标签： North America

A fresh diplomatic and legal controversy has erupted between the United States and Iran after US authorities announced the arrest of two women they identify as the niece and grand-niece of deceased top Iranian military commander Gen Qasem Soleimani, alongside the revocation of their permanent resident status.

In an official statement released Saturday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter Sarinasadat Hosseiny had their lawful US green card status canceled, and are currently held in custody by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ahead of planned deportation proceedings. Taking to the social media platform X, Rubio further claimed the pair had been living a luxurious life in the US while holding legal permanent residency.

US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials outlined the pair’s immigration history to CBS News, the US partner of the BBC. Hamideh Soleimani Afshar first entered the US on a tourist visa in 2015, was granted asylum four years later in 2019, and secured her green card in 2021. When filing for naturalization in 2025, she disclosed that she had made four trips back to Iran since obtaining her permanent resident status. DHS argues that these repeated visits prove her original asylum application was obtained through fraud.

As for Sarinasadat Hosseiny, DHS records show she arrived in the US in 2015 on a student visa, followed the same asylum timeline as her mother in 2019, and received her green card just two years ago in 2023. The State Department has additionally labeled Hamideh Soleimani Afshar an open supporter of what it calls Iran’s “totalitarian, terrorist regime,” alleging she spreads state-backed Iranian propaganda through her personal social media accounts. Hamideh’s husband, who has not been publicly named by authorities, has also been barred from entering the US, per the statement.

However, the claims from US officials have been met with immediate and categorical denial from Soleimani’s biological daughter. Narjes Soleimani, whose father was killed in a 2020 US airstrike ordered by then-President Donald Trump, says the two detained women have no family connection to her late father at all, calling all of the State Department’s assertions completely false. In a sharp rebuke, Narjes Soleimani accused the US of fabricating lies against the iconic Iranian figure, claiming the moves show the US has become “weak and insignificant.”

Gen Qasem Soleimani was one of Iran’s most influential and powerful military leaders, heading the country’s elite Quds Force—the foreign operations arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps—and overseeing all Iranian military activity across the Middle East. He was killed in a targeted US airstrike at Baghdad International Airport in January 2020, alongside several leaders of Iran-aligned militias, a strike that sent already fraught US-Iran relations to a decades-long low.

The controversy comes as former President Trump, who authorized the 2020 strike, recently reiterated his position on the killing during a national address this Wednesday. “I killed Gen Qasem Soleimani in my first term. He was an evil genius, brilliant person, a horrible human being however, the father of the roadside bomb, and he lived just horrible, what he did,” Trump told attendees. He added that he believes Iran would be in a much stronger military position in its ongoing regional conflict if Soleimani were still alive today.

The BBC reached out to the US State Department to request additional context and comment on the arrests, but a department spokesperson said it had no further statement to add on the matter.

The recent downing of a U.S. F-15 Eagle fighter jet over Iranian territory has upended weeks of bold claims from the Trump administration about American military dominance in the region, leaving one of the two crew members unaccounted for and throwing the already volatile conflict between Washington and Tehran into a dangerous new phase.

Prior to the incident, President Donald Trump insisted Iran’s air defense capabilities had been so severely degraded that it could not effectively challenge American aircraft operating in its airspace. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth doubled down on this assertion, declaring the U.S. had secured total air superiority over Iran. Friday’s shootdown, however, delivers a major setback to these claims, proving that Iran retains at least limited capacity to defend its sovereign airspace against incursions.

The situation grew increasingly tense after it emerged that the U.S. national security team spent much of Thursday briefing the president in the White House West Wing on a search-and-rescue mission that itself came under fire from Iranian forces. While U.S. media reports indicate both crew members sustained injuries but managed to escape Iranian territorial airspace, one remains missing, and both U.S. and Iranian forces are now locked in a urgent race to locate him.

According to BBC sourcing, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has launched a widespread search operation, deploying military troops and enlisting local communities with a $66,000 reward offered for capturing the missing weapons systems officer alive.

Publicly, President Trump has sought to downplay the incident, arguing it will not derail ongoing negotiations with Tehran aimed at ending the conflict that began with joint U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. Privately, however, U.S. officials are said to view the missing airman’s fate as a major strategic and political risk.

If Iranian forces capture the American service member, the implications for the conflict could be far-reaching. At a minimum, it would represent a significant political embarrassment for the Trump White House. Iran could also choose to parade the captured airman for propaganda purposes, echoing the traumatic 1979-1981 Iran hostage crisis that saw 52 American diplomats held captive for 444 days. That crisis left deep, lasting political scars on the United States, and was only resolved after Washington lifted key sanctions and unfroze nearly $8 billion in Iranian assets.

Decades later, the legacy of past hostage crises continues to shape U.S. policy. Successive U.S. administrations have gone to extreme lengths to secure the release of detained Americans, sometimes through tactics that sparked fierce political backlash. In 2014, for example, the Obama administration exchanged five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo Bay for U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, who had been captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan five years earlier. Critics of the deal argued it created a dangerous incentive for future militant groups to take American hostages.

The possible capture of the missing F-15 crew member presents the Trump administration with two starkly different paths forward. On one hand, political pressure would almost certainly mount on the president to order aggressive new military escalation in response to the capture. On the other hand, the situation could also create an opening to pause ongoing strikes and pursue quiet backchannel diplomacy to secure the airman’s release. Either way, if Iran gains custody of the American and uses him as a bargaining chip, it will amount to one of the most serious tests of the Trump administration’s handling of the conflict to date.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have offered prayers for the missing airman and voiced support for U.S. forces, but new political divides have already emerged. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace reiterated her call for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region, arguing “it is far past time we bring troops home.” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, meanwhile, called on Iran to comply with international law in its treatment of any captured U.S. service member.

Across the U.S. political spectrum, there is growing anxiety over the safety of American personnel deployed to the region, especially amid growing speculation about a potential full-scale ground invasion of Iran. Broad public and political opposition to another open-ended “forever war” and further American casualties has been a consistent undercurrent of the conflict, a dynamic that is only amplified by the current crisis.

The incident comes as President Trump has repeated his ultimatum that Iran must agree to a new deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz by Monday, April 6, or face devastating new strikes targeting Iranian energy infrastructure, which he has described as bringing “hell” to Tehran. The president’s deadlines have shifted repeatedly in recent weeks, even as he has claimed ongoing talks with Tehran are “very good” and “productive” — claims Iranian officials have flatly denied.

With the U.S. continuing to build up its military presence in the Persian Gulf, Trump openly warning of more American casualties in coming weeks, and new strikes already being promised, all indicators point to a significant escalation of the conflict that is already well underway. The fate of the missing airman has only added a new, unpredictable variable to what is already one of the most dangerous confrontations in the Middle East in decades.

A controversial new provision in the Trump administration’s 2027 fiscal budget request has sparked fierce political debate across California, as the White House seeks $152 million to restart operations at one of America’s most infamous correctional facilities: Alcatraz Island.

Perched just off the coast of San Francisco, within view of the iconic Golden Gate Bridge, Alcatraz—widely nicknamed “The Rock”—has held a unique place in American popular culture for decades. First built as a coastal naval defense fort in the 1800s, the site was converted first into a military prison, then into a maximum-security federal prison in the 1930s under the U.S. Department of Justice. For nearly 30 years, it held some of the nation’s most notorious criminals, including gang kingpin Al Capone, organized crime leader Mickey Cohen, and Prohibition-era outlaw George “Machine Gun” Kelly. The site’s remote location and brutal conditions made it nearly impossible to escape, cementing its reputation as the most feared prison in the country.

Alcatraz’s operational costs far outpaced those of other federal facilities, however. By 1963, the Bureau of Prisons confirmed running the island prison cost three times more than any comparable mainland facility, in large part due to the lack of natural infrastructure: the island has no native running water or permanent sewage system, meaning all supplies and waste must be shipped in and out by boat. It was permanently decommissioned as a prison that year, and turned over to the National Park Service to operate as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Today, it is one of San Francisco’s most popular tourist landmarks, drawing millions of visitors each year and generating roughly $60 million in annual tourism revenue for the region. It has also been featured in dozens of major Hollywood films, including *Escape from Alcatraz* starring Clint Eastwood and *The Rock* starring Sean Connery and Nicolas Cage.

The Trump administration’s proposal would reverse that decades-long status. The $152 million request would cover the first year of construction costs to “rebuild Alcatraz as a state-of-the-art secure prison facility,” and is part of a broader $1.7 billion investment package for the Bureau of Prisons. President Trump first announced the plan on his social media platform Truth Social last year, stating he was directing the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security to collaborate on a “substantially enlarged and rebuilt ALCATRAZ” that would “house America’s most ruthless and violent offenders.”

The proposal has faced immediate, fierce pushback from Democratic politicians in California, who have raised a host of practical, financial, and cultural objections to the plan. House Democratic leader and longtime California representative Nancy Pelosi called the proposal “absurd on its face and should be rejected outright.” In a statement, Pelosi argued that “rebuilding Alcatraz into a modern prison is a stupid notion that would be nothing more than a waste of taxpayer dollars and an insult to the intelligence of the American people.” Pelosi and other local politicians also warned that converting the island back into an active prison would permanently eliminate one of the Bay Area’s most iconic tourist landmarks, cutting off millions in annual economic revenue.

Beyond the loss of tourism, critics point to long-standing structural challenges that led to Alcatraz’s original closure 62 years ago, which remain unresolved. The island still lacks any natural source of running water or a permanent, modern sewage system, requiring all infrastructure for the facility to be built from scratch at massive extra cost. Unlike the 1960s, modern environmental regulations would also add billions in unaccounted-for costs to the project, critics say, making the final price tag far higher than the Trump administration’s initial estimate. Even if construction is completed, ongoing operational costs will still dwarf those of any mainland federal prison, as all food, fuel, staff, and supplies must be ferried to the island daily.

Before the plan can move forward, it must first receive full approval from the U.S. Congress, where Democratic leaders have already signaled they intend to block the provision. While the proposal is popular with some conservative voters who frame Alcatraz as a symbol of harsh justice for violent crime, it remains deeply unpopular with California voters, local leaders, and the tourism industry that relies on the landmark for thousands of local jobs.

WASHINGTON D.C. – In a move that lays bare the core governing priorities of the current presidential administration, the White House Office of Management and Budget formally released its 2027 fiscal year budget proposal on Friday, April 4, 2026. The proposal’s centerpiece is a 44 percent jump in national defense spending, bringing the total defense topline to a historic $1.5 trillion.

White House Budget Director Russell Vought framed the massive defense allocation as a deliberate expansion of the administration’s previous defense investment strategy, noting the plan builds on the prior $1 trillion historic defense spending cap to deliver the much larger figure for 2027. Alongside the dramatic increase in military funding, the proposal advances the president’s stated policy agenda by imposing strict constraints on non-defense federal spending, calling for an overall 10 percent cut to domestic program budgets compared to 2026 spending levels.

Speaking at a White House event earlier that week, President Donald Trump emphasized that boosting defense outlays is a top priority for his administration, arguing that many domestic responsibilities – including public health and social support programs – should be transferred to individual state governments. “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of day care. You got to let a state take care of day care, and they should pay for it too,” Trump stated during the gathering.

The proposed cuts reach across a wide range of domestic policy areas. Beyond reductions to public health programs, the budget would slash funding for refugee resettlement initiatives, renewable energy development projects, federal university research grants, and affordable housing assistance programs, among other domestic services.

Policy analysts widely note that a presidential annual budget functions primarily as a policy blueprint that outlines the administration’s governing priorities, rather than a binding final plan. Ultimate authority over all federal spending rests with the U.S. Congress, which will review the proposal, amend its provisions, and pass its own appropriations bills to set final government spending levels for the 2027 fiscal year.

Weeks after the United States and Israel launched joint military strikes against Iran on February 28, American households across the country are already confronting the steep economic and political fallout of the conflict, as surging consumer prices deepen public discontent and widen long-simmering divides within the U.S. political landscape.

At a Costco gas station in Houston’s Bunker Hill neighborhood on March 28, Roselyn, a clinic nurse filling up her vehicle, recorded a striking marker of inflation pressure: premium gasoline was selling for $4.27 per gallon, a $1 per gallon jump from the day the strikes began. That increase marks a 32% rise from the pre-conflict baseline of roughly $3.23 per gallon. For Roselyn, who identifies as politically independent and opposes the war, the price hike has compounded existing financial stress for working households.

She questioned why the federal government is funneling billions into the conflict even as millions of American families struggle to make ends meet, adding that many of her patients have reported skyrocketing medical costs. Out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for these patients have doubled or even quadrupled in recent weeks, she said. The strain is not limited to fuel and healthcare costs, either. Retired former teacher Miller, who lives in the Houston area, told reporters that he and his wife have already noticed gradual price increases for grocery staples, and a prolonged conflict is expected to push costs even higher. In response to rising travel prices, the couple is now weighing whether to cancel their fall cruise vacation.

Roselyn and Miller are far from outliers in their anxiety and opposition. Recent independent polling confirms broad national disapproval of both the war and the Biden (Trump) administration’s handling of the conflict. A late-March survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 61% of respondents disapprove of President Trump’s management of the Iran conflict, with just 37% voicing approval. Nearly 60% of respondents said launching military action against Iran was the wrong policy decision, compared to only 38% who called it the right choice. Forty percent of those polled said they believe the war will leave the United States less safe over the long term, while just 22% expect it to improve national security.

A separate mid-March poll conducted by CBS and YouGov, which surveyed 3,300 U.S. adults, found that 68% of respondents said the administration has failed to clearly articulate the core goals of the Iran strikes. A majority of respondents also said they do not view Iran as an imminent threat to the United States, and do not see regime change in Iran as a priority that serves U.S. national interests.

The conflict has also sharpened already stark partisan divides across the political spectrum. Among self-identified Republican voters, 79% approve of the administration’s handling of the war, while 92% of Democratic voters express disapproval. The support is even more solid among Trump’s most loyal base: roughly 90% of MAGA Republicans back the ongoing military action.

Beyond partisan divides, the conflict has exposed a growing generational rift even within Trump’s own conservative coalition. Older Republican voters overwhelmingly back the president’s decision, but many younger conservative activists say they feel betrayed by a move that contradicts the “America First” foreign policy Trump campaigned on.

The split was on full display at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference held in Texas, the Associated Press reported. Younger attendees told reporters they felt “disappointment and even betrayal” over the strikes, while older conservative attendees defended the action as a pragmatic response to long-standing threats to U.S. national security.

“We did not want to see more wars,” Benjamin Williams, a 25-year-old marketing specialist with Young Americans for Liberty based in Austin, Texas, told the AP. “We wanted actual America-first policies, and Trump was very explicit about that” during his election campaign.

With near-unified Democratic opposition already well established, growing public fractures among prominent Republican and conservative officials and policy experts have drawn increased national attention. On March 17, Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center and a one-time loyalist to Trump, resigned from his post in protest of the conflict.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote in a social media post announcing his departure. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

The divide over the war also extends to foreign policy elites and academic experts. Proponents of the strikes argue that a weakened Iranian regime will deliver substantial long-term benefits to U.S. national security and economic interests. Saeed Ghasseminejad, a senior Iran and financial economics adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued that building a strategic partnership with a post-conflict democratic Iran could generate more than $1 trillion in revenue for U.S. companies over the next decade, with the energy sector alone producing $300 billion in non-ownership revenue for American firms.

Critics, however, have widely questioned the legal and strategic rationale for the conflict, with many labeling it an unnecessary “war of choice.” Tom Ginsburg, an international law scholar at the University of Chicago, told the university’s newspaper in mid-March that there is no credible evidence Iran was preparing an imminent attack on Israel or U.S. military installations in the Middle East.

“I have not seen any legal justification for the war. That’s not surprising, but it should be disturbing,” Ginsburg said. “It suggests that there is no conception of any restraint in using force abroad.”

Panelists at a recent University of Chicago foreign policy discussion reached a broad consensus that the U.S. failed to consult key European and Gulf allies before launching the strikes, a misstep that has left many major allies unwilling to offer full backing for the U.S. effort. Paul Poast, an associate professor of political science at the university, noted that instead of building a broad international coalition to support the action, the unilateral U.S. approach has fostered hesitation and even open distrust among traditional partners. Many U.S. allies, particularly those that host American military bases and have faced past Iranian aggression, are now questioning Washington’s reliability and decision-making process, Poast added.

Critics have also pointed to the administration’s mixed messaging as evidence that it lacks a clear endgame for the conflict. President Trump has sent contradictory signals in recent weeks, floating the possibility of deploying U.S. ground troops into Iran one day before suggesting American forces would withdraw from the region very soon.

The cost of the conflict is already mounting at a staggering rate: Pentagon officials told members of Congress during a recent closed-door briefing that the first six days of strikes cost U.S. taxpayers more than $11.3 billion. Independent analyses from groups including the Center for American Progress estimate that by late March, the ongoing conflict was costing between $25 billion and $30 billion in federal spending every month.