Who Is Thomas Massie, Congressman Who Condemned Trump's Iran Strikes
President Donald Trump has lashed out at Representative Thomas Massie, calling him a "pathetic loser" and urging his Make America Great Again (MAGA) base to cut ties with the congressman over his criticism of US strikes on Iran.
Who Is Thomas Massie?
Thomas Massie was born on January 13, 1971, in Huntington, West Virginia. He grew up in Vanceburg, Kentucky. His father worked as a beer distributor.
Thomas Massie earned a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
He is married to Rhonda, his high school sweetheart, and they have four children.
In 1993, Massie and his wife founded SensAble Devices Inc, a startup focused on touch-based computer interaction. The company was reincorporated in 1996 as SensAble Technologies, Inc after Author and Entrepreneur Bill Aulet joined as a partner.
Thomas Massie's innovations led to 29 patents, raised $32 million in venture capital, and created 70 jobs. His company's technology has been used in various industries, including automotive, jewellery, dental, and medical implants. He sold the company in 2003.
In 2011, Thomas Massie was elected Lewis County Judge-Executive in Kentucky. In November 2012, he was elected to the US House of Representatives, representing Kentucky's 4th Congressional District.
What Is Trump's Beef With Thomas Massie?
In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump slammed Thomas Massie for opposing the bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites, branding the Kentucky lawmaker as "not MAGA" and accusing him of siding with Iran.
"Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes 'NO' on virtually everything," Trump wrote. "He is disrespectful to our great military... which was a total and complete WIN."
Massie earlier condemned the strikes as unconstitutional, posting on X that the president did not have congressional authorisation. He followed up by introducing a war powers resolution to prohibit US involvement in Iran.
Trump claimed Massie would oppose his "Great, Big, Beautiful Bill" to avoid tax hikes and broader consequences. "MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!" Trump wrote.
After US strikes hit Iran's nuclear sites, Tehran launched missile attacks on Israeli cities. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei responded, calling Israel the "Zionist enemy" and vowing continued punishment. "The Zionist enemy has made a big mistake, committed a big crime; it must be punished and it is being punished; it is being punished right now," he said, sharing an image of airstrikes featuring a skull marked with a Star of David, a symbol from Israel's flag.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
Israel-Iran conflict threatens India's agri exports
NEW DELHI : The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran is clouding the outlook for India's agricultural exports, with experts warning of potential disruptions to trade routes, payments, and shipments, particularly via Iran's Bandar Abbas port, a key gateway for India to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Exporters are also calling for urgent action to scale up the Chabahar Port as a strategic alternative to safeguard India's regional trade links. 'Payment mechanisms—already constrained by US curbs—may tighten further, and heightened security risks in the Gulf could push up insurance premiums and delay shipments," said Ajay Srivastava, a former trade services official and co-founder of the economic think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI). Also Read: Mint Primer: Oil shock looms as Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz. What it means for India 'Perishable goods like rice, bananas, and tea are particularly at risk," he added. India's exports to Iran stood at $1.24 billion in 2024-25, with basmati rice alone accounting for $753.2 million. Other major exports include bananas ($53.2 million), soybean meal ($70.6 million), bengal gram ($27.9 million), and tea ($25.5 million). However, the risk of a prolonged conflict could choke this trade pipeline. Hit on exports To be sure, Basmati rice exports have already taken a hit. Nearly 100,000 tonnes of basmati shipments bound for Iran are stranded at Indian ports, as exporters have put deliveries on hold amid growing uncertainty. Iran imports nearly one million tonnes of basmati rice from India annually, accounting for about 20% of India's total basmati exports, said Sushil Kumar Jain, vice president, All India Rice Exporters Association. Jain said payment dues of ₹1,500 crore to Indian exporters are stuck amid the ongoing conflict. 'If the conflict persists for a longer period, the exporters may face huge losses, which is difficult to quantify at the moment, but if it settles down in a few days, then we don't see major losses," he added. The conflict's ripple effects are also being felt in the sugar trade. While direct sugar exports to Iran are limited, India routes shipments to Afghanistan through Bandar Abbas due to its fraught trade relations with Pakistan. 'Operations at the port are currently stable, but any escalation could disrupt sugar movement to Afghanistan," said Deepak Ballani, director general, Indian Sugar and Bio-energy Manufacturers Association (ISMA). Also Read: US attack on Iranian nuclear sites roils oil market, India braces for possible price surge Other commodity markets are also on edge. For instance, edible oil prices have jumped $40-50 in just a week, due to supply chain strains and energy cost concerns, according to the Solvent Extractors' Association of India (SEA). Alternative route Meanwhile, rising tensions have prompted experts to underline the growing strategic urgency of scaling up the Chabahar port as India's alternative trade gateway to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Eurasia. Bandar Abbas, Iran's largest commercial port located on the Strait of Hormuz, is of significant strategic and economic value not just for Iran but also for regional players like India. For India, the port has long served as a key transit point for exporting goods, particularly to landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. The rising tensions may threaten operations in Bandar Abbas, so the Chabahar port is no longer just an option, as it is becoming a strategic imperative for India to connect to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Eurasia, said Ajay Sahai, director general and CEO of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO). 'Rising Israel-Iran tensions reinforce the urgency to operationalize, scale, and integrate Chabahar into India's core trade corridors, which is time and cost-effective," Sahai said. 'India now has an opportunity to shape the future of regional connectivity. Chabahar could emerge not just as a port, but as India's diplomatic and logistical gateway to West and Central Asia," he added. The news agency Press Trust of India on Sunday reported that Indian exporters urged the Centre to shift cargo operations from the Bandar Abbas port to the Chabahar port at a high-level meeting chaired by commerce secretary Sunil Barthwal. Also Read: Mint Explainer | Strait of Hormuz: Will Iran shut the vital oil artery of the world? The meeting brought together senior officials from the ministries of commerce, petroleum, shipping, revenue, and financial services, along with representatives from shipping lines and airport authorities, highlighting the urgency of safeguarding strategic trade corridors, the news agency reported. The spokesperson of the ministry of agriculture and farmers' welfare and the ministry of commerce and industry didn't respond to emailed queries. Challenges ahead However, an immediate diversion of cargo may not be practical due to infrastructure constraints, experts warned. An immediate diversion is not feasible, as the existing infrastructure at Chabahar is inadequate to handle a sudden spike in cargo and container volumes, said Anil Devli, CEO of the Indian National Shipowners' Association (INSA). 'Even roads connecting the port to the nearest highway are not proper, which would make the onward journey both difficult and expensive," Devli said. Despite recent improvements, Chabahar's handling capacity remains modest. The port managed about 80,000 TEUs and three million metric tonnes (MT) of bulk cargo in 2024-25—up from 64,000 TEUs and 2.12 MT in 2023-24, and just 9,000 TEUs and 2.08 MT in 2022-23, according to the data from the ministry of shipping.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
When can US go to war? Here's what its Constitution says
In 1973, a war-weary US Congress passed the War Powers Act to rein in presidents who overstepped in Vietnam. Five decades later, President Donald Trump's unilateral strike on Iran has reignited a debate the Founders thought they had settled in 1787. On June 22, when Trump announced a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities — hitting targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — he did so without notifying Congress, let alone securing its approval. The sites were hit with precision-guided missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-busters. While Tehran stopped short of a formal declaration of war, officials warned that retaliation was inevitable. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, Iran's ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, accused the United States of having 'destroyed diplomacy,' warning that the Iranian military would determine the 'timing, nature, and scale' of its retaliation, the Associated Press reported. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi immediately flew to Moscow for consultations with Russia, a sign of how fast this confrontation could escalate beyond bilateral hostilities. Back in Washington, President Trump's aides termed the strike as a limited action. Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News to clarify the administration's position: 'This is not a war against Iran,' he said. 'It's a targeted operation to prevent nuclear escalation.' Yet just hours later, President Trump posted a message online: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The message prompted widespread speculation. Was the administration pursuing regime change in Iran? And if so, was the United States already engaged in war? Global markets reacted nervously. Oil prices surged, and analysts warned of long-term consequences for nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. More profoundly, Trump's decision reignited a centuries-old question: who gets to declare war? The US Constitution is unequivocal: under Article I, Section 8, only Congress — not the President — holds the authority to declare war. This separation was no accident. It was a deliberate check on executive power, forged in reaction to the British monarchy, where kings could drag nations into conflict at will. The Founders sought to ensure that decisions as grave as war would require the consent of the people's representatives. The Constitution also designates the president as Commander in Chief under Article II, granting authority to direct military operations once war is authorised. The executive also retains the capacity to respond swiftly to sudden attacks. The most notable test came in 1861, when President Abraham Lincoln ordered a blockade of Southern ports at the outset of the Civil War, months before Congress officially declared war on the Confederacy. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Lincoln's actions, ruling that the President has the authority to 'repel sudden attacks.' For much of US history, this balance endured. From the War of 1812 through World War II, major military engagements were accompanied by formal declarations of war from Congress. Formal declarations of war have remained rare. The United States has declared war only 11 times. (Source: But in the post-1945 world, that constitutional clarity began to blur. The first major rupture came in 1950, when President Harry Truman committed US troops to Korea without seeking congressional approval, framing the war as a 'police action' under the United Nations banner. Subsequent presidents followed suit. John F Kennedy escalated America's presence in Vietnam by sending military advisors and weapons, sidestepping a formal declaration. By 1969, President Richard Nixon was conducting a secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, entirely without the knowledge or consent of Congress. This executive overreach eventually sparked legislative backlash. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, designed to reassert its authority, overriding Nixon's veto in the process. The act required presidents to consult with Congress before engaging in hostilities and to withdraw forces within 60 days unless Congress explicitly authorised further action. In theory, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 was crafted to restrain precisely the kind of unilateral action President Trump has now taken. Passed in the aftermath of Vietnam, the law requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying US forces into hostilities and to withdraw them within 60 days unless Congress grants explicit authorisation. In practice, it has proven all but toothless. Every president since its passage has sidestepped or outright ignored its provisions. Trump did not inform Congress before ordering strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, nor, critics argue, has he offered a convincing legal justification under the US or international law. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department, told the New York Times. The law, like many of its post-Watergate era peers, was built on trust and precedent. It had no true enforcement mechanism. And so, it has repeatedly failed to restrain the very power it was meant to check. Trump's decision fits a well-established pattern of executive overreach in foreign military engagements. President Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada and airstrikes on Libya without congressional approval. President George HW Bush invaded Panama in 1989, triggering legal debate over constitutional boundaries. President Bill Clinton bombed Serbia in 1999 as part of the Kosovo conflict, again without seeking congressional consent. President Barack Obama launched a prolonged air campaign in Libya in 2011 and later against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, citing outdated authorisations rather than requesting new ones. Even President Joe Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, authorised airstrikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen in 2024 without congressional sanction. Each administration justified its actions as necessary and time-sensitive. But cumulatively, these precedents have normalised unilateral war-making, eroding Congress's role and the public's voice in questions of war and peace. Technological change has accelerated this shift. Drones, cyber tools, and remote strike capabilities have made it easier to conduct military operations with minimal personnel and lower political risk. A key enabler of this executive drift has been the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in 2001, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The resolution granted the president authority to use 'all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the attacks and those who harboured them. Originally intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the 2001 AUMF has since been used to justify military actions in at least seven countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan. It has also been invoked against newer groups like ISIS, despite no explicit congressional authorisation for those operations. Multiple presidents have promised to revise or repeal the AUMF. None have succeeded. Its broad language remains a legal foundation for perpetual military engagement. Trump's 2025 strikes have brought these longstanding tensions to a head. Legal scholars, military experts, and members of Congress are warning that US war-making has entered a constitutional grey zone. By allowing the executive to define and initiate acts of war without oversight, Congress risks ceding one of its most fundamental constitutional powers. Trump ran for office promising to end America's entanglements abroad. Instead, with his June strike, he has intensified one of the longest-running debates in US history. At its core, the question remains unchanged since 1787: who gets to take the United States to war? Aishwarya Khosla is a journalist currently serving as Deputy Copy Editor at The Indian Express. Her writings examine the interplay of culture, identity, and politics. She began her career at the Hindustan Times, where she covered books, theatre, culture, and the Punjabi diaspora. Her editorial expertise spans the Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Punjab and Online desks. She was the recipient of the The Nehru Fellowship in Politics and Elections, where she studied political campaigns, policy research, political strategy and communications for a year. She pens The Indian Express newsletter, Meanwhile, Back Home. Write to her at or You can follow her on Instagram: @ink_and_ideology, and X: @KhoslaAishwarya. ... Read More
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'It was a ruse': Inside Trump's war room; how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' against Iran was planned
US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) In a move that marks a dramatic escalation in US-Iran tensions, American President Donald Trump ordered a high-precision military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday, authorising the first major US military action on Iranian soil since the fall of the American-backed Shah in 1979. The operation, carried out by a small fleet of US B-2 stealth bombers, was planned under intense secrecy and executed just hours after Trump returned from his New Jersey golf club to the White House. In classic Trump fashion, he announced the strike minutes after it concluded, "Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!. " Photo: Inside Trump's war room - a secretive, surgical attack The White House later released tightly controlled photos from the classified Situation Room, showing Trump, wearing his signature red MAGA hat, flanked by his war cabinet. CIA director John Ratcliffe, defense secretary Pete Hegseth, and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles were present, though national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard was conspicuously missing, amid rumours of internal friction. US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Photos blurred key documents on the table, echoing the Obama-era images of the 2011 Bin Laden raid. But where Obama's photos suggested deliberation and calm, Trump's leaned into theatrics— part documentation, part spectacle, all calculated for impact. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo US President Donald Trump in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) A strike months in the making, publicly denied until the last hour Though Trump projected uncertainty all week, publicly musing on whether he might "take two weeks" to decide, the internal gears of war were already in motion. By Thursday, he had approved detailed attack plans. By early Saturday morning, seven B-2s were already airborne. "It was a ruse," a senior administration official admitted, according to The Washington Post. Only a tight circle of aides were read in: VP JD Vance, CIA chief Ratcliffe, defense secretary Hegseth, national security envoy Steve Witkoff, and secretary of state Marco Rubio, among others. Some in the broader White House apparatus were in the dark until the bombs had already fallen. The final decision, it seems, was not so much a moment as a mood. Trump's two-week bluff? Trump's claim that he might take "two weeks" to decide on striking Iran was a calculated deception, designed to throw Tehran off balance. Behind the scenes, however, the decision had already been made, and stealth bombers were preparing for takeoff. A senior administration official later admitted the delayed talk was "our attempt to throw the Iranians off guard," though there was 'some truth' to it, according to The Washington Post. The public indecision masked a fast-moving, tightly held operation that unfolded just 36 hours later. Iran's red line: Nuclear enrichment At the heart of the conflict: Iran's refusal to halt its nuclear fuel enrichment program, an issue that has vexed American presidents for decades. In Geneva last week, European diplomats met with Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but the talks stalled. Tehran wouldn't budge unless the bombing stopped. Trump, in turn, wouldn't stop unless Iran surrendered its nuclear future. This time, the ultimatum came with an unmistakable threat: Trump warned Tehran to "immediately evacuate" and told Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei that "he could be next." Despite the bombast, Trump never spoke to Iranian officials directly. Instead, Witkoff held backchannel negotiations. Trump's demand: zero enrichment, full dismantlement. Iran's answer: no. Behind the scenes: Friction, fundraisers, and the MAGA war room While B-2s sped across the Atlantic, Trump wasn't in a bunker, he was at a fundraiser. Vice President JD Vance was flying back from California. The air of normalcy masked the imminent shockwave. But inside the Situation Room, the president's loyal cadre assembled. Among them: social media gatekeeper Dan Scavino, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and even AG Pam Bondi, who hadn't been involved in the planning but was brought in at the eleventh hour. Top US officials in The Situation Room, June 21, 2025 (Pic credit: White House) Outside the government, Trump's populist whisperers, Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, and Jack Posobiec, were kept in the loop to shore up political backing. The strike wasn't just a military message, it was a campaign moment in the making. "He was listening to people across the ideological perspective" of his political base, The Washington Post quoted the senior administration official. "Ultimately, the president felt this is a decision the base should support and get behind, because ultimately, he's preventing a conflict that very well could have happened if the supreme leader instructed Iran to create the nuclear weapon," he added. Global fallout and strategic calculations The strike was timed precisely, coming just days after Israel launched its own offensive against Iran on June 13. By midweek, Israeli air dominance helped tilt US military calculations toward optimism. Ret. Lt. Gen. Charlie "Tuna" Moore put it bluntly: "Although we could have executed our operation unilaterally, without a doubt it was beneficial to the United States to have that as the predicate." Even VP Vance, who had privately raised concerns, ultimately signed off. His Iraq War experience made him cautious, but not obstructionist. "He wanted the tires kicked," one official said." Bunker Busters: The bomb that digs to destroy A calculated gamble In the end, Trump's decision marked a sharp pivot from decades of American hesitation. Every president since Carter has baulked at the idea of a full strike on Iranian territory. Trump just did it. Whether it stabilises or further inflames the region remains to be seen. Rubio has begun briefing European allies post-strike. Iran, for now, is unlikely to let this go unanswered. In Sunday interviews, Vance admitted no one truly knew when Trump made the call, not even him. "I don't know that any of us knew exactly when the president made the decision except for the president himself," he said on "Meet the Press."
