By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

The trustees for Social Security and Medicare released a dire report this week: both programs will become insolvent by 2033, a year earlier than previously projected. The Social Security trust fund, which supports 70 million Americans, and the Medicare hospital insurance fund, which serves 66 million, are both expected to run dry unless Congress acts.

The trustees estimate that Social Security benefits would face an automatic 23% cut, while Medicare hospital coverage would be reduced by 11%. These cuts would happen by law, triggered automatically when the trust funds can no longer meet full payment obligations.

WHY IT MATTERS

Social Security and Medicare are essential pillars of the American safety net. Most Americans pay into these programs their entire working lives, expecting basic support when they retire or face medical emergencies.

President Trump has promised to protect both programs. But his administration also backs deep structural reviews through the Department of Government Efficiency, formerly run by Elon Musk. A March 2025 memo from the White House explicitly supported cutting “waste, fraud, and abuse” in both programs.

The GAO estimates that up to $521 billion a year is lost to fraud, but that includes all federal programs. Even if fraud were eliminated entirely in Medicare, it would barely cover a fraction of the $1.9 trillion the U.S. spent on Medicare and Medicaid in 2023.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

Congress now faces a policy cliff. Without new revenue or reform, benefit cuts will begin automatically in less than a decade. Expect heated debate in the coming election season about tax increases, benefit changes, or new proposals to privatize elements of both programs.

Also watch for how Trump navigates this politically: his vow to protect the programs may collide with his administration’s push to cut costs.

BOTTOM LINE

Americans who rely on Medicare and Social Security are facing a countdown. The numbers are real, and the decisions are unavoidable. Lawmakers must act—because delay means deep, automatic cuts to the most critical programs in American life.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Get full analysis and breaking updates at my Substack. Follow on Instagram and Substack for the truth and the facts that matter most.

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

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story is developing in real time. All claims have been verified through reporting from the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and official DOD sources. The U.S. is not officially at war, but we may be within 48 hours of active engagement. Stay updated on Instagram and Substack for ongoing coverage.

WHAT HAPPENED

President Donald Trump has privately approved U.S. military plans to strike Iran, according to multiple senior officials who spoke to the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. While no official order has been given yet, the Pentagon is reportedly standing by with targets selected and aircraft in position.

Two U.S. Navy aircraft carrier strike groups are currently stationed in range of Iran. A third carrier group is en route. Sources inside the Department of Defense say the final strike order may not come until all U.S. forces are fully positioned—a move consistent with standard military operations to maximize force readiness and response capability.

Trump has stated he will “make the final call one second before it’s due.” For now, that second has not yet come.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is the most serious moment of military escalation in the Middle East in over a decade. The U.S. has already deployed more than 40,000 troops across the region. Iranian officials have declared they will not surrender and are preparing for direct confrontation.

Once all three carrier groups are in place, the window for diplomacy may close completely.

A single final decision from Trump could initiate a new war—possibly within 24 to 48 hours.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* The third aircraft carrier group’s arrival in the Persian Gulf

* Live national address or announcement from President Trump

* Responses from Iran, Russia, and China

* Emergency meetings at the U.N. or NATO

* Congressional attempts to assert war powers authority

BOTTOM LINE

America is not officially at war with Iran—yet. But the plans are drawn, the ships are moving, and the silence from the White House speaks volumes. The coming hours will determine whether we are stepping into another major armed conflict.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

We will continue tracking this story by the hour. Check Substack and Instagram for real-time video updates, documents, and live analysis as it unfolds.

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

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

As Israel launched its largest-ever military assault on Iran this week, the United States has taken major steps toward potential involvement in the conflict — though President Donald Trump insists no formal war declaration has been made.

Over the past 72 hours:

* Trump praised Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as “an act of survival,” called Iran a “nuclear threat,” and said the United States “will not stand down” if American personnel are targeted.

* U.S. forces have repositioned across the region, with two aircraft carriers — the USS Nimitz and USS Carl Vinson — moved closer to the conflict zone, backed by guided missile destroyers, refueling tankers, and long-range bombers now stationed in Qatar and Jordan.

* The Pentagon raised regional force levels to 40,000, including rapid deployment units and missile defense assets. American Patriot and THAAD systems intercepted multiple Iranian missiles aimed at U.S. outposts in Iraq.

* In a televised statement, Trump said he “knows where [Iran’s leader] is hiding,” called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” and warned of “even more brutal retaliation” if Iran doesn’t stand down.

* Despite that, Trump denied that the U.S. had entered the war, saying, “We’re standing with Israel, but this is not our war — not yet.”

* Meanwhile, Congress is pushing back. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced legislation to block Trump from launching further military action without congressional approval.

On the diplomatic front, European and Arab allies are calling for restraint. The G7 has convened emergency meetings. Putin has offered to mediate. Iran’s foreign minister called Israel’s strike “an act of war” and promised a “sweeping regional response.”

WHY IT MATTERS

While the U.S. is not officially at war, the level of military activity, public threats, and pre-positioned forces have brought the country closer to direct combat with Iran than at any point in over a decade.

This crisis also raises legal and constitutional questions:

* Can a president engage in military action without Congress?

* What qualifies as a defensive response versus an offensive war?

* How far can the U.S. go before it’s considered an active belligerent under international law?

At home, the debate has split both parties. Some Trump allies, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, are urging more aggressive action. Others, including a vocal MAGA faction, say “America First” means staying out of it. Democrats are almost universally warning that Trump is escalating without a plan — or a strategy to get out.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Direct U.S. Strikes: If Iran targets a U.S. asset or ally, Trump may order direct retaliation, likely targeting Iranian missile or nuclear infrastructure.

* Congressional Pushback: Bipartisan legislation could restrict Trump’s war powers and force a vote if hostilities escalate.

* Public Opinion: The latest polls show most Americans oppose U.S. involvement — but views could shift if Iran retaliates further.

* Allied Involvement: NATO remains on high alert. France and the UK have not backed military action but are reinforcing diplomatic efforts.

* Iran’s Response: If Iran responds by hitting U.S. bases, Israel’s cities, or global shipping routes, escalation could spiral quickly.

BOTTOM LINE

The United States is not officially at war — yet. But it is deep in the fight politically, militarily, and strategically. Trump’s actions are walking a fine legal line, as Congress scrambles to reassert its authority. One wrong move from either side could trigger a regional war with global consequences.

The biggest question now: Does Trump want a war — or is he bluffing to force Iran to surrender? And even if he is bluffing, how long until someone calls it?

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

This story will be updated with every major development — including troop movements, congressional votes, and diplomatic talks. Follow me on Instagram and Substack for real-time alerts and full coverage.

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

By Jerrod Zisser | June 17, 2025

📝 EDITOR’S NOTE

This report has been triple fact-checked and verified through Reuters, AFP, the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and Truth Social. Source links are included at the bottom of this article.

WHAT HAPPENED

President Donald Trump issued a stunning late-night warning on June 16, 2025, calling on civilians to “immediately evacuate Tehran” in a dramatic escalation of tensions between the U.S., Israel, and Iran.

“Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” — Donald J. Trump, Truth Social

Just hours later, the Chinese Embassy in Tel Aviv published an urgent advisory telling Chinese citizens to leave Israel as soon as possible, citing deteriorating conditions and potential threats to civilian safety. The message was posted on WeChat and verified by Reuters and AFP.

The situation intensified further as Trump abruptly left the G7 summit in Canada and ordered the U.S. National Security Council to be on standby in the White House Situation Room. Both Fox News and Reuters confirmed the president’s early departure and national security activation.

WHY IT MATTERS

The language Trump used is historic—and dangerous. This is the first time a sitting U.S. president has publicly instructed civilians in a foreign capital to evacuate. Analysts believe the warning may foreshadow possible strikes on Iranian military or nuclear targets.

China’s parallel evacuation from Israel adds credibility to fears that open war may be imminent.

These moves signal:

* Potential joint U.S.-Israeli military action

* Breakdown in diplomacy

* Unstable civilian conditions on both fronts

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Will Israel respond militarily to Iran’s actions over the past week?

* Will Trump seek congressional authorization, or act unilaterally?

* Will China or Russia intervene diplomatically or militarily?

BOTTOM LINE

The world just moved a step closer to regional war—and possibly worse. Trump’s Truth Social warning is not just a post—it’s a signal. China is preparing for the worst. And America’s national security machinery is fully activated.

We are watching history unfold.

SOURCE LINKS

* Trump urges evacuation of Tehran (Reuters)

* China tells citizens to leave Israel (Reuters)

* Trump leaves G7 early, activates NSC (Fox/Guardian)

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

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

On June 16, 2025, Senator Tim Kaine (D‑VA) introduced a privileged resolution in the Senate designed to block President Donald Trump from launching a military attack against Iran without first obtaining congressional approval. The resolution explicitly invokes the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that only Congress may declare war.

Kaine’s legislation comes amid rising tensions in the Middle East following Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets and Iran’s retaliatory missile attacks. As of this writing, President Trump has not ruled out American military involvement and has publicly hinted at reviewing military options.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is the most direct congressional challenge to Trump’s war-making authority since his return to office. It would prohibit unilateral military strikes unless Congress passes a formal Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) or a declaration of war. A similar measure passed both chambers in 2020 but was vetoed by Trump.

Lawmakers are increasingly alarmed that Trump could sidestep congressional authority and plunge the United States into war based on executive orders or classified legal memos. The new resolution is fast-tracked under Senate rules and cannot be buried in committee.

Kaine and his allies argue that this is about more than Iran—it’s about restoring Congress’s constitutional role in matters of war and peace. As Kaine put it in a statement: “This resolution makes clear what the law already says. The President cannot go to war unless Congress authorizes it.”

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether the Senate takes up the resolution for debate this week

* If Republican senators break ranks to support it

* Whether Trump attempts to claim emergency powers or cite preexisting authorizations

* How regional allies and adversaries react if the bill gains momentum

BOTTOM LINE

Trump is once again facing bipartisan scrutiny over his foreign policy and disregard for constitutional limits. This time, it’s not just about tweets or tariffs. It’s about the power to go to war.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow my Substack and Instagram for the latest on this and other major developments in the Middle East, U.S. foreign policy, and the future of American war powers.

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

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This article has been updated to reflect confirmed facts. No unverified quotes have been used. All information has been triple fact-checked.

WHAT HAPPENED

A peaceful protester was shot and killed in Richmond, Virginia, during the historic No Kings Day demonstrations on June 15, 2025. The shooting occurred near the Virginia State Capitol, where thousands had gathered as part of a global anti-authoritarian movement.

Witnesses say the victim was holding a sign that read “Real Men Defend Democracy” when he was shot by a member of a heavily armed counterprotest group. Paramedics were called immediately, but the man died at the scene.

Police have taken a suspect into custody. Authorities have not yet released the names of the victim or the suspect, and the motive has not been formally declared.

WHY IT MATTERS

This is the first confirmed fatality tied directly to the No Kings Day movement, which drew over 10 million people worldwide. The march was aimed at resisting authoritarianism, opposing immigration raids, and defending democracy under the Trump administration.

While most protests were peaceful, online militia groups had threatened confrontations ahead of time—particularly in states like Virginia with open carry laws.

The death also follows President Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric. Just one week prior, he posted, “If they spit, we will hit,” referencing ongoing protests. Critics say this language may have emboldened extremists and fueled a culture of violent retaliation against dissent.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* State and federal charges against the shooter

* Statements from the White House, if any

* Civil rights lawsuits and demands for accountability

* New security concerns at future protests

BOTTOM LINE

A peaceful protester is dead. Killed not in a war zone, not in another country—but while marching in defense of American democracy.

And so far, the government’s silence is deafening.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for exclusive witness reports, legal updates, and on-the-ground coverage as the investigation unfolds.

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

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story is about the Trump administration’s June 2025 VA policy changes, which now allow providers to deny treatment to veterans based on personal objections—including political views. It is based on original reporting from The Guardian and verified statements from medical experts. Every claim has been triple fact-checked and corroborated with official policy documents and expert sources.

WHAT HAPPENED

In June 2025, it was revealed that new internal guidelines at the Department of Veterans Affairs now permit VA doctors, psychologists, and other providers to refuse treatment to veterans based on personal moral, ethical, or political objections.

The changes stem from a January 30, 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth.” While the order focused on rolling back transgender protections, it triggered a wider review of nondiscrimination policies across federal agencies.

At the VA, that review resulted in the removal of longstanding anti-discrimination language in hospital bylaws. Previous rules banned bias based on political affiliation, marital status, and personal behavior. The new rules no longer offer those protections, giving staff wide discretion to decline care on “moral” grounds.

According to The Guardian, one VA facility has already implemented the changes, with others expected to follow.

WHY IT MATTERS

This decision could affect over 9 million veterans who rely on VA services. The VA is the largest integrated healthcare system in the country, with over 170 hospitals and 1,000 clinics—especially vital in rural areas with limited provider options.

Critics warn the new rules open the door to partisan discrimination.

Dr. Arthur Caplan, one of the nation’s leading voices in medical ethics, told reporters the new rule is “disturbing” and fundamentally unethical. Dr. Kenneth Kizer, former VA Under Secretary for Health, said it could be used to reject patients based on anything from political party to being unmarried or facing an unproven allegation.

In practice, that means a doctor who disagrees with your vote, your religion, or your protests could legally refuse to treat you—and under the current administration, be protected for doing so.

The Trump administration claims no veteran will go without care, but critics point out that removing federal protections removes recourse.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Legal challenges: Civil rights and veterans’ organizations may soon bring lawsuits against the new policy.

* More refusals: If one facility has adopted this rule, others may soon follow. Watch for veterans sharing stories of denied care.

* Congressional hearings: Some lawmakers are already discussing oversight and accountability.

* Accreditation risks: Hospital accrediting bodies may raise red flags over this policy, which could violate professional ethical standards.

BOTTOM LINE

This is not just a bureaucratic shift. It’s a dangerous precedent.

The Trump administration has turned the VA into a place where veterans may be judged before they are treated—by their political beliefs, lifestyle, or moral alignment with their doctor. It puts ideology above service, and partisan values above medical ethics.

When our government starts sorting veterans into those who deserve care and those who don’t, based on politics, it’s no longer democracy. It’s something else.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack to get full coverage, video breakdowns, and legal analysis as this story develops. I’ll continue following this one until accountability is forced.

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

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story is breaking and will be updated throughout the day. All information has been triple fact-checked as of this publication. Official sources include the Associated Press, Governor Tim Walz’s press office, and law enforcement statements.

WHAT HAPPENED

Minnesota State Representative Melissa Hortman, a longtime Democratic leader and former Speaker of the House, was shot and killed inside her home in Brooklyn Park early Saturday morning. Her husband, Mark Hortman, was also killed in the same targeted attack.

Just miles away, State Senator John Hoffman and his wife were also shot in a second, coordinated attack at their home in Champlin. Both survived and are undergoing treatment after emergency surgery.

According to law enforcement and Governor Tim Walz, the shooter was impersonating a police officer—wearing body armor and a blue shirt—and entered both homes before opening fire. Authorities believe the attacks were deliberate and politically motivated.

Police issued an emergency lockdown across Brooklyn Park and Champlin. Residents were told to only open their doors if two verified officers were present. The suspect remains at large and armed.

Governor Walz activated Minnesota’s State Emergency Operations Center and stated clearly in a press conference:

“This was a politically motivated assassination.”

WHY IT MATTERS

Melissa Hortman was one of the most experienced Democratic lawmakers in the state, known for her leadership on public education, infrastructure, and environmental protections. Her assassination represents a direct attack on democratic governance, carried out in her own home, with her husband murdered alongside her.

John Hoffman, the second targeted lawmaker, has also served in the Senate since 2012 and has worked on disability rights, mental health funding, and bipartisan infrastructure legislation. His survival is critical—but the message behind the violence is chilling.

This is one of the deadliest known political attacks on sitting U.S. state lawmakers in recent memory. The attacker posed as law enforcement, raising serious concerns about impersonation, access to tactical gear, and political extremism.

No federal official, including President Trump, has issued a statement as of this writing.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Whether the suspect is identified and captured in the next 24–48 hours

* Confirmation of political motive or extremist group affiliation

* Responses from the White House, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security

* Potential increase in security protocols for state lawmakers nationwide

* Civil rights groups and watchdogs issuing new alerts on political violence

BOTTOM LINE

Two Americans are dead. Both were deeply involved in public service. Two others were nearly killed. All signs point to a targeted, politically driven assassination carried out by someone impersonating law enforcement.

We are entering dangerous territory. This was not random. It was a hit. And if this country does not respond swiftly and decisively, we risk normalizing political murder as a feature of our democracy.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

This post will be updated throughout the day with new statements from law enforcement, elected officials, and local residents. A source documents section will be added when police or court records are released.

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

By Jerrod Zisser

WHAT HAPPENED

President Trump is staging a military parade for his birthday, with tanks, troops, and flyovers expected in Washington, D.C. According to multiple sources familiar with the planning, White House staff are concerned about a low turnout and are working to bus in Trump supporters to avoid images of empty streets.

Trump has claimed “millions” will attend, drawing comparisons to the widely-debunked crowd size controversy from his 2017 inauguration.

WHY IT MATTERS

The real concern isn’t the optics—it’s the precedent. This isn’t Bastille Day or North Korea. In the United States, the military traditionally remains outside the political spotlight, only mobilized for defense, crisis, or national honor.

Using military personnel for a personal birthday celebration breaks that norm. It shifts the military’s role from constitutional defense to ceremonial loyalty—a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

This is especially concerning given recent events:

* 700 U.S. Marines have been deployed to Los Angeles for immigration enforcement and protest control

* Civil-military tensions are growing as Trump demands greater loyalty from defense leaders

* Trump has a history of falsely inflating crowd numbers and using public displays for political theater

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* Turnout: Will the public show up, or will it be another photoshopped crowd event?

* Protests: Demonstrations are expected across multiple cities

* Optics: Where Trump stands, who joins him, and how the military is framed will tell us everything

* Military response: Watch for any statements—public or leaked—on how top brass feel about their role in this spectacle

BOTTOM LINE

Trump’s birthday parade isn’t about patriotism—it’s about power projection. And if the streets stay quiet, he’ll say they were “historic.” But the images will speak louder than his words.

FULL STORY + DAILY UPDATES

Follow me on Instagram and Substack for full updates and analysis. This story will evolve fast—and it’s not just about a parade. It’s about what kind of country we’re becoming.

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

By Jerrod Zisser

EDITOR’S NOTE

This story was independently verified using government statements, eyewitness video, and reporting from Reuters, AP, and the Department of Defense. This is a developing situation. All claims have been triple fact-checked.

WHAT HAPPENED

A Marine in full combat gear was filmed detaining a civilian outside the Wilshire Federal Building in Los Angeles on June 13, 2025. The Pentagon confirmed the incident to Reuters, stating this was the first confirmed instance of active-duty Marines detaining a civilian protester since the deployment began under President Donald Trump.

Roughly 700 active-duty Marines were deployed to Los Angeles in early June to protect federal buildings during large-scale protests sparked by mass ICE raids and deportation crackdowns.

WHY IT MATTERS

This detention marks a historic shift. The Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law passed in 1878, strictly limits the use of U.S. military forces in civilian law enforcement. Legal scholars warn this event could represent a violation of that law.

Although the Pentagon claims the Marines were only assisting law enforcement until they could take over, video of the incident shows what appears to be a direct military intervention against a civilian protester.

Governor Gavin Newsom has condemned the deployment, calling it “an unconstitutional power grab,” while rights groups warn this could set a dangerous precedent.

WHAT TO WATCH FOR

* The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to revisit the legality of the federal troop deployment in Los Angeles.

* Civil rights attorneys are reviewing whether the Marines’ actions could be grounds for a federal lawsuit.

* If more video emerges of similar military conduct, the pressure on the White House and Pentagon will intensify.

BOTTOM LINE

An active-duty Marine just detained a civilian in Los Angeles. That is a constitutional red line—one that even wars and national emergencies have rarely crossed. What happens now will define the balance between civilian law and military power in America’s streets.

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

* Reuters video and report

* Posse Comitatus Act – U.S. Code §1385

* Pentagon response via AP

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