BREAKING: Karoline Leavitt Returns To The White House Briefing Room!
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt provided an update on Thursday on President Donald Trump’s possible nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia.
While speaking to reporters at the press briefing, Leavitt revealed that the deal was contingent on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords.
Leavitt read Trump’s Thursday morning Truth Social post about the contingency to reporters, that said in part, “The civil nuclear deal, there will be no enrichment of material, an important point being made between the Department of Energy and Saudi Arabia, which pertains only to non-military use, will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords.”
Leavitt emphasized, “Yes, this deal with Saudi Arabia, the energy deal, is contingent on this condition, as far as the president is concerned.”
NBC News correspondent Gabe Gutierrez asked, “Why was that condition not mentioned yesterday when the Energy secretary announced it?”
“Look, the president is always the final deal maker, as you know, and this is something he has mentioned on numerous occasions going back. I can provide you with those statements, and he has said if they don’t join the Abraham Accords the deal is off. So we’ll continue to have those conversations with our Saudi counterparts moving forward,” Leavitt answered.
“So, the deal is dead if Saudi Arabia doesn’t join in? And have you any indication that Saudi Arabia is even considering this?” Gutierrez followed up.
“No, again, the president has spoken directly with the Saudis about this in numerous conversations in the past, and the administration will continue to engage in those conversations,” Leavitt maintained.
Leavitt called on the next reporter, but Gutierrez pressed, “Will they be exempt from international inspections as part of this deal as it moves forward?”
“I don’t want to comment on the specifics of the deal,” said a more agitated Leavitt. “As we’re still again, as I just said, talking, especially about this very important condition the president raised this morning.”
Following questions about other topics, The Wall Street Journal’s Meridith McGraw asked, “Just to continue on the Saudi nuclear deal. Do the Saudis agree with this interpretation since it wasn’t part of the initial agreement? And has the president talked to MBS since the new condition?”
“As you know, the president just put out this statement a few hours ago. I don’t believe he have has had a call with MBS in the hours since, however he raised this in previous conversations and has also said many times in the past,” Leavitt said.
The next reporter asked, “In regards to this deal, in the past the Saudi government has said they will not consider entering into the Abraham Accords unless and until there is a Palestinian state. What makes you think that they will change their minds on their position regarding that?”
“Again, I won’t get ahead of the president’s conversations, but this is something that he feels very strongly about and has spoken about in the past and will continue to uphold,” Leavitt repeated.
“Just playing devil’s advocate, why does Saudi Arabia get a civilian nuclear deal Iran doesn’t get a civilian nuclear deal?” the reporter pressed.
This comes as President Trump gave Iran multiple opportunities to avoid the current conflict with the United States months before it began.
After the war started, the administration continued to reach out to the surviving regime in Tehran, offering one olive branch after another.
But even after agreeing to a 60-day ceasefire in late June, the Iranians continued to attack commercial tankers and shipping, which then led to a new wave of strikes by the U.S., which is now in its ninth day.
That said, Secretary of State Marco Rubio noted on Sunday that the United States remains open to diplomacy with Iran.
Rubio said Sunday night that Iran had effectively ended a memorandum of understanding intended to keep the Strait of Hormuz open after Tehran attacked multiple commercial vessels, while emphasizing that the United States remains willing to pursue a diplomatic resolution.
Speaking with reporters at Joint Base Andrews before departing for the Philippines for the ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting, Rubio said Iran had been expected to reaffirm its commitment to keeping the strategic waterway open to commercial shipping and to cease attacks on vessels.
When asked if the memorandum of understanding was truly dead, Rubio stated that Iran had already answered that question through its actions.
“They’re not complying with it,” Rubio said.
“The straits are supposed to be open, free of tolls, free of attack, free of all the things they’re doing against these ships,” he continued, per Fox News.
Nevertheless, Rubio said the U.S. is still willing to sit down and discuss peace terms with the Iranians, but their behavior will have to change first.
JUST IN - MISSOURI REDISTRICTING BATTLE
KAVANAUGH REJECTS MISSOURI GOP STAY REQUEST - BUT FEDERAL JUDGE TEMPORARILY REVIVES TRUMP-BACKED MAP
The U.S. Supreme Court action was real, and Missouri's high court said a citizen referendum suspended the new districts. But a federal judge issued a conflicting 14-day order minutes later, so the claim that Missouri will definitely use its old map in November is no longer settled.
STATUS UPDATE - September 8, 2026: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins' emergency stay application. Later the same evening, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark temporarily ordered the state to use the newer map. Further appeals were expected.
WASHINGTON / JEFFERSON CITY, MO. - A fast-moving legal fight over Missouri's congressional districts produced two sharply different court orders on September 8, leaving the map for the November 2026 midterm election uncertain even after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant Republican state officials emergency relief.
The first part of the viral claim is accurate: Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied an emergency application filed by Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins seeking to pause a Missouri Supreme Court decision that had blocked the state's Trump-backed 2025 congressional map. The U.S. Supreme Court docket, No. 26A304, records the application as denied by Kavanaugh on September 8. The order did not include an explanation and was not a merits ruling on the underlying redistricting dispute.
However, the statement that Missouri therefore "will now use its previous congressional districts in November" became outdated almost immediately. Minutes after Kavanaugh acted, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri officials to use the newer map for the time being. His order is set to last 14 days while the federal case proceeds, creating a direct practical conflict with the Missouri Supreme Court's earlier command.
What Kavanaugh Actually Denied
Missouri Republicans did not ask the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling on the legality of the map. They asked for emergency relief - a stay of the Missouri Supreme Court's judgment - so the state could continue using the districts enacted in 2025 while litigation continued. Under the Supreme Court's circuit-assignment system, the application was submitted to Kavanaugh, who handles emergency matters from the Eighth Circuit.
The official docket says simply that the application was denied. That is enough to say the Supreme Court did not give Missouri officials the emergency relief they requested. But it is more precise to write that Kavanaugh denied the emergency stay application than to imply that the full Court issued a detailed final judgment against the map.
Supreme Court docket 26A304: "Sep 08 2026 - Application (26A304) denied by Justice Kavanaugh."
Missouri Supreme Court: The Referendum Suspended the New Map
The state-court ruling that triggered the emergency application was sweeping. The Missouri Supreme Court concluded that the referendum petition challenging House Bill 1 was legal, sufficient and timely. Because the petition was filed before the law's effective date, the court held that HB 1 never took effect and could not take effect unless Missouri voters approved it in the November 2026 general election.
The state high court ordered Secretary Hoskins to certify the referendum petition and put it on the November ballot. It also said the congressional districts enacted in 2022 remained in force for the general election. That decision reversed a lower state court and rejected the secretary's earlier conclusion that the referendum could not be used to challenge congressional redistricting legislation.
More Than 300,000 Signatures - With an Important Qualification
Opponents of the 2025 map, led by People Not Politicians Missouri, submitted more than 300,000 signatures in December 2025 to force a statewide referendum on House Bill 1. The number refers to signatures submitted by the campaign, not a claim that every signature was individually valid. The legal question was whether the petition contained enough valid signatures and complied with state law.
By September 2026, the Missouri Supreme Court had resolved that issue in the petitioners' favor, declaring the referendum petition sufficient and timely. The state's official petition system identifies 2026-R004 as the referendum challenging House Bill 1, and the court directed that the measure be placed before voters in November.
Why the New Map Matters Politically
Missouri currently sends six Republicans and two Democrats to the U.S. House. The 2025 map was drawn during a special legislative session after President Donald Trump urged Republican-led states to pursue mid-decade redistricting ahead of the 2026 elections. The most consequential changes target the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional District represented by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver II.
By splitting portions of Kansas City among neighboring Republican-held districts and extending the remainder of the 5th District farther into more Republican territory, the new configuration was designed to improve Republican chances of winning an additional House seat. That is why the map is often described as potentially producing a 7-1 Republican delegation. The phrase "could give Republicans seven of eight seats" is reasonable as a description of the map's partisan objective, but it should not be presented as a guaranteed election result.
The Twist: A Federal Judge Reinstated the New Map - For Now
The most important correction to the original account came later on September 8. U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark issued a temporary restraining order requiring Missouri to use the 2025 map despite the Missouri Supreme Court ruling. Clark emphasized that Missouri had already conducted its August congressional primaries under the newer districts and warned that switching maps between the primary and general election could create candidate, voter and administrative confusion.
Clark wrote that using a different map for the general election would "wreak havoc on the fairness and orderliness of Missouri's congressional elections."
The federal order is temporary. It lasts 14 days pending further proceedings and does not erase the state Supreme Court's interpretation of Missouri's referendum law. The competing orders instead created a new layer of litigation over federal election administration, state constitutional authority and the consequences of changing district boundaries after a primary has already taken place.
As a result, the most accurate status is not that the old map has definitively won or that the new map has definitively survived. The map for November remains contested, with additional litigation and appellate review capable of changing the answer again before ballots are finalized.
A Setback for Trump's Redistricting Push - But Not Yet a Final Defeat
Kavanaugh's denial was a setback for Missouri officials and Republican organizations that had asked the Supreme Court to preserve the Trump-backed map. It also reinforced, at least temporarily, the Missouri Supreme Court's conclusion that citizens could use the referendum process to suspend the redistricting law pending a statewide vote.
But the later federal restraining order means it is premature to describe the episode as a final defeat for Trump's broader mid-decade redistricting strategy. The Missouri dispute is one part of a national fight in which both parties have pursued new congressional maps in multiple states, often with control of a narrowly divided U.S. House in mind.
Conclusion
The core breaking-news claim was substantially correct at the moment Kavanaugh acted: Missouri Republicans failed to obtain the emergency Supreme Court stay they requested, and the state Supreme Court had ruled that a valid citizen referendum prevented the 2025 map from taking effect without voter approval. Organizers had submitted more than 300,000 signatures, and the new map was designed to give Republicans a better chance of expanding their six-seat share of Missouri's eight-member House delegation.
The final sentence of the original version, however, is no longer reliable. Missouri cannot yet be described as certain to use the previous congressional districts in November. A federal judge temporarily ordered use of the new map minutes after Kavanaugh's denial, and the legal battle is continuing. For publication, the safest headline is therefore one that reports the Supreme Court denial while making clear that the November map remains unsettled.
