标签： North America

For the first time in 16 years, the United States is set to put three condemned inmates to death on a single day this Thursday, a milestone that underscores a dramatic nationwide resurgence of capital punishment following years of declining use. The three men, each convicted of murder in separate states, face execution across three jurisdictions: 66-year-old Anthony Darrell Hines in Tennessee, 41-year-old Jeremy Williams in Alabama, and 71-year-old Carlos Cuesta-Rodriguez in Oklahoma. All three are scheduled to receive lethal injections, carrying out what death penalty experts call the most rapid increase in executions the U.S. has seen in decades.

In 2025, the total number of executions across the country jumped to more than four times the figure recorded in 2021, even as public confidence in capital punishment has eroded and juries have become increasingly hesitant to hand down death sentences. The reversal of a years-long downward trend has been driven by policy changes at both the federal and state levels, with political leaders leaning into public support for tough-on-crime policies to expand access to capital punishment.

At the federal level, former President Donald Trump, a lifelong vocal proponent of the death penalty, has reshaped the national landscape since returning to office in 2025. During his first term in 2020, Trump ended a 19-year federal moratorium on executions, authorizing 13 executions over a six-month window before President Biden reinstated the moratorium upon taking office. On the first day of his second term, Trump signed a sweeping executive order that formally reinstated the federal death penalty. While no federal executions have been carried out to date under the new order, the policy has created structural changes that have empowered state-level execution efforts.

Trump’s administration has also expanded permitted methods of execution to include firing squads alongside reauthorizing traditional lethal injection, while streamlining internal Department of Justice protocols to speed up the processing of death penalty cases. The executive order further encourages states to pursue capital punishment for any federal crime that results in the death of a law enforcement officer, and directs the attorney general to secure a steady supply of lethal injection drugs for states, removing a longstanding barrier that had slowed execution rates across much of the country.

Justin Mazzola, deputy research director at Amnesty International USA, a group that opposes capital punishment, noted that the full long-term impact of Trump’s policy changes will not be visible for years, due to the extended timeline of capital cases and the multilayered appeals process that follows most death convictions.

State-level policy shifts have driven the bulk of the recent increase, however. In 2025 alone, 11 states carried out 47 executions, up from 25 in 2024. Nearly 40 percent of all 2025 executions took place in Florida, making the Sunshine State the single largest contributor to the national rise. Through the first half of 2026, 12 of the country’s 19 total executions have occurred in Florida.

Experts point directly to Republican Governor Ron DeSantis as the driving force behind Florida’s outlier status. “He is the reason we are seeing a record number of executions. He is the reason why Florida is an outlier compared to the rest of the United States,” explained Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), a nonpartisan organization that compiles death penalty data and research without taking a formal moral stance on the practice.

Under DeSantis, Florida has passed sweeping legislation that lowers barriers to carrying out death sentences. In 2023, the state changed its jury rule to require just 8 out of 12 jurors to recommend a death sentence, down from a previous requirement of a unanimous jury vote. The state also added sexual battery of a child under 12 years old to the list of crimes eligible for capital punishment. DeSantis has repeatedly framed the death penalty as a critical crime deterrent and a just punishment for the most serious offenses.

Unlike most U.S. states with capital punishment, Florida grants its governor unilateral authority to sign death warrants for inmates who have exhausted all their appeals, with no required court oversight. While Pennsylvania has a similar process on the books, it has not carried out an execution since 1999, making Florida’s active use of this authority unique in modern practice.

Proponents of capital punishment in Florida argue that the changes align with public will and hold violent offenders accountable. “The people that engage in this type of conduct, their punishment is frankly earned, and it’s up to a jury of 12 to determine if that sentence is appropriate or not,” William Sheiner, a Florida state attorney, told local media recently. “Just because I pursue death as an option doesn’t mean that that’s going to be the sentence. It’s basically me saying to the community: this is up to you guys to decide if death is appropriate.”

Today, 27 of the 50 U.S. states retain capital punishment under state law, though four of those – California, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania – have imposed formal moratoriums on executions via executive action, amid ongoing concerns over botched procedures, racial disparities in sentencing, and the high cost of death penalty cases. The U.S. remains one of the only Western nations that still actively uses capital punishment, with most European countries having abolished the practice decades ago and many African nations moving toward phasing it out.

Debates over capital punishment have increasingly centered on the logistics of executions themselves, as major pharmaceutical companies have blocked the use of their drugs for lethal injections, creating widespread supply shortages across the country. In response, several states have authorized alternative methods including firing squads, with South Carolina carrying out its first firing squad execution in 2025 amid a drug shortage.

Botched executions remain a persistent and contentious issue. DPIC data estimates that roughly 3 percent of all U.S. executions between 1890 and 2010 were botched, with lethal injection having the highest failure rate of any method. In 2022, more than one-third of all executions carried out that year were classified as botched or highly problematic by the organization. Most recently, in May 2026, Tennessee officials spent more than an hour unsuccessfully attempting to establish IV access for death row inmate Tony Von Carruthers, with witnesses reporting Carruthers groaned repeatedly in pain as blood ran down his chest. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee granted Carruthers a one-year reprieve after the failed attempt, though he has refused to classify the incident as a botched execution, framing it only as a failure to establish IV access.

It remains unclear whether all three scheduled executions this Thursday will proceed as planned, or if last-minute legal challenges or reprieves will alter the timeline. Hines, the Tennessee inmate scheduled for execution, has maintained his innocence for 40 years and is currently bedridden; he is set to be executed under the same lethal injection protocol that failed for Carruthers just 12 weeks ago.

In Alabama, Williams, convicted of the 2021 rape and murder of a 5-year-old girl, has voluntarily dismissed his attorneys and chosen not to pursue further appeals, volunteering for execution. Governor Kay Ivey has already stated she will not grant clemency, making him set to become Alabama’s first executed inmate of 2026. In Oklahoma, Cuesta-Rodriguez, convicted of the 2003 murder of a woman, has also declined to request clemency, though experts note his advanced age increases the risk of a problematic execution.

The scheduled triple execution comes at a time of steadily declining public support for capital punishment nationwide. A 2026 Gallup poll found that just 52 percent of Americans now view the death penalty as morally acceptable, the lowest recorded level since the 1970s. This declining public support is reflected in the dropping number of death sentences handed down by juries: while juries issued more than 300 death sentences annually nationwide in the 1990s, they issued just 23 in all of 2025.

“That tells us something very important: These are regular citizens that are sitting in judgment of people who are accused of committing the worst possible crimes, and then deciding what sentence fits those crimes,” Maher said. “Those juries are increasingly saying that a death sentence is not the right answer.”

Maya Foa, CEO of Reprieve US, a legal organization opposed to the death penalty, added that the current surge in executions runs counter to public sentiment and practical policy needs. “It’s the opposite of a cheap easy political fix,” Foa said.

A grassroots petition demanding the expulsion of the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, has garnered more than 60,000 signatures from Canadian citizens, amplifying growing public anger over what signatories frame as unacceptable interference in the country’s domestic politics amid high-stakes bilateral trade negotiations.

Launched by a Calgary-based resident, the online document accuses Hoekstra, a known Republican ally of former U.S. President Donald Trump, of repeatedly inserting himself into Canadian political debates. A core grievance highlighted in the petition is Hoekstra’s role in normalizing Trump-era rhetoric that framed Canada as a potential 51st U.S. state, a threat that many Canadians see as a fundamental violation of national sovereignty. The petition also raises alarm over unapproved meetings between U.S. State Department officials and separatist activists from Alberta, a province that has long had internal tensions with the federal Canadian government, calling those meetings a deliberate intrusion into Canada’s internal affairs. Beyond calling for Hoekstra’s immediate removal from his diplomatic post, the document demands a formal parliamentary inquiry into broader patterns of U.S. diplomatic interference in Canadian domestic politics.

This high-profile public push comes at a critical moment, as Canadian and U.S. trade negotiators race to broker a last-minute agreement before new sweeping U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods go into effect next Wednesday. The tariffs, proposed by Trump last month, would impose a 50% levy on an estimated $20 billion to $28 billion worth of Canadian exports, retaliation for what Trump claims is unfair treatment of U.S. cars, dairy, and alcohol in cross-border trade. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has already issued a stark warning that Canada will implement reciprocal retaliatory measures if the tariffs are enforced, raising the stakes for both sides to reach a compromise. Canadian media outlets have reported that an interim deal could be finalized in the coming days, though negotiations remain tense.

Hoekstra’s tenure in Ottawa has been marked by repeated controversy, far from the quiet diplomacy expected of a cross-border envoy. He has openly defended Trump’s aggressive trade policies, framing them as critical to protecting U.S. national economic security and prosperity, while also acknowledging that the bilateral U.S.-Canada relationship is irreplaceably important. Past controversies include a public clash with Ontario’s top trade representative, widespread backlash after he reposted Trump’s 51st state comment and told reporters that the idea was a “great discussion to be had” for leaders of both countries, and criticism last year for inviting a prominent leader of the 2022 Freedom Convoy protest movement to the U.S. embassy’s official Fourth of July celebration. More recently, Hoekstra has publicly called out Canadian political rhetoric as “anti-American” and repeatedly pushed back against provincial policies that removed American alcohol from retail store shelves, a dispute that has become a major sticking point in the ongoing trade negotiations.

When contacted by the BBC, a spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa confirmed that embassy leadership was aware of the petition but declined to provide any further comment. The petition is set to be formally tabled in the Canadian House of Commons later this year by Elizabeth May, leader of Canada’s Green Party, and the BBC has reached out to May’s office for additional comment on the effort.

Under existing House of Commons rules, any petition submitted by a Canadian resident that is approved by a sitting member of parliament is published on the parliament’s official website. If a petition gathers at least 500 valid signatures, it must be formally presented to the full chamber and requires an official written response from the Canadian federal government. While most parliamentary petitions only draw a few hundred signatures and gain little public attention, this initiative far surpassed the threshold by Wednesday morning, amassing more than 100 times the required number of signatures to force formal parliamentary consideration. The unprecedented level of public support for the petition reflects deep-seated Canadian public frustration with U.S. policy toward the country at a time of unprecedented strain on the decades-long bilateral trade and security relationship.

A startling revelation has emerged from US media detailing a carefully orchestrated secret security operation during former US President Donald Trump’s visit to Turkey last month, which saw two of his top cabinet officials unwittingly remain on a decoy aircraft while Trump slipped away on a separate plane. According to a report from CBS News, a partner of the BBC in the United States, the elaborate ruse was launched over heightened security threats linked to Iran. The operation, which unfolded on July 8, started as expected: Trump entered the aircraft widely assumed to be Air Force One alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, members of the White House staff, and the press pool. But what looked like a routine departure was actually a carefully planned diversion. Instead of staying on board, Trump secretly exited the aircraft via a catering truck, which transported him covertly to a pre-positioned military aircraft that would carry him to his destination. The term “Air Force One” is technically a call sign assigned to any United States Air Force aircraft carrying the sitting US president, and in this unusual scenario, the original aircraft retained the call sign even after Trump left, cementing its role as a working decoy. CBS sources have confirmed that the decision to leave Rubio and Bessent on the decoy plane was not a random choice, but a deliberate move to preserve the constitutional line of presidential succession. Under US law, if the sitting president were to die or become incapacitated while in office, power transfers first to Vice President JD Vance, followed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Secretary of State, and finally the Secretary of the Treasury. By leaving the fourth and fifth in the line of succession on the decoy craft, administration officials ensured that even if the plane carrying Trump were attacked or suffered a catastrophic incident, the chain of presidential authority would remain unbroken. Alongside the two top cabinet secretaries, two other senior White House officials also remained on the decoy plane: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and White House Communications Director Steven Cheung. As of this report, the White House has not yet issued an official statement on the disclosure, and the BBC confirmed it has reached out to White House press officials to request comment on the incident. The unpublicized operation has drawn attention to the intense security protocols that surround US presidential travel, particularly during visits to regions where threats from state and non-state actors remain elevated.

In a revealing press interaction with reporters, former U.S. President Donald Trump has publicly confirmed details of an unplanned security adjustment that unfolded during his departure from a NATO summit held in Turkey late last month: a last-minute, covert swap of his official aircraft that was triggered by intelligence pointing to a potential security threat.

The disclosure, which was captured on video by multiple press outlets in attendance, marks the first time Trump has spoken on the record about the incident, which was previously only the subject of unconfirmed anonymous reporting in mainstream media outlets. When pressed by journalists to explain the unusual decision to deviate from standard presidential travel protocol, Trump confirmed that the sudden plane change was not a spontaneous personal choice, but a precautionary measure taken after security teams flagged a possible threat targeting his travel party.

The NATO summit in question brought together alliance leaders and representatives from member states to discuss a range of critical transatlantic security priorities, from ongoing defense spending commitments to evolving threats along NATO’s eastern flank and regional stability in the Middle East. The unplanned security incident added an unexpected layer of tension to an already high-stakes diplomatic gathering, prompting a rapid response from U.S. Secret Service personnel on the ground to coordinate the aircraft swap without disrupting the broader summit schedule.

As of the latest updates, no additional details about the nature or source of the potential threat have been released, with security officials citing ongoing operational confidentiality to protect ongoing investigations and the safety of the former president. Trump’s confirmation of the incident has drawn new attention to the complex security protocols that surround high-ranking U.S. officials during international travel, and the flexibility that security teams maintain to respond rapidly to emerging risks.

For most people, Air Force One – the iconic flying fortress that serves as the mobile office and residence of the sitting United States president – remains a mythic symbol of American executive power, rarely glimpsed up close by the general public. But for a small pool of journalists assigned to cover the commander-in-chief’s travel, stepping on board the modified Boeing 747 is a rare behind-the-scenes look at how a president operates on the move. In a firsthand exploration of this exclusive experience, BBC chief correspondent Tom Bateman has pulled back the curtain on what life is really like for reporters traveling alongside former President Donald Trump aboard the famous aircraft.

Unlike the carefully choreographed public appearances that shape most voters’ perception of presidential campaigns and official travel, life on Air Force One offers a uniquely unfiltered vantage point, Bateman explains. The press corps is typically confined to a designated section of the plane, separated from the president’s private quarters and senior staff offices by locked bulkheads, but the close proximity of the aircraft creates unexpected opportunities for off-the-cuff interactions that never happen on the ground. During Trump’s tenure, reporters often found the former president willing to stop and answer unscripted questions as he walked through the press cabin, leaning in to make his case on everything from policy disputes to personal feuds, creating a far more informal dynamic than many observers expect.

Bateman details the rhythms of life on board: the constant hum of jet engines that drowns out casual conversation, the unlimited servings of free food and soda that become a running joke among the traveling press, the nonstop work of filing reports and updating stories while bouncing through turbulence at 35,000 feet. What stands out most, he notes, is the distinct culture that shaped Trump’s travels. Unlike previous administrations that often maintained a more formal distance between the president and the press pool, Trump regularly used access to Air Force One as a tool to shape media narratives, inviting reporters into his office for one-on-one interviews or holding impromptu press conferences mid-flight that generated headlines around the world.

Even for experienced political correspondents who have covered multiple presidents, Bateman says traveling on Air Force One with Trump remains a one-of-a-kind experience, offering a raw, unvarnished look at how the 45th president operated away from the carefully staged rallies and scripted speeches that defined his public persona. For the press corps, it is both a professional perk and a relentless work environment, where every offhand comment can become a breaking news story, and the close quarters create a unique shared experience between the president and the journalists who cover him.

In an upset that has shaken expectations across the U.S. Democratic Party, centrist candidate David Crowley has claimed a narrow victory in Wisconsin’s Democratic gubernatorial primary, ending a months-long winning streak for progressive and left-wing candidates across the nation.

With nearly all ballots counted in the Midwestern U.S. state, early Wednesday projections from CBS News – the BBC’s data partner – confirm Crowley, the Milwaukee County chief executive officer, edged out democratic socialist challenger Francesca Hong, a sitting Wisconsin state assemblywoman. The result defied widespread expert predictions: political pundits across the country had widely expected Hong to extend the left’s undefeated primary run, which had already left national Democratic leadership in Washington scrambling to adjust to a shifting party base.

Crowley’s path to the nomination was anything but conventional. Just one month before the primary, he briefly dropped out of the crowded race to endorse a rival candidate, only to re-enter the contest shortly after with the public backing of incumbent Democratic Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers. In a post-election statement shared on X Wednesday morning, Crowley struck an optimistic, unifying tone, saying, “It’s time to get to work for the people of Wisconsin.” He outlined his core policy priorities as bringing down cost of living for working families, strengthening public K-12 and higher education institutions, creating accessible high-wage jobs, and expanding economic opportunity to every region of the state, from rural communities to urban centers.

This November, Crowley will go head-to-head against Republican nominee Tom Tiffany, a sitting U.S. Congressman who cruised to an easy primary victory earlier this week and holds the public endorsement of former President Donald Trump. Like Crowley, Tiffany has centered his campaign on affordability issues, running on a conservative platform that includes across-the-board tax cuts, expanded support for Wisconsin’s agricultural sector, and targeted reforms to the U.S. healthcare system. The Wisconsin gubernatorial race is widely expected to be one of the most competitive contests on the ballot this fall, as part of national midterm elections that will determine control of the entire U.S. House of Representatives and one-third of the U.S. Senate, shaping the trajectory of national policy for the next two years.

Hong, a former chef and single mother who was positioned to become the first democratic socialist to lead Wisconsin, entered election day as the perceived frontrunner in the crowded Democratic primary field. But her campaign faced sustained scrutiny over past controversial remarks, including comments on police department funding and the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, portions of which she later retracted. Notably, two of the nation’s most high-profile progressive leaders – Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – declined to endorse Hong, breaking their pattern of backing insurgent left-wing candidates in crowded primaries. By early Wednesday, AP News confirmed Hong had formally conceded the race to Crowley, with her campaign manager releasing a statement saying she remained “proud of the race we ran.”

The upset win for Crowley brings a halt to what had become a consistent winning streak for left-wing and democratic socialist-aligned candidates in Democratic primaries across the country this election cycle. Backed by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), these candidates have run on dual platforms: opposing the core policy goals of the Republican Party, while also challenging the centrist status quo that has dominated national Democratic leadership in Washington in recent years. Many have also centered their campaigns on calls to cut or eliminate U.S. military funding for Israel amid its ongoing military operation in Gaza, a position that has resonated with a growing share of Democratic primary voters.

Just one week before the Wisconsin primary, Abdul El-Sayed, a prominent progressive, scored an upset win over centrist incumbent Congresswoman Haley Stevens in Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate primary. In June, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a progressive Democrat, endorsed three progressive challengers for U.S. House seats in the state, all three of whom won their primaries. Those wins included unseating two sitting Democratic lawmakers and defeating the hand-picked successor of a retiring centrist congresswoman.

In addition to the Wisconsin gubernatorial primary, contests were held across Wisconsin and neighboring Minnesota on Tuesday. In a separate development out of South Carolina, Darline Graham Nordone advanced to a late-August Republican primary runoff for a special U.S. Senate election, called following the recent death of her brother, longtime incumbent Senator Lindsey Graham. Nordone will face Democratic candidate Annie Andrews in the general election to fill the remaining term of the vacant seat.

In a startling confirmation to reporters this Tuesday, former President Donald Trump has acknowledged that he was part of an elaborate last-minute plane swap during his departure from last month’s NATO summit in Turkey, arranged by the United States Secret Service and military in response to a verified potential security threat.

“I follow the guidance of the Secret Service and the military. They instructed me to take a different flight on a different aircraft,” Trump stated. “I have no choice but to comply with their directions.”

This public confirmation comes after weeks of media reports detailing the complex ruse pulled off on July 8 at Ankara’s international airport. According to multiple official and media accounts, Trump was filmed by television cameras boarding the standard Air Force One presidential jet, in line with his earlier announcement that he would depart on the older aircraft “for old time’s sake” after arriving in Turkey aboard a newer Boeing 747-8 provided by Qatar.

What cameras and most people on site did not see, however, was Trump slipping off the opposite side of the jet onto a catering truck that was elevated to the plane’s entry level. He was then covertly transported to a smaller C-32A military aircraft, a modified Boeing 757 that is most commonly used by the U.S. vice president, to depart the country. To maintain the illusion that Trump remained on the original Air Force One, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boarded the C-32A separately via external stairs to keep the flight operating under a routine appearance.

Most journalists accompanying the presidential delegation and even several White House staff members were kept completely in the dark about the switch. After boarding the decoy Air Force One, they were instructed to close their window shades, leaving them unaware that the commander-in-chief was no longer on the aircraft with them.

Multiple U.S. officials, speaking to CBS News—BBC’s U.S. partner—confirmed that the unprecedented security move was triggered after American intelligence detected a credible threat from Iran to launch a missile strike against the presidential aircraft. This development comes one day after the U.S. resumed targeted military strikes on Iranian positions, following the total collapse of negotiations between Washington and Tehran aimed at ending ongoing hostilities between the two nations.

The secret plane swap has sparked public debate over potential risks, with questions raised about whether the personnel left on the decoy Air Force One were unknowingly placed in danger. But Trump pushed back against these concerns on Tuesday, emphasizing that the alternate military jet he ultimately departed on faced the greater risk.

This is not the first time Trump has framed himself as a top target for Iran. During the NATO summit itself, he publicly stated that he was Iran’s “number one target” for attack.

A recently uncovered security operation has pulled back the curtain on the persistent personal threat Iran poses to former and current US President Donald Trump, highlighting the deeply personal stakes at the heart of the six-month ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran. New details have emerged showing that last month, following the NATO summit held in Ankara, Turkey, Trump orchestrated an elaborate decoy operation that saw him secretly switch to an unmarked alternate aircraft rather than travel aboard the iconic Air Force One 747, leaving most of the press pool and White House staff aboard the standard presidential jet as a deliberate diversion.

Multiple US officials with knowledge of the operation have confirmed the extreme measures were taken in direct response to credible intelligence indicating Iran planned to launch a missile strike targeting Air Force One during its departure from Turkey. To complete the ruse, Trump was transported between locations and to the alternate aircraft inside an unmarked catering truck, a detail that has drawn sharp scrutiny given Trump’s long public focus on projecting unmatched strength against Iran.

The revelation adds new context to long-documented tensions between Trump and the Iranian leadership, stretching back to his first term in office. In February 2026, a joint Israeli airstrike carried out with US approval and coordination killed Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei alongside multiple other top Iranian officials. Just one day after the strike, Trump acknowledged the personal nature of the conflict in a private phone call with ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl, saying: “I got him before he got me. They tried twice. Well, I got him first.”

Trump has not repeated those blunt remarks publicly in the six months since the strike began, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed the framing in March comments, telling reporters: “Iran tried to kill President Trump, and President Trump got the last laugh.” Hegseth also noted that the Iranian commander who allegedly led the assassination plot targeting Trump had been killed in subsequent US strikes.

Security experts note that extraordinary secret travel measures are not unprecedented for US presidents traveling in or near active conflict zones; past commanders-in-chief have made unannounced secret trips to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine under heavy secrecy. However, this operation marks a historic first: no prior president has implemented such a full-scale decoy ruse without at least notifying major press outlets ahead of time, under embargo agreements that delay publication until the president is safely out of range.

Political analysts argue the months-long secrecy surrounding the Ankara operation was at least partially driven by a desire to protect Trump’s public image. The president has repeatedly claimed that Iran’s military has been thoroughly defeated and that the conflict is effectively over, so the optics of hiding from an active threat in a catering truck undermine that narrative of victory.

The threat of Iranian assassination plots against Trump is not a new development, however. Following Trump’s 2020 order for a drone strike that killed top IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani, Iranian leaders immediately vowed revenge against the US president and senior administration officials. At one point, a public mural in Iran depicted a drone targeting Trump as he played golf at his Florida resort, making the threat explicit.

Subsequent years have brought multiple uncovered plots against Trump, many tied directly to the IRGC. In 2022, the Biden administration uncovered an Iranian plot to target former Trump national security advisor John Bolton and issued a formal warning to Tehran. In July 2024, US law enforcement arrested Pakistani national Asif Merchant, who had alleged IRGC ties, for plotting to assassinate Trump. Four months later, Afghani citizen Farhad Shakeri was charged in a second separate assassination plot targeting the then-candidate. Merchant was convicted of the charges in March 2026, but Shakeri – who prosecutors say was directed by a senior IRGC official – remains at large.

While those plots were foiled before they could be carried out, Trump has already faced direct physical danger multiple times. In July 2024, during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, a gunman opened fire on the stage, leaving Trump bloodied and injuring multiple attendees. Just two months later, Secret Service agents arrested an armed man hiding in trees near a Florida golf course where Trump was playing.

New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman, who has covered Trump for decades, explained in a recent interview that these repeated threats have reshaped how the president views his conflict with Iran. “It was a galvanising moment for him,” Haberman said. “All of that in his mind becomes one big blur. For Trump himself, Iran and this feeling of being under threat is constant.”

Multiple White House sources have confirmed Trump often jokes openly about being a top assassination target, even as the threat remains ever-present. “Nobody told me how dangerous it is to be president, and if they had told me, I probably wouldn’t have run,” Trump has told aides, according to one senior official quoted by news outlet Semafor. “And he makes comments like that in jest, but there’s a reality behind that.”

After Trump ordered bombing strikes on Iran’s nuclear research facilities in 2025, followed by a widescale bombing campaign and naval blockade of Iran in early 2026, Tehran issued a new round of explicit threats targeting Trump personally. The president responded with a blunt warning of his own on his social platform Truth Social in July, writing: “Iran had made threats ‘to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate’ me and 1,000 missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat.”

In the days just before Trump’s departure from the NATO summit in Turkey, Iranian leaders doubled down on their threats. At Khamenei’s funeral, attendees carried a public banner reading “#KillTrump”. A week later, a large mural on a central Tehran building depicted Trump lying in a black coffin, with the words “We will kill Trump” and “Blood for blood” painted below the image. Iran has repeatedly denied involvement in any previous plots to assassinate Trump, but the public messaging following Khamenei’s death – and rising reports of civilian casualties from US and Israeli strikes – leaves no room for ambiguity: for Iran, the conflict is far from over, and Trump remains a primary target for revenge.

When Trump finally rejoined the press pool on the final leg of the return trip to the US, reporters pressed him about the unusual security measures, which included a Secret Service order to close all window shades on the decoy Air Force One during takeoff from Ankara. “I have read all the time I’m number one on their list,” Trump told reporters. “But if I go, you go, right?”