US moves B-2 bombers as Trump weighs Iran options
A US defense official said there has been no order given to move forward with any kind of operation against Iran using the B-2s. As of Saturday, the planes are flying over the Pacific and appear to be headed toward Guam.
Two US defense officials cautioned that any movement of B-2s does not mean an operation is imminent but rather is intended to provide the president with options. Another US official said moving aircraft can be a show of force and a deterrent as Trump deliberates.
B-2 bombers are the only plane capable of carrying the Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which experts have highlighted as the only type of bomb potentially capable of destroying Iran's underground Fordow nuclear facility. Each B-2 bomber is able to carry two of these 'bunker buster' bombs, which weigh an impressive 30,000 pounds each.
The movement of the B-2 bombers comes as Trump has spent much of the past week in the Situation Room, reviewing attack plans and quizzing officials about the potential consequences of each. The president indicated that his two-week timeline for a decision on US military involvement in Iran is the 'maximum' amount of time — and that he could make up his mind sooner.
Trump is set to hold a meeting with his national security team in the Oval Office on Saturday and Sunday evening. The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.
On Friday night, eight US Air Force KC-135 Stratotankers took off from Altus, Oklahoma, according to data from FlightRadar24. Over Kansas the tankers refueled two groups of planes, identified on air traffic control audio by their callsigns MYTEE11 FLT and MYTEE21 FLT. The callsign MYTEE has previously been associated with special activity flights by B-2 bombers, and multiple flight trackers on social media said the planes being refueled were B-2 bombers out of Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
Flight tracking data and air traffic control audio reviewed by CNN show the bombers refueled again off the coast of California, and over Hawaii. Satellite imagery taken on Thursday showed six KC-135 refueling planes stationed at Diego Garcia, a remote island in the Indian Ocean that could be used to refuel the bombers should they continue onward to Iran.
CNN's Betsy Klein and Annoa Abekah-Mensah contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-US pharma tariffs likely weeks away as Trump plans for Alaska, sources say
By Maggie Fick, Andrea Shalal and Dave Graham WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The announcement by President Donald Trump's administration of the results of a probe into pharmaceutical imports and new sector-specific U.S. tariffs likely remains weeks away, four official and industry sources said, later than initially promised as he focuses on other matters. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had said in April when the review of whether reliance on foreign drug production threatens U.S. national security was launched that he anticipated that it would conclude between mid-May and mid-June. Global pharmaceutical companies are bracing for the outcome of the investigation, which will usher in sector-specific tariffs that Trump has said could start small and eventually rise to 250%. The Republican president said as recently as last week that his plan relies on phased-in tariffs, giving drugmakers time to increase manufacturing in the United States as he pushes to alter what he says are global trade distortions in many industries. One government official in Europe and a source with knowledge of the White House process, as well as two sources at European drug firms familiar with the process, told Reuters that the report and tariffs announcement was not imminent and likely weeks away. These sources spoke on condition of anonymity. A White House spokesperson, asked about media reporting indicating that the results of the probe could be several weeks away, cautioned that such reports were pure speculation unless confirmed by the White House. The spokesperson declined to give further details about the timing of the pharma probe or one involving semiconductors. The investigation is examining pharmaceutical imports ranging from finished prescription drugs to active pharmaceutical ingredients, called APIs, and other raw materials, with the results to be disclosed in a Commerce Department report. Lutnick said last month the tariff plan that will be based on the report would be completed by the end of July. Lutnick then said on July 29 it would be two more weeks. The investigation was launched under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While the investigation is ongoing, the pharmaceutical sector has been exempted from the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The United States has reached bilateral trade deals with the UK, Japan, South Korea and the European Union that promised more favorable terms for their pharma exports than those expected to be levied on the sector globally. A European government official said that an announcement before the end of August appears unlikely but cautioned that the timeline could shift depending on other developments. A source at a European drugmaker said the Trump administration is focused on the U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska on Friday and therefore no announcement is expected this week. The source familiar with the White House process said that announcement is unlikely to come this week given other priorities. That source and one other source said that they expect the Trump administration to announce the results of its national security investigation into semiconductors first, followed by the pharma announcement, putting it a few weeks away. The Section 232 provision authorizes the president to adjust imports - including imposing tariffs - if a category of goods is being imported into the United States in quantities that "threaten or impair the national security." Medical goods historically have been spared from trade wars due to the potential harm to patient access, and drugmakers have said tariffs could undercut other health policy goals outlined by the Trump administration, including lowering drug prices. U.S. tariffs on imported pharmaceutical products would mark the latest in a series of sectoral tariffs announced by the administration, following metals and cars, that some economists have predicted will drive up costs for American consumers.
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
How DC's unique status let Trump take control of police, deploy National Guard
As Trump sends the National Guard to bolster immigration enforcement, Democratic governors and mayors are fighting his use of the military for law enforcement. WASHINGTON – Although President Donald Trump threatened to extend his takeover of the DC Metropolitan Police Force to fight crime and homelessness to other cities, it can't be replicated elsewhere, according to legal experts. The capital's unique status as a federal city, rather than part of a state, grants the federal government unique power to manage it directly. But the president is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law, which would be difficult to get through the Senate, experts said. Trump also has special authority to deploy the National Guard in DC, in contrast to governors traditionally overseeing mobilizations in their states. But the military is typically blocked from participating directly in law enforcement, which is why California filed a federal lawsuit against Trump's recent deployment of thousands of troops in Los Angeles. 'DC as a federal enclave is fundamentally different than a state or a local government,' Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University, told USA TODAY. Here's what to know about Trump's authority to bolster law enforcement in states and cities − and the limitations on that power: Trump becomes first to take over DC police under 1973 Home Rule Act The Constitution ratified in 1787 provided for a federal capital district to serve as the seat of government controlled by Congress, and DC was founded a few years later. In 1973, Congress approved the Home Rule Act that gave the city a mayor and city council. But Congress kept control over the city's spending and the ability to overturn DC laws, as happened in 2023 when the council tried to reduce penalties for some crimes. A provision in DC law allows the president to take control of the Metropolitan Police Force temporarily during an emergency. 'I think Washington DC is the only city where the president can do that,' Tom Manger, the former chief of Capitol police and departments in the DC suburbs of Montgomery County in Maryland and Fairfax County in Virginia, told USA TODAY. Trump invoked the provision for the first time Aug. 11 aiming to rid the city of what he called was an emergency of 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.' He said the city was overrun with "violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals," despite a declining crime rate. Trump had to notify the leaders of congressional committees overseeing DC in order for him to keep control of the police for 30 days. A longer extension would require authorization by lawmakers. Trump told reporters Aug. 13 that he would ask Congress to 'long-term extensions' for him to remain control of the DC police, which he expected to be approved 'pretty much unanimously.' But he said he could call a national emergency if needed. 'We're going to be essentially crime free,' Trump said. 'This is going to be a beacon.' Trump declared the initial emergency despite DC reporting a 35% drop in violent crime from 2023 to 2024, and a 26% drop in crime so far in 2025. Kreis said 'a lot of people would contest' the declaration of an emergency, but the challenge would be difficult to litigate. 'You almost by default have to defer to the president's judgment on this, no matter who the president is,' Kreis said. Taking away DC home rule would require change in federal law Trump is unlikely to be able to take control of the entire DC government because that would require a change in federal law. The legislation could be blocked by filibuster in the Senate, which requires 60 votes to overcome in a chamber with 53 of Trump's fellow Republicans and 47 members of the Democratic caucus. Trump also criticized crime in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Baltimore as 'bad, very bad.' Trump threatened to expand the deployment of the National Guard to help fight crime in other states and cities. He specifically cited New York, Chicago and other cities as targets for more troops. "We're not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further. We're starting very strongly with DC," Trump said. 'This will go further,' Trump said. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump added. "And then we'll look at other cities also. In August 2023, Trump criticized Atlanta's crime in August 2023 as 'WORST IN NATION' and a 'GIANT MURDER WAVE!' despite a decline in the crime rate. But other cities and states aren't part of the federal government, so experts say he could not directly take over their police or local governments.'The federal government does not have the authority to commandeer state and local officials against their will to do their (its) bidding,' Kreis said. 'He just fundamentally cannot do that as a federalism matter.' DC Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the police force 'unsettling and unprecedented' but didn't challenge it in court. 'It's times like these when America needs to know that DC should be the 51st state,' Bowser said in a social media post Aug. 12. Trump leads DC National Guard as commander in chief Trump didn't need any additional authority Aug. 11 to assign 800 National Guard troops to bolster crime fighting in DC because as commander in chief he oversees the Guard in the federal city. Joseph Nunn, national security counsel at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, said presidents can deploy the National Guard where they want, but the troops are prevented from helping with law enforcement under a law called the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. NOT CLEAR TO ME HERE WHAT THIS MEANS WRT THE ASSIGNMENT IN DC? IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED TO DO LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT IN DC THEY WILL. DO YOU MEAN HERE TO SAY THAT PRESIDENTS CAN DEPLOY THE DC NATIONAL GUARD OUTSIDE DC? BUT OUTSIDE DC THEY CANNOT DO LAW ENFORCEMENT? CAN YOU CLARIFY HERE? This is why WHAT KIND OF? troops in Los Angeles WERE THEY DC NATL GUARD? SPECIFYwere described as protecting federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and buildings rather than helping arrest undocumented immigrants. 'He can put those troops wherever he wants to put them, but they will be constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act in terms of what they want to do,' Nunn told USA TODAY. THAT LAST PHRASE IS CONFUSING. WHO IS THEY? FIRST THEY WOULD BE THE TROOPS, BUT SECOND IS MAYBE REFERRING TO THE PRESIDENT? BC WHAT THE TROOPS THEMSELVES WANT TO DO SEEMS LIKE A WEIRD CONCEPT... IF HE MEANT PRES CAN YOU REVISE TO CLARIFY? 'Up to now, the sort of logistical support we've seen provided to ICE during in the interior country has largely been provided by federalized National Guard and by active-duty armed forces.' National Guard deployments have been routine Before Trump's latest directives, National Guard deployments were routine in DC and elsewhere for purposes other than law enforcement. For example, after the Capitol attack Jan. 6, 2021, Manger was given the authority to request National Guard reinforcements FROM THE PRESIDENT? OR JUST DIRECTLY FROM THE GUARD ITSELF? on his own as chief of Capitol police, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT SITUATION PREVIOUSLY?. Manger said he appreciated the extra staffing to protect the Capitol or help with traffic during protests, such as when he set up dozens of traffic posts to keep vehicles moving during a trucker protest against public health restrictions by truckers. 'The National Guard is terrific,' Manger said. Local authorities also often coordinate with federal law enforcement such as the FBI to fight organized crime or the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat drug trafficking. 'There's a symbiotic relationship between federal and local police across the country,' Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum think tank, told USA TODAY. 'What happened in Washington is distinctly different from what happened in pretty much any city in the country.' Wexler added that the National Guard has a role to play, but troops are traditionally use 'sparingly.' 'They will never be a replacement for local police,' Wexler said. 'No police chief I know would ever put the National Guard in a position where they're making an arrest or their dealing directly with a volatile crowd. They have to be used strategically.' But Manger was uncertain how Trump would move homeless people out of the capital. 'I'm not aware of any other cities or towns around the country that are clamoring for homeless," Manger said. "Where is he going to put them?" Richard Stengel, a former undersecretary of state during the Obama administration, warned against the use of military to bolster law enforcement at a time when violent crime in DC is at a 30-year low. 'Throughout history, autocrats use a false pretext to impose government control over local law enforcement as a prelude to a more national takeover,' Stengel said in a social media post Aug. 11. 'That's far more dangerous than the situation he says he is fixing.' Trump bolsters immigration enforcement with National Guard The Pentagon announced on July 25 that 1,700 National Guard personnel – 1,200 already deployed plus 500 additional troops – will work on "case management, transportation and logistical support, and clerical support for the in- and out-processing" of ICE arrests. GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING IN THIS PIECE WHETHER THEY ARE FROM DC OR A CERTAIN STATE, CAN YOU CLARIFY WHICH LOCALITY THEY ARE FROM HERE? The duties of some will also include taking DNA swabs, photographs and fingerprints of people held at ICE facilities, according to a defense official speaking on condition of anonymity. California fights Trump's use of National Guard for law enforcement A landmark federal trial began Aug. 11 in San Francisco challenging Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 active-duty Marines to support deportations and quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco will determine if the government violated the Posse Comitatus Act. California sued the Trump administration by arguing the deployment violated federal law and state sovereignty. But a federal appeals court allowed Trump to retain control of California's National Guard during the legal fight. California Gov. Gavin Newsom seeks a ruling that would return its National Guard troops to state control and a declaration that Trump's action was illegal. What is the Insurrection Act? One option for Trump to get around the prohibition on troops conducting law enforcement would be to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act, which aimed to suppress armed rebellion or insurrection. Despite the harsh terms, president have invoked the law throughout the country's history. Former President George H.W. Bush was the last to invoke the law in 1992, in response to rioting in Los Angeles after the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating a Black motorist, Rodney King. CAN YOU SAY HERE WHAT BUSH DID WITH THAT INVOCATION? LIKE HE SENT ARMY TROOPS INTO LA? TO DO WHAT? Trump threatened repeatedly after Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 to invoke the Insurrection Act but hasn't done so recently. Legal experts said any challenge to Trump invoking that law would turn on similar semanatics defining whether the emergency or rebellion justified taking over the DC police or deploying National Guard troops in other cities. 'I think it would be naïve to suggest that the president would not try or could not try to stretch the definitions of insurrection or rebellion beyond their common political usage to suit his political needs,' Kreis said. 'The law might say one thing but its ability to be stretched and molded into a political weapon for the president's benefit is not really purely speculative.' Contributing: Cybele Mayes-Osterman and Reuters
