Former U.S. President Donald Trump recently blocked – or “vetoed” – an Israeli proposal to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to two anonymous U.S. officials speaking to Reuters, Israel had alerted the U.S. to an operational opportunity during its recent offensive against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Trump, they said, intervened, asking rhetorically, “Have the Iranians killed an American yet? No. Until they do, we’re not even talking about going after the political leadership”. By framing the decision around direct American casualties, Trump signaled his intent to avoid widening the conflict.

Complicity and Constraints: Rethinking U.S. Strategy

The narrative of Trump as a restrained strategist falters under closer scrutiny. Prior to Israel’s offensive against Iran in April 2025, U.S. officials not only greenlit but were reportedly briefed in detail about Israeli plans, including airspace coordination and intelligence sharing. This pre-approval underscores a more active American role in escalating tensions—not merely reacting defensively or moderating extremes.

This complicity blurs the distinction between deterrence and provocation. While Trump did block the specific targeting of Ayatollah Khamenei, this restraint came after enabling a broad strike campaign that devastated Iranian infrastructure and reportedly led to mass civilian casualties. U.S. military logistics and diplomatic cover were indispensable to Israel’s military operation. By stopping short of the most incendiary act—the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader—Trump preserved plausible deniability without fundamentally de-escalating the conflict.

Thus, the veto does not represent a paradigm of cautious statecraft but rather a boundary-setting maneuver within a shared escalation framework. The U.S. role was less about opposing aggression and more about shaping its contours to avoid immediate retaliation while maximizing pressure on Tehran.

Implications for Middle Eastern Geopolitics

Trump’s refusal to green-light the assassination carries immediate regional consequences. A decapitation strike on Iran’s leadership could have triggered swift and sweeping retaliation, putting U.S. forces and allies across the region at risk. By preventing that escalation, Trump effectively restrained a potentially transformative action that might have forced regional powers to choose sides under acute pressure.

This restraint may also echo in global diplomatic circles. Europe and other U.S. partners—already calling for calm following Israeli strikes that reportedly killed hundreds, including civilians—will view Washington’s veto as a move toward stabilizing future crisis management and preserving strategic leverage for diplomacy.

The Precedent of Targeted Leadership Strikes

This episode recalls past high-stakes interventions, notably the 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani. That attack, justified by claims of imminent threat, triggered swift Iranian missile retaliation and drew scrutiny over its legality and strategic wisdom. Unlike that case, the proposed assassination of Khamenei lacked a similar domestic or international legal mandate, nor had Iran attacked American personnel. Trump’s veto thus reasserts a deliberate threshold: neutralizing foreign leaders demands a different calculus than eliminating military commanders.

Impact on U.S.–Israel Relations and Future Diplomacy

Netanyahu reacted to the reports by describing them as “false” and declining to confirm their accuracy on Fox News. That measured response suggests careful diplomatic signaling—neither challenging U.S. authority nor undermining Israeli autonomy. Moving forward, this could encourage Israel to further coordinate covert operations with Washington, recognizing the constraints of U.S. red lines.

In parallel, Trump has expressed public optimism about reviving nuclear negotiations with Iran. Talks scheduled in Oman were scrapped amid the military flare-up. While competing pressures advocate for hardline tactics, Trump’s veto leaves open a path to diplomacy, reinforcing an oscillation between deterrence and negotiation in U.S. policy.

In early June 2025, the United States witnessed a dramatic escalation in immigration enforcement as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) launched a wave of nationwide raids targeting undocumented immigrants and even some legal residents. These raids, directed under the Trump administration’s aggressive interior enforcement agenda, began around June 6 in Los Angeles and rapidly expanded to multiple cities, including Norristown (PA), Chicago, Baltimore, and several areas across Texas and Nebraska. Unlike previous efforts focused mainly on border enforcement, these operations marked a shift toward workplace arrests, raids at homes, places of worship, and even random stops in public spaces, raising alarm across immigrant communities and civil rights organizations.

The operations started in Southern California’s garment district, where over 100 arrests were made in the first few days. ICE agents raided clothing warehouses, car washes, Home Depot parking lots, and even churches like the Downey Memorial Christian Church. Many detainees were long-time residents with deep community ties, and in some cases, legal immigration status. Reports emerged of families being held in basement detention cells without access to food, clean water, or legal counsel for up to 48 hours. One particularly disturbing case involved a 23-year-old Zapotec man deported just 48 hours after being picked up at his job site. In cities like Norristown and Chicago’s South Loop, individuals were allegedly tricked into arrests after receiving deceptive texts about immigration appointments, prompting immediate backlash from immigrant advocacy groups.

The justification given by the administration was twofold: the need to increase deportation figures and a strategy to reassert federal authority. With border encounters down to around 12,000 per month from highs of over 200,000 during the Biden administration, ICE sought to shift its attention inward. The goal, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials, was to target those who had overstayed visas, had unresolved asylum claims, or had minor infractions—regardless of how long they had lived in the U.S. President Trump also framed the raids as a response to “restoring law and order,” a message accompanied by the deployment of thousands of federal troops. Around 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines were stationed in Los Angeles to support ICE and deter protests. The legality of this deployment is now under challenge, with California Governor Gavin Newsom filing lawsuits that were temporarily blocked by a federal court.

Public response to the raids was swift and intense. Massive protests erupted in Los Angeles, with demonstrators blocking streets in downtown and rallying in suburbs like Compton and Paramount. Thousands also took to the streets in cities like Seattle, Tucson, San Antonio, Chicago, New York, and Las Vegas. In Baltimore, ICE officers reportedly detained at least 16 people from stores and parking lots, prompting spontaneous protests with chants like “ICE out of Baltimore.” Community groups, legal aid organizations, and civil rights advocates condemned the operations, citing constitutional violations and due process concerns. Many accused ICE of racial profiling and acting without warrants. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and several immigrant defense organizations have filed urgent motions to halt deportations and demand immediate access to detained individuals.

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into various sectors of the U.S. economy has ignited significant concern among labor unions. As AI technologies increasingly perform tasks traditionally done by humans, unions are advocating for protective measures to safeguard workers’ rights and job security. The fear is not unfounded; projections suggest that AI could eliminate up to 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, potentially raising U.S. unemployment to 20% by 2030.

Legislative Efforts and Union Advocacy

In response to the growing influence of AI in the workplace, labor unions are pushing for legislative reforms. The AFL-CIO emphasizes the need for policies that ensure AI benefits workers and does not undermine labor rights. Additionally, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act aims to strengthen workers’ rights to unionize and collectively bargain, which is crucial in the context of AI-driven workplace changes.

However, these efforts face significant political obstacles. For instance, California’s governor has twice vetoed bills that would ban autonomous trucks from public roads, despite intense lobbying from the state’s hundreds of thousands of union members. Similar battles are playing out in other states, highlighting the challenges unions face in enacting protective legislation.

How Various Industries are Being Impacted

AI’s impact is evident across multiple sectors. For instance, the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) has expressed concerns over automation at ports, fearing job losses due to AI-controlled machinery. Similarly, the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) initiated a strike in 2024 over the use of AI in replicating actors’ voices and likenesses without consent.

Moreover, the retail sector, employing more than a quarter of all U.S. workers, is experiencing a transformation into an AI-powered environment. In this new landscape, innocuous behavior can be criminalized, safety can be weaponized, and the ability to exercise one’s legally protected right to organize a union can be endangered.

Surveillance and Worker Autonomy

Beyond job displacement, unions are also addressing the increased surveillance capabilities enabled by AI. Retailers and other employers are deploying AI tools for monitoring employee behavior, raising concerns about privacy and autonomy in the workplace. Such surveillance can create a stressful working environment, reducing overall job satisfaction and increasing anxiety among employees.

In response, unions are advocating for transparency in AI implementation and legal safeguards to defend employee rights. They are pushing for a more inclusive dialogue that ensures workers have a voice in how AI is integrated, emphasizing the need for responsible and ethical AI adoption that does not sideline human labor.

A Final Note

As AI continues to reshape the labor landscape, U.S. unions are actively seeking protections to ensure that technological advancements do not come at the expense of workers’ rights and livelihoods. Through legislative advocacy and collective bargaining, unions aim to navigate the challenges posed by automation and secure a future where both innovation and labor can thrive.