The Brief

The House of Representatives narrowly approved legislation Thursday to claw back two years of federal funding for public media outlets. President Donald Trump, who has attacked the mainstream media more broadly, has accused NPR and PBS of bias against conservative viewpoints.

The measure passed largely along party lines, 214 to 212.

The legislation is the first request by the Trump administration for Congress to take back money it already has approved through annual spending bills. The bill reflects a list of cuts totaling $9.4 billion that were requested by the Office of Management and Budget. The bulk of the cuts — $8.3 billion — are to foreign aid programs addressing global public health, international disaster assistance and hunger relief.

The remainder would slash $1.1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which allocates nearly all of the funds to local stations, for the next two fiscal years. By law, that money is supposed to be approved in advance as part of an effort to insulate public broadcasting from political influence over fleeting issues.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise formally introduced the legislation last week, saying it "codifies President Trump's cuts to wasteful foreign aid initiatives within the State Department and USAID, as well as woke public broadcasting, including NPR and PBS, at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is a business the federal government shouldn't even be in."

Heated partisan debate before the vote

Republicans attacked the programs they targeted for cuts in speeches Thursday before the vote. "Don't spend money on stupid things and don't subsidize biased media," Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan said.

Democrats defended public broadcasting as providing essential services. They cited the need for local information during natural disasters and balanced news coverage.

"NPR and PBS are targeted here today precisely because they are so good at delivering the truth," Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett said. He pointed to Trump's social media attacks on the outlets, saying, "Trump doesn't want a country of engaged, informed Americans. He prefers those who salute on command."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who has accused Republicans of rubber stamping Trump's agenda despite their own misgivings, held up a doll of Elmo, the Sesame Street character, on the House floor.

"The letter of the day is 'C'. How appropriate because this bill is cruel, and it cuts children's programs all across the country," he said.

While a handful of Congressional Republicans have expressed support for their local public radio and television stations, there is intense pressure on them to side with the president. Heritage Action, a grassroots conservative group, designated the vote on the rescissions bill as the first "key vote" included on their scorecard tracking lawmakers' voting records this session of Congress.

Some of Trump's supporters have been frustrated that Congress has not moved sooner to officially back the cuts recommended or put into motion already by the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE, launched by Elon Musk. Musk initially vowed to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget, then scaled back to $1 trillion. The actual amount so far has been a small fraction of the trillion promised. But Musk's imprint slimming down or gutting some federal agencies has already reverberated in fallout in the U.S. and around the world.

Musk's recent departure from the administration and high profile public feud with the president haven't affected the plans of top GOP leaders on Capitol Hill to schedule votes to formally wipe out spending for the targeted agencies and programs. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday he expected additional votes on rescissions requests based on DOGE's efforts.

After the heads of both NPR and PBS testified before a House oversight panel in March, the speaker argued in a statement on social media that NPR and PBS "have consistently and knowingly betrayed the public trust. Instead of fair and balanced reporting, they routinely ignore facts to advance a far left agenda." He added, "The American people support the free press, but will not be forced to fund a biased political outlet with taxpayer funds." This is in alignment with criticism from the Trump administration.

Conservative views on public media have changed

Two former Republican lawmakers say that the GOP sentiment toward public broadcasting has shifted over time — from frequently backing public broadcasting to being skeptical of it, to viewing it as a hostile force.

"I always supported PBS on the rationale that just because Barnes and Nobles sold books didn't mean public libraries were no longer needed," former Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, who served from 1997 to 2009, tells NPR. "But even in those days, I would admonish my friends in PBS to strive for better political balance. This, they haven't done."

Smith says he gave the same advice after later becoming chief of the National Association of Broadcasters, a trade group to which PBS and NPR do not belong. "Given the size of the public debt and PBS's ability to find other financing and sell advertising, well, they've left themselves vulnerable," Smith says.

Former U.S. Rep. Charles Bass came to office with former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich's big Republican wave. Bass went on to represent New Hampshire's 2nd Congressional District for 14 years.

"The debate over whether to fund public television or public radio networks is more divisive than it was," Bass says. "By that process, it is likely to be more imperiled."

"To some extent it's influenced by the perception that it's more liberal than it actually is," Bass says. "There is a bent to it, but it's not as significant as the commercial networks — Fox and MSNBC on either end and CNN in the middle. They really are."

Bass says public broadcasting stands apart for avoiding commercial priorities. But, he says, technological changes in how people consume media have raised valid questions about the need for federal subsidies.

He says that the shift in formats from music to all news and public affairs talk by many NPR member stations increased content that has proved controversial and attracted scrutiny by critics, especially on the right. 

Yet he also says the lines have hardened within Republican ranks toward public broadcasting as cultural warfare has become increasingly important to the party faithful: first with Gingrich, then with the Tea Party, and now MAGA Republicans with Trump at the lead, each of which have sought to present public media as unworthy of taxpayer dollars.

"I would be pondering this seriously. I wouldn't be a lock-step supporter or opponent of public radio or television funding," Bass says. "That's true even though I probably listen to [New Hampshire Public Radio] as a news source more than any other source of news."

History of public media funding

Congress created CPB, a private nonprofit entity, in 1967. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the law making CPB the entity to oversee federal grants to more than 300 public television stations and more than 1,000 public radio stations.

In the early years, there were questions about the federal role for CPB. In 1969, Fred Rogers, the host of the popular children's show "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood," testified about the benefit of continued federal funding. His defense of CPB was credited with changing the mind of a key senator, John Pastore, D-R.I., who had pressed Rogers on the value of public television.

Rogers described themes in his half-hour program addressing children's feelings and offering ways to handle them. He told the congressional panel, "I feel that if we in public television can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable and manageable we will have done a great service for mental health."

Lawmakers from both parties frequently appear on their local public stations for interviews. They participate in debates hosted by local stations during House and Senate campaigns.

But for decades, Republicans in Congress have vowed to defund public media outlets. In 1994, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich argued for zeroing out CPB's budget. That didn't advance, but in more recent years Republicans have included provisions in annual spending bills to strip all federal money for NPR and PBS. But these have failed to be included in final versions of government funding bills enacted by presidents of both parties.

In 2011, the GOP-controlled House approved a bill to bar NPR from receiving any additional federal funding, but that measure failed to advance in the Senate. Seven House Republicans voted against that bill, including then-Wisconsin Rep. Sean Duffy, who now serves as Trump's transportation secretary.

More recently during years of divided government, GOP leaders had to rely on Democrats to approve must-pass funding bills to avoid shutdowns. The debate over the issue of federal funding for public media became more of a backburner issue. CPB received $535 million for 2025. The spending bill approved with bipartisan votes in the House and Senate and signed by Trump in March approved the same level for the next two years.

Just two months later, Trump issued an executive order to block funding for NPR and PBS. And this first effort by the Office of Management and Budget to ask Congress to rescind federal money lumped in public media with foreign aid — two areas the GOP base frequently holds up as priorities Washington needs to scale back or eliminate altogether.

Concern for rural areas

In advance of the vote, the two House co-chairs of the Public Broadcasting Caucus, Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev, and Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., released a statement urging the Trump administration to "reconsider" clawing back money for CPB.

They touted public media's role in communicating during emergencies and its news coverage, and pointed out that rural areas are "particularly vulnerable" if funding is cut.

"Public broadcasting represents less than 0.01% of the federal budget, yet its impact reaches every congressional district," the two noted. "Cutting this funding will not meaningfully reduce the deficit, but it will dismantle a trusted source of information for millions of Americans."

Goldman told NPR that Trump's role in pushing this issue is "100%" making this a tough vote for GOP lawmakers to break with the president. "I think if they looked at the merits of it they would recognize it's essential funding — and public media, independent journalism plays an essential role." He added that Trump's issue is "effectively that independent media that exposes facts that may look unfavorable to him is therefore somehow biased, but the First Amendment protects freedom of the press specifically because the press is an essential form of accountability in our democracy."

Some Republicans have defended their own local public television and radio stations and expressed a willingness to work with Democrats to avoid cuts that would force them to scale back coverage or staffing.

Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican, pressed by Colorado Rep. Joe Neguse, a Democrat, in a hearing on the bill on Tuesday, said Alabama Public Television "has not been subject to these woke policies that some of these other states have," and suggested he could join a bipartisan effort to continue grants to local stations.

But Aderholt noted "NPR is in a different category" and said most GOP lawmakers have had concerns about the outlet for some time.

Public television and radio stations have mounted a grassroots lobbying effort to urge lawmakers to oppose the package. The Protect My Public Media campaign says more than 2 million messages have been sent to House and Senate offices. "This support is driven by the deep connections Americans have to their local public media stations and the essential services stations provide to their communities."

The rescissions package now moves to the Senate. Under the rules, it needs a simple majority to pass and must be approved within 45 days of the president sending the request to Capitol Hill. That means if the Senate fails to pass the bill by mid-July, the administration would be required to release the $9.4 billion in funding for the foreign aid programs and CPB. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated the Senate would take up the rescissions request soon.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Congressional Correspondent Deirdre Walsh and Media Correspondent David Folkenflik. It was edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp, Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Copyright 2025 NPR

Stay up to date with our Politics newsletter, sent weekly.

The Supreme Court chamber will be packed on Wednesday, as the justices hear arguments in a case that almost certainly will result in a historic ruling. At issue is President Trump's challenge to a constitutional provision that has long been interpreted to guarantee American citizenship to every child born in the United States.

Listen to arguments and live NPR special coverage beginning at 10 a.m. ET:

Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. So, on Day 1 of his second term, he issued an executive order barring automatic citizenship for any baby born in the U.S. whose parents entered the country illegally or who were here legally, but on a temporary, or even a long-term visa.

"We are the only country in the world that does this with birthright," Trump said as he signed the executive order. "And it's absolutely ridiculous."

That actually is not true. There are nearly 33 countries, mainly in North and South America, that have birthright citizenship — including, among others, Canada, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.

Can't see the video above? Watch it here.

D-Day for Trump's attack on birthright citizenship

But Trump has long been determined to rid this country of its longstanding protection for birthright citizenship. Wednesday is D-Day in that effort, and to understand the issues, it's worth taking a stroll through American history.

While citizenship was not defined at the nation's founding, the colonists were largely pro-immigrant, according to University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost, author of American Birthright: How the Citizenship Clause made America American, due out in September.

The founders "wanted to populate this mostly empty continent," she observes, adding that, in fact, one of the complaints against the British king in the Declaration of Independence was that the British "were discouraging immigration."

Indeed, she notes, after the Revolutionary War, even those who had been loyal to the king but wanted to stay in America were granted U.S. citizenship.

Trump's view of the 14th Amendment

Birthright citizenship didn't make it into the Constitution, though, until after the Civil War, when the nation enacted the 14th Amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision — a ruling that in 1857 declared that Black people, enslaved or free, could not be citizens of the United States.

To undo that decision, the post-Civil War Congress passed a constitutional amendment that defines citizenship in broad terms. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

President Trump, however, maintains that the constitutional amendment was intended to be more limited than it has been in practice. "This was meant for the slaves … for the children of slaves," Trump said last January. "I'm in favor of that. But it wasn't meant for the entire world to occupy the United States." 

But as the University of Virginia's Frost notes, the framers of the 14th Amendment had more than one explicit purpose. They wanted a clear, bright line definition of citizenship; they wanted the former slaves and their children to be citizens, and they wanted to include immigrants, many of whom were the targets of great hostility.

"I like to remind my students that between 1845 and 1855, approximately 2 million people from Ireland fled to the United States," Frost observes. They were fleeing from famine and harsh British rule. And while "there certainly was some prejudice and discrimination and xenophobia," she says, "their children soon would automatically become American citizens" when born on U.S. soil after enactment of the 14th Amendment.

Trump's interpretation of the 14th Amendment is avowedly far more restricted. What's more, it has not been embraced by the courts or the legal norms of the country for 160 years.

The counterargument

"The president's executive order is attempting a radical rewriting of that 14th Amendment guarantee to all of us," says Cecillia Wang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Indeed, even as both Republican and Democratic administrations have sought in modern times to deport large numbers of individuals who have entered the country illegally, the notion of birthright citizenship has remained so entrenched that during World War II when Japanese citizens were held as enemy aliens in U.S. detention camps, their newborn children were automatically granted American citizenship because they were born on U.S. soil. And Congress later codified that understanding in the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices are likely to focus on some of the key court decisions that have protected birthright citizenship during the past century and a half. Perhaps most important among these is the case of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrants who ran a small business in the city. Back then, immigrants like Wong's parents were largely free to enter the U.S. without any documentation, but his parents eventually returned to China. And after their son visited them in 1895, officers at the port in San Francisco refused to allow him back into the United States, contending that he was not a qualified citizen.

Wong challenged the denial and, in 1898, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor. By a 6-2 vote, the justices interpreted the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean that all children born in the U.S. were automatically granted citizenship. The court noted that only three exceptions were specified in the amendment: The children of diplomats were not deemed to be U.S. citizens because their allegiance was to another country; the children of occupying armies were similarly excepted, as were the children of Native American tribes. Of these three exceptions, the only one that still applies is to the children of diplomats, as there are no invading armies, and Native Americans were granted automatic citizenship in 1924.

The Trump administration, however, argues that Wong Kim Ark's situation was very different from many of the children who become automatic American citizens today, because Wong's parents, though undocumented, were here legally, by virtue of having a permanent residence in the U.S. And the Trump administration points to language in the 1898 Supreme Court opinion that assumes the parents had legal status in the country because they had a permanent residence in San Francisco.

The Trump administration makes an even broader argument. "An individual who is naturally born in the United States is only considered a citizen if their parents have allegiance to the nation," says Daniel Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, the organization founded by the architect of Trump's immigration policies, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff. "It is a misdemeanor to come into the United States without authorization. That is a crime," he says. "That is strong evidence that you don't kind of meet the traditional notion of allegiance."

"We do not punish children for the sins of their parents"

Countering that argument, the ACLU's Wang will tell the Supreme Court that the men who wrote the 14th Amendment deliberately chose to confer automatic citizenship on the child, not the parent.

"And the idea — that actually goes back to the founding — is that in America we do not punish children for the sins of their fathers, but instead we wipe the slate clean. When you're born in this country, we're all Americans, all the same," Wang says.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is supporting the president's position, along with 11 other GOP senators, and 16 House members, who signed on to the America First brief.

"As a policy matter, birthright citizenship is stupid," Cruz says, "because it incentivizes illegal immigration. It makes absolutely no sense that someone breaks the law and they get rewarded with a very, very, precious gift, which is American citizenship."

Can an executive order trump a constitutional amendment?

The ACLU's Wang counters that Trump is trying, by executive order, to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, a measure that was approved overwhelmingly by the Congress in 1866 and, after a great public debate, ratified by more than three-quarters of the states. She argues that the consequences of such a dramatic change by executive fiat would have untold consequences.

"What will immediately happen is that every month, tens of thousands of U.S.-born babies will be stripped of their citizenship. They may be stateless because their parents' country of nationality may not consider them to be citizens. And so you'll see a permanent underclass of people who have no nationality, who are living in the United States, who can't pass on their nationality to their children born in the U.S.

In a separate brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stresses the problems that would be created by generation after generation of children who are stateless, with no country to call home, and no citizenship to pass on to their children.

"The children … would be the ones to bear the brunt of this," says Bishop Daniel Flores, vice president of the bishops conference. "I have people asking this now in my diocese. 'Bishop, am I going to get into trouble if I give food to somebody that I'm not sure of their documentation? … Can we help these people? Because we think we need to, because they're people and they were born here."

The Trump administration counters that birthright citizenship raises two other problems: a generic potential threat to national security and the problem of so-called "birth tourism."

In fact, even birthright defenders concede that a cottage industry has long existed in which women pay money to come to the U.S. and have their children here. But the numbers are consistently very small. Even the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors limited immigration, estimates only 20,000 to 26,000 birth tourism children are born in the U.S. each year, compared to the overall birth count of 3.6 million babies born each year.

Daniel Epstein of America First Legal contends that numbers are not important. "I view just one illegal act as illegal, and birth tourism is illegal and it's against the law, and the law matters."

Population experts say that if automatic birthright citizenship were to be voided, the consequences would be profound — and counterintuitive. The Population Research Institute at Penn State, for instance, estimates that a repeal of birthright citizenship would result in 2.7 million more people living here illegally by 2045, people who previously would have been entitled to birthright citizenship, but now have no such citizenship for themselves or to pass on to their children or the generations thereafter.

Also likely to come up at today's Supreme Court argument are practical questions, like those raised by Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year in a related case. How would a hospital know that the parents of a child are illegally in the country? What would hospitals do with a newborn? What would states do? The answer from Trump's solicitor general, D. John Sauer, was "Federal officials will have to figure that out."

Copyright 2026 NPR

With the exception of a stray morning shower here and there, Southern California is in for a dry and sunny afternoon.

The afternoon sun will warm up the area a few degrees today. For the coasts, we're looking at highs around 67 degrees and up to the low 70s for the inland coast.

The valleys will see similar temperatures with highs from 68 to 74 degrees. The Inland Empire, meanwhile, will be cooler with highs around 63 degrees.

In Coachella Valley, temps will reach 81 to 86 degrees.

A wind advisory still is in effect for the San Bernardino, Riverside County mountains, including Coachella Valley, until 11 p.m. Thursday. The Antelope Valley will see some gusty winds later this afternoon as well.

It’s been a tough year for non-alcoholic (NA) bars. Since we wrote our last NA bar round up, during 2024's Dry January, at least three NA-only bars have shut down in Los Angeles or gone online retail-only. The fanfare that came with New Bar’s openings in Venice and West Hollywood are long gone and the '90s-themed events at Stay Zero Proof in Chinatown have said buh-bye.

Yet more people than ever are avoiding alcohol. So what’s going on?

Victim of success

In some ways, perhaps, the bars that closed, like the two L.A. outposts of San Francisco’s New Bar, were victims of their own success. “I think that the non-alcoholic space has evolved,” Bar Nuda pop-up owner Pablo Murillo said. 


”So when New Bar came out, they were pretty much the only ones doing what they were doing. There's so many more options now, with big-box retailers that are offering great non-alcoholic options and possibly at a lower price point.”

The interior of The New Bar on Lincoln Boulevard in Venice: It's a store, but also much more.

(

Nihal Shaikh

/

The New Bar

)

That can have an impact even if you offer a top-notch experience. Stay Zero Proof was the brainchild of Stacey Mann, a film set designer-turned-interior designer who opened the cozy bar in Chinatown in 2024. It closed last year.

“We built an amazing space with such a great vibe and a terrific staff and, in my opinion, the best NA cocktails around. They were exceptional. They were designed and developed by Derek Brown out of D.C., who really led the movement quite a long time ago,” Mann said. “And that wasn't enough to get people in the doors spending money.”

Mann, who is 39 years sober, said she was surprised at how few sober customers came in the door compared to her “sober curious” clientele. “It did not bring in the sober crowd. ... It's the cost, [and] it's the idea that a lot of sober people aren't really thinking about sitting in bars.”

Not just Dry January

These bar owners all say that Dry January is quickly becoming a thing of the past — their customers are drinking less alcohol but hanging out more all year-round.

Obreanna McReynolds and Dean Peterson, co-owners of Burden of Proof

(

Taylor Kealy/Taylor Kealy

)

“I think it kind of spreads throughout the whole year, just a kind of lifestyle versus like a 30-day [challenge]," said Dean Peterson, who runs Burden of Proof, an NA bar in Pasadena.

That shift also has spurred bars that do serve alcohol to up their NA game. Owner of Abbot Kinney speakeasy Force of Nature (which serves both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages) Leena Culhane said her January was just as busy as her December.

Community

It's not just being alcohol-free. The NA bars that are still in business are adapting to meet other customer needs too.

At Kavahana, the Golden Nectar drink is made with kava nectar, turmeric, fresh lemon, ginger, and sparkling water.

(

Courtesy Kavahana

)

“We always wanted to have a place in L.A. that we could actually just go and chill out and relax at and play games, board games, watch an open mic, watch a comedy show, do yoga,” said Kavahana co-founder Neil Bahtia, whose Santa Monica spot features drinks that use the kava root, a Pacific Island-native herb, instead of alcohol.

“These are different activities that I think are really important to having a brick and mortar, that maybe a traditional bar doesn't really need to do. I think for us, it's always been about curating a really nice experience.”

Stay’s Mann agreed, even though it wasn’t enough to keep her venue open.

“In order to sustain the model, you really have to build out programming,” she said. “Our biggest night was comedy night, and that was amazing.”


Meanwhile, the owners of Free Spirited in Alhambra, Amber Pennington and Arleo De Guzman, focus on being vegan and allergy-friendly in addition to providing a completely 0.0% alcohol experience, which means people find their place through several different channels.

“The culture still isn't to ‘go out to drink non-alcoholic,’" Pennington said. “Hopefully that will change in the next couple years, but having the food in addition ... that's super helpful.”

De Guzman added that “People don't want to go out just to eat nowadays. They want to have more value added to their experience, but also it helps in a non-alcoholic bar [to host events], because some people are still afraid to go out and socialize sober, so attach an event that's in the space and people are like, ‘OK, I'm going to go to this thing. I guess I'll see what the vibe is.’”

Something special

Murillo of Bar Nuda’s Mexican-inspired concept is focused on craft non-alcoholic cocktails that draw on his bartending experience.

“People, I think, aren't looking so much for a non-alcoholic version of a margarita. They're looking for something more creative, something that they possibly have never tasted before,” he said.

Culhane agreed that now a non-alcoholic option can feel just as special as that glass of champagne.

“People often are choosing wine based on what the label looks like. We can't underestimate how much the eye is kind of the first sense of taste,” Culhane said. “I think that's the most important part — feeling like there's an adult experience of something that's convivial and celebratory, and just special.”

As drinkers and non-drinkers alike seek out alternatives to booze, it’s clear these businesses need more than just a great mocktail to stay alive. But with trying times and relentlessly stressful news, the neighborhood watering hole serves a larger purpose of being a third space, and these bars are finding Angelenos willing to pay the premium for a well-balanced mocktail — as long as there’s a little something extra on the side.

Updated March 31, 2026 at 20:14 PM ET

President Trump said on Tuesday that the United States will be leaving Iran very soon, giving a two to three week timetable.

Trump's remarks came in response to a question about gas prices — which earlier Tuesday hit a national average of $4 a gallon. Asked what he would do about it, Trump said: "All I have to do is leave Iran, and we'll be doing that very soon, and they'll become tumbling down."

"I would say that within two weeks, maybe two weeks, maybe three," he added.

Trump also appeared to reverse previous promises about reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

"We'll be leaving very soon. And if France or some other country wants to get oil or gas, they'll go up through the strait, the Hormuz Strait, they'll go right up there, and they'll be able to fend for themselves. I think it'll be very safe, actually, but we have nothing to do with that. What happens with the strait? We're not going to have anything to do with it," he said.

Just on Monday, though, Trump offered this threat on social media over the strait reopening: "If for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately 'Open for Business,' we will conclude our lovely 'stay' in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet 'touched.'"

The White House later said Trump would speak to the nation about the war at 9 p.m. ET on Wednesday.

Here are more updates from the war in the Middle East:

Kidnapped journalist | Troop visit | Peacekeeper deaths | Iran | Rubio on Spain | Trump slams allies | Dalai Lama

American journalist kidnapped in Iraq

Iraqi authorities reported a foreign journalist was kidnapped in Baghdad Tuesday. It turned out to be an American freelance reporter, Shelly Kittleson, according to Al-Monitor, a Middle Eastern news site for which she has written articles.

Iraqi security forces said they intercepted a vehicle that crashed and arrested one of the suspected kidnappers, but are stilling searching for the kidnapped journalist and other suspects.

U.S. officials say they're working to get her released.

"The State Department previously fulfilled our duty to warn this individual of threats against them and we will continue to coordinate with the FBI to ensure their release as quickly as possible," Dylan Johnson, the assistant secretary of state for global public affairs, said on social media.

He said Americans, including media workers, have been advised not to travel to Iraq and should leave the country. The statement did not condemn the kidnapping or express concern.

Johnson said Iraqi authorities apprehended a suspect associated with Iran-backed Iraqi militia Kataib Hezbollah, believed to be involved in the kidnapping.

This comes as the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran enters its second month, and the fallout ricochets across the region.

Press freedom organizations expressed deep concern. The Committee to Protect Journalists called on "Iraqi authorities to do everything in their power to locate Shelley Kittleson, ensure her immediate and safe release, and hold those responsible to account."

Based in Rome, Kittleson has reported on Iraq, as well as Syria and Afghanistan, for years, according to Al-Monitor.

Reporters Without Borders said she is "very familiar with Iraq, where she stays for extended periods."

"RSF stands alongside her loved ones and colleagues during this painful wait," the organization said.

Al-Monitor said in a statement it is "deeply alarmed" by her kidnapping. "We stand by her vital reporting from the region and call for her swift return to continue her important work," it said.

U.S. defense secretary visits troops

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made an undisclosed trip to the Middle East to visit troops over the weekend. He did not divulge the location for the troops' safety.

"I spoke to Air Force and Navy pilots on the flight line who every day both deliver bombs deep into Iran, but also shoot down drones defending their base. Many had just returned from the skies of Iran and Tehran," he told reporters in a briefing Tuesday.

He said he "witnessed an urgency to finish the job" and tried to draw a comparison with America's earlier drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said the U.S. is improving bunkers and layered air defenses as a priority to protect troops and aircraft.

This comes after more than a dozen U.S. service members were injured, several severely, and U.S. aircraft were damaged in Iranian strikes on a base in Saudi Arabia last Friday. The Pentagon says 13 U.S. service members have been killed and 300 wounded in what it calls Operation Epic Fury.

He repeated the administration's assertion that the U.S. is negotiating with Iran, despite Iranian officials' denial that talks are happening.

He said the U.S. prefers negotiations, but would not rule out using ground troops.

"In the meantime, we'll negotiate with bombs," Hegseth said. "Our job is to ensure that we compel Iran to realize that this new regime, this regime in charge is in a better place if they make that deal."

President Trump told the New York Post he is in talks with Iran's parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

Security Council meets after U.N. peacekeeper deaths

Countries denounced the killings of three U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon this week as they met for an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

"These are sadly not the only dangerous incidents faced by UNIFIL's courageous peacekeepers," Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the head of U.N. peacekeeping, said, using the acronym for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. "There has been a worrying increase in denials of freedom of movement and aggressive behavior."

Lacroix said initial findings suggested two Indonesian peacekeepers were killed Monday in a roadside explosion in southern Lebanon. A day earlier another peacekeeper from Indonesia was killed when a projectile hit a U.N. base, Lacroix said.

Their deaths came as Israeli forces have invaded Lebanon, intensifying a second front in the war in the Middle East. Israel says it is targeting the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

The U.N. has not pinned blame and is investigating the incidents.

Ahead of the Security Council meeting, Israel's ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon, expressed condolences for the Indonesian peacekeepers' deaths.

Displaced people warm up around a fire outside their tent along Beirut's seafront area on March 30, 2026.

(

Dimitar Dilkoff

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Danon blamed Hezbollah for laying explosive devices that killed two peacekeepers on Monday.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz paid tribute to the Indonesian peacekeepers and urged Security Council members not to jump to conclusions but to allow the U.N. to investigate.

Indonesia's foreign minister called for a swift, thorough and transparent investigation.

Iran executions, Starlink arrests

Meanwhile, Iran says it has arrested 46 people who were selling Starlink internet connections — one of the few ways that people in Iran have been able to connect to the global internet while authorities block communication. Starlink allows users to connect directly to the internet via satellite, bypassing government firewalls.

Global internet monitor NetBlocks said the country's "internet blackout has entered day 32."

"Extended digital isolation is bringing new challenges for Iranians, from expired domains and accounts to unpatched servers on a degrading national intranet," it said on X.

Iran said it executed two people who had taken part in opposition activities as well as two citizens it accused of spying for the U.S. and Israel.

Rubio accuses Spain's prime minister of "bragging"

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday responded to news that Spain had closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the Iran war by lashing out at the NATO partner. In an interview with Al Jazeera, Rubio answered a question about whether the EU and NATO countries had "betrayed the U.S." by focusing on Spain, a NATO member who has publicly adopted a position opposing the war in Iran.

Gas prices are displayed at a Mobil gas station on March 30, 2026 in Pasadena, California. The average price of one gallon of regular self-service gasoline rose to $5.99 today in Los Angeles County, climbing from $4.69 one month ago, amid the ongoing war with Iran.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images North America

)

"We have countries like Spain, a NATO member that we are pledged to defend, denying us the use of their airspace and bragging about it, denying us the use of our – of their bases," Rubio said.

Earlier on Monday, Spain Defense Minister Margarita Robles said the country had closed its airspace to U.S. planes involved in the Iran war. It is unclear when the closure started — Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez had hinted at the measure during a parliamentary debate on March 25.

The weekend the U.S. and Israel launched the attack on Iran, flight records showed at least 15 in-flight refueling planes leaving two jointly operated military bases in the south of Spain after not being allowed to provide support for the military action in Iran. Robles later confirmed the decision by the Spanish Government. That triggered a spat between President Trump and Spain's leadership the week after the war started. Trump said from the Oval Office that he would cut off all trade with Spain if the Spanish government did not allow U.S. forces to use the jointly operated bases. In response, Sánchez doubled down on his stance on the war in the Middle East.

Sánchez has relied on his opposition to the war, making it his main platform at the domestic level. Sánchez's Socialist Party has struggled to keep a government coalition from breaking apart, as he faces pressure to keep his party's hopes alive ahead of a parliamentary election due in 2027.

Trump slams allies

President Trump criticized France and the United Kingdom, among others, on his social media platform.

"All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump had asked allies for help after Iran largely blockaded the vital waterway, sending up oil and gas prices. But they have been hesitant to join in the war, with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer repeating again this week that Britain would not get involved.

"You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!" Trump's post concluded.

He also said France "wouldn't let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory." and called the country "VERY UNHELPFUL."

Dalai Lama calls for peace

Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama on Tuesday posted an appeal for an end to war in the Middle East.

"History has shown us time and again that violence only begets more violence and is never a lasting foundation for peace," he said on his official account on X.

"An enduring resolution to conflict, including the ones we see in the Middle East or between Russia and Ukraine, must be rooted in dialogue, diplomacy and mutual respect — approached with the understanding that, at the deepest level, we are all brothers and sisters," he said.

He said he was adding his plea to one made at the Vatican by Pope Leo during his Palm Sunday Mass, adding: "His call for the laying down of arms and the renunciation of violence resonated profoundly with me, as it speaks to the very essence of what all major religions teach."

Carrie Kahn in Tel Aviv, Israel, Lauren Frayer in Beirut, Jennifer Pak in Shanghai, Emily Feng in Van, Turkey, Miguel Macias in Seville, Spain, Kate Bartlett in Johannesburg, Jane Arraf in Amman, Jordan, Quil Lawrence in New York, Giles Snyder, Michele Kelemen and Alex Leff in Washington contributed to this report.
Copyright 2026 NPR