles—saying they have removed “two existential threats” to Israel, and adding:
“The ayatollah regime in Iran is weaker than ever, and the state of Israel is stronger than ever.”
“We have shaken this regime. And I tell you, sooner or later, it is destined to fall.”
And with that, Trump suggested yesterday the US would end its offensive in Iran in two to three weeks—adding:
“We'll be leaving very soon and if France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, go up through the … Hormuz strait, they’ll go right up there, and they’ll be able to fend for themselves.” (21:06-21:10)
“What happens in the strait, we’re not going to have anything to do with it.” (21:24-21:26)
But, of course, it’s because of the situation with the Strait, that the US leaving won’t mean prices go “tumbling down” if the US leaves as Trump claimed, so it’s not clear what he’s thinking there.
Although he showed it’s still on his mind when Trump claimed in a social media post this morning that, quote:
“Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE!”
“We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!”
And so there he’s still seemingly trying to push the regime change idea—even though Iran’s “new” president has been in office for almost two years..
And you’ve actually had an Iranian military spokesperson mocking Trump for this whole regime change claim in a post on X—writing:
“Trump has finally achieved his dream of 'regime change'—but in the region's maritime regime!”—and adding:
“The Strait of Hormuz will certainly reopen, but not for you; it will be open for those who comply with the new laws of Iran.”
“The 47 years of hospitality are over forever.”
And contrary to Trump’s claims that Iran is begging for a ceasefire, Iran’s foreign minister told Al Jazeera yesterday he has received messages from Steve Witkoff but that they don’t constitute negotiations—saying:
“We do not have any faith that negotiations with the U.S. will yield any results. The trust level is at zero.”
And, of course, Trump has levied these kinds of threats against Iran before but has yet to follow through on them—which is probably not a bad thing since the humanitarian and economic fallout would probably be massive.
But in any case, they’re also kind of undermined by him simultaneously saying he doesn’t care about the situation in the Strait and will just leave it for everyone else to deal with.
And now, his threats are going even further, with him and floating the possibility of a straight-up exit from NATO—something members of his administration have seemingly been hinting at:
Right, yesterday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wouldn’t reaffirm the country’s commitment to NATO's collective defense:
"As far as NATO is concerned, that's a decision that will be left to the president. But I'll just say a lot has been laid bare." (28:20–28:28)
You then had Secretary of State Marco Rubio telling Fox News:
“I think there’s no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded we are going to have to re-examine that relationship. We’re going to have to reexamine the value of NATO and that alliance.” (15:03-15:13)
And finally today you had had Trump telling the Telegraph he was “glad Rubio made the comment and adding that he was in fact “strongly considering” pulling the US out of NATO—saying:
“I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.” []
And with all that, Trump is scheduled to deliver what White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said would be “an important update” on the war in a national address tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern.
And you had had Trump telling Reuters that he would confirm in this speech that he was "absolutely" considering withdrawing the US from the alliance—adding.
"I'll be discussing my disgust with NATO." []
Of course, his disgust, it’s based on the alliance not helping him with a war of choice he started without consulting it, after months criticizing, insulting, and even threatening its members.
And, to be clear, Article 5 of the NATO treaty—the one that says an “attack on one is an attack on all”? It has only been invoked once.
By the US after 9/11—and more than 1,100 non-US troops were killed in the subsequent war in Afghanistan.
Now, with all that, any decision to withdraw the US from Nato would technically require approval from Congress.
Which, in 2023, actually passed a law preventing the president from “suspending, terminating, denouncing, or withdrawing” the US from NATO without its involvement.
And notably, Marco Rubio? He co-sponsored the legislation—arguing that any decision to leave the alliance “should be rigorously debated and considered by the US Congress with the input of the American people.” []
So there are obstacles that make a formal withdrawal unlikely but a lot of damage has already been done.
![[]](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2026/03/30/23/107536283-15685877-image-a-32_1774908544252.jpg){kind=link}
![[]](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2026/03/30/23/107536399-15685877-image-a-28_1774908544090.jpg){kind=link}
![[]](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2026/03/30/23/107534457-15685877-image-a-27_1774908544017.jpg){kind=link}
![[]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2026/03/31/multimedia/31dc-noem-hearing-fvmc/31dc-noem-hearing-fvmc-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp){kind=link}
![[]](https://static.independent.co.uk/2026/03/26/3/44/HEQ93ITWUAAtD03.jpeg?quality=75&width=1368&auto=webp){kind=link}
![[]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2026/03/31/us/politics/31dc-noem-old/31dc-noem-old-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp){kind=link}
![[]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2026/03/31/multimedia/31dc-noem-end-ckhw/31dc-noem-end-ckhw-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp){kind=link}
![[]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2026/03/31/multimedia/31dc-noem-hill-ghtc/31dc-noem-hill-ghtc-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp){kind=link}
