>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“This post and story should be immediately retracted by ABC News for providing false information to intentionally alarm the American people. They wrote this based on one email that was sent to local law enforcement in California about a single, unverified tip. The email even states the tip was based on unverified intelligence. Yet ABC News left out this critical fact in their story! WHY? TO BE CLEAR: No such threat from Iran to our homeland exists, and it never did,” Leavitt wrote on X.
The dispute hinges largely on how the intelligence warning was presented. The initial version cited in the report read:
“We recently acquired information that as of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States Homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California, in the event that the US conducted strikes against Iran. We have no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators of this alleged attack.”
Yet officials say the statement originally began with a crucial qualifier: “We recently acquired unverified information…”—a phrase that dramatically changes the tone of the warning and indicates the tip had not been confirmed.
Even California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, attempted to tamp down fears, telling residents that authorities were closely monitoring potential threats but had seen nothing to suggest an imminent attack.
Newsom said state officials have teams dedicated to analyzing intelligence and coordinating with federal agencies to ensure California remains secure.
Meanwhile, the White House is also responding to a wave of criticism from some conservative voices who argue the administration has sent mixed signals regarding its military campaign against Iran.
Last week, Leavitt issued a lengthy public statement defending the administration’s messaging about the ongoing operation and outlining what she said were clear objectives behind the strikes.
Her remarks were partly directed at conservative commentator Matt Walsh, who questioned whether the administration had fully explained the purpose and scope of the conflict.
“Killing terrorists is good for America,” Leavitt said in a sharp X post in response to conservative podcaster and analyst Matt Walsh.
She went on to restate the goals of Operation Epic Fury, describing them as a decisive effort to dismantle Iran’s military capabilities and halt the influence of its proxy forces throughout the region.
“On Saturday, President Trump released a statement laying out clear objectives to the American people for Operation Epic Fury. Let me reiterate them: Destroy the Iranian regime’s missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. Annihilate the Iranian regime’s Navy. Ensure the regime’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces. Stop them from making and using IEDs or roadside bombs, which have gravely wounded and killed thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans. Guarantee that Iran can NEVER obtain a nuclear weapon,” Leavitt declared.
She continued with an even more forceful message defending the military operation.
“Preventing this radical regime and its terrorist leaders from threatening America and our core national security interests is a clear-eyed and necessary objective. Killing terrorists is good for America. 49 of the most senior Iranian regime leaders – including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – have already been wiped off the face of the Earth so far in the opening strikes of Operation Epic Fury,” she continued.
Leavitt also referenced another military action known as Operation Midnight Hammer, which she said had destroyed major components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
“Finally, while Operation Midnight Hammer did obliterate Iran’s major nuclear sites, the regime was fully committed to rebuilding their nuclear program, and they REFUSED to make a deal, despite months of extensive talks and good faith efforts by President Trump’s top negotiators. Simply put, the terrorist Iranian regime would not say yes to peace.”
She concluded by portraying the campaign as a long-overdue response to decades of hostility from Iran.
“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has actively and intentionally facilitated the killing of Americans while chanting ‘death to America’ and funding other bloodthirsty terrorists seeking to destroy the United States and all of Western Civilization. Prior American leaders were too weak and cowardly to do anything about it. Now, President Donald J. Trump is correcting decades of cowardice and holding those responsible for the deaths of Americans accountable. Their brutal attacks and threats will finally end under President Trump. America will win – the terrorists will be defeated,” Leavitt concluded.
Despite those explanations, Walsh and other commentators continue to question aspects of the administration’s messaging, including whether the strikes were meant as a preemptive measure or a retaliatory action.
Walsh also pointed to what he described as another inconsistency: if Iranian nuclear facilities were already “obliterated” last year, why officials are now presenting the dismantling of the nuclear program as a major objective of the current campaign.
For now, administration officials insist the goals are clear and that reports of Iranian drone attacks on California remain nothing more than unverified speculation.
