INTERNACIONAL
Iran’s Khamenei warns of ‘strong blow’ as Trump threatens to drop bombs, Putin silent on US ire
Furious comments issued by President Donald Trump over the weekend prompted a swift and aggressive response from Iran, while Russian President Vladimir Putin remains tight-lipped in the face of the U.S. leader’s ire.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, issued a warning on Monday and said it would respond «decisively and immediately» to any threat issued by the U.S. after Trump said there «will be bombing» and likely more tariffs if Tehran does not agree to a nuclear deal with Washington.
«The enmity from the U.S. and Israel has always been there. They threaten to attack us, which we don’t think is very probable, but if they commit any mischief, they will surely receive a strong reciprocal blow,» Khamenei said according to a Reuters report.
TRUMP THREATENS TO BOMB IRAN UNLESS THEY END NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM AND BEGIN TALKS ON NEW DEAL
President Donald Trump speaks to the press aboard Air Force One before arriving at Palm Beach International Airport in West Palm Beach, Florida, on Mar. 28, 2025. (BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)
«And if they are thinking of causing sedition inside the country as in past years, the Iranian people themselves will deal with them,» he added.
Despite Iran’s refusal and warning directed at both the U.S. and Israel, Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran expert and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said Khamenei’s comments are an attempt to «buy time» while balancing growing external and internal pressures on his regime.
«At once, Khamenei sought to both downplay the chances of President Trump or Israel taking military action while also looking to deter such an eventuality due to the regime’s own policies,» he told Fox News Digital. «This is a tightrope Khamenei will increasingly be forced to walk as he plays for time and engages in nuclear escalation.
«U.S. policy should be to keep Khamenei off balance,» he added.
While Iran takes an offensive stance against Trump and his ambitions to finally bring Tehran to heel on its nuclear expansion, Russia is taking a different approach as it refuses to bow to Trump’s plans to see an end to the war in Ukraine.
TRUMP SAYS HE IS ‘PISSED OFF’ WITH PUTIN OVER LACK OF PEACE PROGRESS: REPORT
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, meets with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran, Iran. (Dmitry AZAROV / SPUTNIK / AFP)
Over the weekend, Trump said he was «pissed off» over comments made by Putin on Friday when he suggested the work Washington was doing to negotiate a ceasefire with Russia and Ukraine was moot because he believes the government in Kyiv to be illegitimate and therefore cannot sign any deals.
«If Russia and I are unable to make a deal on stopping the bloodshed in Ukraine, and if I think it was Russia’s fault … I am going to put secondary tariffs on oil, on all oil coming out of Russia,» Trump said, noting that tariffs could be as high as 50%.
The president later said his ire could «dissipate quickly» if Putin «does the right thing,» and once again noted he has «a very good relationship with [Putin].»
However, the Kremlin chief, who reportedly has another call scheduled with Trump this week, has not responded to Trump’s heated comments.
The chief spokesman for Putin, Dmitry Peskov, said on Monday that Russia will continue to work on «restoring» relations with Washington that he said were «damaged by the Biden administration» following Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and noted that Putin remains in «open contact» with Trump.
However, Putin’s lack of public response and the toned-down statements from the Kremlin are all part of Putin’s broader strategy, former DIA intelligence officer and Russia expert, Rebekah Koffler, told Fox News Digital.
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One on his return to Washington, D.C., on Mar. 30, 2025, when he said he was «pissed off» at Russian President Vladimir Putin. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
«Putin, like Trump, thrives on confrontation,» Koffler said. «Except his approach is different. The Kremlin deliberately is projecting that Putin is cool, calm, and collected now, which he is.
«The fact that President Trump reportedly got mad and used those words means to Putin that he finally got to him, the way he got to Biden, Obama, and others who called him a killer and other derogatory words,» she continued.
«Putin now feels that not only Russia has an upper hand on the battlefield over Ukraine and in terms of total combat potential over NATO, but he also was able to unbalance Trump,» Koffler explained. «That is the whole point – it’s a judo move.»
La Asamblea Legislativa de El Salvador aprobó hoy con 57 votos a favor y uno en contra una nueva prórroga de treinta días para la suspensión de garantías constitucionales bajo el Régimen de Excepción. Esta medida, en vigor desde marzo de 2022, fue presentada a consideración del pleno legislativo a fin de garantizar la seguridad, la integridad física y moral, así como la salud de la población salvadoreña, según la correspondencia oficial remitida al órgano legislativo.
La propuesta, que previamente ha sido avalada de forma unánime por el Consejo de Ministros y expuesta por el Ministro de Seguridad Pública y Justicia, Héctor Gustavo Villatoro, tiene como objetivo mantener las condiciones de seguridad que han permitido la disminución de homicidios en el país. Desde su instauración, El Salvador ha prorrogado de forma continua las restricciones, actualmente limitadas a los derechos recogidos en los artículos 12 inciso 2º (derecho de defensa), 13 inciso 2º (plazo de detención administrativa) y 24 (inviolabilidad de la correspondencia) de la Constitución.
El fundamento jurídico de la medida reside en el artículo 30 de la Constitución de la República. Este artículo establece: “El plazo de suspensión de las garantías constitucionales no excederá de 30 días. Transcurrido este plazo podrá prolongarse la suspensión, por igual período y mediante nuevo decreto, si continúan las circunstancias que la motivaron”. La notificación agrega: “Si no se emite tal decreto, quedarán establecidas de pleno derecho las garantías suspendidas”.
La jurisprudencia de la Sala de lo Constitucional respalda la posición gubernamental. De acuerdo con la sentencia 21-2020AC, “es posible prolongar con la debida razonabilidad la suspensión de derechos fundamentales mediante un nuevo decreto de una duración que no exceda de esos mismos 30 días”. El fallo de la Sala también aclara que “del texto de esa frase del art. 30 Cn. no se infiere que la prolongación deba limitarse por una sola vez… la prórroga debe respetar el límite temporal máximo de vigencia del decreto de adopción del régimen de excepción, pero en modo alguno debe entenderse que las prórrogas sucesivas están prohibidas”.
En el plano internacional, el documento apunta que varios instrumentos de derechos humanos permiten a los estados, en caso de peligro público o emergencia que amenace la independencia o seguridad del Estado parte, adoptar disposiciones que, en la medida y por el tiempo estrictamente necesario, suspendan algunos derechos o garantías. Las autoridades salvadoreñas afirman que la medida no está dirigida a enfrentar la criminalidad común sino que se justifica, tal como se ha hecho en el país, para combatir un fenómeno criminal sin precedentes a nivel mundial.
Los resultados oficiales han sido calificados como un “logro sin precedentes en la disminución de la delincuencia, crimen organizado y terrorismo”. Según el informe presentado por el Ministro de Seguridad, “las medidas extraordinarias decretadas han tenido un exitoso resultado que ha supuesto la reducción histórica en los índices de homicidios y la captura de más de 91,300 terroristas”.
Durante la aprobación del Régimen, la diputada Elisa Rosales, de Nuevas Ideas, afirmó que gracias esto El Salvador ahora cuenta con 1,140 días sin homicidios e hizo el recuento de las estadísticas más recientes.
Según la parlamentaria, diciembre de 2025 finalizó con 26 días sin homicidios; mientras que enero de 2026 cerró con 27 días sin homicidios y en lo que va de febrero ya se registran 20 días sin vidas que lamentar debido a la violencia.
“Esto no sería posible sin la seguridad. Según datos más recientes somos líderes regionales en turismo”, agregó la diputada. “Esto habla que ahora en El Salvador los criminales ya no tienen cabida”, sentenció.
El principal argumento para extender el régimen es el riesgo de reorganización de las estructuras criminales: “Se han identificado y capturado sujetos con intención de reorganización de las pandillas, quienes replican sus modos delictivos, y a quienes se les ha decomisado armas de fuego, drogas y otro tipo de objetos vinculados al tráfico ilícito”. Además, se resalta que “en viviendas se están realizando procedimientos para la eliminación de marcas o distintivos corporales alusivos a pandillas”, lo que demuestra intentos de ocultamiento y evasión que requieren vigilancia constante.
El documento aprobado reitera que la prórroga se decreta “en beneficio del derecho a la vida, la seguridad física y la propiedad de los salvadoreños”.
corresponsal:Desde San Salvador, El Salvador
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
It goes against the very instincts of some of the most powerful officials in the U.S.: get all dressed up, appear before a national TV audience, but sit there like statues without betraying any words or emotion.
For members of the Supreme Court, enduring the annual State of the Union address is a civic exercise in poker-faced discretion. As recent history has shown, that has not always been easy.
Tuesday’s speech by President Donald Trump will be watched closely not only for what is said, but also for who will be there in person to hear it — especially an undetermined number of justices with front-row seats.
This year’s appearances are especially of interest, coming four days after a 6-3 majority of the court struck down the president’s sweeping tariffs, in a sweeping setback to his economic agenda.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy attend President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025. (Win McNamee/Pool via Reuters)
Trump lashed out sharply at the court, especially the six members who voted against him, including two he appointed to the bench — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
The president said he was «ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for the country.»
At least one member of the bench, Justice Samuel Alito, has previously stated he will likely no longer go — after lingering, dramatic criticism leveled at a court ruling by Obama in his 2010 address.
But one or more justices have almost always attended the annual speech to Congress and the nation in recent decades. Court members are not required by law to be there, but custom has dictated their appearance, mostly for show. They are a key, if low-key, part of the pageantry, and are compelled to sit politely and stoically, amid the often high-spirited partisan rhetoric and response of the event.
There is no word yet from the high court on who will appear. Invitations are sent to each chamber, and the justices have individual discretion over whether to go.
Those who do traditionally wear their judicial robes, are escorted into the House as a group, and take prominent seats up front.
Retired justices usually get asked as well, minus the robes. They are joined by other officers of the court, such as the marshal and clerk.
WATCH: TOP 5 MOST MEMORABLE MOMENTS IN AMERICAN STATE OF THE UNION HISTORY
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elana Kagan, along with former Justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy, have been regular attendees over the years.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and retired Justice Anthony Kennedy attend President Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress, March 4, 2025. (Reuters/Evelyn Hockstein)
But the ceremony put the justices in a highly uncomfortable position in 2010.
Democrats cheered President Barack Obama when he dressed down high court conservatives for its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, issued a week earlier, which removed legal barriers preventing corporations and unions from spending unlimited sums on federal elections.
«With all due deference to the separation of powers,» Obama said, «the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections.»
Alito, sitting just feet away in the audience, shook his head and mouthed words interpreted as «not true,» referring to the line about «foreign corporations,» court sources later confirmed.
Alito’s five fellow justices in attendance showed no emotion.
He had been a regular at previous addresses, but months after the incident, Alito told an audience in New York that he felt «like the proverbial potted plant» and would not be attending in the near future. In fact, the year after the presidential dress-down, Alito was in Hawaii at a law school symposium.
Justices pose for an official group portrait at the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill on Oct. 7, 2022, following the addition of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: TRUMP’S STATE OF THE UNION BECOMES POLITICAL BOXING MATCH AS DEMOCRATS BOYCOTT
The now 75-year-old justice also, with a smile, noted that his colleagues «who are more disciplined, refrain from manifesting any emotion or opinion whatsoever.»
Roberts labeled the political atmosphere at the 2010 address «very troubling.»
The head of the federal judiciary has said partisan rhetoric and gestures aimed at the court left him questioning whether his colleagues should continue to attend.
During that 2010 address, members of Congress sat just behind the justices, many applauding loudly when Obama made his remarks about the court’s election spending case, especially Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
«It does cause me to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there» Roberts said weeks after the controversy. «To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I’m not sure why we’re there.»
Then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded quickly at the time with an indirect attack on Roberts, saying «the only thing troubling» was the Citizens United ruling itself.
Regardless, Roberts has never missed a State of the Union as chief justice.
THOMAS RIPS SUPREME COURT TARIFFS RULING, SAYS MAJORITY ‘ERRS’ ON CONSTITUTION
That included 2021 with President Joe Biden’s address to a joint session of Congress that was limited in attendance because of the pandemic. The sparse, widely-separated crowd included Roberts, a few Cabinet officers and a smattering of congressional members, all wearing masks.
Some justices were regular no-shows at the State of the Union, including John Paul Stevens, who stepped down from the court months after the 2010 State of the Union.
Roberts’ predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, also rarely appeared in person, once because he considered a painting class more preferable.
Justice Clarence Thomas called it «very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there.» He went to Obama’s first annual address in 2009, but has not been back since.
«There’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV,» he once said, «the catcalls, the whooping, hollering and under-the breath comments.»
Another more vocal no-go was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who compared the televised State of the Union to «cheerleading sessions.»
President Donald Trump talks to Chief Justice John Roberts on the day of his speech to a joint session of Congress, at the U.S. Capitol, March 4, 2025. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)
«I don’t know at what point that happened, but it has happened, and now you go and sit there like bumps on a log while applause lines cause one half of the Congress to leap up while [another line] causes the other half to leap up,» he once said. «It is a juvenile spectacle. And I resent being called upon to give it dignity.»
TRUMP REVEALS HIS ‘NEW HERO’ SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AFTER TARIFFS RULING
He last attended the event in 1997, but did attend a special joint session of Congress after the 9/11 terror attacks in 2001, with four other justices.
Scalia, a generally verbose and animated jurist, said bluntly: «You just sit there, looking stupid.»
Even remarks touching on supposedly nonpartisan topics like patriotism, war veterans and puppy dogs leave the justices in a quandary: should they applaud, should they stand and applaud or do neither? The protocols are never clear, and the public might view the court members as aloof or uncaring if they offer no reaction during, say, a salute to Martin Luther King Jr.’s memory, when everyone else is shown engaging in bipartisan applause in the chamber.
One «extra-court-ricular» event that is a must-attend for the Supreme Court is the presidential inauguration. All nine members were at last year’s public swearing-in for Trump to a second four-year term. Roberts and Kavanaugh had official duties to administer the oaths of office to the president and vice president, respectively, but the other seven justices only had to sit there, again quietly, in the Capitol Rotunda.
Breyer is the one justice who might be called a «regular» at the State of the Union, going to nearly all of them since joining the court in 1994, including one in his retirement.
He missed President Bill Clinton’s last annual address in 2000 because of the flu. That year, no justices were in attendance.
Many believe the justices have to go to such events, that it is just another unwanted chore of office. Not so, Breyer told us in 2005. «People attend if they wish to attend. I do wish to attend, so I go.»
KAVANAUGH RIPS SUPREME COURT MAJORITY’S ‘ILLOGICAL’ LINE ON TARIFFS
President Donald Trump is set to deliver his fourth State of the Union address of his presidency on Feb. 24, 2026. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Here’s a list of Supreme Court members attending recent State of the Union or equivalent Joint Session of Congress addresses in recent years, based on Fox News research and congressional records. Names are listed by seniority:
– 2025: John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Anthony Kennedy (retired)
– 2024: Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kennedy (retired)
– 2023: Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Kennedy, Stephen Breyer (retired)
– 2022: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett
– 2021: Roberts (limited speech attendance because of pandemic)
– 2020: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
– 2019: Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
– 2018: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch
– 2017: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2016: Roberts, Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2015: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2014: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
– 2013: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2012: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan
– 2011: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
– 2010: Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sotomayor
– 2009: Roberts, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
– 2008: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
– 2007: Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito
– 2006: Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
– 2005: Breyer
– 2004: Breyer
– 2003: Breyer
– 2002: Kennedy, Breyer
– 2001: Breyer
– 2000: None
– 1999: Sandra Day O’Connor, Kennedy, David Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
– 1998: William Rehnquist, O’Connor, Souter, Thomas, Breyer
– 1997: Antonin Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Byron White (retired)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
– 1996: Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
– 1995: Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Harry Blackmun (retired)
Related Article
supreme court,state of the union,donald trump
INTERNACIONAL
España: ¿Cuál es el verdadero alcance de los documentos que el gobierno de Pedro Sánchez va a desclasificar sobre el intento de golpe del 23F?
Mencio, discípulo de Confucio: “Si amás a las personas y se muestran hostiles, examiná tu amor”
Fernando Marull analizó la economía real: créditos, salarios y el precio de vivir en la Argentina
El partido que cambió la historia de Messi y Argentina: ‘Fuimos a jugar con miedo’
La Asamblea Legislativa aprueba nueva prórroga del Régimen de Excepción en El Salvador
Milei cambia el temario del Senado y quiere ser el primer presidente en aprobar el acuerdo con la Unión Europea
Otra provincia se suma al boom de emisiones de deuda: se colocaron u$s7.800 millones desde octubre
Villarruel cuestionó la apertura de importaciones: «Sin industria, se pasa a depender de China»
“Ahora es la hora de jugarse”: el mensaje de Patricia Bullrich a los empresarios tras aprobarse la reforma laboral
Según un especialista, el precio de la carne se mantendrá alto “entre dos y tres años”
Cómo será el tratamiento de la reforma laboral en el Senado, luego de haber obtenido la media sanción en Diputados
ECONOMIA3 días agoSegún un especialista, el precio de la carne se mantendrá alto “entre dos y tres años”
- POLITICA3 días ago
Cómo será el tratamiento de la reforma laboral en el Senado, luego de haber obtenido la media sanción en Diputados
- ECONOMIA3 días ago
¿Me pueden pagar el sueldo con botellas de vino o Bitcoin?: la letra chica de la reforma laboral
