‘Should be fired': Trump and his admin demolish ‘fake news' CNN Iran story
US President Donald Trump and his administration have unleashed on CNN following a story about Iran.
The anger from Trump's administration follows a story from CNN which reported the US strikes on Iran's nuclear program did not destroy it.
CNN National Security correspondent Natasha Bertrand has been caught in the crosshairs of Trump's administration for her story.
Taking to Truth Social, the US president slammed CNN and called for Betrand to be 'fired' from the network.
'I watched her for three days doing Fake News. She should be immediately reprimanded, and then thrown out 'like a dog',' The President said.
'She lied on the laptop from hell story, and now she lied on the Nuclear Sites Story, attempting to destroy our Patriot Pilots by making them look back when, in fact, they did a great job and hit 'pay dirt' – total obliteration!'
'She should not be allowed to work at Fake News CNN. It's people like her who destroyed the reputation of a once great Network."
'Her slant was so obviously negative; besides, she doesn't have what it takes to be an on-camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Section 899 of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill makes US assets ‘less attractive' to Aussie investors
AMP economist My Bui has claimed she is 'quite concerned' about the impact of section 899 of US President Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill on Australian businesses. Treasurer Jim Chalmers spoke to his American counterpart Scott Bessent this morning and used the call to lobby him over the Section 899 tax proposal, which forms part of Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. If the Bill passes, it could result in Australia being deemed a 'discriminatory foreign country', which could result in Australian businesses investing in America being charged higher taxes.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Inside the psyche of 'daddy' Trump
Donald Trump has declared victory in brokering a Israel-Iran ceasefire. And while it's on precarious ground, what's the "method behind the madness" in the US President's approach? And the Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been choosing his words carefully, eager to not be seen as a "central player" in the regional conflict — with the Opposition labelling him "flat-footed." But is that a fair call? And as European nations agree to increase defence spending to 5 per cent, largely to appease the US President — will the Prime Minister's approach of progressive patriotism come under increasing pressure from Donald Trump? Patricia Karvelas and Fran Kelly are joined by John Lyons, ABC Americas Editor on The Party Room. Got a burning question? Got a burning political query? Send a short voice recording to PK and Fran for Question Time at thepartyroom@
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Opposition renews call for defence budget boost after NATO vote to spike spending
The opposition is renewing its call on Labor to boost the defence budget after NATO countries agreed to dramatically hike military spending. All 32 NATO members agreed overnight to increase defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP at a summit in the Netherlands. The decision is a major win for Donald Trump, who has threatened to drop US military support for Europe if it did not splash more cash. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles was at the summit representing Australia as a member of the Indo Pacific Four (IP4). He told reporters in The Hague that 'obviously a very significant decision has been made here in relation to European defence spending', but noted it was 'fundamentally a matter for NATO'. 'We've gone through our own process of assessing our strategic landscape, assessing the threats that exist there, and the kind of defence force we need to build in order to meet those threats, to meet the strategic moment, and then to resource that,' he said. 'And what that has seen is the biggest peacetime increase in Australian defence spending that we have seen in our history.' Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor took a different view. He welcomed NATO's commitment, saying on Thursday 'we do need to see countries around the world upping their defence spend', including Australia. 'Authoritarian regimes are flexing their muscles,' Mr Taylor told Sky News. 'We're seeing it … with Iran, we've seen it with Russia, and of course, we're seeing it in the Indo Pacific as well. 'And all of that means that we do need to see democratic countries from the West making sure that they're spending what is necessary to make sure we can defend ourselves in these uncertain times. 'The Prime Minister himself has said, these are the most uncertain times since the Second World War, and I think that is absolutely right. 'But you've got to fund your plans. Labor hasn't been funding their plan.' Pressed on what he thought Labor should be spending, Mr Taylor said 3 per cent of GDP would be sufficient. 'It's incredibly important that we fund the plan necessary for our sovereignty … but for us also to be a good ally of our allies around the world,' he said. 'We're not doing this because Trump is asking for it – in fact, our position was well ahead of that. 'We're doing it because it's the right thing to do in a highly uncertain world where authoritarian regimes are flexing their muscles.' The Coalition's proposed 3 per cent increase is still well-short of what Washington has asked for. During a meeting with Mr Marles earlier this month, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth called on the Albanese government to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. It ignited a major debate in Canberra and fuelled criticisms that Australia is ill-prepared to defend itself against an increasingly aggressive China. While the Albanese government has committed record cash for the defence budget, much of it would not kick in until after 2029. With the Australia itself predicting a major global conflict by 2034 and some analysts warning of a US-China conflict before 2030, critics have argued the money is not flowing fast enough and instead tied up in longer-term projects at the cost of combat-readiness.
