
Trump Knows Iran Has Wanted Him Dead
Hours before launching B-2 bombers at Iran, President Donald Trump stood on a secured airport tarmac 40 miles west of Manhattan, under the watchful guard of the U.S. Secret Service and a militarized counterassault team. When a reporter asked about the risk of terror attacks on U.S. targets overseas by Iranian proxies, the world's most protected man instead spoke of his own risk of assassination.
'You are even in danger talking to me right now. You know that?' he said. 'So I should probably get out of here. But you guys are actually in danger. Can you believe it?' Before walking away, he looked a reporter in the eye. 'Be careful,' he said.
The threats against the president do not rank among the stated reasons for Trump's decision to target nuclear sites in Iran, and White House officials and other outside advisers told us they have not come up in meaningful Situation Room discussions. 'The president makes decisions on Iran based on what's in the best interest of the country and the world, not himself,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told us.
But the fear of being killed at the behest of a foreign government has hung over the president and his senior team for months, an anxiety-producing din that has limited their daily routine, especially after two failed assassination attempts by alleged homegrown assailants. Now some Trump allies are privately wondering how much the ever-present risk is shaping the president's thinking about the current conflict.
At least twice in 2024, federal authorities gave private briefings to campaign leaders on the evolving Iranian threat and adjusted Trump's protection. The Justice Department revealed two indictments last year alone that described disrupted Iranian plots against U.S. officials. Top aides worried that Trump's Boeing 757 campaign plane, emblazoned with his name, would be shot out of the sky, and at one point they used a decoy plane—sending alarmed (and presumably more expendable) staff off on 'Trump Force One' while Trump himself flew separately on a friend's private plane, according to a Trump-campaign book by the Axios reporter Alex Isenstadt.
'Big threats on my life by Iran,' Trump posted on social media last September. 'The entire U.S. Military is watching and waiting. Moves were already made by Iran that didn't work out, but they will try again.'
Since this week's air strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, military and security analysts have been on guard for asymmetric responses, such as terrorist attacks and assassinations. The Department of Homeland Security warned of a 'heightened threat environment' in a Sunday bulletin and noted Iran's 'long-standing commitment to target US Government officials.' FBI agents who had been reassigned to focus on immigration were told over the weekend to focus back on counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyberissues, NBC News reported Tuesday.
Trump's two-week window for diplomacy was a smoke screen
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has denied his government's involvement in any assassination plots. But he and other Iranian leaders have done little to ease concerns. 'Iran reserves all options,' Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, posted on X after the attack, before the country launched a missile barrage at a U.S. military base in Qatar that did little damage.
'Threat equals intent plus capability,' Matthew Levitt, an expert on Iranian operations at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told us. 'We are very clear on their intent. We are less clear going forward on their capabilities.'
Trump has publicly indicated that the focus of U.S. military action against Iran is narrowly tailored to its nuclear program. 'We want no nuclear. But we destroyed the nuclear,' he said in the Netherlands on Wednesday.
The question of Iran's assassination posture remains a sensitive one inside Trump's circle—'very top of mind,' one person, who requested anonymity to speak frankly, told us. And close allies assume it must also be for the president. 'It'd probably be in the back of my mind if I were him,' an outside White House adviser told us. During the run-up to the U.S. bombing of Iran, Tucker Carlson suggested in a debate with Texas Senator Ted Cruz that there needed to be an immediate attack on Iran if there was evidence of an assassination threat against Trump, even as he doubted the legitimacy of such reports. 'We should have a nationwide dragnet on this, and we should attack Iran immediately if that's true,' Carlson said.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden sent word to the Iranian regime that any assassination attempt against former U.S. officials would be considered an 'act of war,' according to people briefed on the plans, who were not authorized to speak publicly. Pezeshkian told NBC News in January 2025 that 'Iran has never attempted to, nor does it plan to, assassinate anyone.'
'At least as far as I know,' he continued, not entirely engendering confidence in the assessment.
Trump, in his less diplomatic style, has repeated Biden's warning, albeit in much more colorful language. He told reporters in the Oval Office in February that he had 'left instructions' for what should happen if he is murdered by Iran. 'If they do it, they get obliterated,' the president said. 'There will be nothing left.'
Such U.S. retaliation has a historical basis. When former President George H. W. Bush, his wife, and two sons survived an alleged car-bomb assassination attempt during a visit to Kuwait in 1993, U.S. investigators tied the plot—involving a Toyota Land Cruiser packed with plastic explosives—to Iraqi Intelligence Services. Months later, then-President Bill Clinton ordered retaliatory cruise-missile attacks on the intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Nearly a decade later, President George W. Bush cited the foiled attack as part of his case for the U.S. military invasion of Iraq that toppled its president, Saddam Hussein. 'There is no doubt he can't stand us,' the younger Bush said of Hussein in 2002. 'After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad at one time.'
The Biden administration disclosed the latest specific allegations of a plot to kill Trump three days after last year's presidential election. In charging documents filed in federal court, the FBI described a phone interview it conducted during the heat of the campaign with Farhad Shakeri, an Afghan national residing in Tehran, who had been deported from the U.S. in 2008 following a 14-year prison stay in New York for robbery. Prosecutors have charged Shakeri with attempting to hire hit men to kill an Iranian American journalist living in New York. But Shakeri claimed in his conversations with the FBI, according to the criminal complaint, to have received new orders in September from an official of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: kill Trump.
Shakeri told the FBI that he warned his contact that such an effort would cost a 'huge' amount of money, according to charging documents. In response, the Iranian official said, 'we have already spent a lot of money . . . [s]o money's not an issue,' Shakeri told the FBI. Shakeri further explained that he believed the official was referring to money already spent to try to assassinate Trump. Shakeri said his military contact asked on October 7 for an assasination plan to be delivered within seven days. If Shakeri failed to do so, he said the contact told him they would try again after the election, which the Iranians expected Trump to lose. (Such an assessment was also likely upsetting to Trump.)
Around the same time that Shakeri was charged, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced in an unclassified November 2024 report that 'Iranian officials continue to publicly reiterate their vows to conduct lethal operations in the United States.' The 'priority targets' listed in the report included Trump, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former Commander of U.S. Central Command Kenneth McKenzie, who were all directly involved in the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the former head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
'I'll be taking precautions the rest of my life,' McKenzie told the United States Naval Institute and Coast Guard Academy last year.
Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr.: Inside the decision to assassinate Iran's ruthless general
Soleimani was killed by a drone strike in Iraq, where U.S. officials said he was directing attacks against American forces. His death sparked calls for revenge against U.S. officials. In 2022, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei featured an animated video on his website that depicts a targeted assassination of Trump by Iranian drones as he golfs near his Mar-a-Lago estate. In the video, Trump receives a text message before he is killed that reads, 'Soleimani's murderer and the one who gave the order will pay the price.'
Such public calls could inspire a lone-wolf attacker. 'Part of the problem is it's not just hit men or just officials of the government that may be doing this,' Trump's former national security adviser John Bolton told us. 'The threat can come from a variety of different places. It's not just those expressly organized by the government in Tehran.'
Bolton has also been targeted for assassination by Iran for his role in the Soleimani strike, according to the Justice Department. The FBI is still offering a $20 million reward for any information that leads to the arrest of Shahram Poursafi, a uniformed member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, for a 2022 plot to kill Bolton. Poursafi attempted to pay individuals as much as $300,000 to 'eliminate' Bolton in Washington or Maryland, including at one point providing an individual with specific details of Bolton's schedule that did not seem to be publicly available, according to court documents. (If Bolton was successfully dispatched with, Poursafi added at one point, he had a second 'job,' this one worth $1 million.)
The unclassified November 2024 report pointed to another alleged Iranian assassination plot that members of the government have separately said they believe included Trump. On August 6, U.S. prosecutors unsealed a criminal complaint against Asif Merchant, a Pakistani national who had recently traveled to Iran. They alleged that he'd flown to Texas four months earlier to recruit others, including a confidential informant for the FBI, to assassinate 'U.S. officials,' according to a complaint filed in federal court. 'Specifically, Merchant requested men who could do the killing, approximately twenty-five people who could perform a protest as a distraction after the murder occurred, and a woman to do 'reconnaissance,'' the complaint stated.
The target of his assassination plot, he later told undercover law-enforcement officers posing as hit men, was a 'political person,' and the protests would take place at political rallies, according to the complaint. Merchant described himself as a 'representative,' a word the officers interpreted to mean he was working for other people outside the U.S. He was arrested after making plans to leave the country again.
Kori Schake, the director of foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing writer at The Atlantic, told us the threats from Iran 'should be taken incredibly seriously.' But she also pointed out that, almost immediately upon returning to office, Trump withdrew the security protections for some of his former officials facing similar danger, including Bolton and retired U.S. Army General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 'So either he doesn't take the threat of it that seriously or he's recklessly putting at risk former senior officials,' she concluded.
Bolton—still facing very real Iranian peril—was more blunt. 'Why doesn't he think about the assassination threat against him and his former officials? Well, he's as safe as anybody, and he doesn't care about the rest of us.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Associated Press
14 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking. Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit filed in Delaware court where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox had repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process of the lawsuit revealed Fox's efforts not to alienate conservatives in the network's audience in the wake of Biden's victory. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' He asked a judge to order Fox News to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he had spoken to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown. Fox News called the lawsuit 'frivolous.' 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' the company said in a statement. The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the disposition, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights. Particularly since taking office a second time, Trump has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He's involved in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. This week, Trump's lawyers threatened a lawsuit against CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing. Newsom's lawsuit centers on the details of a phone call with the president. Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night on June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said the two never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests. Trump later announced he would also deploy Marines to the area. On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day, Newsom posted on X that there had been no call. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote. On the evening of June 10, the Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter had posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters asked on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.' Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology. 'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said. ___ Associated Press journalist David Bauder contributed to this report.


The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data
A federal judge ruled Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue to access sensitive data on millions of Americans at certain agencies, handing at least a temporary defeat to the labor unions that have sued to block the practice. Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in D.C. declined to grant the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, pending further proceedings in the case. The AFL-CIO and other unions filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent DOGE employees from accessing information such as medical files, financial histories, social security numbers, and addresses. In his ruling, Bates said that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of harm to merit an injunction, although he remained concerned about the prospect of DOGE's access. 'Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits,' he wrote. 'And without irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction cannot issue.' Still, Bates acknowledged the sensitivity of the data access, writing that the 'DOGE Affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government.' '[T]he Court's concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs' harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits,' he wrote. Bates asked the parties to propose a schedule for reaching summary judgment. The ruling is yet another setback for the labor unions, who first brought their suit in February and have been twice denied temporary restraining orders. Bates himself has ruled on a number of Trump-related cases and has at times drawn ire from the president. He has ordered the administration to restore certain government websites and ruled that Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block was unconstitutional. A host of lawsuits over DOGE's access to private government data are slowly playing out across federal courts. A federal judge ruled last week that the government must submit a report detailing DOGE's level of access to personally identifiable information at the Office of Personnel Management in response to another lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO. The Supreme Court earlier this month allowed DOGE to proceed in its efforts at the Social Security Administration, staying a preliminary injunction in a case brought by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.


CNBC
14 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump calls New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani 'a communist'
President Donald Trump on Friday called New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani "a communist," and said the Big Apple will become "a communistic city" if he is elected mayor in November. "I can't believe that's happening," Trump told reporters at the White House. "That's a terrible thing for our country, by the way." Trump's comments came three days after Mamdani — who is a democratic socialist, not a communist — scored a stunning victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the first round of the city's Democratic mayoral primary. Cuomo conceded to Mamdani late Tuesday night, acknowledging the strong likelihood that the next round of the primary's ranked-choice voting system would confirm Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, as the Democratic Party's nominee. Mamdani won the initial primary round despite the fact that many prominent Democrats had endorsed Cuomo. His victory has sent some major investors, New York business leaders and conservative news commentators into a tizzy over the now-very-real possibility that Mamdani, a three-term state assemblyman, will be the mayor of America's largest city. Mamdani's campaign platform calls for an increase in the corporate tax rate, higher taxes on the wealthy, a rent freeze and free buses. Trump acknowledged the alarm over Mandani among business leaders, saying they are "worried that somebody like this communist from New York someday gets elected." "He's a communist. We're going to go to a communistic city," said the president. "That's so bad for New York." CNBC has requested comment from Mamdani's campaign about Trump's remarks. Phillip Laffront, founder of the Coatue Management hedge fund, told CNBC on Wednesday that if Mamdani wins the general election, some wealthy investors could decide to move away from the city. "Some people are going to, for sure, go," Laffont said on "Squawk Box." Cuomo has not yet announced whether he plans to run for mayor this fall as an independent. New York City's current mayor, Eric Adams, is already seeking re-election as an independent candidate. Initially elected as a Democrat, Adams decided earlier this year to run for re-election as an independent, rather than ask fellow Democrats to nominate him on the party's ballot. Adams has become increasingly unpopular in New York after he was indicted in September on federal corruption charges brought by the Department of Justice when Democratic former President Joe Biden was still in office. After Trump took office in January, the DOJ asked a judge to dismiss the case against Adams, arguing that prosecuting the mayor would interfere with his ability to govern the city and to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, a priority for the new president. Seven federal prosecutors, including the acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney whose office was handling the case, resigned in protest over the DOJ's effort to drop Adams' prosecution. In April, District Court Judge Dale Hole dismissed the case against Adams with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be resurrected by the DOJ when Adams leaves office. In his order, Ho blasted the Justice Department, which had initially wanted the case dismissed without prejudice, which would allow prosecutors to re-open the case at some point, potentially. "Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions" by Adams, Ho wrote. The judge said that dismissing the case without prejudice "would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration."