Blog

The Fragile US-Iran MOU and the Limits of the Trump-Netanyahu Partnership

As the fragile ceasefire hangs over the Middle East, two longtime allies who once seemed inseparable are now locked in a tense standoff. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, launched this war with what looked like perfect coordination. But roughly a hundred days later, it has become a messy arena of personal friction, clashing strategies, and a very public tug-of-war over how – and when – it should end. Trump wants a quick victory and a deal he can sell as a historic win back home. Netanyahu sees the conflict as a once-in-a-generation chance to crush Iran’s threats for good and is in no mood to back down easily.

It all began in late February 2026. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes hammered Iranian targets with waves of missiles and airstrikes. In his first statements, Trump spoke of the “death of Iran’s Supreme Leader” and urged Iranians to rise up against the regime. Netanyahu set even more ambitious goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, weakening its proxy forces across the region, and perhaps even regime change. In those early days, the two leaders appeared completely aligned. Trump pictured the operation as something short and decisive, reminiscent of his past “maximum pressure” campaigns. He hoped it would drive down oil prices, boost the American economy, and deliver him a major political trophy.

The battlefield, however, refused to cooperate with the script. Iran proved far more resilient than expected. Fighting spilled into Lebanon, Hezbollah got involved, and Trump’s diplomatic back-channel talks with Tehran suddenly looked shaky. Almost overnight, the early harmony gave way to visible strain. Trump quickly began looking for an honorable off-ramp. For him, war was always a tool for negotiation – a means to an end. Netanyahu, however, faced intense domestic pressure in Israel. With critics nipping at his heels and a fragile right-wing coalition to maintain, he viewed the conflict as a historic opportunity to deliver decisive blows against Iran’s infrastructure and cut off support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Reports from Israeli security cabinet meetings suggest Netanyahu even warned that Israel might continue alone if necessary, without full American backing.

The rift turned sharply personal in recent days. After Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward northern Israel. Israel responded by hitting Iranian defensive sites and missile fuel facilities. Trump was openly furious about the escalation. In an interview with the Financial Times, he declared, “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.” He claimed to have warned Netanyahu that if the fighting continued unchecked, Israel could soon find itself standing alone.

Accounts of a heated phone call between the two leaders have since leaked. Sources describe Trump using strong language, reportedly calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and accusing him of undermining American diplomacy. People close to the White House say Trump shouted that he was saving Netanyahu, that without him Israel would be isolated and hated internationally. Netanyahu apparently postponed a planned new round of strikes on Tehran following that conversation. Back in Israel, his critics accused him of caving to Washington. Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot even released a campaign-style video featuring Trump’s voice, implying that Netanyahu does whatever the American president wants.

Trump later tried to soften the story in interviews with the BBC and various podcasts. He admitted he had been “a little upset” about the continued fighting in Lebanon because it was disrupting his negotiations with Iran. Yet multiple American and Israeli sources confirm the pressure from Washington was real and effective. Using America’s leverage – military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic cover – Trump has leaned hard on his counterpart.

The motivations driving each man run deep and differ sharply. Trump, mindful of war fatigue among American voters, is hunting for an agreement that curbs Iran’s nuclear program, frees hostages, and brings down gas prices at American pumps. He approaches foreign policy like a businessman: apply maximum pressure, strike a deal, and exit with something to show for it. This culminated in the recent U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which extends the ceasefire for 60 days, includes provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, provides for sanctions relief and release of frozen assets tied to compliance, and sets the stage for further nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu operates in a different reality. For him, anything short of severely degrading Iran’s capabilities would leave the job half-done. Any agreement reached too quickly, he believes, would be temporary and dangerous. In private sessions, he has stressed that Israel must be prepared to act in its own defense even without complete U.S. support.

The disagreement is particularly clear in Lebanon. Israeli operations in the south have complicated Trump’s diplomatic track with Tehran. Netanyahu insists that without a heavy blow to Iran’s proxies, the Islamic Republic will simply regroup and threaten Israel again. Trump, on the other hand, sees every extra week of fighting as an obstacle to the deal he wants to close. The MOU has further highlighted these tensions, with Israel expressing reservations and continuing certain operations while the U.S. pushes the broader framework forward.

Their once-warm personal relationship has also grown complicated. For years, Trump called Netanyahu a “friend” and “great partner.” Now his tone carries a sharper, almost condescending edge. Netanyahu, who has always emphasized Israel’s independent decision-making, finds himself walking a tightrope between domestic political survival and the vital lifeline of American support. Analysts describe the dynamic as much psychological as political. Trump pushes with his trademark blunt force and threats. Netanyahu resists with iron will and careful calculations about his own political future.

The consequences of this split reach well beyond the two men. If Trump brokers a relatively soft deal with Iran via the MOU, Netanyahu might view it as betrayal and launch unilateral operations anyway. Conversely, if Netanyahu drags the war out, Trump could restrict logistical and intelligence support, leaving Israel in a difficult spot. Iran is already trying to exploit the visible daylight between Washington and Jerusalem to deepen the divide. Inside Israel, the public is tired of war but many still back Netanyahu’s hard line. In the United States, the conflict remains deeply unpopular, and Trump faces growing pressure to bring it to an end.

For now, a shaky ceasefire holds under the new U.S.-Iran MOU framework, but tensions simmer just beneath the surface. Trump insists he remains in control and that Netanyahu will ultimately do what he asks. Netanyahu, in public statements, continues to stress Israel’s readiness to defend its interests with or without full dependence on Washington. The history of the Middle East is littered with wars that were easy to start but agonizingly hard to finish. The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu – once a symbol of ironclad solidarity – has become a mirror reflecting conflicting national interests and differing priorities.

What is decided in the Oval Office and in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem will shape not only the outcome of this war but potentially the future pattern of U.S.-Israel relations for years to come. The region waits, watching closely.

Keep reading

Trump Moves to Expand Weapons Manufacturing, Strengthen National Defense

Following months of escalating tensions with Iran, President Donald Trump is pushing to boost domestic weapons manufacturing, invoking emergency powers as his administration eyes billions in new military spending from Congress.

A memo went public on Tuesday showing that Trump actually signed the order back on June 11. It activates the Defense Production Act—a relic of the Cold War that lets the government cut through red tape, jump to the front of the line for manufacturing, and fix supply chain bottlenecks.

“I hereby find that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs,” Trump wrote. “In particular, systemic constraints in the munitions industrial base, including limited production capacity, fragile supply chains, long-lead dependencies, and related production bottlenecks, may impair the ability of the United States to produce, sustain, and expand the availability of munitions, missiles, and equipment required for the national defense.”

The move comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lobbies lawmakers to approve roughly $350 billion in additional Pentagon funding. Administration officials argue the money is needed to restore weapons inventories and strengthen military readiness after extensive operations tied to the conflict with Iran.

Following meetings with Hegseth on Capitol Hill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said the discussions centered largely on defense procurement and ensuring the military has the resources necessary to acquire critical weapons systems. The Defense Production Act grants presidents broad authority during national emergencies, including the ability to require companies to give priority to government contracts. The law has previously been used during national crises ranging from natural disasters to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The administration is also preparing a formal request for supplemental defense funding, though questions remain about whether Congress will approve the full amount sought by the White House.

Some Republicans have expressed support for boosting military spending, while others want more information about the long-term costs associated with operations involving Iran. Democrats, meanwhile, have indicated they are unlikely to support a major funding package without additional briefings from administration officials and greater clarity regarding U.S. objectives in the region.

“As long as we are at war with Iran, I will not allow a supplemental to serve as the de facto authorization for the war. And I’ve been debating this with Republican colleagues,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said.

Keep reading

The Mladenov Distraction: Behind the Screen, Netanyahu Is Annexing Gaza ‘Step-by-Step’

Gaza requires urgent international attention.

What is happening in the besieged and devastated Strip at the moment by far exceeds an unfolding humanitarian disaster; it is a calculated geopolitical reshaping. Israel is actively executing a plan to permanently occupy the vast majority of Gaza, with consequences that require little elaboration considering what we already know about the ongoing genocide.

Currently, much of the international debate centers on a single official: Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov. The former United Nations Special Coordinator has been designated by the United States as the Executive Director of the Trump administration’s newly established ‘Board of Peace’ – an international council founded to oversee the implementation of Washington’s 20-point Gaza roadmap.

The issue, however, is much bigger than a single Washington-backed bureaucrat. A growing number of Palestinians and political analysts accuse Mladenov of manufacturing the very conditions that continue to obstruct progress on the agreement’s transition to its second phase.

Under the framework, the official transition to this second phase – which Trump and the Board of Peace declared to have begun in January 2026 – demands sweeping, one-sided Palestinian concessions, most notably the total disarmament of armed factions.

This demand is a recipe for the failure of the entire project, especially given that Israel has completely failed to implement the most basic requirements of the agreement’s first phase. It has refused to halt its routine military incursions, has failed to withdraw its forces to the originally mandated ‘Yellow Line‘ demarcation, and continues to deny entry permits to the technocratic committee slated to assume civil governance of the Strip.

Mladenov’s insistence on Palestinian disarmament before the agreement can advance – without a single guarantee of Israeli compliance – conveniently flips the narrative. It cynically reframes systematic starvation and the blockade of medical and construction supplies as a Palestinian failure to honor commitments.

In reality, Mladenov holds no real cards; he is merely a cog in a larger machinery controlled by Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister has made it explicitly clear that he has no intention of following any peace roadmap, planning instead for the permanent, incremental takeover of Gaza.

Speaking at a conference in an occupied West Bank settlement on May 28, Netanyahu explained his strategy with total clarity, abandoning all diplomatic doublespeak: “We are currently squeezing Hamas; we now control 60% of the territory of the Strip – you know this. We were at 50, we moved to 60. My directive is to move to…” he said, pausing as an audience member shouted “100!”

Netanyahu smiled and responded: “Let’s go step by step. First of all, 70. Let’s start with that. We’re pressing them from all sides, we’ll deal with the remnants.”

This is the actual blueprint of the Israeli government, declared openly to domestic audiences. The admission was so brazen that even US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed frustration at Netanyahu’s candor. Testifying before Congress on June 2, Rubio remarked, “We have a plan – it doesn’t call for that,” referring to further Israeli territorial expansion.

Yet, Rubio quickly reverted to Washington’s standard line: “And at the end of the day, we understand that what we want, and I think what the Israelis would ultimately want, is a Gaza that is governed by a non-Hamas entity.”

Keep reading

Schiff: Dems Will Subpoena Private Sector People that Worked with Trump

Tuesday on MS NOW’s “The Briefing,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said that if Democrats win the majority in the midterms, they will subpoena private-sector people who worked with President Donald Trump in his second term.

Host Jen Psaki asked, “Should the Senate be, should the Democrats be in the majority and decide to investigate or look into Patel? I mean, you are one of the many people who have been targeted by Trump’s Justice Department under Trump’s direction, as we’ve all seen it. One another person, who announced yesterday that he was being targeted is, of course, Governor Gavin Newsom. I know you spoke with some of my colleagues about that last night, but I wonder, as we’re thinking about because we’ve been talking about the Georgia races tonight, we’ve been talking about politics as we think about if Democrats have the majority next year, you’re on the Judiciary Committee. Trump is still going to target his political enemies. He’s not going to stop. He’s going to have people in the Department of Justice that does that. What changes what kind of Senate majority do to kind of hold them to account or even stop that?”

Schiff said, “Well, we’ll of course, to oversight of the administration. But judging from his first term, when we subpoenaed, for example, administration officials in the Russia Ukraine investigations, they basically stonewall the subpoenas. In fact, Trump was impeached in that first impeachment, not just for trying to extort Zelensky to get him to help cheat in the election, but also because he was stonewalling, congressional subpoenas. So I don’t think we can expect a whole lot from the administration, but we can subpoena the private sector and they will need to comply. So all of the crypto deals and meme coin deals, the UFC fight, all the back channeling on the Paramount SkyDance, and Warner Brothers mergers, whether there are promises made of changing editorial content, all of that kind of corruption, potential corruption, we will be able to look into.”

Keep reading

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Government is big. Elected and unelected officials wield enormous amounts of power. But lately I have found myself wondering whether we are paying attention to the wrong institution.

What if the most powerful institutions in America are not governments at all?

What if they are banks and payment processors?

A few years ago, during COVID-19, a friend of mine owned a small shop in Northern California. It was the kind of place many young mothers loved. They sold raw milk, organic cotton sheets, natural baby products, books, toys, and healthy foods. It felt like an old-fashioned mercantile reimagined for modern families.

One day, she made a comment on social media praising CBD. I do not remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “Of course, we can raise children without CBD, but why would we want to?”

Whether you think CBD is wonderful or terrible is beside the point. The issue is not whether she was right. The issue is whether she had the right to say it.

Not long afterward, her credit card processing company terminated her account.

The company processing her payments had nothing to do with the social media platform where she made the comment. Yet somehow, a statement made on one platform became a problem for an entirely different company that controlled her ability to process payments.

The fallout was immediate. Roughly $30,000 was frozen. She struggled to make payroll. Because the company handled other operational functions as well, portions of her business became difficult to run. It took months of legal back and forth before she finally regained access to her own money.

When this happened, I called my own credit card processing representative. Before I could even finish explaining the situation, he knew exactly what I was talking about.

He told me he had been flooded with calls from businesses looking to switch processors because similar things were happening across the country. Businesses were scrambling to regain access to money they believed was theirs.

It was part of a broader pattern that many people have already forgotten.

During COVID-19, I lost count of the number of conferences, organizations, and educational programs that suddenly found themselves unable to process payments or fundraising. Then came the Canadian trucker protests. Regardless of where someone stood politically, a lot of people suddenly realized that modern power does not always arrive wearing a government uniform. Sometimes it arrives as an email informing you that access to financial services has been suspended.

What concerns me is that all of this happened before we have even become a truly cashless society.

Last weekend, I was in Austin speaking at an event for the Brownstone Institute. As I walked around the city, I noticed a surprising number of businesses no longer accepted cash.

The answers were remarkably consistent. Cash creates more work. Cash can be stolen. Cash requires counting. Cash requires bank deposits. Cash slows things down. Cash creates security concerns for employees.

These are all legitimate concerns. In fact, I understand them better than most people because I have lived them.

My brother owns restaurants in California and has chosen to operate cashless businesses. His reasoning is efficiency. Most business owners making these decisions are trying to reduce theft, simplify accounting, and protect employees. The incentives are understandable.

That is what makes this conversation so interesting.

Rarely do we lose freedom because someone announces they are taking it away. More often, we surrender small pieces of it because convenience, safety, and efficiency seem like fair trade-offs in the moment.

I found myself standing in one Austin business that displayed signs supporting inclusion, immigrant rights, and various social justice causes. I asked the young man behind the counter a simple question.

“If we are concerned about making society accessible to everyone, why require a bank account, a smartphone, a QR code, and a digital payment platform just to buy a cup of coffee?”

He looked genuinely surprised.

After thinking about it for a moment, he said, “Maybe you’re right.”

What struck me was not his answer. It was that the question had never occurred to him.

Keep reading

Senate Shoots Down Resolution to Limit Trump’s Military Authority Over Iran

By a single vote, the Senate shot down a proposal on Tuesday that would have reined in President Donald Trump’s ability to use military force against Iran without Congress’s approval.

The vote fell just one vote short of advancing with 48-47. Republican Senators Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul voted with the Democrats. On the flip side, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) crossed the aisle to vote alongside the Republican majority against the bill.

Introduced by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), the resolution sought to require congressional approval for continued U.S. military action involving Iran. Warnock had urged Republicans to vote for it, arguing that Congress shouldn’t just sit back and let the president make all the decisions on foreign wars.

The vote occurred as lawmakers pressed the White House for details about an agreement Trump announced Sunday between Washington and Tehran that he has promoted as a path toward ending months of fighting.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” Trump declared on Truth Social.

Members of Congress are still completely in the dark about the agreement, leading to a push on the administration for transparency. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said lawmakers are demanding more details on how the arrangement actually works. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, agreements related to Iran’s nuclear program must be submitted to Congress for review before sanctions relief can take effect.

Although the measure did not advance, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats are continuing discussions surrounding a separate proposal sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and are attempting to secure additional Republican support before bringing it up again.

Keep reading

Military doesn’t know how many recruits hold citizenship in China, Iran, Russia or other non-NATO states

The Canadian Armed Forces has recruited nearly 3,000 permanent residents since opening enlistment to non-citizens in late 2022, but military officials admit they do not track the foreign citizenships of those recruits.

The disclosure came in response to an order paper question from Conservative MP Scott Anderson regarding the CAF’s recruitment of permanent residents.

According to the Department of National Defence, the military enrolled 1,844 permanent residents into the regular force and another 1,017 into the reserve force between December 2022 and May 2026, for a total of 2,861 recruits.

Recruitment accelerated dramatically over the past year, with more than 1,800 permanent residents joining during the 2025-26 fiscal year alone.

The military also revealed that permanent residents are permitted to serve in dozens of occupations, including infantry, artillery, combat engineering, logistics, military police, intelligence-related roles, aerospace operations, naval positions and a variety of technical trades.

But when Anderson asked how many of those permanent residents were citizens of countries outside NATO, the government said it simply doesn’t know.

“The Canadian Armed Forces does not centrally record members’ citizenship of countries other than Canada,” the department replied.

The admission means the military cannot say how many permanent-resident recruits hold citizenship in countries such as China, Iran, Russia, Pakistan or any other non-NATO state.

The department also acknowledged that it cannot determine how many of those recruits have since become Canadian citizens because that information is not tracked in a way that can be readily reported.

The figures come as the CAF continues to grapple with a recruiting crisis and personnel shortages. In an effort to boost numbers, the military opened many occupations to permanent residents in 2022, ending a longstanding preference for Canadian citizens.

Since then, 292 permanent-resident recruits have already left the CAF, including 234 regular force members and 58 reservists.

While the CAF can provide detailed breakdowns of where permanent residents serve and what ranks they hold, it cannot say how many are citizens of foreign countries outside Canada’s military alliances.

Keep reading

California Gay Business Certification Another Dem Lurch to the Prog Fringe

Our jumping off point is a real doozy, even by California lunatic fringe standards. Had I not read it on one of our sister sites, I probably would have triple-checked it. This is from my Townhall colleague Joseph Chalfant:

A new report from the City Journal revealed the “LGBTBE Certification” process that individuals must go through should they wish to receive preferential treatment in the taxpayer-funded contract bidding process in the state of California.

For those who haven’t updated their Victim Group Alphabet Soup glossaries, LGBTBE stands for “LGBT Business Enterprise.” I don’t know why the “++” was left out or how the “Q” was dropped. Perhaps they were lost during one of the many times that the goal posts were being moved. 

Check out all of Joseph’s post. The state of California requires extensive documentation for businesses to prove that they are gay enough for gay contract money. That’s rich coming from a state that insists that asking for identification to vote is racist and disenfranchises people. 

Don’t they care about gay business owners who may not be able to provide “Proof of domestic partnership health insurance utilization” or any of the other proof of gayness documents that the Golden State wants before it signs any checks?

There are some old school elders of the village in the Democratic Party who freely admit that the party has lost its way on so many issues, most notable among them being former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. He’s exploring a run for president in 2028 and hopes to get his party to focus on issues that matter to regular Americans. 

His party doesn’t seem to be paying attention. Nobody on the left is, they all just keep rushing headlong to the far left edges of the Milky Way galaxy. 

The “you will be made to care” agenda regarding all things LGBTQ++ is still in full swing and continues to manifest itself in ways that would indicate nothing but complete disdain for anything that even glances toward the center. 

Recently, Major League Baseball forced its players to wear caps that had Pride flag rainbows on the logos. Los Angeles Dodgers reliever Blake Treinen didn’t play along, and the enemy of the people media was aghast. Three members of the San Francisco Giants responded by writing Bible verses on their caps, and the San Francisco Chronicle said they defaced them. My Twitchy colleague Brett T. covered that here.

Keep reading

Nancy Pelosi Calls DACA Illegal Aliens ‘the Gold Standard of Immigrants’

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says illegal aliens enrolled in former President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are “the gold standard of immigrants” in the United States.

This week marked 14 years since Obama created DACA via executive action. The quasi-amnesty program has allowed hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to avoid deportation solely because they were smuggled into the U.S. as children.

During an interview this week, Pelosi praised DACA illegal aliens and touted that House Democrats have repeatedly sought to give them amnesty, including a pathway to American citizenship.

“Freedoms for these DREAMers to be in the U.S. and be the gold standard of immigrants coming to our country,” Pelosi said. “They’re all about freedom. It’s one thing here. Yes, it’s bringing from our Constitution in many ways and our value system.”

Just last year, a DACA illegal alien was extradited to the U.S. to face charges that he murdered 22-year-old Lesly Palacio at his residence in August 2020 before getting his father to help him move the woman’s body into the bed of a truck.

Palacio’s remains were found two weeks later in the Valley of Fire State Park.

Also, last year, a DACA illegal alien was sentenced to federal prison for leading a straw purchasing ring for the Mexican drug cartels.

As Breitbart News previously reported, standards for DACA were set so low that tens of thousands of illegal aliens with prior arrest records for crimes including murder, rape, kidnapping, and sex abuse were able to secure deferred deportation status and work permits to stay in the U.S.

Federal records published in November 2019 by President Donald Trump’s administration reveal the scale to which illegal aliens with prior arrests were able to apply for and be granted DACA.

As of October 2019, the federal government had granted DACA to nearly 68,000 illegal aliens with prior arrest records, while fewer than 30,000 illegal aliens with prior arrests were denied DACA or had their DACA status terminated as a result.

More than 25,000 illegal aliens were granted DACA despite having been arrested for drunk driving, along with roughly 3,300 previously arrested for assault, nearly 1,500 previously arrested for burglary, almost 600 previously arrested for hit-and-run, 259 previously arrested for sex abuse or child rape, more than 170 previously arrested for kidnapping, 62 previously arrested for rape, more than 30 previously arrested for animal cruelty, 15 previously arrested for murder, five previously arrested for manslaughter, and two previously arrested for having child pornography.

Keep reading

Biden Judge Blocks Idaho Law Criminalizing Transgender Bathroom Use

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Idaho’s law that criminalized transgender bathroom use.

US District Judge Amanda Brailsford, a Biden appointee, issued a preliminary injunction blocking Idaho’s H.B. 752, which banned transgender people from using restrooms that did not match their biological gender.

Idaho’s law, which was set to go into effect on July 1, threatened to jail transgender people for five years if they broke the law.

The ghouls at the ACLU celebrated the judge’s ruling.

“This ruling means trans folks in Idaho can continue participating in public life without the threat of being arrested for using the bathroom,” said Paul Carlos Southwick, ACLU of Idaho Legal Director. “Trans Idahoans have been understandably anxious about the disruption this unconstitutional law would cause in their daily lives. This ruling will relieve that anxiety for our trans friends and neighbors.”

“This decision provides significant protections for transgender people in Idaho from the efforts of state politicians to force them out of public life altogether,” said Barbara Schwabauer, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “No one should be forced to choose between the threat of arrest for being themselves in public or the threat of harassment and violence for acting the way the state wants them to be. The preliminary injunction is a vital first step as we continue to challenge this gross violation of privacy and fundamental equality until the law is blocked for good.”

“Our Constitution provides critical protections against laws that are unclear and that call on officers to make arbitrary judgments about how to enforce them, especially when the law threatens imprisonment,” said Kell Olson, Counsel with Lambda Legal. “The court recognized that threat in providing relief to plaintiffs today. This ruling will allow transgender people throughout Idaho to find and use a public restroom, without the fear of arrest looming over them, while we continue the longer fight to permanently defeat this discriminatory law in court.”

Keep reading