Trump slams report Iran moved uranium before strikes, even as nuclear watchdog ‘lost visibility'
The Trump administration is furious at suggestions that its strikes on Iran only set the nuclear programme months.
It also rejects suggestions that Iran could have moved enriched uranium before the attacks.
The IAEA said that Iran was not complying with obligations but did not find that Tehran was making a nuclear bomb.
US President Donald Trump's administration hit back on Wednesday at accounts Iran may have moved enriched uranium before US bombing, as a row grew on how much the strikes set back Tehran's nuclear programme.
Trump, seeking credit for ordering military action and then quickly announcing a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, has lashed out angrily at media accounts of a classified report that doubted the extent of damage to Iranian nuclear sites.
Another key question raised by experts is whether Iran, preparing for the strike, moved out some 400kg of enriched uranium - which could now be hidden elsewhere in the vast country.
'I can tell you, the United States had no indication that that enriched uranium was moved prior to the strikes, as I also saw falsely reported,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News.
'As for what's on the ground right now, it's buried under miles and miles of rubble because of the success of these strikes on Saturday evening,' she said.
Vice President JD Vance, asked about the uranium on Sunday, had sounded less definitive and said the US would discuss the issue with Iran.
'We're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel,' Vance told ABC News programme This Week.
The quantity of uranium had been reported by the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, with which Iran is considering severing cooperation after the Israeli and US strikes on its nuclear programme.
'The IAEA lost visibility on this material the moment hostilities began,' the agency's chief, Rafael Grossi, told France 2 television.
I don't want to give the impression that it's been lost or hidden.
Rafael Grossi
The US military said it dropped 14 GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs - powerful 13 600kg weapons - on three Iranian nuclear sites.
Trump has repeatedly said that the attack 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear facilities, including the key site of Fordo buried inside a mountain.
But an initial classified assessment, first reported by CNN, was said to have concluded that the strike did not destroy key components and that Iran's nuclear programme was set back only months at most.
Trump furiously lashed out at the CNN reporter behind the story, taking to his Truth Social platform to demand that the network fire her.
Trump also said that Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, whom he dubbed 'war' secretary, would hold a news conference at 08:00 (12:00 GMT) on Thursday to 'fight for the dignity of our great American pilots' after the media accounts on the efficacy of the strike he ordered.
Satellite image © 2025 Maxar Technologies
Trump's intelligence chiefs also pushed back on Wednesday.
CIA Director John Ratcliffe in a statement said that new intelligence from a 'historically reliable' source indicated that 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years'.
Iran's government has said that its nuclear facilities were 'badly damaged'.
The uranium in question is enriched to 60% - above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade.
The IAEA, in a report cited by the US and Israel to justify their attacks, said that Iran was not complying with obligations but did not find that Tehran was making a nuclear bomb.
Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons but does not publicly confirm nor deny its programme. The US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
23 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Live updates: Trump presses fellow Republicans to get massive legislative package to his desk
President Donald Trump plans to hold an event at the White House on Thursday to make the case for passage of his massive tax and immigration package as the Senate eyes a vote in the coming days. A handful of Republican senators remain wary of portions of the bill, while changes made in the Senate could imperil passage in the House, which approved its own version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last month. Trump is pressing Congress to get a final version of the legislation to his desk by July 4. Democrats have been highly critical of the bill, which would extend trillions of dollars in tax cuts, spend hundreds of billions on immigration enforcement and cut spending on social programs. As Senate Republicans eye the finish line on President Donald Trump's massive tax and immigration proposal, there may be one more obstacle standing in the way of what they hope to be era-defining legislation: their GOP colleagues in the House. The White House plans to limit classified intelligence sharing with Congress after leaks to the press of an early assessment undermined President Donald Trump's claim that U.S. airstrikes obliterated Iranian nuclear facilities, a senior Trump administration official said, setting the stage for a contentious classified briefing before senators Thursday.
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
America can't wait 10 years to regulate AI
Sarah Huckabee Sanders is the governor of Arkansas. President Donald Trump's one, big, beautiful bill will be a win for the American people by cutting taxes, moving welfare recipients off the path to dependency and onto the path to prosperity, growing the economy, and helping secure the border. As a conservative governor and strong supporter of the president, I stand in support of his signature legislation.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans admit gerrymandering. SC Supreme Court weighs if that's allowed
Two years ago the U.S. Supreme Court upheld South Carolina's new congressional maps, rejecting claims that they were racially biased. Now, the state Supreme Court will weigh whether those maps, drawn explicitly to weaken the Democratic vote, violate the state Constitution because they're too partisan. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with South Carolina's Republican leadership, who argued that the maps drawn in 2021 were not intended to dilute Black votes, merely Democratic ones. But a new suit brought by the League of Women Voters, a national nonpartisan organization, argues that the state constitution should prevent maps from being drawn in an overtly partisan manner. 'You cannot intentionally dilute a group of voters in a way to affect their electoral opportunities,' said Allen Chaney, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, who represented the League. Their argument is based on a clause in the state constitution that guarantees every South Carolina resident 'an equal right to elect officers and be elected to fill public office.' Courts in New Mexico, Kentucky and Pennsylvania have ruled that similar language in their state constitutions prohibit overly-partisan gerrymandering. After a suit was brought by the NAACP against the redrawn maps in 2021, state Republicans denied allegations that they made the district more Republican by moving Black voters out of the district. Instead, the Republicans admitted, they targeted Democrats. Will Roberts, the lead cartographer for the Senate Republicans, testified he was 'one hundred percent' focused on creating a more favorable Republican district when drawing the map in 2021. Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey testified at trial that partisanship was 'one of the most important factors.' The 2021 district maps were the first ones drawn after the U.S. Supreme Court ended a civil rights-era requirement that South Carolina submit congressional maps for federal pre-approval. While gerrymandering, or the redrawing of electoral boundaries to favor one party or the other, is a built-in part of the country's political system, the 2021 maps go too far, lawyers from the ACLU argued. In essence, they have deprived voters in a competitive district the opportunity to have a meaningful impact in an election. The ACLU wants the Supreme Court to halt congressional elections until the state's General Assembly draws maps that are more fair. The next congressional elections are scheduled for November 2026. 'I don't think the court can reward lawmakers here for figuring out how to accomplish the same effect with sophisticated and nuanced means,' Chaney told the Supreme Court. The lawsuits have focused on the the 1st Congressional District in the Lowcountry, where the impact of gerrymandering is most clearly seen. The district was redrawn to shift people who voted for President Joe Biden in 2020 into the neighboring 6th Congressional District, a safe Democratic seat occupied by U.S. Rep. James Clyburn of Columbia. The 1st Congressional District seat is currently held by Nancy Mace, a Republican who won her 2020 race by just 1% of the vote. After the congressional map was redrawn, Mace won reelection in 2022 by roughly 14% and again in 2024 by almost 17%. The redrawn plan moved 53,000 people from the 6th Congressional District into the 1st. About 140,000 people, including more than 30,000 Black voters, were then moved from the 1st Congressional District into the 6th, which runs from North Charleston to Richland County, according to court filings. The process, known as packing, concentrates voters of one party in a district, lessening the impact they can have elsewhere. The realities of 'political geography' mean that not every voter can expect to see their chosen candidate be elected, Chaney said. But there's a big difference between being a Democratic voter in Oconee County, where more than 75% of voters cast ballots for Donald Trump in 2024, and a Democratic voter in politically diverse Charleston County. Lawyers for the state's Republican leadership, who redrew the maps, offered a range of arguments to defend their position. Grayson Lambert, representing Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, argued that the original drafters of the state constitution had never intended for it to prevent partisan gerrymandering. A review of contemporary records, like newspapers, from the time the constitution was drafted 130 years ago found no discussion of partisan gerrymandering. 'It would be inconceivable that no one put forward that argument' if that's what the constitution intended to prevent, Lambert argued. John Moore, a lawyer for Senate President Thomas Alexander, R-Oconee, argued that the constitution simply 'protects every voter's right to cast a ballot and have that ballot counted.' It is impossible to remove politics from redistricting, Moore said. He argued that the electoral process provided sufficient checks and balances to reapportionment without the court having to act as a referee. If voters didn't like how politicians were redrawing district maps, they should vote them out, Moore argued. 'The court should decline to wade into this political thicket,' Moore said. Andrew Matthias, representing House Speaker Murrell Smith, appeared to take it a step further, telling Chief Justice John Kittredge that the court actually had no authority to review the General Assembly's redistricting plans. While it is unclear whether justices will accept that they have no role to play, they appeared wary of wading into the challenges of redistricting without a clear standard to follow. 'There has to be a guideline. It can't just be what my gut says, or your gut or someone else's,' said Chief Justice John Kittredge. Urging the judge's to take up the issue, Chaney said that the right for a citizen of South Carolina to have their vote matter was not a partisan issue. 'We would be here making the argument if it was Democratic gerrymandering.'
