Texas politicians react to Israel's attack on Iran
AUSTIN (KXAN) — Several Texas leaders have shared their thoughts and reactions after Israel attacked Iran's capital early Friday.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Israel struck Iran's nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz, and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel will face a 'severe punishment' over its attack on the country. Iranian missiles later struck Israel in retaliation.
The Latest: Israel hit by missiles as Iran retaliates for strikes on nuclear sites
News of the attacks has stirred up concern on social media, and several world leaders have posted their reactions. Lawmakers and politicians in Texas have also taken to the internet or issued statements in response to the attacks.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott posted on X Friday morning, 'Israel was forced to defend itself — and American interests — from the Iranian regime that was hell bent on building nuclear weapons that would have endangered the globe. Texas stands with our ally taking necessary action to protect its people & restore global stability.'
Congressman Michael McCaul, chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, released the following statement:
'President Trump gave Iran every chance to negotiate in good faith and to dismantle their nuclear program. 'Prime Minister Netanyahu was also clear: The alternative to diplomacy would be strikes on Iran — a message he reiterated to me when I met with him this month. Unfortunately, the regime chose not to take the path of peace — to prioritize their own interests over their people's. They brought this calamity on themselves. 'One thing is certain: Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon, and our world is safer for it. They would be wise to come to the table and make an agreement with President Trump while the offer still stands. If they instead choose to harm U.S. troops in the region, they will once again regret it.'
Senator Ted Cruz appeared on Newsmax with Greg Kelly late Thursday and posted the clip on X.
'Iran said they would not dismantle their advanced centrifuges. That was a giant middle finger to President Trump,' Cruz said in the post. 'Tonight, we saw the consequences of Iran's defiance.'
He also appeared on Fox News, asking viewers to pray for Israel, posting the same message in a another post on X. 'Here's my message to the Ayatollah: If you strike at America, I have every confidence that President Trump will respond with overwhelming force,' Cruz said in the post.
Senator John Cornyn posted a message in solidarity with Israel on X Thursday night.
'Israel has an unquestionable right to defend itself. I am proud to stand with Israel. #AmYisraelChai,' the post said.
Democratic Congressman Greg Casar posted in opposition to Israel's strikes.
'Netanyahu's reckless strike risks provoking a wider war and pulling in the United States. Trump must oppose Netanyahu's escalation and pursue a diplomatic path to deal with Iran's nuclear program. Trump must not violate the Constitution by involving American troops in Netanyahu's war without coming to Congress,' Casar said in a post on X.
Casar followed that up with another post, criticizing President Trump.
'Trump promised peace and stability. Then, he picked reckless partisans for top foreign policy jobs. Now he's egging on escalation in a conflict he already made worse by tearing up a nuclear deal that was working. Trump's recklessness is undermining stability abroad and putting American lives at risk. Trump must reverse course and deescalate the situation.'
Rep. Lloyd Doggett also opposed Israel's preemptive strike and criticized President Trump. Doggett posted the link to a New York Times story headlined, 'What to Know About Israel's Strikes on Iran's Nuclear Program and Military Leaders,' along with his thoughts on the strikes.
'Trump's weakness again on full display,' Doggett said in the post on X. 'Just as he is too weak to stand up to war criminal Putin on Ukraine, Trump is too weak to restrain Netanyahu from interfering in ongoing negotiations for a peaceful way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. George W. Bush restrained Netanyahu from launching such an attack, but Trump is incapable of doing the same. Trump's weakness heightens the danger of the US being pulled into another deadly and costly Mideast war.'
Rep. August Pfluger backed Israel.
'Israel has every right to defend itself. The United States stands firmly behind Israel,' he said in an X post.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel Warns 'Tehran Will Burn' Amid Deadly Missile Strikes
Israeli search and rescue teams conduct operations amid the rubble of a destroyed building after Iranian strikes in Rishon LeZion, Israel, on June 14, 2025. Credit - Mostafa Alkharouf—Getty Images After striking back on Friday night, Iran launched a new wave of strikes toward Israel on Saturday morning, as the two countries continue to exchange deadly missiles. Iran followed through on its vow to retaliate after Israel carried out a 'precise and integrated preemptive strike' against Iranian nuclear facilities, targeting military personnel and scientists. Now, as the attacks escalate, and with fatalities and injuries reported on both sides, Israel has issued a stark warning to Iran. Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday morning threatened severe consequences if Iran's Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei doesn't retreat. 'If Khamenei continues to fire missiles at the Israeli home front, Tehran will burn,' Katz said, after a meeting with leaders of the Israeli military. 'The Iranian dictator is turning Iran's citizens into hostages and creating a reality in which they, especially the residents of Tehran, will pay a heavy price for the criminal attacks on Israeli civilians.' Read More: Israel Gets the War It Wanted The warning comes after Israel reported that at least three people had died and dozens have been injured after Iranian strikes rained down on Tel Aviv and nearby cities. Meanwhile, Iran's U.N. Ambassador reported that over 70 people have been killed and over 300 wounded as a result of the Israeli strikes. The escalation of traded strikes has raised concerns for civilians on both sides. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the 'esteemed people of Iran' directly in a filmed statement on Friday night. 'We are in the midst of one of the largest military operations in history. The Islamic regime that has oppressed you for almost 50 years threatens to destroy our country, Israel,' Netanyahu said. 'The goal of Israel's operation is to prevent the Islamic regime's nuclear and ballistic missile threats.' 'While we achieve our goal, we also pave the way for you to achieve your freedom,' he continued. 'In the past 24 hours, we have destroyed senior military commanders, prominent nuclear scientists, the Islamic regime's most important enrichment facility, and a large part of its ballistic missile arsenal. Another operation is underway' Netanyahu went on to say that the regime in Iran has 'never been so weak' and urged Iranians to use the opportunity to 'stand up' and make their voices heard. Read More: Here Are the Top Iranian Generals and Scientists Targeted and Killed by Israeli Strikes Israel's initial strikes on Iran in the early hours of Friday morning, local time, came amid long-time concerns as to the progression of the country's nuclear capabilities. The United States has been engaged in ongoing talks with Iran, in an effort to make a nuclear deal. Another round of talks between the U.S. and Iran was set to take place in the Sultanate of Oman's capital of Muscat on Sunday, but it remains to be seen if those will go ahead. Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei on Saturday called nuclear talks with the U.S. 'meaningless,' according to state television, amid the current situation with Israel. Read More: Trump Issues Grave Warning to Iran After Israeli Strikes: 'No More Death, No More Destruction' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke out shortly after Israel launched its operative strikes against Iran, announcing that the U.S. were not participants in the military action. 'Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran… Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel,' the statement read. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump on Friday issued a grave warning of his own to Iran, urging them to make a nuclear deal before the combat escalated further, which it since has. Detailing how he has long sought to make an agreement with Iran, Trump said: "I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done… Certain Iranian hardliners spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse." Write to Olivia-Anne Cleary at
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Twin federal proposals threaten provider taxes, key source of Medicaid funding for states
Republican efforts to restrict taxes on hospitals, health plans, and other providers that states use to help fund their Medicaid programs could strip them of tens of billions of dollars. The move could shrink access to health care for some of the nation's poorest and most vulnerable people, warn analysts, patient advocates, and Democratic political leaders. No state has more to lose than California, whose Medicaid program, called Medi-Cal, covers nearly 15 million residents with low incomes and disabilities. That's twice as many as New York and three times as many as Texas. A proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, echoed in the Republicans' House reconciliation bill, could significantly curtail the federal dollars many states draw in matching funds from what are known as provider taxes. Although it's unclear how much states could lose, the revenue up for grabs is big. For instance, California has netted an estimated $8.8 billion this fiscal year from its tax on managed care plans and took in about $5.9 billion last year from hospitals. California Democrats are already facing a $12 billion deficit, and they have drawn political fire for scaling back some key health care policies, including full Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants without permanent legal status. And a loss of provider tax revenue could add billions to the current deficit, forcing state lawmakers to make even more unpopular cuts to Medi-Cal benefits. 'If Republicans move this extreme MAGA proposal forward, millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's 'Make America Great Again' movement. The proposals are also a threat to Proposition 35, a ballot initiative California voters approved last November to make permanent the tax on managed care organizations, or MCOs, and dedicate some of its proceeds to raise the pay of doctors and other providers who treat Medi-Cal patients. All states except Alaska have at least one provider tax on managed care plans, hospitals, nursing homes, emergency ground transportation, or other types of health care businesses. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year matching these taxes, which generally lead to more money for providers, helping them balance lower Medicaid reimbursement rates while allowing states to protect against economic downturns and budget constraints. New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan would also be among the states hit hard by Republicans' drive to scale back provider taxes, which allow states to boost their share of Medicaid spending to receive increased federal Medicaid funds. In a May 12 statement announcing its proposed rule, CMS described a 'loophole' as 'money laundering,' and said California had financed coverage for over 1.6 million 'illegal immigrants' with the proceeds from its MCO tax. CMS said its proposal would save more than $30 billion over five years. 'This proposed rule stops the shell game and ensures federal Medicaid dollars go where they're needed most — to pay for health care for vulnerable Americans who rely on this program, not to plug state budget holes or bankroll benefits for noncitizens,' Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, said in the statement. Medicaid allows coverage for noncitizens who are legally present and have been in the country for at least five years. And California uses state money to pay for almost all of the Medi-Cal coverage for immigrants who are not in the country legally. California, New York, Michigan, and Massachusetts together account for more than 95% of the 'federal taxpayer losses' from the loophole in provider taxes, CMS said. But nearly every state would feel some impact, especially under the provisions in the reconciliation bill, which are more restrictive than the CMS proposal. None of it is a done deal. The CMS proposal, published May 15, has not been adopted yet, and the reconciliation bill is likely to be altered significantly in the Senate. But the restrictions being contemplated would be far-reaching. A report by Michigan's Department of Health and Human Services, ordered by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, found that a reduction of revenue from the state's hospital tax could 'destabilize hospital finances, particularly in rural and safety-net facilities, and increase the risk of service cuts or closures.' Losing revenue from the state's MCO tax 'would likely require substantial cuts, tax increases, or reductions in coverage and access to care,' it said. CMS declined to respond to questions about its proposed rule. The Republicans' House-passed reconciliation bill, though not the CMS proposal, also prohibits any new provider taxes or increases to existing ones. The American Hospital Association, which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals and health systems nationwide, said the proposed moratorium on new or increased provider taxes could force states 'to make significant cuts to Medicaid to balance their budgets, including reducing eligibility, eliminating or limiting benefits, and reducing already low payment rates for providers.' Because provider taxes draw matching federal dollars, Washington has a say in how they are implemented. And the Republicans who run the federal government are looking to spend far fewer of those dollars. In California, the insurers that pay the MCO tax are reimbursed for the portion levied on their Medi-Cal enrollment. That helps explain why the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment is sharply higher than on commercial enrollment. Over 99% of the tax money the insurers pay comes from their Medi-Cal business, which means most of the state's insurers get back almost all the tax they pay. That imbalance, which CMS describes as a loophole, is one of the main things Republicans are trying to change. If either the CMS rule or the corresponding provisions in the House reconciliation bill were enacted, states would be required to levy provider taxes equally on Medicaid and commercial business to draw federal dollars. California would likely be unable to raise the commercial rates to the level of the Medi-Cal ones, because state law constrains the legislature's ability to do so. The only way to comply with the rule would be to lower the tax rate on Medi-Cal enrollment, which would sharply reduce revenue. CMS has warned California and other states for years, including under the Biden administration, that it was considering significant changes to MCO and other provider taxes. Those warnings were never realized. But the risk may be greater this time, some observers say, because the proposed changes are echoed in the House-passed reconciliation bill and intertwined with a broader Republican strategy — and set of proposals — to cut Medicaid spending by close to $800 billion. 'All of these proposals move in the same direction: fewer people enrolled, less generous Medicaid programs over time,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. California's MCO tax is expected to net California $13.9 billion over the next two fiscal years, according to January estimates. The state's hospital tax is expected to bring in an estimated $9 billion this year, up sharply from last year, according to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. Losing a significant slice of that revenue on top of other Medicaid cuts in the House reconciliation bill 'all adds up to be potentially a super serious impact on Medi-Cal and the California state budget overall,' said Kayla Kitson, a senior policy fellow at the California Budget & Policy Center. And it's not only California that will feel the pain. 'All states are going to be hurt by this," Park said. Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No More Student Visas? No Problem.
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Just how mad is Beijing about President Donald Trump's decision to revoke student visas for Chinese nationals? Not as mad as it says, and not as mad as one might expect. Publicly, China's leadership will likely complain that Trump's action is yet another attempt to thwart the country's rise. But in reality, Beijing would probably just as soon keep its smartest kids at home. Late last month, the U.S. State Department announced that it would 'aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields,' and that it would 'enhance scrutiny' of the applications it received in the future. The new visa policy, a spokesperson said, is meant to prevent China from exploiting American universities and stealing intellectual property. A spokesperson for the foreign ministry quickly registered Beijing's objection to the new policy. But when Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke with Trump by phone last week, either he didn't raise the new visa policy or his foreign ministry didn't regard his comments on the matter worth including in its official summary of the call, which suggests that the issue is not a top priority in Beijing's negotiations with Washington. One reason for this underwhelming response may be that re-shoring its university students serves Beijing's current agenda. China first opened to the world in the 1980s; in the decades that followed, securing a Western education for its elite helped the country bring in the technology and skills it needed to escape poverty. China was 'sending people out, learning from other places, finding the best quality wherever it was, and bringing that quality back to China,' Robin Lewis, a consultant for U.S.-China education programs and a former associate dean at Columbia University, told me. Now that period has given way to one of nationalism and self-reliance, which means promoting China's own companies, products, technologies—and universities. [Rose Horowitch: Trump's campaign to scare off foreign students] Xi has consistently stressed the importance of education in sustaining China's rise. His government has invested heavily in China's schools and lavished resources on science and technology programs, with some success. Some of China's top institutions, such as Tsinghua University in Beijing, have gained international recognition as serious competitors in scientific research. China would like to have its own Harvards, rather than sending its elite students to the United States, for political and cultural reasons as well as economic ones. Chinese authorities have long worried that the hundreds of thousands of students it exports to America will absorb undesirable ideas about democracy and civil liberties—and that they will access information about China that is suppressed at home, such as the story of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. In fact, many young Chinese who study in the United States seem to enjoy American freedoms and seek to stay rather than return to serve the motherland. Beijing has tried to deal with this in part by monitoring the activities of its students in the U.S. and attempting to hold them firmly to the party line, including by harassing the families back home of those who stray. Within China, authorities can more easily confine students inside the government's propaganda bubble, which in recent years has become more airtight. Domestic media seek to portray the U.S. as unsafe, especially for Asians, by highlighting incidents of racial discrimination, violence, and disorder. One story published last year by the state news agency Xinhua, under the headline 'Chinese Students' Dreams Turned Into Nightmares at U.S. Doorstep,' tells the harrowing tale of a Chinese student detained and deported at an airport and claims that others had suffered the same fate. China's top spy agency, the Ministry of State Security, warned Chinese students at universities abroad against being recruited as foreign agents, and told of one such unfortunate national who was discovered and punished. Even before Trump's announcement, this climate of mutual distrust had led to a drop-off in Chinese students enrolled in American universities. The number had reached an all-time high during the 2019–20 academic year, topping 372,000, according to the Institute of International Education. But that figure has fallen since—by a quarter, to 277,000, in the 2023–24 academic year. Now India, with more than 331,000 enrolled, sends more students to American institutions than China does. The Trump administration appears to believe that curtailing Chinese access to American technology, money, and, in this case, education will give the U.S. the edge over its closest competitor. In some areas, this might work: Restricting the export of advanced U.S. semiconductor technology to China seems to have helped hold Beijing's chip industry back. So why not do the same with higher education? A case can be made that keeping Chinese students out of some of the world's top research institutions will hold back their skills acquisition and, with it, the country's progress. [Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down] In practice, though, the effect of this policy could be hard to gauge. The engineers behind the Chinese AI firm DeepSeek, which wowed Silicon Valley by developing a competitive chatbot on the cheap, were mainly locally trained. And the skills that Chinese students can't find at home they can seek in any number of places. There may be only so many Harvards, but Chinese students can receive a good education—and a warmer reception—in countries other than the United States. Universities in Japan and Hong Kong are already trying to capitalize on Trump's harassment of international students to lure them. The idea that any American policy can effectively dampen Chinese ambition may be far-fetched. 'People wake up in the morning and it's all about education here. There is nothing more important,' James McGregor, the chair for China at the consulting firm APCO, told me. 'You're going to stop Chinese people from learning the top skills in the world? No. They'll just deploy them somewhere else.' For now, the Trump team can't seem to decide whether it wants to get tough on China or make deals with China, and the new student-visa policy reflects this confusion. 'Chinese students are coming. No problem,' Trump said in a briefing after his call with Xi. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly.' China's leadership surely knows that many Chinese families still aspire to send their young-adult children to American universities. But Beijing is much more single-minded than Washington about the future of relations between the two countries: Xi appears to see Washington as the primary impediment to China's rise, and ties to the U.S. as a vulnerability best eliminated. From that viewpoint, relying on Harvard to train China's most promising students is a national-security risk. That means that Trump may be doing Xi a favor. Article originally published at The Atlantic
