Press Sec: Rep Jeffries didn’t pick up phone, Iranian people to change regime; totally obliterated

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered the administration’s rebuttal to two separate criticisms of the Iran strikes that had emerged from opposite ends of the political spectrum. From Representative Thomas Massie on the Republican side came the charge that the White House had exceeded presidential war powers. From House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries came the complaint that congressional Democrats had not been notified. Leavitt produced the timestamps showing that the White House had attempted to reach Jeffries before the strikes — and that Jeffries did not pick up his phone. She also addressed Trump’s subsequent statement about the Iranian people potentially changing their own regime, the Strait of Hormuz question, and the confidence level on the damage assessment.

”Massie Should Be A Democrat”

Leavitt opened with a sharp characterization of Representative Thomas Massie’s criticism. “Thomas Massie, he should be a Democrat because he’s more aligned with them than with the Republican Party.”

Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky, had objected to the strikes on the grounds that Trump had not sought congressional authorization. The criticism was, in principle, a war-powers argument. Leavitt’s characterization is that Massie’s alignment with Democratic arguments about constraining presidential military authority places him outside the mainstream of current Republican positioning.

”We Tried Him Before The Strike”

Leavitt then addressed the Jeffries notification claim. “We’re given notice. The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls. In fact, to Jeffries couldn’t be reached. We tried him before the strike and he didn’t pick up the phone, but he was briefed after, as well as Chuck Schumer was briefed prior to the strike.”

The specifics are operationally important. The White House made calls. The calls included Democratic leadership. Schumer was briefed before. Jeffries was attempted before but did not answer. The procedural courtesy was extended. The failure to reach one specific Democratic leader was the result of that leader’s unavailability, not of administration exclusion.

”CNN Had To Retract”

Leavitt then pivoted to the media accountability point. “So this notion that CNN ran with at the White House did not give a heads up to Democrats is just completely false. In fact, both Senator Schumer’s office and CNN had to retract that story last night because it was a blatant lie. And we showed them the timestamps from those phone calls.”

The retraction is significant. CNN had reported that Democrats were not notified. The White House produced timestamps demonstrating that the notification had occurred. CNN retracted. Schumer’s office retracted. The initial story was wrong.

The episode is a compressed case study of modern political journalism. A story that fit a preexisting narrative — that the administration was operating unilaterally — got published quickly. Verification that would have disconfirmed the story came slower. By the time the retraction arrived, the original story had traveled much more widely than the correction.

”Not Obligated To Call Anyone”

Leavitt then made the constitutional argument. “But I want to add something to Thomas Massie’s false points. The White House was not obligated to call anyone because the president was acting within his legal authority under Article Two of the Constitution as commander-in-chief of the president of the United States.”

The Article II argument is the constitutional baseline. Under Article II, the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Presidents have historically exercised the authority to conduct limited military operations without prior congressional authorization. The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 over Nixon’s veto, attempted to limit that authority, but its constitutionality has been disputed by every president since — including Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

The administration’s position is that the Iran strikes fall within the scope of presidential Article II authority. No prior authorization was required. The courtesy calls to congressional leadership were exactly that — courtesies — not legal prerequisites.

”Democrats Are Lying About This”

Leavitt’s explanation for the Democratic narrative was sharp. “And the Democrats are lying about this because they can’t talk about the truth of the success of that operation and the success of our United States military and the success of this president and this administration in doing something that past administrations Democrats too have only dreamed about.”

The framing is that the Democratic messaging is driven by political necessity rather than factual accuracy. The strikes were successful. The operation was extraordinary. The objective was achieved. For Democrats who cannot politically afford to acknowledge those realities, the alternative is to attack the process — the notifications, the legal authority, the scope of presidential power.

”Iranian People Can Control Their Own Destiny”

Leavitt then addressed Trump’s Truth Social post from the day before about the Iranian people. “The president believes the Iranian people can control their own destiny. And what he said last night makes complete sense.”

Trump had posted that if the Iranian regime continued to refuse a peaceful settlement, the Iranian people might consider changing the regime. The post had been read, in some quarters, as an endorsement of regime change.

Leavitt’s framing is more measured. The administration’s policy has not changed — no regime change is being pursued. But the administration is noting that the Iranian people have their own interests, and if the regime continues to make choices that harm those interests, the population is entitled to consider whether the regime is serving them.

”Why Shouldn’t The Iranian People”

Leavitt articulated the question. “If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution, which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way, why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?”

The question is rhetorical but substantive. The Iranian regime has, by most accounts, suppressed its own population through decades of authoritarian governance. Women’s rights have been restricted. Political dissent has been violently suppressed. Economic opportunity has been degraded. Religious minorities have been persecuted. The 2022-2023 Mahsa Amini protests and their violent suppression are fresh in international memory.

If the regime’s choices bring further hardship on the country, the Iranian population — young, educated, digitally connected — may indeed consider whether the regime merits continued support.

”Our Posture Has Not Changed”

Leavitt closed the regime-change discussion with a clarification. “And so our posture has not changed, our military posture has not changed. These were decisive precision strikes that were successful on Saturday evening. But the president is just simply raising a good question that many people around the world are asking.”

The clarification is important. American policy is not regime change. The administration is not going to use military force to overthrow the Iranian government. But the administration is noting that regime change through Iranian political processes is a separate matter — and if the Iranian regime continues to impose costs on its own people, internal Iranian political dynamics may produce change.

The Strait Of Hormuz

Leavitt addressed the Strait of Hormuz question. “I can assure you the administration is actively and closely monitoring this situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian regime would be foolish to make that decision.”

The warning extends what Rubio and others had said. The strait closure option is being monitored. The administration has positioned assets to respond. The Iranian regime is being told publicly that the cost of closure would outweigh the benefit.

”Largest Mass Deportation”

Leavitt then connected the Iran situation to the administration’s domestic security posture. “Under this president and this administration that has done more to secure our homeland than any administration in history, the previous administration allowed 20 million illegal aliens into our country. This administration is focused on the largest mass deportation of those illegal criminals. Many of them who do come from countries in the Middle East, many of those were known terrorists. And this administration is detaining and deporting them every day to protect our homeland and protect the American public.”

The connection is not accidental. Iranian retaliation against the United States could take forms that are not conventionally military — particularly if Iranian intelligence operatives or proxies are already present inside the United States. The administration’s deportation operation, targeting individuals who entered during the Biden administration’s border policies, is reducing the population of potential threats.

“Many of them who do come from countries in the Middle East” is the specific point. The administration’s framing is that some portion of the recent undocumented population consists of individuals with ties to state sponsors of terrorism or to specific terrorist organizations. Removing them is both a domestic law-enforcement priority and a counterterrorism measure.

”This Strike Did Make Our Homeland Safer”

Leavitt then made the direct homeland security argument. “And just to be clear, yes, this strike on Saturday did make our homeland safer because it took away Iran’s ability to create a nuclear bomb. This is a regime that threatens death to America and death to Israel, and they no longer have the capability to build this nuclear weapon and threaten the world.”

The homeland security argument is the one that should resonate most directly with American voters. American military action abroad often feels distant and abstract. The Iran strikes, in Leavitt’s framing, are different. They prevented an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iranian nuclear capability is a direct threat to American cities, American infrastructure, and American lives.

Whether American voters receive the argument as framed is a separate question. The administration is making the case.

”Completely And Totally Obliterated”

Leavitt reaffirmed the damage assessment. “We are confident, yes, that Iran’s nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated, as the president said in his address to the nation on Saturday night. And we have a high degree of confidence that where those strikes took place is where Iran’s enriched uranium was stored. The president wouldn’t have launched the strikes if we weren’t confident in that.”

The repetition of “completely and totally obliterated” is coordinated with Trump’s original announcement. The administration is not softening the characterization. The operation’s success is being described in maximal terms.

“High degree of confidence that where those strikes took place is where Iran’s enriched uranium was stored” addresses a specific objection that had begun circulating. Some commentators had argued that Iran might have moved its enriched uranium prior to the strikes, meaning the fissile material could have survived even if the facilities were destroyed. Leavitt is saying the intelligence supports the conclusion that the material was where the strikes occurred.

”Resounding Success”

Leavitt’s summary was direct. “So this operation was a resounding success. And administration officials agree with that as well as Israel.”

The convergence of American and Israeli assessments is itself a political asset. Israel, the regional state most affected by the Iranian nuclear program, is confirming the American damage assessment. The two countries’ intelligence services have independently evaluated the strikes. Both have concluded they succeeded.

If the damage assessment turns out to be overstated by subsequent intelligence, both countries will be exposed. But as of the time of Leavitt’s briefing, the joint assessment is that the operation achieved its objective.

The Episode In Context

The Leavitt briefing compressed into one sitting the administration’s rebuttal of multiple simultaneous criticisms. Massie on the right. Jeffries on the left. CNN in the media. Each criticism was addressed with specifics — timestamps, Article II authority, direct quotations. The briefing is a useful record of how the administration handles crisis messaging: document the facts, refute the characterizations, maintain the frame, and keep speaking with one voice.

Key Takeaways

• Leavitt on Jeffries: “We tried him before the strike and he didn’t pick up the phone” — Schumer was briefed before, CNN and Schumer’s office retracted the “not notified” claim.
• On Article II authority: “The White House was not obligated to call anyone because the president was acting within his legal authority under Article Two of the Constitution.”
• On the Iranian regime change question: “Why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?” (while “Our posture has not changed.”)
• Homeland security connection: “This administration is focused on the largest mass deportation…Many of them who do come from countries in the Middle East, many of those were known terrorists.”
• Damage assessment: “Iran’s nuclear sites were completely and totally obliterated…We have a high degree of confidence that where those strikes took place is where Iran’s enriched uranium was stored.”