Day: June 24, 2025

Within a few hours of publicly agreeing to a ceasefire brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump, Israel has launched new strikes at Iran, which it accused of breaking the peace deal.

The resumption of hostilities threatens to extend the conflict that Trump dubbed the “12 Day War.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Tuesday he ordered the Israeli Defense Forces to “respond forcefully to Iran’s violation of the ceasefire with intense strikes against regime targets in the heart of Tehran.” 

The IDF said it sounded sirens in northern Israel “due to missile fire from Iran” around 3:30 a.m. ET. Iran earlier launched several waves of strikes at Israel shortly before acknowledging the beginning of a ceasefire, but an Israeli official told the Associated Press that two missiles were detected and intercepted hours after the start of the ceasefire.

“In light of the severe violation of the ceasefire carried out by the Iranian regime, we will respond with force,” Israel’s Chief of General Staff Eyal Zamir said.

Iran’s General Staff of Armed Forces denied Israel’s claims that it fired fresh missiles at Israel after the ceasefire began, Iranian state media reported.

Hardline Israeli politicians seemed to celebrate the renewal of hostilities. “Tehran trembles,” Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, an member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet, posted on X. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posted a pair of emojis: 💥🤌🏻.

Israel had said that it agreed to the ceasefire because it had already “achieved all of the objectives” of its military operation that began on June 13 and has killed hundreds of Iranians, including top generals and nuclear scientists. The earlier statement noted, however, that “Israel will respond forcefully to any violation of the ceasefire.”

Trump, who touted the truce on Monday night and warned “please do not violate it,” has not yet publicly commented on how the U.S. will respond to the ceasefire’s collapse.

“Fire up the deportation planes,” the Department of Homeland Security posted on social media. That’s the message it got from the Supreme Court, which permitted the Trump Administration to resume the rapid removal of undocumented immigrants to countries other than their own.

The conservative-majority high court on Monday granted the Administration’s emergency request to put on hold an April injunction issued by a federal district court judge that required deportees be given written notice and “meaningful opportunity” to challenge their removal to so-called third countries.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Since Donald Trump began his second term, his Administration has been working out agreements with countries including El Salvador, Guatemala, Kosovo, Rwanda, and more to accept expelled migrants from the U.S. no matter their country of origin.

Read More: What the Venezuelans Deported to El Salvador Experienced

The Trump Administration argued that third-country deportations are necessary in order to remove “the worst of the worst,” because for migrants who have committed “heinous” crimes, “their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back.” The request cited a recent case in which the same federal judge who issued the injunction in April blocked in May the deportation of a group of migrants, described by DHS as “some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States,” who were scheduled to be sent to conflict-ridden South Sudan.

Lawyers for the migrants have repeatedly argued that their removal to South Sudan would subject them to “a strong likelihood of irreparable harm.” Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance reiterated after the Supreme Court’s decision that the deportees face possible “imprisonment, torture and even death” if sent to South Sudan, according to the Associated Press.

In the Administration’s request for a stay, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that because the deportees were sent instead to Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. military base in Djibouti, the injunction was “disrupting the base’s operations, consuming critical resources intended for service members, and harming national security.”

The Supreme Court offered no explanation for its decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Sotomayor, in a lengthy opinion, said she cannot join “so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion,” arguing that the court is “rewarding lawlessness.”

“Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,” Sotomayor wrote.

“The Government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” Sotomayor added.

The Justice Department said in court documents for the case of the deportees in Djibouti that it is assessing its next steps following the Supreme Court’s decision.

Lawyers for those deportees filed a motion for individual injunctive relief, arguing that lower-court judges still have the power to block deportations on a case-by-case basis. The motion was denied “as unnecessary” by the federal judge who argued that his May order blocking their deportation was unaffected by the Supreme Court decision on his earlier injunction. The Supreme Court decision is expected to open the floodgates for many individual claims to be brought before lower courts over third-country deportation orders.