What A Day - Sen. Warner Says Congress Needs Answers After US Bombs Iran

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

The United States is going to war in the Middle East again… maybe. President Donald Trump announced Saturday the U.S. had bombed three of Iran’s main nuclear facilities, adding, “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” But while multiple members of the administration spent Sunday insisting the U.S. is not out for regime change, Trump later undermined them in another Truth Social post floating the idea. The extent of the damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear capabilities also remains unclear, after Israeli and U.S. officials walked back the president’s claim Saturday that the U.S. had ‘totally obliterated’ the country’s enrichment facilities. Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, talks about what’s next for Congress and the U.S.And in headlines: Columbia University grad student Mahmoud Khalil was released from federal immigration custody, an appeals court sided with the White House over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, and Harvard and the Trump administration are reportedly trying to work out their many differences.Show Notes:Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday

It's Monday, June 23rd. I'm Jane Coaston and this is What a Day, the show that says break out your system of a down albums and juicy couture sweatpants. It's the early 2000s and we're doing regime change in the Middle East again. On today's show, a federal appeals court sides with the Trump administration over the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles. And Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is released from federal detention. But first, let's talk about the United States going to war in the Middle East.

Again, maybe. On Saturday night, Americans learned via social media, in this case, Truth Social, that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump posted, quote, 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. He also spoke in a televised address later that evening. Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. The massive strikes, dubbed Operation

Midnight Hammer, included the use of seven B-2 bombers carrying massive ordnance penetrators, so-called bunker buster bombs, capable of reaching underground targets like Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. The strikes came after Trump's announcement Thursday that he would take two weeks—you know, that demarcation of time that means nothing to Trump—to decide whether to strike Iran. Israeli officials have been pushing for American involvement after launching their own attack on Iran on June 12th.

And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pretty pumped. Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history. But the crowd at a rally with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in Tulsa, Oklahoma Saturday seemed to mirror how I'm feeling right now, and maybe you too, when they heard the news from Senator Sanders. This is a statement from Donald Trump.

We have completed our very successful attack on the three nuclear sites in Iran, etc. No more war! No more war! No more war! That reaction could be why multiple members of the Trump administration spent Sunday explaining that we are not actually at war with Iran, despite doing something which many people think is an act of war. Here's Vice President JD Vance speaking with NBC's Kristen Welker on Meet the Press. Is the United States now at war with Iran? No, Kristen, we're not at war with Iran. No, Kristen, we're not at war with Iran.

We're at war with Iran's nuclear program. Sure. Vance denied the US was looking for a regime change in Iran, a claim echoed by other cabinet members in the wake of the strikes. And he added, quote, I empathize with Americans who were exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then, we had dumb presidents. But our very smart president apparently didn't get the memo.

He posted on True Social late Sunday, quote, It's not politically correct to use the term regime change, but if the current Iranian regime isn't able to make Iran great again, why wouldn't there be a regime change? Miga. I leave that for you to contemplate. So now what? After Trump claimed that Iran's capacity to develop nuclear weapons had been eliminated, Israeli and US intelligence officials scaled back those statements.

And then there's the fact that Democratic members of Congress say they learned about the strikes the same way I did, from scrolling Twitter. One of those people who didn't receive a briefing ahead of the strikes was Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We spoke on Sunday afternoon. Senator Mark Warner, welcome to What a Day. — Jane, glad to be back on your show. — Thank you so much. To start, we'd like to quickly clarify something. Were members of the Select Committee on Intelligence consulted or even briefed on the attack ahead of time? I can tell you, no. I'm part of the perfunctory call made to Senator Schumer's office, but there was no traditional outreach or briefing that goes on. Pretty when

it appears that this action had been planned for some time, if we're talking about 125 different aircraft being used. You are well into your third term in the Senate and you headed the select committee on intelligence. Is Trump's behavior surrounding notification here different from past presidents you've worked with? It is different. I gotta begin and let me be, you know, give appropriate credit. In Trump, the first term, when he thought about also bombing Iran after a drone had been shot down, he literally brought into the White House all the senior leadership of not just the Intel committees, but the Armed

Service and Appropriations committees. He did better outreach. This time, I guess I'm not totally surprised because there's been virtually no outreach from the administration to our committee or for that matter I think to them I'm not even sure to most of the republics. On Saturday night the president made it sound like three nuclear related facilities were basically taken out altogether eliminated but on Sunday the Department of Defense made it sound like the extent of the damage to those three nuclear facilities was still unclear and That at least one of those facilities might not have been destroyed What's your best understanding at this point of what's going on? That's that's my understanding as well. And that's why

Let me be clear the the Iranian regime are bad guys. They have terrorized the Middle East they Obviously anti-israel to the extreme, they've called for deaths of the United States, and we should not let them get a nuclear weapon. But these are the kind of questions that are normally asked before an event takes place. What happens if you can't take out all the nuclear sites? What next? What will be the preparation that our 40,000 troops will have in the region to protect themselves? And if Iran strikes back, what will then be our next step of retaliation? And if we don't have all the answers, I think we're going to demand

the answers this week, but a little bit of this is after the fact now. So what do you make of the conflicting messages that are coming out of the White House and the Pentagon about the extent of damage? Because millions of Americans heard on Saturday night the president say that these facilities have been destroyed and now you're hearing both Israeli and American officials saying, maybe not. I think it's important to have your facts straight. And I would have been shocked if the president's claims last night were 100% accurate, because one of the things that we've looked at

for some time is that these are facilities, many of them encamped in solid rock. And there was always a question, could we actually even take them out with the bunker buster bombs? I am glad that the Pentagon did not stretch the truth in terms of their reporting, but it begs the question now, if we didn't take them out, are we going to go back in? What does that mean? What does it mean in terms of Iran's ability to retaliate? Is there any

evidence that some enriched uranium, for example, could have been removed at the beginning of this whole conflict? Because could the Iranians have tried to disperse their assets? These are all questions that I think it would be often good that we had a full pledge plan, not just that we're going to bomb, but what happens after that. Right. I think that that's been what's really getting to me is when you ask, and now what, you don't get any response whatsoever. Now in the run-up to the president's decision, there has been a lot made of

Iran's intentions to build a weapon. Back in March, national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard said that Iran's supreme leader, quote, has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. Trump recently told reporters I don't care what she said and then on Sunday Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News that quote it doesn't matter if the order was given they have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Do the president and Rubio have a point here that regardless of whether someone said build a nuclear weapon, the Iranians were still getting

too close for comfort? Okay, clearly Iran has enriched a lot of additional uranium. But enriching uranium is one step in this process. The next is creating literally a bomb with that emission medium. And then the next step is having a delivery mechanism, usually a rocket, that can deliver that bomb. Literally six days ago on last Monday, we asked the community, the intelligence community, had they changed their conclusion? And they said, no. I think if the president had made the case in a clear way to Congress and the American public, there might still be questions, but at least we kind of go in knowing what the consequences might be. Right now, before this action was taken, I didn't have the foggiest

idea what the American policy was because when the Israelis first attacked Iran, it was clear the American government's position at that point about almost two weeks ago, not even full two weeks ago, was that, all right, the Israelis are on their own on this and we'll help defend Israel, which we should, but we weren't going to take part in their action. We're now sitting where we don't know exactly how much damage was inflicted. We don't know where all the Iranian enrichment facilities, if any of them, have been dispersed. And the most important question is, we don't know what the Iranian regime is going to do next in terms of striking our forces, or for that matter, Americans anywhere, in terms

of potential terrorists, or for that matter matter cyber or other type of attacks. So if as of a week ago the intelligence community hadn't changed their assessment that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon wasn't imminent, why do you think the president authorized this strike in the first place? I don't know, but there's been reporting that the president had been convinced by the Israelis that they had reached a different conclusion. But I worry, as somebody who's, we've seen this movie before when intelligence is not followed or intelligence is corrupted. In many ways, that got us into the circumstances in Iraq 20 plus years ago.

I think this is very dangerous. One of the critiques I've had of this administration has been their politicization of the intelligence. If Ms. Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has literally fired people, if they don't reach the conclusions that would be favorable to the administration, that's really dangerous. I don't think that happened in this case. It's clearly, at least as of six days ago, the intelligence community said Iran was not making this movement forward.

And if I give the president the full benefit of the doubt, if we missed it, I want to know why and how we missed it. But I have no evidence at all that our intelligence community missed this one. Right, right. This is very much giving me early Iraq war vibes, and I don't like that at all. You released a statement arguing that the president hadn't consulted with Congress, but now these attacks have been made already. What should Congress do now? Well, Congress can still have a War Powers Act. Many times, you know, we've seen an American attacked, the president has to respond quickly. Again, he's the commander in chief.

But in this case, where it appeared the decision was made in advance, the War Powers Act requires within 30 days, the ability to get approval from Congress. So my friend, Tim Kaine, the fellow senator from Virginia, he's going to ask that we vote on the War Powers app. Whether my Republican friends will go ahead and find their voice on this one or whether they will simply bend the knee again, time will tell. How realistic is it that Iran would return to the negotiating table at this point? Well, the Iranians are very unpredictable and if they really are

Decimated they may have no other option. My fear is you were talking about a nation 90 million people that has proxies in the region that unfortunately as networks of trying to support terrorists I Would hope they would return the negotiating table that unfortunately has networks of trying to support terrorists. I would hope they would return to the negotiating table, but that is a hope more than an expectation. Senator Warner, thank you so much for taking the time to join me. Thank you, Jane. That was my conversation with Virginia Democratic Senator Mark Warner, Vice Chairman of the

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe, leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube, and share with your friends. More to come after some ads. Here's what else we're following today. Head of Lines. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now in session. We have one case on the argument calendar today. Governor Gavin Newsom et al. versus President

Donald J. Trump et al. For now, the Trump administration has the legal power to deploy the National Guard on Los Angeles. That's after a federal appeals court late Thursday agreed with Trump that he could use troops to protect federal agents while they deport undocumented residents around LA. And that he can do so despite the objection of California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously. They said the president could use those troops

because he was sufficiently impeded from executing the laws of the United States with, quote, regular forces. President Trump called the latest ruling a capital G great, capital D decision for our capital C country and I post on you guessed it, true social. On Friday, Newsom pledged to continue his legal fight against the Trump administration.

The US government is funding this genocide and Columbia University is investing in this genocide. This is why I was protesting. This is why I will continue to protest with every one of you. Not only if they threaten me with detention, even if they would kill me, I would still speak up for Palestine. On Friday, Columbia University

international grad student Mahmoud Halil was released from federal immigration custody. He addressed reporters at Newark Airport, where he condemned the Trump administration's efforts to silence pro-Palestinian voices and dehumanize immigrants. Khalil had been held in central Louisiana since March. The Trump administration had claimed his protests against Israel's war in Gaza threatened US foreign policy. Khalil was released on bail after a US District judge, Michael Farbyars, ruled that the U.S.

government did not have sufficient grounds to keep him detained. Less than 10 minutes after Khalil's release, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal. Khalil was the first of a number of foreign students to be caught up in Trump's crackdown on campus protesters. The New York Times reported on Friday that Harvard and the Trump administration have restarted talks to end their months-long feud. Sources tell the New York Times that top Harvard officials worry the university will have to

shrink its student body and lower its academic ambitions if it remains at odds with the president. And there's a lot that they're at odds over. The Trump administration froze more than $3 dollars in federal grants and contracts, it threatened to revoke the university's tax exempt status, and it investigated Harvard's diversity and admissions policies. The administration also tried to stop it from enrolling international students. Harvard president Alan Garber addressed that head-on during last month's commencement. Members of the class of 2025 from down the street across the country and around the world. Around the world just as it should be.

around the world just as it should be. And speaking of that international student issue, on Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from terminating the university's student and exchange visitor program. Texas will require all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments under a new law signed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott Saturday. The Texas legislature approved the measure late last month after months of debate. It's expected to be challenged in the courts and it may not fare too well there. The day before Abbott signed the new Texas law, a panel of three federal appeals court

judges ruled a similar law in Louisiana was unconstitutional. A federal district court judge in the state had reached the same conclusion in a decision late last year. And that's the news. Before we go, in the latest episode of the Friends of the Pod subscription show Polar Coaster, Dan dives into why Trump's disapproval numbers are ticking back up, and what polls really tell us about immigration. He also reflects on how protest movements can spark real change, then takes questions from the Friends of the Pod Discord, like, have celebrities checked out of politics, and do their endorsements even matter?

To get access to these exclusive series and more, subscribe to our Friends of the Pod community at krikka.com slash friends. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, relax in the knowledge that the main person in charge of the government's anti-terrorism efforts is 22 years old and graduated from college last year, and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading, and not just about how Thomas Fugate, a massive Trump fan who graduated from the University of Texas San Antonio like

10 seconds ago, is now in charge of the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, a division of the Department of Homeland Security that oversees terrorism prevention, like me. What a day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and subscribe at Cricket.com slash subscribe. I'm Jane Coston, and I'm sure that'll work out fine. What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Desmond Taylor. Our associate producer is Emily For. Our video editor is Joseph Dutra. Our video producer is Johanna Case. We had production help today from Greg Walters, Matt Berg, Sean Ali, Tyler

Hill, and Laura Newcomb. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison, and our senior vice president of news and politics is Adrian Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Gileard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.