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.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
