By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

The Pentagon is now privately telling multiple news outlets that the recent U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites only delayed Iran’s nuclear program by one to two years, far less than what President Trump claimed in public statements.

The assessment, first reported by Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, and NBC News, reveals that Iran likely preserved key scientific knowledge, relocated sensitive materials, and retains the ability to rebuild its capabilities faster than many anticipated.

WHY IT MATTERS

This new intelligence undercuts President Trump’s assertion that the strikes “eliminated” Iran’s nuclear threat. It also raises the possibility that the strikes could backfire—driving Iran to accelerate its nuclear ambitions underground.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that several key assets were moved before the attacks, and officials continue to accuse the U.S. of illegal aggression while maintaining that their nuclear program is purely civilian.

The limited impact of the strikes could complicate future diplomatic efforts, sanctions policy, and regional stability, especially as Israel and Gulf nations press the U.S. for further actions.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Will Trump acknowledge the Pentagon’s findings publicly?

* Could this trigger another round of U.S. or Israeli strikes?

* Will Iran escalate by accelerating uranium enrichment or restricting IAEA inspections?

BOTTOM LINE

The strikes on Iran were not the knockout blow they were portrayed to be. The nuclear threat remains—and the risk of renewed escalation is real.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates, fact-checked analysis, and original reporting on this fast-moving story.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

In a dramatic overnight move, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries took to the floor and launched a marathon speech aimed at stalling a final vote on President Donald Trump’s sprawling tax-and-spending package, now known as the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

The legislation, nearly 900 pages long, includes sweeping tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, alongside deep cuts to healthcare, food assistance, veterans’ care, and social services. Republicans allowed just one hour of formal debate on the bill, split into two 30-minute sessions for key committees.

Jeffries called the process “disgraceful” and vowed to use his “magic minute” privilege to speak as long as possible, already surpassing 7 hours with no immediate signs of stopping.

WHY IT MATTERS

The bill affects virtually every American:

* Massive corporate tax cuts

* Medicaid, Medicare, and SNAP (food assistance) cuts

* Elimination of clean energy tax credits

* Stricter work requirements for benefits

* Potential long-term damage to Social Security and healthcare access

By stalling the vote, Jeffries is trying to force more public scrutiny on provisions that could reshape federal spending for a generation.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Jeffries could break the modern House record for longest continuous speech—set by Nancy Pelosi in 2018 at 8 hours and 7 minutes. Whether this delay can materially change the outcome remains unclear, but it has succeeded in drawing national attention to the bill’s contents and the rushed process.

BOTTOM LINE

Hakeem Jeffries’ marathon speech may not stop the bill, but it shines a spotlight on what Democrats say is an attack on working families, healthcare, and environmental protections—all in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates and deeper coverage.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear two cases challenging state laws that bar transgender girls from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. The cases, from West Virginia and Idaho, center on whether these laws violate constitutional rights or stand as legitimate efforts to preserve fairness in athletics.

The West Virginia case involves a 12-year-old girl, Becky Pepper-Jackson, who was blocked from her middle school track team under a state law. The Idaho case concerns Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student prevented from competing in women’s track events.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases on the rights of transgender athletes in sports—a legal battleground that has sharply divided the country.

Supporters of the bans argue that allowing transgender girls to compete in female sports is unfair to cisgender girls. Opponents say these laws discriminate against transgender youth and violate Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.

More than 20 states have already passed similar laws, creating a patchwork of conflicting policies. A Supreme Court decision will likely set a national precedent.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

The Court will hear arguments in the fall 2025 term, with a ruling expected by summer 2026. Legal experts are closely watching how the justices weigh fairness in sports against the civil rights of transgender individuals.

If the Court sides with the states, it could give the green light to more restrictive laws. If the Court rules against the bans, it could protect the rights of transgender athletes nationwide.

BOTTOM LINE

The Supreme Court’s decision in these cases could shape the future of school sports, civil rights, and LGBTQ+ protections for decades to come.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

For full coverage and daily updates, follow me on Instagram and Substack.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story contains graphic details of a deadly ambush. Our reporting is based on official statements from the Coeur d’Alene Police Department, the Kootenai County Sheriff, and federal authorities.

WHAT HAPPENED

Two firefighters were killed and another wounded Sunday in what police say was a targeted ambush in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The attacker, 57-year-old Wess Roley, allegedly started a brush fire on Canfield Mountain to lure emergency personnel. When firefighters arrived, Roley opened fire.

Authorities responded to the fire around 12:30 p.m. PT. The first shots were reported minutes later. One firefighter died on the scene, another at the hospital, and a third remains in stable condition.

Roley was later found dead nearby with a long rifle.

The FBI and ATF are involved in the investigation.

WHY IT MATTERS

This marks one of the deadliest attacks on first responders in recent Idaho history. Firefighters are typically seen as neutral, non-political public servants. This attack raises serious concerns about domestic radicalization and targeted violence against emergency workers.

Officials have not released a motive, but confirmed the fire was set intentionally and the attack was planned.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Release of victim identities after family notifications

* Autopsy report on Wess Roley

* FBI findings on motive or online activity

* Security reviews for firefighter deployments nationwide

BOTTOM LINE

This was not a wildfire tragedy. It was a deliberate act of violence against people who were trying to save lives. The community, and the country, deserve answers.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This article contains verified details as of June 29, 2025. Updates will be posted as the situation evolves.

WHAT HAPPENED

At least two people are dead and multiple firefighters have been shot after an apparent ambush in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. The shooting began earlier today when fire crews responded to what appeared to be a brush fire on Canfield Mountain. As they arrived to contain the flames, they were shot at — not once, but from what officials believe are at least four different sniper positions.

Law enforcement officers attempting to secure the scene also came under fire. Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris confirmed that officers are still “taking sniper fire” as of this writing.

A massive shelter-in-place order has been issued across the area. Fire crews have been pulled from the scene. And the wildfire continues to burn.

WHY IT MATTERS

If this was a planned ambush — and the early signs suggest it might be — it would be one of the most premeditated and violent attacks on first responders in American history.

This incident echoes a disturbing trend: targeted violence against people who serve the public. Firefighters are not combatants. They run toward danger to protect lives. To be ambushed while doing their job is not just a tragedy — it’s a national alarm bell.

This isn’t about politics. This is about whether public servants can do their jobs without being killed.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Confirmation on whether the fire was intentionally set as bait

* Status of the sniper positions — how many remain active

* Identities and roles of the deceased

* Safety updates for affected neighborhoods

* Changes to national first responder security protocols

BOTTOM LINE

Today, firefighters and police officers were hunted — while trying to save lives. This isn’t just an attack on Idaho. It’s an attack on every community that depends on first responders.

This story is still developing. But what we already know is devastating — and unacceptable.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for updates as more facts come in.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed the death of Johnny Noviello, a 49-year-old Canadian national who died on June 23, 2025 in ICE custody at the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida. According to ICE, Noviello was found unresponsive and later pronounced dead. He had been detained since June 1. An autopsy is pending.

Noviello is the eighth person to die in ICE custody in fiscal year 2025. The deaths so far this year include:

* Genry Ruiz Guillen (Honduras) – January 23

* Serawit Gezahegn Dejene (Ethiopia) – January 29

* Maksym Chernyak (Ukraine) – February 20

* Brayan Rayo‑Garzon (Colombia) – April 8

* Nhon Ngoc Nguyen (Vietnam) – April 16

* Marie Ange Blaise (Haiti) – April 25

* Abelardo Avelleneda Delgado (Guatemala) – May 5

* Johnny Noviello (Canada) – June 23

WHY IT MATTERS

ICE detention facilities have long faced criticism for substandard medical care, neglect, and human rights abuses. Multiple watchdog reports — including from the DHS Office of Inspector General — have found repeated failures in how ICE handles detainee healthcare.

Noviello’s death comes as ICE ramps up immigration raids under orders from the Trump administration. Despite public claims that only violent offenders are being targeted, ICE’s own data shows that nearly 40% of recent arrests involved individuals with no criminal record.

This raises serious concerns: people are dying in detention, often after just days or weeks in custody, without due process or access to proper care.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* ICE’s internal investigation into Noviello’s death

* Autopsy results from the Miami-Dade Medical Examiner’s office

* Reactions from Canadian consular officials

* Lawsuits or legal challenges related to ICE detention conditions

BOTTOM LINE

Johnny Noviello’s death is not an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of deaths in ICE custody — one that exposes systemic flaws and raises urgent questions about the agency’s treatment of detainees.

With eight people now dead since January, the Biden-era reforms to improve ICE detention conditions have clearly been rolled back or ignored under the Trump administration.

This is a crisis that demands attention, accountability, and independent oversight.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for updates on this case and the broader ICE death toll, including names, timelines, and source documents.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

President Donald Trump has confirmed that the United States used B-2 stealth bombers to carry out a direct military strike on three of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan.

“A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “All planes are now outside of Iran air space. Congratulations to our great American Warriors.”

The B-2 Spirit, which is capable of flying undetected across vast distances and carrying deep-penetrating bunker-buster munitions, was reportedly used to deliver precision-guided bombs onto the Fordow facility — one of Iran’s most fortified underground enrichment sites. The strike marks the first known use of U.S. strategic bombers over Iranian soil under Trump’s presidency.

There has been no formal statement from the Pentagon, but multiple senior defense sources have since confirmed the aircraft used were indeed B-2s, flying from a forward-operating base in the region.

WHY IT MATTERS

This development marks a historic escalation in U.S.-Iran tensions. Unlike previous proxy engagements or indirect support for Israeli actions, this was a direct American military strike ordered by the President of the United States.

Key reasons this is a watershed moment:

* B-2 deployment signals intent to penetrate hardened nuclear defenses.

* Trump bypassed Congress, issuing no formal war notification or public briefing.

* Iran’s underground nuclear program was specifically designed to withstand conventional strikes. This attack may now set off a race toward retaliation — or more strikes.

The use of B-2s, among the most advanced stealth bombers in the world, shows this was not a symbolic move. It was a high-level, high-risk operation designed to send a clear message: The U.S. is now fully and militarily involved.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Iran’s response: Military retaliation, cyberattacks, or proxy strikes on U.S. forces abroad are all on the table.

* Congressional backlash: Lawmakers from both parties are demanding answers on how and why Trump was able to order this attack without warning or oversight.

* Pentagon confirmation: As of now, there’s been no live briefing or footage from U.S. Central Command.

* International diplomacy: NATO, China, Russia, and Gulf states are closely monitoring for any shift toward regional or global war.

* Civilian and energy fallout: If this escalates, global oil markets could react swiftly, and U.S. forces across the Middle East may become immediate targets.

BOTTOM LINE

President Trump has now moved the United States into direct military conflict with Iran, deploying B-2 stealth bombers to hit three of the country’s most protected nuclear sites.

Trump says this was a mission of strength. But what comes next may define not just his presidency — but the stability of the entire region.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

This is a rapidly developing story. I’m tracking every angle — from intelligence confirmations to congressional reactions, international diplomacy, and possible retaliation.

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for breaking updates, verified analysis, and exclusive on-the-ground reporting.

No fluff. Just facts. And the stories that actually matter.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

Tulsi Gabbard, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has revised her stance on Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In a June 20 social media post, Gabbard stated that Iran could potentially assemble a nuclear weapon “within weeks to months,” aligning her view with President Trump’s more aggressive posture toward Tehran.

This comes after Gabbard’s March testimony before Congress, in which she said Iran was not building nuclear weapons, even though it held an “unprecedented” stockpile of enriched uranium. She now says that testimony was misrepresented by “dishonest media” and that intelligence indicates a more urgent threat.

Trump had sharply criticized Gabbard’s earlier comments, saying he believed Iran was “very close” to building a bomb and that her testimony was “wrong.”

WHY IT MATTERS

Gabbard’s updated statement signals a hardening of the U.S. intelligence posture toward Iran and could foreshadow direct military involvement. Trump has already given Iran two weeks to reach a deal or face potential consequences.

Iran denies any nuclear weapons ambitions, stating that its program is for peaceful purposes only. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has raised concerns over Iran’s growing stockpile of enriched uranium.

This shift also reveals growing tensions inside Trump’s administration, with key national security officials now adjusting their positions to match the president’s rhetoric.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether Iran agrees to negotiate under U.S. conditions

* Trump’s decision on U.S. military involvement in Israeli strikes

* Congressional response to potential escalation

* International Atomic Energy Agency findings in upcoming reports

BOTTOM LINE

Gabbard’s new position reflects a dangerous turning point. If Iran is indeed weeks away from a nuclear weapon, and diplomacy fails, the United States could be on the verge of war in the Middle East — one based on assessments that remain heavily contested.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow @JerrodZisser on Instagram and Substack for real-time updates, verified documents, and in-depth analysis as this story develops.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story highlights a powerful moment where sports and social justice intersect. When federal agents tried to use Dodger Stadium as a processing site for immigrants, the Dodgers said no—and then took action. This is one of the strongest stands by a major sports team in the current political climate.

WHAT HAPPENED

On Thursday, June 19, ICE agents attempted to access the Dodger Stadium parking lot to process individuals detained in a nearby immigration raid. According to the team, they were denied access.

Less than 24 hours later, the Dodgers announced a $1 million commitment to support immigrant families affected by the recent ICE crackdown across Los Angeles. The funds will be distributed in partnership with the City of Los Angeles. More aid programs with community and labor organizations are expected soon.

The move followed a petition from over 50 local religious, labor, and immigrant-rights leaders urging the team to act. Organized by PICO California, the petition called on the Dodgers to issue a public statement, commit resources to affected families, and refuse to allow team property to be used for enforcement purposes.

WHY IT MATTERS

For many in Los Angeles, the Dodgers aren’t just a baseball team. They are a cultural institution with deep roots in immigrant communities. Taking a stand publicly—refusing to let ICE use their stadium and putting up $1 million in support—sends a powerful message.

Faith leaders, unions, and community groups hailed the decision as a breakthrough. Mayor Karen Bass thanked the team for “leading with action.”

PICO California’s executive director, Joseph Tomás McKellar, put it bluntly: “The Dodgers are the team of Jackie Robinson. This is a moment for them to take a moral stand.”

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Details on how the $1 million in aid will be distributed

* Further initiatives announced by the Dodgers in partnership with labor and immigrant-rights groups

* Ongoing pressure from fans and organizers for other teams and institutions to follow suit

BOTTOM LINE

In a city rocked by fear, a baseball team just made a human stand. The Dodgers didn’t just talk—they acted. They refused to cooperate with ICE. They put up real money. And they showed that even in the face of federal power, there’s room for dignity and decency.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Get updates on this story and others by following me on Instagram and Substack. I’ll be covering how these funds are used, how the immigrant community responds, and whether more institutions step forward.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

Every word in this article is verified. Every claim is sourced. What Vice President Vance said in Los Angeles wasn’t just partisan—it was dangerous, dishonest, and designed to inflame. This piece sets the record straight.

WHAT HAPPENED

Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a televised address from a federal command center in Los Angeles, standing in front of Marines and law enforcement vehicles. In the speech, he used phrases like “insurrectionists” to describe demonstrators, accused California leaders of encouraging illegal migration, and claimed law enforcement officers felt endangered by Governor Newsom’s leadership.

He also called for immediate passage of President Trump’s immigration bill and reiterated the administration’s narrative that ICE is only arresting people who are unlawfully present.

WHY IT MATTERS

Almost none of what Vance said is supported by facts.

* No evidence exists that Governor Newsom or Mayor Bass have encouraged illegal migration.

* No verified law enforcement source has accused the governor of putting officers at risk.

* The term “insurrectionists” does not legally apply to peaceful protests or civil disobedience.

* ICE has detained at least one U.S. citizen, legal asylum seekers, and lawful residents.

This speech wasn’t policy. It was a calculated disinformation campaign designed to justify further crackdowns, shift blame to local leaders, and pass controversial legislation.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Congressional response to Trump’s immigration bill and Vance’s rhetoric

* Legal challenges to the deployment of federal troops without state consent

* Media accountability in reporting false claims made from federal platforms

* Escalation of arrests as misinformation is used to justify expanding enforcement

BOTTOM LINE

Vice President Vance used the weight of his office to spread provably false claims on national television. His words were crafted not to inform the public—but to mislead, distract, and inflame.

California is not the enemy. The people protesting deportations are not insurrectionists. And truth is not optional, even in a crisis.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Substack and Instagram for ongoing fact-checks, protest updates, and real-time reporting from the ground in California.

Get full access to The TAKE with Jerrod Zisser at jerrodzisser.substack.com/subscribe