US reduces presence of staffers not deemed essential in Middle East as tensions rise — Trump adds: ‘Could be dangerous place'
The United States is drawing down the presence of staffers who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East and their loved ones due to the potential for regional unrest, the State Department and military said Wednesday.
The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the US Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment 'to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.' The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.
The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.
4 Secretary of State Marco Rubio testifies before House Committee on Appropriations subcommittee budget hearing for the Department of State and related programs on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 21, 2025.
AP
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 'has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations' across the region, US Central Command said in a statement. The command 'is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.'
Speaking at the Kennedy Center in Washington on Wednesday evening, President Donald Trump said, 'They are being moved out, because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens. We've given notice to move out, and we'll see what happens.'
Tensions in the region have been rising in recent days as talks between the US and Iran over its rapidly advancing nuclear program appear to have hit an impasse. The talks seek to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions that the US has imposed on the Islamic Republic. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.
The next round of talks — the sixth — had been tentatively scheduled for this weekend in Oman, according to two US officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters. However, those officials said Wednesday that it looked increasingly unlikely that the talks would happen.
Trump, who has previously said Israel or the US could carry out airstrikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations failed, gave a less-than-optimistic view about reaching a deal with Iran, telling the New York Post's 'Pod Force One' podcast that he was 'getting more and more less confident about' a deal.
4 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on June 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images
'They seem to be delaying, and I think that's a shame. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them,' he said in the interview recorded Monday and released Wednesday.
Iran's mission to the UN posted on social media that 'threats of overwhelming force won't change the facts.'
'Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, and US militarism only fuels instability,' the Iranian mission wrote.
Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Aziz Nasirzadeh separately told journalists Wednesday that he hoped talks with the US would yield results, though Tehran stood ready to respond.
4 A US flag flies in front of the Annex I building inside the compound of the US embassy in Baghdad in this December 14, 2011, file photo.
REUTERS
'If conflict is imposed on us, the opponent's casualties will certainly be more than ours, and in that case, America must leave the region, because all its bases are within our reach,' he said. 'We have access to them, and we will target all of them in the host countries without hesitation.'
Meanwhile, the Board of Governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency was potentially set to vote on a measure to censure Iran. That could set in motion an effort to snap back United Nations sanctions on Iran via a measure in Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers that's still active until October. Trump withdrew from that agreement in his first term.
Earlier Wednesday, a statement from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, a Mideast-based effort overseen by the British navy, issued a warning to ships in the region that it 'has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners.'
4 President Donald Trump, right, speaks with reporters as Secretary of State Marco Rubio listens upon arriving at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, NJ, en route to Camp David, Md., Sunday, June 8, 2025.
AP
It urged caution in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. It did not name Iran, though those waterways have seen Iranian ship seizures and attacks in the past.
The top US military officer for the Middle East, Gen. Erik Kurilla, was scheduled to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, but that testimony has now been postponed, according to the committee's website. The Pentagon has not commented on the postponement.
Meanwhile, Iraq's state-run Iraqi News Agency said in a statement attributed to an unnamed government official that the evacuation of some nonessential employees from the US Embassy in Baghdad was part of 'procedures related to the US diplomatic presence in a number of Middle Eastern countries, not just Iraq' and that Iraqi officials 'have not recorded any security indicators that warrant an evacuation.'
'We reiterate that all security indicators and briefings support the escalating assessments of stability and the restoration of internal security,' the statement said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Is Barely Even Pretending Anymore
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. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. accepted his new position as health secretary, he made a big show of distancing himself from his past life. 'News reports have claimed that I am anti-vaccine or anti-industry,' Kennedy, who has for decades promoted the debunked notion that vaccines cause autism and has baselessly sown doubt over the ability of the U.S. government to vet shots, said at his confirmation hearing in January. 'I am neither. I am pro-safety.' But for all Kennedy's talk, this week, he did exactly what a person would do if they were trying to undermine the scientific consensus on vaccination in the United States. He abruptly dismissed the entire expert committee that advises the CDC on its nationwide vaccine recommendations—and began to fill the roster with like-minded people ready to cast doubt on the benefits of vaccination. Like Kennedy, few of these new appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice, or ACIP, have openly embraced the notion that they are anti-vaccine. But among them are individuals who have spoken out against COVID vaccines and policies, claimed vaccine injuries for their own children, and falsely linked COVID shots to deaths—or even baselessly accused those vaccines of 'causing a form of acquired immunity deficiency syndrome.' In January, I wrote that remaking the committee in exactly this way would be an especially harmful blow to Americans' health: Perhaps more than any other body of experts in the U.S., ACIP guides the nation's future preparedness against infectious disease. By appointing a committee that is poised to legitimize more of his own radical views, Kennedy is giving his skewed version of scientific reality the government's imprimatur. Whether he will admit to it or not, he is serving the most core goal of the anti-vaccine movement—eroding access to, and trust in, immunization. In an emailed statement, Health and Human Services Press Secretary Emily G. Hilliard reiterated that 'Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine—he is pro-safety, pro-transparency, and pro-accountability,' and added that his 'evidence-based approach puts accountability and radical transparency first, which will restore trust in our public health system.' (Kennedy, notably, promised Senator Bill Cassidy during his confirmation process that he would maintain ACIP, as Cassidy put it, 'without changes.') Since the 1960s, ACIP has lent government policy on vaccines the clout of scientific evidence. Its mandate is to convene experts across fields such as infectious disease, immunology, pediatrics, vaccinology, and public health to carefully vet the data on immunizations, weigh their risks and benefits, and vote on recommendations that guide the public on how to use them—who should get vaccines, and when. Those guidelines are then passed to the CDC director, who—with only the rarest of exceptions—accepts that advice wholesale. 'These recommendations are what states look to, what providers look to,' Rupali Limaye, an expert in vaccine behavior at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told me. Medicare, for instance, is required to fully cover the vaccines that ACIP recommends; ACIP also determines which vaccines are covered by the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free vaccines for children whose families cannot afford them. The experts who serve on ACIP have the opportunity, more than just about any of their scientific peers, to translate their vaccine rhetoric into reality. So far, Kennedy has dismissed the 17 people who were serving on ACIP, and filled eight of the newly open slots. Most of the new nominees have an obvious bone to pick with at least some vaccines, especially COVID shots, and have publicly advocated for limiting their use. Among the new members, for instance, is Robert Malone, a controversial physician who has spoken at anti-vaccine events, where he has denounced COVID vaccines and, without evidence, suggested that they can worsen coronavirus infections. Another appointee is Vicky Pebsworth, who serves on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine nonprofit previously known as Dissatisfied Parents Together. A third, Retsef Levi, a health-care-management expert, called for the administration of COVID vaccines to be halted in 2023, and has questioned the shots' safety, despite a large body of evidence from clinical trials supporting their continued use. Overall, 'this is not a list that would increase confidence in vaccine decisions,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-policy expert at UC San Francisco, told me. (None of these new ACIP members returned a request for comment.) The next ACIP meeting is scheduled for the end of this month—and the agenda includes discussion about anthrax vaccines, chikungunya vaccines, COVID-19 vaccines, cytomegalovirus vaccine, the human-papillomavirus vaccine, influenza vaccines, the Lyme-disease vaccine, meningococcal vaccines, pneumococcal vaccines, and RSV vaccines. That's a big slate of topics for a brand-new panel of members, Paul Offit, a pediatrician and a vaccine expert who has previously served on ACIP, told me: Depending on how the meeting is structured, and on the input from CDC scientists, these new committee members could substantially alter the guidelines on several immunizations—perhaps so much so that certain shots could stop being recommended to certain groups of Americans. Based on the composition of the committee so far, Offit predicts that the new ACIP will eventually push the CDC away from full-throated endorsement of many of these vaccines. Even subtle changes in the wording of CDC recommendations—a should swapped for a may—can have big ripple effects, Limaye told me. Insurers, for instance, may be more reluctant to cover vaccines that are not actively endorsed by the CDC; some states—especially those in which vaccines have become a political battleground—may stop mandating those types of shots. If the CDC softens its recommendations, 'we will likely see more partisan divides' in who opts for protection nationwide, Jason Schwartz, a vaccine-policy expert at Yale, told me. Pharmaceutical companies may, in turn, cut down production of vaccines that don't have full CDC backing, perpetuating a cycle of reduced availability and reduced enthusiasm. And primary-care physicians, who look to the CDC's vaccination schedule as an essential reference, may shift the language they use to describe childhood shots, nudging more parents to simply opt out. Historically, medical and public-health associations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, have aligned their vaccine recommendations with ACIP's—because those recommendations were all driven by scientific evidence. Now, though, scientific consensus and government position are beginning to diverge: Multiple groups of physicians, scientists, and public-health scholars have issued statements condemning the vaccine decisions of Kennedy and his allies; a number of prominent scientists have now banded together to form a kind of alt-ACIP, dubbing themselves the Vaccine Integrity Project. As the views of fringe vaccine groups become the government's stance, Americans may soon have to choose between following the science and following what their nation's leaders say. Identifying as 'anti-vaccine' has historically been taboo: In a nation where most people remain largely in favor of shots, the term is pejorative, an open acknowledgment that one's views lie outside of the norm. But the more vaccine resistance infiltrates HHS and its advisers, the more what's considered normal may shift toward Kennedy's own views on vaccines; ACIP's reputation for evidence-backed thinking could even gild those views with scientific legitimacy. Assembling one's own team of friendly experts is an especially effective way to sanewash extremism, Reiss told me, and to overturn the system through what appear to be normal channels. If the nation's most prominent group of vaccine advisers bends toward anti-vaccine, the term loses its extremist edge—and the scientists who argue, based on sound data, that vaccines are safe and effective risk being labeled anti-government. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gold Extends Advance After Israel Attacks Iran's Nuclear Program
(Bloomberg) -- Gold advanced alongside other financial assets after Israel conducted airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear sites, raising concerns over an escalation of hostilities in the Middle East. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Bullion climbed as much as 1.3% following news of the attacks. Explosions were heard in Tehran, according to videos and local media, and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the nation was anticipating a retaliatory strike from Iran. The US said it was 'not involved' in the operation. The move higher extended a two-day gain, after weak US inflation and jobs data fueled bets that the Federal Reserve will lower interest rates later this year. A report on Thursday showed US producer price inflation remained muted in May, while a separate print showed recurring applications for unemployment benefits rose to the highest since the end of 2021. Gold has rallied 30% this year, with investors increasingly seeking safety in the haven asset due to concerns over President Donald Trump's aggressive trade policy and geopolitical tensions, including in Ukraine. Strong demand from central banks and sovereign institutions has also supported prices. Israel's attack on Iran followed repeated warnings from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about striking the OPEC producer and crippling its nuclear program. US and Iranian negotiators are scheduled to hold a round of talks in Oman on Sunday about Tehran's atomic program, but Trump said this week that he's less confident about the chances of a deal. Spot gold was 1.1% higher at $3,424.59 an ounce as of 9:25 a.m. in Singapore. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index rose 0.2%. Silver was little changed, platinum tumbled and palladium was lower. American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's top diplomat in Africa leaving State Department
President Trump's top diplomat in Africa, Troy Fitrell, will retire from the State Department next month, and Jonathan Pratt, the Bureau of African Affairs deputy assistant secretary, will take his place. 'After a long and distinguished career, the Department of State's Bureau of African Affairs Senior Bureau Official Ambassador Troy Fitrell is retiring in mid-July as planned,' a State Department spokesperson told The Hill in an emailed statement on Thursday. 'The Bureau of African Affairs Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Jonathan Pratt will step into the Senior Bureau Official role after Ambassador Fitrell's departure,' the spokesperson added. Fitrell, a foreign service official, previously worked as the United States ambassador to Guinea. He has served in various State Department posts across Africa, including serving as the director of the Office of Western African Affairs and Southern African Affairs. He was also the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. embassies in Ethiopia and Mauritius. Fitrell has been the head of the State Department's African bureau since the assistant secretary, a Senate-confirmed position, has not yet been chosen. Fitrell, who has been a diplomat for more than three decades, previously said that the Trump administration is changing the U.S. approach to Africa from 'one rooted primarily in development assistance to a strategy that prioritizes robust commercial engagement.' The administration sees trade as a way to counter Chinese and Russian influence on the continent. Semafor first reported on Fitrell's forthcoming exit. Pratt, who will succeed Fitrell, previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Djibouti from 2021 to 2023. He also had other assignments within the State Department, working in places such as Pakistan, Sudan and Angola. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
