President Trump Drops The “Hammer” On Iran
32:45 Share

This MLB season, FanDuel's Dinger Tuesday is back. And this year, all customers get a profit boost to bet home runs every week. So gear up to go yard all season long on FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook. 21 plus and present in select states. Opt-in required. Bonus issued is novel drawable profit boost tokens. Restrictions apply, including any token expiration and max wage or amount. See full terms at FanDuel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.

I'm Abby Hornacek. I'm Ben Domenech. I'm Dana Perino. And this is the Fox News Rundown.

Monday, June 23rd, 2025. I'm Mike Emanuel. U.S. officials are still gathering information about the impact of secretive strikes at three Iranian nuclear facilities, with some leading lawmakers praising President Trump for being a decisive commander in chief. We finally got a president that was willing to say this is a red line and it is an immovable red line and we're not going to allow this to happen.

Congressman Rick Crawford, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is our guest. And Lisa Brady, setting the table to change our relationship with food. You have one industry making billions of dollars, they're making us sick. You have another industry making profits to reverse what that former industry does. If you were from a different planet and you came down and you saw that, you would say, hey, fix the underlying cause.

And I'm Tomi Lahren. I've got the final word on the Fox News Rundown.

On President Trump's order, the United States pulled off a secretive weekend strike against three Iranian nuclear facilities. It involved 125 aircraft, a decoy and no leaks. Officials are still assessing the damage to the nuclear sites. In an address to the nation, President Trump praised the results. The strikes were a spectacular military success.

Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Now the big question is how the regime in Tehran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, will respond. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued this warning. If they retaliate, it'll be the worst mistake they've ever made. U.S. troops across the Middle East are on high alert in case Iran or its terror proxies target them.

On CBS's Face the Nation, Virginia Democrat Senator Tim Kaine expressed frustration. The United States should not be in an offensive war against Iran without a vote of Congress. The Constitution is completely clear on it. And I am so disappointed that the president has acted so prematurely. Kentucky Republican Congressman Thomas Massey is one of the few Republicans to criticize the strikes publicly online.

On CBS's Face the Nation. We haven't been briefed. They should have called us all back. And frankly, we should have debated this war powers resolution that Ro Khanna and I offered. But others suggest the president needed to take his shot after the Israelis have weakened the regime in Tehran. Well, this is a huge win for Tehran.

the United States, for Israel, for the Gulf region, and for the rest of the world. Congressman Rick Crawford is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. We spoke with him on Sunday morning. Iran has been a problem since 1979. They have targeted Americans, among others.

a long history of action against the United States, going back to 1979 where they took hostages in Tehran, 1983, the barracks bombing in Lebanon. I mean, a laundry list of actions that they've taken against Americans, either directly or through proxies. They have been, I think, daring the United States and Israel for the better part of half a century.

And we finally got a president that was willing to say, this is a red line and it is an immovable red line and we're not going to allow this to happen. And so they brought this on themselves. I really commend the president and his team and the United States military, the strategic excellence, the tactical precision, everything about it. It was absolutely textbook. What do you think convinced President Trump that this had to be done and done now?

You know, he gave him 60 days. I think he had insights, you know, over 60 days ago that were compelling. And, you know, he is a guy who likes to make deals and likes to give people options and opportunities for resolution. They didn't take him up on that. That's on them.

When do you think we'll have good information about how effective these strikes were in terms of whether Iran's nuclear program is completely destroyed? Well, I think the Israelis have really good capabilities

in Iran, their ability to collect information that we're probably not able to collect from overhead. So, you know, in the aftermath, if you look at some, there's some images circulating around that show before and after, really hard to determine the extent of the damage. Obviously, you can see that there's damage.

And I would assume fairly considerable damage when you think about the extent of this attack, the use of 14 GBU-57s. You know the damage is going to be extensive. But because it's all underground, it's really hard to...

to assess at this point, but I suspect within the coming days we'll have a greater insight from folks actually on the ground. For those who are nervous about the attack, wondering why now, do you have a sense of how close Iran was to getting a nuclear bomb? It's not necessarily about their ability to deliver an ICBM. I mean, they clearly had a ballistic missile capability and their demonstrated ability to reach targets like Israel.

But it goes beyond that. I mean, could they take that technology and deliver a nuclear payload in some other way? That's the concern. And so that means it's not just about targeting regional targets like Israel. It's about their ability to deliver against other targets far away. And that might not necessarily require an intercontinental ballistic missile or some sort of a delivery vehicle that

provides them a greater range. So we were concerned about it as Israel was, but Israel obviously is on the front lines. They're routinely targeted by not only Iran, but their proxies, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas. And they're in a constant state of preparedness and a defensive posture as a result of it. So, you know, you can speculate all you want, but the reality is that

they had stated goal of becoming a nuclear power. And that's just not something that President Trump was willing to live with. There were no leaks before these airstrikes. Some members of Congress are upset they were not informed beforehand. Were you briefed? And what's your take on the secrecy and execution of this mission? This is not something that took place in a matter of

hours or days. This took a lot of planning over time to be able to execute on something like this. And so the level of OPSEC is commendable. As far as congressional notification, the president is within his rights to take unilateral military action when he sees a threat. And this certainly rises to that level. And if you look at historic context,

I don't remember any of these people complaining about when President Obama struck Libya and you saw what happened as a result of that. President Clinton routinely lobbed cruise missiles at various targets in the Middle East and the Balkans. Never a congressional notification there.

Article 2 is very clear, the War Powers Act of 1973 is very clear. Yes, there's a congressional role to play in the declaration of war or issuing an authorization for the use of military force. However, the president does have executive authority to exercise a military strike and then come to Congress and notify if he is going to sustain operations in a given theater, on a given target, or whatever.

There's 48 hours to notify in 60 days to either cease operations or request authorization for use of military force or declaration of war, as the case may dictate. As you know, during the Biden years, we were watching people come across our borders pretty freely, big numbers coming across our borders. Are you worried about the possibility of Iranian supercells, secret cells here in the U.S.? Of course. It's not necessarily, I think, that we have...

their capabilities from a military perspective and probably decimated their command structure. However, the potential for asymmetric warfare continues and will likely persist.

And we need to be diligent. Things like cyber. Iranians have a history of cyber attacks, and they're pretty good at it. So that's a concern. We know that there are cells in various countries around the world, if not directly Iranian, certainly sympathetic to the Iranians, and may even have some handlers.

that can direct that. So obviously, we want to be very diligent and vigilant in our posture, not only if we're traveling overseas, but even here at home. Do you worry about, with an Iranian response, the possibility of the United States being dragged into an open-ended war? No, I think the president's been very, very clear about this. I think, you know,

Really, it's up to Iran at this point to recognize. I think the other thing to observe here is the silence speaks volumes. The regional neighbors, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates,

Other countries that also viewed Iran as a global regional hegemon, potentially a global hegemon, I think they're as happy to see this happen as anybody is. So I think that says an awful lot about the real threat that Iran presented regionally.

And are we worried about being drawn into something long term? I think the president's been very, very clear about his goals here. This wasn't about regime change. It wasn't about drawing us into a long protracted engagement. This was about his stated goal of helping to eliminate their nuclear capability and

Beyond that, if they want to come and have a conversation about what the day after tomorrow looks like, I think the president is open to that. But he's given them pretty clear warning. Don't strike U.S. personnel or U.S. targets in the region or anywhere else because that's going to come at a high cost. We know the Iranian people took to the streets and former President Obama at the time was criticized for not stepping up and encouraging them to basically do regime change on their own.

What about the possibilities of the Iranian people rising up against their unpopular regime? I've seen some open source reporting that indicates that there are factions of the regime that are out there trying to flex as much as they can. I think they're trying to salvage what they have left of their regime. But the reality is there's probably a pretty popular element that can overcome that and

maybe steer Iran into a more productive direction as opposed to this regime that has been suppressing Iranians and their regional neighbors now since 1979. So I'm hopeful for a popular uprising. And you mentioned President Obama. Look, the reality is President Obama is largely responsible for allowing this nuclear development to continue and

by essentially funding it. And President Biden doubled down on that by lifting sanctions. And so I don't think those two administrations really need to weigh in at this point. I mean, they've done enough damage as it is. President Trump has taken decisive action to alter the course of Iranian history here. And I think it's now up to the Iranian people. I think President Trump would prefer

to save Iran for the Iranian people and let them engage in self-determination in a meaningful way and not be continued to be repressed and subjugated under this heavy-handed Islamic regime. Does the focus right now on the Middle East put us at risk of taking our eye off the ball in the Pacific, where China remains a looming threat?

No, I don't. I think that I think American people need to recognize that. And this is this this strike is is demonstrative of our capability. But it also points to the fact that we can we can multitask. We can address multiple threats at the same time and understand that in many cases this may play a role as a deterrent. I mean, we're not messing around here. The president has made that very clear.

So this sends a pretty strong message to our adversaries for folks that might want to challenge the United States that, you know, there's a new sheriff in town and we're not just going to engage in meaningless platitudes and not take action when action is indicated. And if anything, I think this strengthens our hand with these other theaters where there's things going on that are of concern to the United States.

The Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Rick Crawford of the great state of Arkansas. Thank you very much for your time. Have a great week, sir. Appreciate it. Thanks, Mike.

Hymns provides access to a range of doctor-trusted ED treatments like chewable tablets, Viagra and Cialis, and their generics for up to 95% less. No insurance is needed, and one low price covers everything from treatments to ongoing care. Just fill out an intake form on their site, and a medical provider will determine the right treatment option. If prescribed, your medication ships directly to you for free. Start with your free online prescription.

visit today at HIMSS.com slash rundown. That's H-I-M-S dot com slash rundown for your personalized ED treatment options. HIMSS.com slash rundown. The featured products include compounded products which are not approved nor verified for safety, effectiveness, or quality by the FDA. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions, and important safety information. Price varies based on product and subscription plan.

Hi, everybody. It's Brian Kilmeade. I want you to join me weekdays at 9 a.m. East as we break down the biggest stories of the day with some of the biggest newsmakers and, of course, what you think. Listen live or get the podcast now at BrianKilmeadeShow.com. This is Tommy Lahren with your Fox News commentary coming up.

President Trump is going where the Food and Drug Administration hasn't gone in decades, a deep dive into infant formula. He said, I don't care about the blowback, get kids healthy. Callie Means, senior White House advisor on Making America Healthy Again, says the formula review is an all-of-the-above approach. It's research, it's looking at nutrient contents, asking common sense questions like why do so many leading formulas have corn syrup as the first ingredient? Why is it essentially mandated today that

Formulations contain seed oils and there's very little opportunity for innovation to find more natural ingredients. It's all hands on deck. A new FDA panel is on the case, recently holding its first in-person meeting. The last comprehensive infant formula review was in 1998.

This new one is part of the larger search for answers about childhood diseases, including obesity and diabetes, under new Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. I think they've certainly struck a very responsive chord. Dr. David Kessler is a former FDA commissioner and author of Diet, Drugs, and Dopamine, the new science of achieving healthy weight. I think...

We realize the American body is ill. Only 12% of Americans are healthy when we look at blood pressure, lipids, our waist circumference, our glucose. And I think I certainly can speak for myself. I mean, I gained, after I ran Colette Operation Warp Speed, I gained some 40 pounds. I wasn't thrilled with myself. And finally, finally, I think we have the tools to be able to fix that.

We are going to talk about those tools in just a moment. I do want to zero in first for a moment, though, on one of the newest initiatives, a review of baby formula for the first time in decades. The first one, in fact, since the 1998 report that called for reevaluating the types of fatty acids that are being used in formula. There's also concern about the source of carbs in formula being from corn syrup instead of lactose. Why do you think an update hasn't been done sooner?

I think it's very important to do this. I mean, I just, I look at some of the data in infants and term infants. You know, I'm a pediatrician and

I see elevated insulin levels very early on in life. And I think we have to be asking what the effect is of what we're pouring into certainly the GI tract of these infants, as well as all of us. We're ending up with bodies that are not metabolically healthy. Again, the problem is not weight. It's this toxic fat. And I think it just begins at a very early age.

There could also be a change coming in labeling to give parents a more detailed breakdown of what's in formula. But as things stand right now, does it seem like the odds are stacked against us in some ways right from infancy when it comes to nutrition? When you look at our food supply, the reality is these ultra formulated foods, I mean, they are addictive.

Now, I think we can talk about how we tamp down that addiction, but the ultimate solution is to deal with these ultra-formulated foods that we have been consuming. Both excess calories and the type of food is rapidly absorbable glucose.

is overwhelming the metabolic circuits of our brains and giving rise to what I call the sick fat. This fat in our midsections is getting into our organs, our liver, our pancreas, our heart. We always knew that weight wasn't good for us, but we didn't understand this toxic fat was really causal in much of this chronic disease. So I think there's real opportunity.

You write in a New York Times essay that you refer to ultra-processed foods as ultra-formulated because they've been engineered to manipulate the brain's reward system. And you call these foods the new cigarette. Is there any doubt in your mind that companies are making food addictive on purpose?

So, you know, they will say, hey, they're just giving consumers what they want. They engineer the food for that bliss point. But the fact is that it's that perfect trifecta. You know, it's fat and sugar, fat and salt, fat, sugar and salt. They stimulate the reward circuits. I mean, you have this what's called cue induced wanting. You have this craving. And every time I lost weight, I gained back. I mean, why did that happen?

The way I put it together is that regain, I mean, that's just relapse. It's because these circuits are there. I mean, go back and think thousands of years ago, right? When we lived in an environment of scarcity, our brains evolved to be able to find the most energy-dense food. Now we've taken that energy-dense food and put it on every corner, made it available 24-7, socially acceptable to eat anytime while living in a food circuit.

It's not that our brains aren't working well. I mean, they're working too well. We just put all this energy-dense food out there. I mean, our bodies are ill. We're suffering from this. And we can change it. You have had personal success with what's become very popular, these Ozempic-style drugs for weight loss. You consider these drugs part of the solution to obesity? Yeah.

The way these drugs work in significant part is that they slow down, I'm going to use a scientific term here, gastric emptying. They keep food in your stomach longer. So what these drugs do, they work on both the GI tract and that hindbrain part of the brain, and they stimulate these, what's called the aversive circuits.

And, you know, I condition myself. I don't want to put anything else in my stomach when I take these drugs. And that counterbalances the reward circuits. The problem is they only work while you're taking these drugs. And the average length of time someone's on these new anti-obesity drugs is about eight, nine months. So we've got to do a better job of understanding how these drugs should be used in the real world.

What about the argument from some critics, though, that this is feeding into a cycle? People turning to big drug companies to fix a problem related to big food companies and then back again when they do stop taking the drugs. Is that a legitimate argument? And what are some of the other tools that can help address it then?

Absolutely. What's wrong with this picture? You have one industry making billions of dollars, they're making us sick. You have another industry making profits to reverse what that former industry does. I mean, this visceral adiposity, this toxic fact,

Understand it gets into our liver, it gets into our pancreas, it gets into our heart. We were dealing about cardiac disease, kidney disease. We all thought, we all knew weight wasn't good for us, but we didn't understand it was causal. I mean, cardiologists, nephrologists, neurologists, everyone's waking up to the fact that, hey, this pro-inflammatory, this toxic fat releases these inflammatory soup of molecules that our organs bathe in.

And the fact is, I mean, that visceral adiposity, that toxic fact, that pro-inflammatory soup that's bathing our organs, as we get older, maybe we'll still live as long, but the number of years that we're disabled because of these chronic diseases, we can reduce that. We've got to give people the tools. There's nothing wrong. There shouldn't be any shame or stigma about using those tools and getting good care.

Is part of the answer an emphasis on multiple providers helping to give that care? So it's not just the weight loss drugs, but it's working with also a dietician, for instance. Bingo. I mean, I think it's absolutely essential. You could use these tools to tamp down your appetite. You could use these tools to change your relationship with food. You can use these tools to learn to put something else. You don't want to put anything else in your stomach. But if you go off these drugs...

That's going to, you know, that's going to fade over time. So you have to be able to change your relationship with food. You need to bring to bear, you know, nutrition therapy, diet, behavioral therapy, physical activity, as well as drugs.

One industry group for food and beverage makers has argued it's misleading to try to classify foods as healthy or unhealthy just because of processing, their level of processing, and that there's no scientific definition of ultra-processed. Is that part of what's needed here?

Well, so I, if you, you know, in the book, I use the term ultra formulated because I talk about this perfect trifecta of fat and sugar, fat, sugar and salt, you know, fat and salt. But it's that fat, sugar and salt that's stimulating me to keep me going.

And it's the fact that this food is, you know, in essence, so highly processed that I'm eating baby food in essence. It's just getting rapidly absorbed. It's spiking my glucose, it's spiking my insulin levels. And we can use these GLP-1 drugs to crack food addiction. We can use these GLP-1 drugs to change our relationship with food. But again, it takes a comprehensive approach. There's a Pennsylvania resident who is suing major food companies over his health issues.

And he's actually likening it to tobacco companies in terms of the way products have been developed and marketed to get people hooked, he argues. Could we be heading for a big tobacco style turning point with all of this? Or would you hope that we are?

My guess is if I were, you know, born two, three decades earlier, I mean, I would have used tobacco in the same way to control, you know, my ups and downs of daily living. I mean, you look both to nicotine and these ultra formulated foods. They're self-administered. Self-administration is a test that FDA uses to decide whether something's addictive. You press a level, animals press a level. Will they work for it?

And these both ultra-formulated foods, I mean, and nicotine, they are psychoactive. They can change how I feel. And the fact is, these foods are just very powerful. And the good news is that what these drugs do by keeping food in your stomach, I mean, all they do is counterbalance

And they tamp down those that wanting and those addictive circus. But the fact that I wasn't born with these satiety hormones compared to someone else and I don't feel full as much as someone else, you know, I shouldn't not take advantage of things that just because my biology is different. I mean, I can get a little help here. But again, I got to really change my relationship with food. I got to change what I want. Your book, Diagnosis.

Diet, drugs, and dopamine, the new science of achieving a healthy weight. What are you hoping that people get from it, that they take away from it? I want people to reclaim their health. I want to be able to explain to people, look, there's not one approach here.

But finally, finally, if you want to, I wanted to be able to show people how they can use tools that can fix that. The American body is ill. Only 12% of Americans are healthy when we look at blood pressure, lipids, our waist circumference, our blood glucose. I mean, and it's literally killing us.

And I just want people to be able to reclaim their health. Yes, let's change the food environment, but we can't wait for that. I think we can just make major improvements for the first time. Former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, thank you very much for your time. Thanks so much.

Here's a look at the week ahead. Monday, prices of consumer appliances are expected to go up, with steel tariffs now being applied to refrigerators, dishwashers, ovens, washing machines and more. Tuesday, the various heads of state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, are gathering in Netherlands for their annual summit. Key topics on the agenda include the alliance's defense, spending and the ongoing war in Ukraine.

Wednesday, New Jersey Congresswoman LaMonica McIver has a preliminary hearing connected to her arrest at an ICE facility in Newark last month. This comes after a grand jury earlier this month charged her with three counts of forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers. If convicted, she faces up to 17 years in prison. Also, the NBA draft gets underway in Brooklyn with the Dallas Mavericks making the first overall pick.

Friday, it's the last chance to play Red Light, Green Light. The final season of Squid Game begins streaming on Netflix. And that's a look at your week ahead. I'm Anna Eliopoulos, Fox News.

Fox News Audio presents Unsolved with James Patterson. Every crime tells a story, but some stories are left unfinished. Real cases, real people. Listen and follow starting June 24th at foxtruecrime.com. Rate and review the Fox News Rundown on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. It's time for your Fox News commentary. Tommy Lahren.

Unless you live under a rock, you know our president took action against Iran over the weekend, striking three of their nuclear sites in spectacular and flawless fashion. The strikes are a testament to his strength, but also the strength and skill of our U.S. warfighters.

President Trump doesn't want endless war or war at all, but he's also not going to sit back on his hands while the world's number one state sponsor of terror gets a nuke. He's made that clear for over a decade. Israel did the heavy lifting and President Trump closed the deal. It would have been a waste for the free world to be that close to destroying Iran's nuclear capability and step back and allow them to regroup.

So now Iran has a choice. Do they want to start from scratch on their program with a twig and a dream? Or do they want to cut the bull, be a halfway decent nation with an economy and a future? The choice is theirs, but now they well know President Trump is happy to make it for them should they try some funny business. I'm Tomi Lahren and you can watch my show Tomi Lahren is Fearless at Outkick.com. Outkick.com

You've been listening to the Fox News Rundown. And now, stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts Plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon Music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com.

Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy, host of the Trey Gowdy Podcast. I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com.