PART 3 ANTI-ANTI-NAZI BARBARIAN HORDES ARE KNOCKING DOWN THE

[admin]

Larry Johnson: Iran Abandons Talks & Threatens to Retaliate Against Israel
Glenn Diesen
Jun 1, 2026

Larry Johnson is a former CIA intelligence analyst who also worked at the U.S. State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses Israel's attacks on Lebanon, Iran walking away from the talks, and the rapid escalation as Iran threatens to retaliate against Israel.



Transcript

Welcome back to the program. We are joined again by Larry Johnson, a former CI analyst who also worked at the US State Department's Office of
Counterterrorism and who's also a prolific writer on the website Soner 21 and I will leave a link in the
description. So, thank you for coming back on, Larry. There's a lot of things to go through here. their parents that
the Iran war is escalating quickly now and well it seems very likely we're going to go back to large scale warfare
that is uh well over the past few days we already seen that the US have struck Iran and um and Iran has retaliated
so we see that the Israel's bombing of Lebanon has intensified and u uh this
now yeah they will start bombing Beirut it seems or then it seems and uh the US
apparently have given given a green light to do so. Iran then has responded
by um by arguing that all fronts are linked to the ceasefire. In other words, you can't attack Lebanon then will
attack you. uh Iran has then withdrawn from the talks with the US and you know the media there's rumors anything such
as uh well a lot of things that could be done for example Iran could shut down the Red Sea uh it's hard to follow this
is all happening very very fast so I was hoping if you could give a nice overview over what we're looking at here yeah so it started off about 10:00 this
morning uh Eastern East Coast time so I guess that's like 3:00 p.m. your time. You're different from me.
6. Okay. So, that's 4:00 your time. Uh, which means you're up past your bedtime. Thanks for doing this.
Um, and Iran said, "Okay." U, we're not we're done talking to the United States. Because the initial
ceasefire, the agreement was that Israel would not attack Lebanon, not just Beirut, not attack Lebanon. It
would stop its attacks. of the Palestinians and instead they're continuing. So we're out. We're not we're not going to we're not going to
have any more talks. We're closing the straight of Hormuz. Now up to this point Iran has allowed a number of ships to go
through and they said we're going to shut it down completely again. Complete shut down and we're going to close the
straight of Babel Mandab. That's going to be shut down. They haven't shut it down yet. Um, I think they were giving
the United States basically to see if they would go back to the original agreement that was signed.
Um, this got Trump's attention because within an hour of that
announcement, Trump's on the phone with BB Netanyahu. Now, here's where it gets confusing.
Uh Trump's version is he had a great call and BB's going to no they're not going to bomb Beirut, but that's not that's not what Iran's
asking for. This is not just don't bomb Beirut. Stop bombing Lebanon and stop killing Palestinians. Stop.
Well, Israel's not willing to stop. And since that phone call, Trump's given one version and BB Netanyahu is given a completely different version.
And then you've got the people like Smootric weighing in and Israel Catz the defense minister weighing in and Bendy
Gavir weighing in. So and it looks like Israel has not stopped and and so then here's concerning point.
uh one of the spokesman for the IRGC in Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps said issued the warning, if you live in northern Israel, they refer to it as the occupi northern occupied
territories. If you're in northern Israel, you want to get out because we're going to hit you.
So they made unambiguous.
So, I I think within within the next , you're going to see Iran re-engage Israel with ballistic missiles
and drones that will be targeting northern Israel.
So, this this looks like it's heating up. Now, what's the United States doing so far with on the military side of the
house? Um, they're not spinning up. They And what what do I mean by spinning up?
where you know basically the air tasking orders go out where you tell this squadron, okay, these are your targets.
This is where you're going to hit. This is when you're going to launch. Now, a lot of that's pre-programmed, but before
you don't just because these were planned maybe six weeks ago, eight weeks ago. So, you don't just grab it and say, "Okay, yeah, it was good eight weeks
ago. Let's launch." No, you got to go through and check them. You know, that's how they got into trouble with killing
those girls at the school at al-manab uh in in on February 28th. They used some existing plans that had been planned
before with dated information. They hadn't updated it. They hadn't checked it. So now, you know, I think one of the
consequences of that for new air tasking orders, they go in and have to verify and double check.
So, um, it was instructive that Trump didn't waste any time getting on the phone with Netanyahu.
Now, Netanyahu's was telling the exact opposite that he's not listening to Trump. Trump claiming that BB Netanyahu
listened to him. So, we'll we'll see. Uh the only we'll know whether or not the if the attacks continue in Beirut and in southern Lebanon
then uh I think we're going to see Iran strike Israel within the next .
Well, this should have been the key lesson from the war though that Iranians are able to deter by going up the
escalation ladder with the United States. So this whole idea that the US and Israel can simply say, well, let's
do a limited ceasefire. we won't strike Beirut if you don't hit Israel. Uh but again, it's open season on the southern parts of Lebanon. The idea that they
would be able to u well decide how the war should be fought. Uh there's no indications that
Iran would go along with this. So again, this seems very very predictable. But what do you think is the calculation now
in Tel Aviv? I mean, are the Israelis their their bombing of Lebanon? Is it uh
deliberately to prevent Trump from making any extended ceasefire or peace deal with the Iranians or is this just
um you know well they're just going along with their usual business?
Yeah. No. Well, I think it's a combination of the two. I don't think it's an eitheror. Um they've uh they're
convinced that they can beat Hezbollah or they think they can and that's why they want to bomb blow up that destroy
that suburb. You know, as cats or Bir was saying, flatten it, flatten it, flatten it, you know, do give it the
Gaza treatment. But you know the thing we're seeing now with the tactics that Hezbollah have employed with the first
you know the first person point of view uh drones that that are fiber optic. Number one
they are uh they are immune to electronic warfare countermeasures.
Number two the drone operators they don't have to expose themselves.
you know, it's not it's not like in 2006 when they were shooting an RPG, you know, shoulder fired. You had to get out
and sort of, you know, be visible. If you could see the tank, the tank could see you. Um, and so they lost some
personnel that way. This this reduces Hezbollah's casualties and they usually get to do it from underground bunkers.
So um that and then the volume I don't know what percentage
of uh you know actual casualties you know killed in action by wounded. Uh some of the public sources suggest show
it's well over a thousand wounded. Um uh the official death toll was like 24. I I think that's I think that's not true.
That's entirely too low. Um, but an estimated 400 Marava tanks have been
destroyed. That's a lot of tanks. I mean, Israel's got thousands, you know, I think a couple of thousand, but this
is still a significant loss of tanks. And if you're hit losing tanks, that means you're losing personnel.
Now, whether they're being killed or wounded, you know, that's a whole another thing. So, um, Hezbollah is not
going to stop this until Israel withdraws from southern Lebanon, goes back into northern, uh, Israel now. And
that brings back Iran's threat, telling them, "Get the hell out of northern Israel because we're going we're going to hit you." That was the message.
Um you because you don't tell people to vacate that area just because you know you're trying to uh you know create business for a moving company.
They're they're going to hit it.
Yeah. Well, I saw that uh the Israeli National Security Minister Ben was um
making the point that uh they should uh well at any opportunity they should say yes when it's possible to the United States and no when necessary. And the
his his argument was when it comes to attacking Lebanon, it's time to say no to the Americans that or the American
president that this is something that Israel will do irrespective of what Trump says. uh which which kind
of can be seen as another way now of pulling the United States back into the war because uh if they begin now to
intensify the attacks on Lebanon, Iran will then retaliate, do you think it's any chance that the Americans will sit
on the sideline or is that or Yeah, I think I I think initially yes.
Um because America doesn't have any good military options. These are all um Trump
uh according to uh Robert Barnes and I I think Barnes has good enough contact still despite him being seen as a critic
now of Trump. He was Trump's lawyer, but he he he said that, you know, Trump was terrified of getting back into a Jimmy
Carter situation where you got American hostages being held in Iran because, you know, day one, day two, day three, you
know, the news media starts keeping track of how long they're being held hostage, which becomes a measure of your
own incompetence. So, um, this is, um, Trump's not eager to get back into that.
And, uh, you know, when you look at the Iran has become pretty adept at shooting down drones.
So, if you can shoot down a drone, you can potentially also take down a an F-16 or an F-18 or an F-35
or an F-22 or an A-10. Those are like the four major categories. five major categories of aircraft that are in theater.
Well, Trump, you know, he took to social media as well. He was making the point that because of uh you know, his call,
as you said, to Netanyahu that they're not going to march on Beirut. So, essentially, he took care of business.
But, uh uh yeah, I mean, where did that come from? Who was talking about marching on Beirut? Yeah, that was I mean, is Israel did it?
What? Last time they did that was like 1982, I believe. 44 years ago or 34 years ago.
That'd be 44 years ago. So, yeah, they've done it before. And then they they go up and then they get picked off
and killed and wounded and then they retreat and go back to Israel. So, but what is the negotiation tactic here though? because it looks like Trump is
sabotaging himself at times because, you know, they're trying to move along the negotiations with the Iranians and then
uh suddenly Trump decides to as elevate the the demands of the United States when the initial demands weren't
acceptable anyways to the Iranians. So, um you know, it's it's it's not as if the Israelis are alone in sabotaging
these talks. He he seems to be doing this quite well on his own. Well, in fact, it the the the eerie parallels
with the negotiations with the Russians over Ukraine because the Iranian position has been unchanged since the
outset of the war when they laid out, you know, the 10point then the 14-point plan and it was always sanctioned
immediate sanction relief, return the frozen assets, recognize we control the straight of horm news uh delay comments
on the nuclear program. You know, they haven't very they haven't deviated from that. It's the United States that
keeps, you know, trying to change what what we're going to talk about or what the position is. And Iran keeps, you know, they thought that they actually
had some agreement on that. So, um and then the United States, Trump backed away again. So that's why that that was
I think it the frustration with Trump coupled with the actions of Israel in Lebanon that are just you know become
untenable. They've killed close to 4,000 people now just in the last uh two weeks or last let's see last four weeks. So
this this cease fire started really went into effect like April 15th
and uh so it's lasted from April 15th through all you know 45 days
so you know close to 7 weeks uh a little over seven weeks now or coming on seven
weeks but uh you know now Iran's been with the United States trying to get
slip ships through the straight of Hormuz that has led to these new confrontations and then led to Iran
hitting the base in Kuwait. Now notice it doesn't appear that any of these flights are originating out of Saudi
Arabia in particular. Qatar uh is um to the as well. Um if they were then it
Iran would be targeting those bases in those countries. So far, the only country it's targeting is Kuwait.
So, um, and this has been, uh, I'm told, uh, one of the issues that's been worked
behind the scenes with the Pakistanis and, uh, the, um, uh, and the Saudis
and and the Qataris that they're negotiating to get the US out. The US is going to be out of the
Persian Gulf. If you get this new security architecture, you get sort of a a new ruling uh let's call it NATO light
sort of NATO for West Asia which will include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan,
you know, sort of the big four which uh you know could could be and
then you know Iraq could join in as well but but the goal would be to bring in Iraq. Bring in Kuwait, Bahrain,
Qatar, as well as United Arab Emirate and Oman. Make them all a joint responsibility for security with no US presence.
Well, then the NATO analogy might not be ideal because in uh you know in in security arrangement one usually divides
because NATO is a military block where you know country A and C A sorry A and B seek security against
country C which was Russia here right but like in this other security arrangements they might well they might be discussing now in the Middle East
it's not security against the non-member but security with the other members because I don't think anyone would suspect that Iran and Saudi Arabia would
somehow allay up against the United States so you know that's not going to happen so it is but but no but I I agree I think this is this very significant
and I think it's in the interest of Iran as well not to make it um well or to reduce the zero or some aspect of this whole thing. Um, so what do you think is
the significance of Iran walking away from this talks? Because I sometimes think think about the way Trump was negotiating with the tariffs that is
first he'll come say, "Oh, I'll put 50% tariff on you and then he'll scale it back to 15 and then the counterpart should be walking away being happy even
though there was nothing there before." Uh, and it seems a little bit like that's what it tried to do with Lebanon as well, saying, "Okay, we're not gonna
bomb the southern suburbs of Beirut. So now Iran should be happy, but you know, at least, you know, this is what we'll
give you." And, you know, you should meet us halfway. You should let us bomb the hell out of southern Lebanon at least. Uh, but the Iranians walking
away. They, you know, this is interesting because they've so far for a variety of reasons probably
uh kept talks open all the time. They were willing to to talk to the Americans. Why do you think this is just um a a pressure tactic or have they
given up on the ability to make, you know, have any diplomacy?
No, I think I I think they've reached sort of a a moment
of a clear break. uh the you know if the United States is not going to be serious, they're not going to stay tied
to this. So Pepe Escobar and I we received some information the other day, but we have it and Pepe's in the process
of confirming it. We'll find out. Uh I'm supposed to hook up with him in about an hour at .
U we're going to be on a channel hosted by Zulfikar Ali. It's called powers shift.
But what we heard was last Friday now and and we we're we're
confident in the reliability of the information, but uh you'll understand why I'm a little hesitant with some of the final
details. the foreign minister of Pakistan spoke to Marco Rubio and uh told him in in no uncertain terms
he said here is this is where Iran is right now if this uh if if if this does not get
resolved um Iran is going to withdraw from the talks which has now happened
it's going to withdraw all from the NPT, the non-prololiferation treaty,
and it's going to set a date for a detonation of a nuclear device. Yeah.
Now, so when I when I went to, okay, are you saying, and this is what Pepe's busy
trying to confirm, are you saying that Iran has its own nuclear device now,
or have they been given it by another country like Pakistan or like North Korea?
And our source says I asked I asked my source that he's going to get back to me.
So I know that's that's one thing we're trying to verify, but so far what we were told Friday about they're going to
withdraw, they've now withdrawn. So that turned out to be true. We'll see if this NPT thing is true.
And if those two things have being true, then I'm going to say they may not be bullshitting about the other. I don't, you know, like I said, I can't confirm
that yet. We're trying to get it confirmed, but it shows that the the the the frustration level with Iran is real.
and they are acting not on their own because they've had the full backing up to this point of China,
Russia and the the uh the Chinese are working primarily through Pakistan and
so Pakistan has played a lead role. Now this this has got you know this has created some of the confusion in the west because people say well Pakistan is
so closely aligned with the United States.
Yeah, but um it is um
that has been true and and the history of it goes way back to you know the 50s with CIA. Um
the uh and then the role that Pakistan played in supporting CIA operations against uh the Soviets when they were in
Afghanistan in the 1980s. And then the all the Pakistani contractors who made
millions of dollars off of the United States government who was needing to get supplies trucked in from ports, you
know, Karachi into Afghanistan to support the 20-year presence of the United States in Afghanistan.
But that said, there's also been a close relationship between Pakistan and Iran as they fought against the Beluchis.
So the the Beluchcci population, you know, the Baluchaan movement has been a thorn in the side of both
Pakistan and Iran. And so they've actually cooperated on that. uh than um Pakistan's relationships with the Saudi
with the Saudis where they've actually signed in the last you know two or three weeks a a security deal with the Saudis.
Oh. Um, this is what what's happening is the United States, the ineffectiveness of
the US military uh attack on Iran, I think has awakened a lot of doubts about
the reliability of the United States anymore. And then so that's that's having a rippling effect as it affects a
variety of these different relationships. Um this other this source also told us though or was in writing to
us that uh the Saudis and Qataris have made
a decision as as well as Oman to uh get the you know distance themselves from the United States and uh Qatar is
talking about closing aloud air force base that would be huge if that takes place because that is the largest US
face uh and has been for good lord 30 years uh in in that region. So this this
thing's in flux. But the fact that Iran, you know, I said we were told in that document on Friday they were going to
withdraw from the process. They did that today.
So I've got to, you know, so that source got that information right. I don't know. I can't tell you about the other two.
Well, I truly hope they're not going to use a nuclear device. That would be very disruptive and well, it would
alienate their partners, you know. Also, they've been scoring a lot of points in the in the way in the terms of how people view Iran. Like, I've never seen
this kind of support for Iran. This was unthinkable. Uh I remember 20 23 years ago during the invasion of Iraq, if anyone would have said that there would
be this much sympathy for Iran, it would be hard to right uh to to believe. But uh um but again I can understand why the Iranians
are at least walking away now because you know saying enough is enough on these talks because it's worth remembering that if we go back the the
US agreed to use the 10-point plan of Iran as a point of departure and then walked it all back and and now slowly
introducing more and more violence a little bit like in Gaza that is yeah here's a ceasefire but we'll still kill Palestinians every day and now
essentially it's the same thing this attacks on Lebanon. Uh they continued also hostility against Iran. I mean
there is no real ceasefire. So what what they're demanding from the Iranians is you know you live by your commitments, we'll walk away.
It just but how I I think and let me emphasize they weren't talking about using it
against somebody but it was to demonstrate we got it so leave us alone
as a way to do it as a deterrent for a future attack. I think that was that was how I understood was the intent again uh
but we don't know is it their own is it is it been they've been provided you know we know that North Korea for
example has been providing some missiles as well and I got into the discussion I forget with who but initially I said
well well you know Iran Iran can't hit the United States I said well if the
latest missile that North Korea has, if they provided that to Iran from Thrron,
that missile covers the distance to San Francisco.
So, they absolutely could hit New York or Washington DC. So yeah, this and I
mean and we're getting into some, you know, uh it sounds like crazy territory, but uh again, put yourself in well, we
know how America reacts when we get attacked on 911 and how we you know, we perceive that we've been attacked by this by this
foreign threat. We man, we go around the world to track down and kill the people responsible ostensibly. Um, so why do we
why do we think that they won't that Iran won't do the same thing? Sorry, my dog. Hey, quiet down.
Sorry, Dan. Norris. Uh, but what do you think is likely to happen now? Because again, just you
know, Ron has said they're going to they walking away from the talks and more or less warned that they are prepared now to retaliate against Israel. So, what
expect to see now? Because uh I I don't see any way to get back on the
diplomatic track now. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but uh uh but it's the most likely scenario now that Iran begins to launch missiles towards Israel.
Yeah.
The US will then have to decide whether or not it gets pulled back into this and uh then we're back into full allout war.
Yeah. Yeah. we may that may be very well where we're headed. Um and uh only only
this time the growing economic pressures on the global economy will become more
and more important. Let's note that, you know, Trump is uh he's been playing
games with the um oil insert asserting that oh, you know, we're America, we're energy independent.
Well, we're not. Yeah. Yes. with light crude.
Yeah, we we're energy independent with that crude, but that's that's used to make gasoline and maybe aviation fuel,
but you know that price is going up because there are shortage of there's a 20% shortage around the world. But
diesel comes from heavy crude and the United States is a net importer of that. It imports it. It doesn't
produce enough. It has to import it from Mexico, from Canada. Canada's been the number one source. Now, Venezuela used
to get it from uh the Saudis. Uh it could have got it from the Russians, but we stopped trading with the Russians on that account. And Russia's, you know,
sending more of it to uh China. So, that's one of the reasons here in the States. I don't know what the situation is for you in Norway, the discrepancy
between your, if you will, your gasoline, your petrol price, and your diesel price, but here in the United
States, it's about a $2 difference, buck 50 to $2 difference because the diesel has to be processed in a different way
and it comes from a different source. So as those that price is going to continue to go up and so this this is where we
get into the the impact of the global economy if uh because you you've got price of computer chips going through
the through the roof now why because the helium 44% of it came out of Qatar it's not coming out and that helium is used
to make computer chips and so without the helium you don't make computer chips so that I think this whole economic
cloud that's hanging over the world will be another factor in here. I mean, we're we're in unprecedented territory. We
don't have any historical example to point to. I you know, I don't think any there's never at least in modern history can you point to a period. Yeah, this is
where we lost uh 25% of uh the liquid natural gas supply and 20% of the oil
and 35% of the ura and sulfur used to make fertilizer and 44% of the helium
that and these go to different sectors of the economy. Never have we had that kind of shock that I can that I can
recall and I'll leave the the history judgments to you. you're you're far more qualified on that. But then how does
that impact against the backdrop of this war that now Iran is basically uh it
looks like they're they're prepared now to re-engage is if Israel if for no other reason to stop Israel from attacking uh Hezbollah and stop it from attacking the Lebanese.
Yeah. Now after all these years of making more efficient economies, decades of good globalization to have it all unraveled in such a rapid pace, it's
very destabilizing. But uh but often, you know, you hear about Iran in the context of these other energy wars, for
example, going after Venezuela. I I keep hearing the argument though that the United States as an energy exporter will
make a lot of money from this uh energy shortages. Uh it will I guess uh
restore some of the strength of the petro dollar given that people will have to pay the US and US dollars. uh they
they um they refer to u the ability to cut off uh China of course from Iran in
energy. So it will be energy wise will be good for America bad for uh China as its peer competitor. Do you see do you
see any credibility to this or is this just oversimplification?
Yeah, it's a western fantasy. Um because you know, look at what both Russia and China have done in the last week.
They've continued to increase their purchase of gold, increase their purchase of silver, and
uh just the two days ago uh China sold off $41 billion worth of US Treasury bonds.
So a significant number and this comes against time when you're having to the
Japanese are going to actually have to sell because they're their their debt situation's going so much worse. So the they're going have to raise some cash.
They sell those bonds. So the the and the purchases of oil are increasingly being made with yuan not with the petro
dollar but with the yuan. So the ons almost almost becoming the pro yuan and um
the what supply that Iran is getting out of the Persian Gulf is going it's it's going into the yuan. Russia as well is
selling they're selling yuan not dollars. So the dollar is starting to come under real pressure and you're not
looking at a global economic situation that's stable and healthy. uh the you know the Trump people uh you know I
think I've mentioned it on some other uh broadcasts but Danny Davis did an interview with a with a geologist who's
an oil expert named Art Burman and he did that last Friday and that is an
outstanding I mean Burman really knows the stuff and he he's he's not political
and he's not emotional he's uh just the facts guy, but when he lays these facts
out, it makes you sit there and go, "Oh, I didn't know that." And uh so it's uh you know, he thinks
we're in for some real trouble. And it's been uh you know, he was he was commenting on like Kevin Hlett who's a a
White House adviser on the economy and he made some claim about oh you know the oil is going to be back down. we're going to be back to normal prices in
four weeks or five weeks. And and Bourbon said he's lying. This is just
not true. So, um this now this this added factor of instead of, you know,
we're on the cusp of peace, we're going back to war. That that is what the signal saying unless we get a complete
reversal in position. But we got the IRGC spokesman saying and he's, you know, no, he wasn't being vague at all.
He's just telling, "Hey, you people in northern Israel, get out for your own safety." I I I would take that seriously.
Yeah. Now, it doesn't seem like a bluff when it could be, you know, it would make any sense. Uh but my my last
question is just about Israel that is why why this enthusiasm to restart the war with Iran though because as I understand it from you know even
statements from the IDF they are very overextended and they also know that the United States um irrespective of any
will to support Israel um they don't actually have the capabilities that is uh right the 40-year war drained the US to a
large extent if if the US can't achieve chieve its objectives in terms of defeating Iran. The Israelis are already
overextended. Why why go into this? I mean, there's a lot to lose here at what appears to be quite predictably, you
know, a losing bet. Okay. So, your problem is you are a rational, logical person. Uh you don't think with emotion.
I'm not saying you're unemotional, but you know, you know the difference between your brain and your heart.
Israel doesn't. Um, and I just from my own personal experience with having worked with them, done some training. I
did some training, you know, 20 years ago for Israeli police.
Um, there is an arrogant factor where they they just assume that they
know more than you, that they're smarter than you, and that they know what they're doing. And even though you could
objectively sit down and show them that they're wrong, they won't listen to that. They and they don't necess they
don't think it through two or three steps ahead.
And I mean it's something as simple and let me just illustrate with a semi-automatic pistol. Anybody that's familiar with that knows it has a a
magazine that holds ammunition. You put that into the magazine well. You grab the back of the slide. You pull it back
and then release it like a slingshot and it chambers around. The Israeli army
trains its off trains everybody not to do that. They walk around with an unloaded gun and they wait until they
say wait until you've got a threat where you pull it out and then quickly cycle it to chamber around.
Well, the reason they do that is their training is so lousy that in the past people would still shoot themselves
because they'd put their finger on the trigger when they weren't supposed to.
So instead of properly training them, they came up with this as a method. And so even though I can go show them with a stopwatch that doing that adds at least
a half second to the time from when you draw to have to engage a target. And plus, if that target is close, you know,
with an arms length of you, when you're up there trying to cycle your gun, they can grab it. That's just an illustration. But that is what that same
mentality is what transfers over here that, oh yeah, we can we're going to go in and we're going to kill Hezbollah.
We'll stop them. And then you go, but yeah, now they're they've for they've they've got more fortifications
underground after the experience of 2006.
And now they're using FPV drones with with fiber optic cable.
You're going to you're going to face a tougher a tougher fight. No, no, no, we're not. They're they're no good. You know, they underestimate the enemy
always. So, I don't know if that helps explain it, but that's that's been my experience with them. Yeah.
Well, I see up on my screen here that Iran's IRGC announced it targeted USIsraeli
uh uh MSE Sarisa ship with a cruise missile. So, yeah, the Here we go. Here we go.
Here we go. So, um, well, it seems at least more likely than not that, uh, this escalation cannot be stopped now.
Uh, again, I hope I'm wrong, but, uh, thanks again. I know you have a lot of commitments today, so I'll let you go.
Thanks again for your time.
Hey, my friend. I always appreciate the invitation, Glenn. Thank you so much.

[admin]

IRGC Navy strikes US-Israeli cargo ship MSC Sariska in retaliation for attack on Iranian vessel
Tuesday, 02 June 2026 12:15 AM [ Last Update: Tuesday, 02 June 2026 12:15 AM ]
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/0 ... ian-vessel


This screengrab reportedly shows a hole in the MSC Sariska caused by the Iranian retaliatory strike.

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy has struck the giant cargo ship MSC Sariska, affiliated with the American‑Zionist enemy, with a cruise missile in a reciprocal operation after a US attack on an Iranian commercial vessel in the Sea of Oman.

The IRGC Navy’s public relations department announced on Tuesday that the strike was a direct response to the “aggressive and treacherous attack” by the US military on the Iranian bulk carrier Lian Star.

“In response to the aggressive attack by the terrorist and child‑killing US army on the Iranian vessel Lian Star in the Sea of Oman, the IRGC Navy conducted a reciprocal operation and struck the MSC Sariska with a cruise missile,” the statement said, as carried by Sepah News.

The MSC Sariska, a Panamanian‑flagged vessel, was targeted near Iraqi waters and sustained a major explosion.

The IRGC Navy warned that any further aggression by the US army in the region will be met with a decisive response.

On Friday, a US aircraft fired an AGM‑114 Hellfire missile at the engine room of the bulk carrier Lian Star, disabling the vessel.

The Lian Star is a commercial vessel that was operating in international waters when it was targeted.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/01/769679/Persian-Gulf-Strait-Authority-says-processed-300-transit-requests-since-May

Persian Gulf Strait Authority says it processed 300+ transit requests since May
The majority of these requests came from outbound ships, which accounted for 77 percent of the total applications. Inbound ships made up the remaining 23 percent.

Iran has accused the United States of an act of state‑sponsored maritime terrorism.

The exchange comes amid heightened tensions in the strategic waters of the Sea of Oman and the Persian Gulf.

The United States and Israel launched a war of aggression against Iran on February 28, assassinating the Leader of the Islamic Revolution and striking civilian and military infrastructure.

A Pakistan‑brokered ceasefire has been in place since early April, but Washington has continued to enforce a naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Iran has repeatedly stated that it will not tolerate any violation of its sovereignty and that any act of aggression will be met with a proportionate and forceful response.

The IRGC Navy has maintained full control over the Strait of Hormuz and has warned that any interference by foreign military forces will be met with immediate retaliation.

[admin]

Iran parl. speaker tells Lebanese counterpart: Our lives are one, Iran-Lebanon bond unbreakable
Monday, 01 June 2026 10:02 PM [ Last Update: Monday, 01 June 2026 10:02 PM ]
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/0 ... ells-Berri


This combination photo shows Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (L) alongside Lebanese counterpart Nabih Berri.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has described the bond between Iran and Lebanon as unbreakable, stressing that any ceasefire agreement between Tehran and Washington must include a halt to Israeli attacks on all fronts, particularly Lebanon.

In a phone conversation with Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Tuesday, Qalibaf said that “our lives are one, and the bond between Iran and Lebanon is unbreakable.”

He praised Hezbollah and the Amal movement for defending both their homeland and the Islamic Ummah.

Ghalibaf, who also heads Iran’s negotiating team, made clear that if a deal to end the war between Iran and the United States is reached, it will include the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, with special emphasis on Lebanon.

“Over the past 48 hours, we have seriously pursued a halt to Israeli attacks. If the crimes continue, we will not only suspend the talks but also stand against the Zionist regime,” he warned.

“We are determined to establish a ceasefire across all of Lebanon, especially in the south.”

Berri, for his part, thanked the Islamic Republic for its efforts to stop Israeli atrocities.

“Lebanon will never forget Iran’s positive stances during this critical stage,” he said.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that he ordered the military to strike the Dahiyeh area, a Shia-majority area in Beirut’s southern suburbs, and issued sweeping evacuation orders covering the entire district.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/01/769650/Iran-US-Israel-Lebanon-Araghchi


Araghchi: Israeli attacks on Lebanon violate Iran-US ceasefire
Foreign Minister Araghchi says the ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States applies across “all fronts, including Lebanon.”

In response, Iran’s central military command issued a warning that if Israel carried out its threat to bomb southern Beirut, Iranian forces would retaliate against northern occupied territories.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also declared that Tehran stands ready to help Lebanon resist “illegal aggression” and that a Lebanon ceasefire is “an integral part of any ceasefire and any final agreement” with the US.

Shortly after Iran’s warning, Trump announced on social media that he had intervened.

“I had a very productive conversation, and there will be no soldiers arriving in Beirut, and any soldier who was on the way has already turned back,” Trump wrote following a call with Netanyahu.

He also claimed to have brokered a parallel understanding with Hezbollah through senior representatives, saying the Lebanese resistance group had agreed to stop all attacks in return for Israel not attacking them.

A Pakistan brokered ceasefire between Tehran and Washington has been in place since early April, but Israel has carried out daily attacks on Lebanon in violation of the truce.

Iran has consistently insisted that any ceasefire must be comprehensive, covering all fronts including Lebanon, and has repeatedly warned that it will not tolerate Israeli aggression against the Arab country.

[admin]

Hezbollah rejects partial ceasefire, insists on comprehensive halt to Israeli aggression: Lebanese MP
Monday, 01 June 2026 9:41 PM [ Last Update: Monday, 01 June 2026 9:41 PM ]
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/0 ... ebanese-MP


Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance bloc in parliament.

Hezbollah has refused any partial ceasefire proposal and is demanding a comprehensive halt to hostilities across all Lebanese territory as a prelude to the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces and the return of displaced civilians, a senior Lebanese parliamentarian has said.

Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to the Resistance bloc in parliament, told the Lebanese‑based Al Mayadeen channel on Monday that the party’s position is that any ceasefire must be total and cover all of Lebanon.

Fadlallah revealed that the movement has rejected a US ceasefire proposal that tried to create a security arrangement demanding Hezbollah refrain from attacking northern parts of the Israeli‑occupied territories in exchange for Israel committing not to attack Beirut’s Shia‑populated southern suburbs, without the comprehensive halt to Israel’s military attacks on Lebanon that Hezbollah demands.

Iran’s offer of support

Fadlallah said new developments emerged on Monday following Iran’s intervention.

He was referring to Iran’s official announcement warning the Israeli regime against carrying out its threat to bomb the southern suburbs of Beirut, and urging residents of northern occupied territories to leave the area ahead of retaliatory operations in the region.

He explained that Hezbollah was informed by Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun that US President Donald Trump had called the Lebanese ambassador, requesting a mutual cessation of attacks as a step toward a comprehensive ceasefire.

“This issue is being followed up, and communication is ongoing with the president,” Fadlallah said, stressing that Hezbollah is coordinating with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to achieve a full ceasefire.

He added that the real test remains implementation, given the enemy’s treacherous nature.

“What matters is that we all reach what serves our country’s interests and protects its sovereignty. We will not accept a return to the pre‑March 2 situation,” he said.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/01/769677/Iran-Foreign-Ministry-statement-Israeli-truce-violations-Lebanon


Iran says US directly responsible for Israeli truce violations in Lebanon
Iran’s Foreign Ministry says the US is responsible for Israel’s continued violations of the Iran-US truce terms in Lebanon.

Earlier on Monday, shortly after Iran’s pledge to support the Lebanese in the case of broad Israeli attacks, Trump told reporters he had a “very productive” call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also, through senior representatives, a “very good” conversation with Hezbollah.

Trump claimed that Hezbollah had agreed to halt all fire, on condition that neither side attacks the other.

Israeli officials have not commented on any such agreement.

Over 3,300 people have been killed and around 10,400 wounded in Lebanon since early March, with over 1.6 million displaced.

A Pakistan‑brokered ceasefire between Iran and the US has been in place since early April.

Tehran has since insisted that any ceasefire must also cover Lebanon.

[admin]

Iran's Deadly Warning To Israelis To Flee North As Trump-Bibi Feud Erupts Over Beirut | Lebanon
Hindustan Times
Jun 1, 2026

Israel, Iran, Lebanon and the United States are once again at the center of a major Middle East showdown after reports emerged of a heated phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to multiple reports, Trump urged Netanyahu to avoid a major strike on Beirut as fears grew that the conflict could spiral into a wider regional war. The diplomatic intervention came as Iran issued a direct warning to Israel, threatening consequences if Beirut or its southern suburbs were targeted

[admin]

Tyrant Will Soon Learn His Lessons’: Erdogan Unleashes Fresh Attack On Netanyahu After Eid Prayers
Times Of India
May 27, 2026

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a fiery speech after Eid prayers at Istanbul’s Çamlıca Mosque, branding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “tyrant” and linking the Muslim holiday to the suffering in Gaza. The remarks deepen already tense Turkiye-Israel relations after Ankara halted trade and intensified criticism over the conflict. Erdogan had also accused Israel of a “fascist mentality” days earlier following the Gaza flotilla interception. With emotions running high, the latest comments are fuelling fresh diplomatic and political controversy.

[admin]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.20.0.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ACCOUNTABILITY NOW USA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KEVIN GRIESS, Superintendent of the
National Mall and Memorial Parks, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 26-1385 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, an unincorporated association that maintains a 24/7 demonstration calling for
the impeachment and removal of President Donald Trump on National Park Service (“NPS”)
land, moves for an emergency order temporarily restraining the Superintendent of the National
Mall and Memorial Parks Kevin Griess and the Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum or their
delegees “from taking enforcement action against them because of their display of a flag with the
legend ‘8647.’” Dkt. 10 at 1. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
At least at this early stage of the litigation, many of the relevant facts are uncontroverted.
Plaintiff Accountability NOW USA (“Accountability Now”) is an unincorporated association
that holds a permit from the NPS to conduct “a demonstration near the George Meade Statue on
Constitution Avenue in Washington, D.C.” Dkt. 8-1 at 1 (Carey Decl. ¶¶ 1–2). “Volunteers
maintain the demonstration twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week” at which they “engage
in face-to-face conversations with members of the public[] to call attention to the rise of fascism
in the United States and [to] demand the impeachment of President Trump.” Id. (Carey Decl.
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 21
2
¶ 2). Plaintiff’s “current permit was issued on April 13, 2026, and is valid through August 12,
2026[,]” and Plaintiff “intends to obtain another permit when the current permit expires, at the
same or another location on NPS-managed land in the District of Columbia.” Id. at 2 (Carey
Decl. ¶ 3).
On February 24, 2026, in response to reporting “that the Justice Department was
withholding more than 50 pages of FBI interviews with a woman who had accused Donald
Trump of sexually abusing her when she was a minor[,]” Plaintiff began to display two new
signs at the demonstration. Id. (Carey Decl. ¶ 4). One sign read: “TRUMP RAPED LITTLE
GIRLS.” Id. The other read: “KIDS, IF YOUR PARENTS ARE MAGA, THEY LOVE CHILD
RAPISTS.” Id. According to Plaintiff, “[t]he display of those signs has engendered numerous
conversations between volunteers and passersby regarding President Trump’s behavior, morality,
and fitness to continue in office.” Id.
On April 14, 2026, an NPS agent emailed Anita Carey, an organizer with Accountability
Now who is listed as the “Person in Charge” on Plaintiff’s permit, Dkt. 17 at 1 (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 1),
relaying the following message from Defendant Superintendent Griess: “Based on the
photographic evidence from earlier today, the [Plaintiff’s] first amendment permit is displaying
unprotected obscenity in signs or media. This is not protected by the first amendment and is
therefore prohibited and a violation of law.” Dkt. 8-1 at 2–3 (Carey Decl. ¶ 5). That same day,
Carey responded to Superintendent Griess directly, “seeking clarification of NPS’s position and
asking, in particular, why NPS believes the signs meet the legal definition of obscenity and what
would happen if the signs remain on display.” Id. at 3 (Carey Decl. ¶ 6). Griess responded as
follows on April 15, 2026:
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 21
3
Thank you for your message. We appreciate your cooperation as we work to
ensure that all permitted activities remain in compliance with federal
requirements.
To clarify, the material displayed under your permit has been evaluated under
all appropriate standards and tests and is deemed unprotected obscenity, which
the Court has established is not protected by the First Amendment. This
determination is supported by federal law which prohibits obscene material on
federal property.
Because obscenity is unlawful on federal land, we must ask that the material be
removed.
The National Park Service may impose and enforce permit conditions to prevent
unlawful conduct, including the display of obscene materials prohibited under
federal law. All activities conducted under an NPS permit must remain lawful
and in compliance with permit conditions. If a permittee chooses not to comply
with a lawful direction to cease prohibited conduct, the National Park Service
may take further steps as appropriate to ensure compliance.
Id. (Carey Decl. ¶ 7).
“Based on these communications and the recent experiences of other NPS permit holders
whose demonstrations were critical of President Trump,” Accountability Now concluded that it
faced “a realistic and imminent threat that its demonstration permit [would] be summarily
revoked or its signs removed, with minimal or zero notice” and that “[r]evocation [might] result
in the destruction of its valuable property, including its tents, tables, chairs, sound equipment,
and literature.” Id. (Carey Decl. ¶ 8). In particular, Plaintiff concluded “Defendant Greiss’s
message that the signs were ‘unlawful’ and that NPS would ‘take further steps as appropriate to
ensure compliance’” meant that the NPS would either “summarily revoke its permit and
dismantle its demonstration or [would] remove the signs with little or no notice.” Id. at 4 (Carey
Decl. ¶ 10). “[I]n order to forestall” such an “enforcement action,” Plaintiff “temporarily
removed the signs” at issue, filed this lawsuit, and unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a
resolution of the dispute with the NPS. Id. (Carey Decl. ¶ 11). Plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction on May 26, 2026, Dkt. 8, seeking an order barring Defendants from
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 21
4
“taking any action” against Plaintiff “in retaliation” for displaying the two signs, “including
revocation of Plaintiff’s demonstration permit or seizure of [the] signs.” Dkt. 8-2 at 1.
In addition to the two signs discussed above, Plaintiff began displaying a red, white, and
blue flag, which Plaintiff purchased from Amazon, that read “8647.” Dkt. 10-2 at 1–2 (2d Carey
Decl. ¶¶ 3–5). Although the record is unclear about precisely when the flag first appeared, the
record shows that it was on display by the morning of May 12, when two Secret Service officers
approached a volunteer at the demonstration and engaged in the following brief conversation:
Officer: How are you?
Volunteer: I’m good. I’m recording this ‘cause they told me to.
Officer: That’s fine.
Volunteer: How’s it going?
Officer: Not a problem. Just so you’re aware, this is all consensual[.]
Volunteer: Yeah[.]
. . .
Officer: . . . we received a phone call because of the flag, in fact the 86
47 and what it can stand for.
Volunteer: Uh-huh. I never heard of it standing for anything other than
Trump shouldn’t be in office.
Officer: OK. Alright. So you have no ill-will towards . . .
Volunteer: I want Trump to live forever and rot in jail where he belongs.
Officer: OK. That’s it. That’s all, all I needed to know[.]
Volunteer: OK[.]
Officer: We just, we got a call so we just wanted to come down here . . .
Volunteer: I’m sorry someone wasted your time[.]
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 4 of 21
5
Officer. Oh, you’re good. You’re good. It’s part of our job[.]
Volunteer: Yup[.]
Officer: We just want to make sure that your First Amendment rights are
protected. They were concerned, so we just want to make sure
there’s no ill-will.
Volunteer: OK. Haha. Thank you so much.
Officer: Alright. Yes, ma’am.
Volunteer: OK.
Dkt. 15 at 2–3 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/MyS5T7g7b4JXRYmY6).
Things took a turn for the more confrontational when two different officers approached
the same volunteer about 25 minutes later and read her the Miranda warnings. Id. at 3. The
volunteer was not in custody at the time, and, despite the officer’s representation, her right to
court-appointed counsel had not attached. Although politely delivered, the message was a
worrisome one—that is, she was at risk of criminal prosecution for displaying the flag.
Understandably, the volunteer declined to speak with the officers. Id. The Secret Service
opened an investigation into the volunteer as a “potential threat.” Dkt. 13-1 at 4 (Quinn Decl.
¶ 10). “[The] investigation remains ongoing.” Id.
Nothing happened, however, for another two weeks. But then, “[o]n Tuesday, May
26, . . . the Secret Service shared information with the U.S. Department of the Interior about its
ongoing investigation relating to the individual holding a flag displaying the statement ‘8647’ on
May 12 in the 300 block of Constitution Avenue, N.W.” Dkt. 16 at 1–2 (citation modified). The
following day—and less than 24 hours after Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction
regarding the two signs—“four cars of U.S Park Police officers pulled up to Plaintiff’s
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 5 of 21
6
demonstration site” at around 5 a.m. on May 27, and an officer read “the volunteer on duty” the
following “from a clipboard:”
18 U.S. Code 8741[.] Threats against the President. Right now, we’re looking
at the 8647 as a threat against the President. Can I ask you to take it down
please? The sign here?
Dkt. 10-2 at 1 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 2). All agree that no such provision of the U.S. Code exists and
that the officer presumably intended to refer to 18 U.S.C. § 871, Dkt. 10 at 2; May 28, 2026 Hrg.
Tr. (Rough at 28), which makes it a felony to “knowingly and willfully” threaten “to take the life
of . . . or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” In any event,
Defendants do not dispute that “on May 27, the government ordered that the flag be taken
down[,]” Dkt. 16 at 2; that the volunteer on duty did so, Dkt. 10-2 at 1 (2d Carey Decl ¶ 2); or
that the officer told the volunteer to “please refrain from putting it back up” and warned that,
“[i]f it comes back up[,] we’ll be by here again, OK, and then it will be a violation of the
permit,” id.; see also Dkt. 10 at 1 (https://photos.app.goo.gl/jtM8Tj7sCnkS4Smg9).
Later that day, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding the flag incident as part of its
First Amendment challenge to the threatened revocation of Plaintiff’s permit and required
removal of Plaintiff’s two signs. See Dkt. 9 at 6–7 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22–26). Plaintiff
simultaneously moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) to “prevent Defendants from
taking enforcement action against [it] because of [its] display of” the flag. Dkt. 10 at 1. The
following day, the Court heard argument on the motion. See Min. Entry (May 28, 2026).
Because Defendants’ counsel was unable to offer any description of the agency’s actual reasons
for concluding that Plaintiff’s specific display of the flag posed a true threat—as opposed to
conveying a political message urging President Trump’s removal from office—the Court
provided the parties with an opportunity to supplement the record, see id., and specifically
requested that Defendants submit evidence or records addressing their decision-making process
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 6 of 21
7
regarding the direction that Plaintiff remove the flag. May 28, 2026 Hrg. Tr. (Rough at 38, 43,
46). Both parties made additional submissions. Dkts. 15, 16, 18, & 19.
II. ANALYSIS
“A [TRO] is “an extraordinary form of relief,” Banks v. Booth, 459 F. Supp. 3d 143, 149
(D.D.C. 2020), which is evaluated using the same “factors applicable to preliminary injunctive
relief” and which, accordingly, “may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is
entitled to such relief,” id. (second quoting Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir.
2011)). To obtain a TRO, a movant “must show that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of
equities tips in its favor; and (4) the issuance of a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.”
Alpine Sec. Corp. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., 121 F.4th 1314, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (citation
modified).
Although “the movant has the burden to show that all four factors, taken together, weigh in
favor of the injunction,” Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citation
modified), likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm “are of particular
importance.” Corp. for Pub. Broad. v. Trump, 786 F. Supp. 3d 142, 149 (D.D.C. 2025).
Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits is a “key issue [and] often the dispositive one” at
the TRO stage, Greater New Orleans Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev.,
639 F.3d 1078, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and “[w]hen a plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of
success on the merits, there is no need to consider the remaining factors” for a TRO, id. at 1088.
Similarly, “[a] movant’s failure to show any irreparable harm is . . . grounds for refusing to issue
a [TRO]” regardless of the other three factors. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England,
454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 7 of 21
8
The Court, accordingly, starts with the merits, then turns to irreparable harm, and, finally,
addresses the remaining factors. Because the present motion seeks only a temporary restraining
order, the parties will be free to develop a more complete record at the preliminary injunction
and summary judgment stages of the proceeding.
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
This case implicates two fundamental principles essential to a free country. First,
content-based restrictions on political speech in a public forum—particularly restrictions that are
premised on the ad-hoc impressions or views of government officials—are inherently suspect.1

In the words of the Supreme Court, “content-based laws—those that target speech based on its
communicative content—are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the
government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.” Reed v.
Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155, 163 (2015) (citations omitted); Archdiocese of Washington v.
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 897 F.3d 314, 322 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“To enforce a
content-based exclusion in a public forum, the regulation must satisfy strict scrutiny.” (citation
omitted)). Second, true threats to the life or safety of government officials are intolerable. Full
and open debate is necessary for democracy to work. But there is nothing democratic about
seeking political change or influence through threats of violence. “True threats of violence,” like
1
Plaintiff contends, and Defendants do not dispute, that the NPS-managed property by the
General Meade statue on Constitution Avenue constitutes a traditional public forum, see Dkt. 9
at 1—that is, a “place[] which by long tradition or by government fiat ha[s] been devoted to
assembly and debate,” such as streets and parks, where “the rights of the state to limit expressive
activity are sharply circumscribed.” Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Loc. Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S.
37, 45 (1983). Indeed, the NPS issued Plaintiff a permit for “[a] 24/7 Vigil to Exercise [its] First
Amendment Rights” at the George Meade Statue, Dkt. 17 at 1 (Pl.’s Ex. 1 at 1), and expressly
authorized the participants “to exercise their first amendment rights” at the site, id. at 2 (Pl.’s Ex.
1 at 2). The site is in front of the courthouse, open to the public, within sight of the Capitol, and
just steps away from the National Mall.
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 8 of 21
9
criminal incitement, are not protected by the First Amendment, Counterman v. Colorado, 600
U.S. 66, 72 (2023), and “may [be] prohibit[ed] . . . without raising any Constitutional problem,”
Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Paxton, 606 U.S. 461, 471 (2025) (citation modified). Here, neither
party disagrees with either of these principles.
The parties’ disagreement, instead, turns on whether Plaintiff’s display of the “8647” flag
constitutes protected speech, as Plaintiff asserts, or a “true threat” to the life or safety of the
President (or an incitement to violence), as Defendants maintain. At oral argument, both sides
agreed that context is dispositive. Not every use of the slang phrase “86” constitutes a threat of
violence; to the contrary, it is most often used to mean that an item is no longer available or that
someone or something should be removed, ejected, or thrown out. But it can, in some contexts,
mean “to kill.”
Because the NPS cited to (or attempted to cite to) the statute making it a crime to threaten
the President with physical violence, Dkt. 10-2 at 1 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 2), the Court starts with
true threats. The Court will also consider incitement, however, which counsel for the
government has raised in this litigation.
1. True Threats
“True threats of violence, everyone agrees, lie outside the bounds of the First
Amendment’s protection.” Counterman, 600 U.S. at 72. “‘True threats’ encompass those
statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit
an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” Virginia v. Black,
538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003). “The ‘true’ in that term distinguishes what is at issue from jests,
‘hyperbole,’ or other statements that when taken in context do not convey a real possibility that
violence will follow.” Counterman, 600 U.S. at 74 (citing Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705,
708 (1969) (per curiam)). “The existence of a threat depends not on ‘the mental state of the
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 9 of 21
10
author,’ but on ‘what the statement conveys’ to the person on the other end.” Id. (quoting Elonis
v. United States, 575 U.S. 723, 733 (2015)); United States v. Syring, 522 F. Supp. 2d 125, 129
(D.D.C. 2007) (“[c]ourts determining whether communications constitute true threats have
generally applied an objective standard . . . [assessing] “whether a reasonable person would
consider the statement a serious expression of an intent to inflict harm[.]” (citing Planned
Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coal. of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058, 1075 n.7
(9th Cir. 2002)). Alleged threats “must be analyzed ‘in light of their entire factual
context,’ . . . including: the reaction of the recipient of the threat and of other listeners; whether
the threat was conditional; whether the threat was communicated directly to its victim; whether
the maker of the threat had made similar statements to the victim in the past; and whether the
victim had reason to believe the maker of the threat had a propensity to engage in violence.” Id.
at 130 (citation modified) (quoting United States v. Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 925 (8th Cir. 1996)).
The Supreme Court has clarified, however, that this objective standard does not end the
inquiry, at least in a criminal case; “the First Amendment may still demand a subjective mentalstate requirement shielding some true threats from liability.” Counterman, 600 U.S.at 75. In
other words, at least in the context of “true-threats cases,” id. at 73, unless a speaker intends to
convey a threat or “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct
will cause harm to another,” id. at 79 (citation modified), the First Amendment precludes
punishing such otherwise unprotected speech, id. at 82. Although Counterman arose in the
context of, and speaks in terms of, criminal prosecutions and criminal punishment, the case has
been read by at least some members of the Court to implicate civil enforcement and regulatory
action as well. See id. at 118–19 (Barrett, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original) (because “this
case is about the scope of the First Amendment, not the interpretation of a criminal
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 10 of 21
11
statute . . . the Court’s holding affects the civil consequences for true threats just as much as it
restricts criminal liability”).
Here, although the Secret Service officer read the volunteer her Miranda rights, Dkt. 15
at 3, and the Park Police officer subsequently invoked the federal statute criminalizing threats
against the President in directing Plaintiff to remove the flag, Dkt. 10-2 at 1 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 2),
Plaintiff does not seek to enjoin an ongoing criminal prosecution or proceeding. Instead,
Plaintiff challenges the NPS’s direction to remove the flag and the NPS’s threatened revocation
of Plaintiff’s demonstration permit, should the flag reappear. Dkt. 10-3 at 1. Plaintiff, in other
words, challenges an administrative action taken by the NPS requiring that Plaintiff remove the
flag as a condition of maintaining its NPS-issued demonstration permit, although the basis for
the administrative action (as conveyed to Plaintiff by the NPS) was that a federal statute—18
U.S.C. § 871—makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully . . . make [a] threat against the
President.” Framed in this manner, it seems likely that the NPS’s action can be sustain only if
the speech at issue satisfies both the objective and subjective criteria for a true threat. But see
Leroy v. Livingston Manor Cent. Sch. Dist., 158 F.4th 414, 423 (2d Cir. 2025) (applying only an
objective standard of true threats to student speech that resulted in suspension and ban from
school activities). But because the parties have not briefed the issue, and because the NPS, in
any event, offers no plausible basis to conclude that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant
circumstances, would regard the flag to represent “a serious expression of an intent to commit an
act of unlawful violence to” the President, Black, 538 U.S. at 559, the Court need not consider
whether and how the subjective standard applies to civil proceedings.
The Court starts with the premise that the word “86” is a slang term with no single
meaning. According to Merriam-Webster, “Eighty-six is slang meaning ‘to throw out,’ ‘to get
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 11 of 21
12
rid of,’ or ‘to refuse service to.’” What does “eighty-six” mean?, Merriam-Webster,
https://perma.cc/3KZD-9LXL. The phrase “comes from 1930s soda-counter slang meaning that
an item was sold out[,]” and may have been used because it rhymes with “nix.” Id. It was first
used as a noun to refer “to an item . . . that had been sold out,” but by the 1950s, the term was
used as a verb, at first meaning “‘to refuse to serve a customer,’ . . . later meaning “‘to get rid of;
to throw out,’” and still later coming to mean “‘shut out’ or ‘rejected.’” Id. Merriam-Webster
further notes that a recent extension of these meanings has included “‘to kill,’” although the
dictionary declines to endorse that meaning “due to its relative recency and sparseness of use.”
Id. According to Merriam-Webster, “[t]he most common meaning of eighty-six encountered
today is the one that is closer to its service industry roots.” Id.
Plaintiff represents that its display of the flag was “not in any way a threat against the
President” but, rather, was part of months-long demonstrations demanding “the impeachment
and removal of President Trump.” Dkt. 10-2 at 2 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 6). Although Defendants
offer no evidence or explanation regarding how (and why) the NPS understood Plaintiff’s actual
use of the term, the Deputy Director of the Secret Service attests that he generally “regard[s] the
statement ‘86-47’ as a potential call for acts of violence directed at the President of the United
States” and that he “understand[s] ‘86’ to represent a euphemism for acts of physical violence.”
Dkt. 13-1 at 3 (Quinn Decl. ¶ 8). As explained below, the parties’ characterizations of the
speech are less far apart than they might at first seem: Plaintiff represents that it did not intend to
convey a threat of violence and that no reasonable observer would conclude otherwise, while
Defendants posit that “86” can at times mean “to kill,” although they concede that that is not the
only meaning of the term. Although the Court recognizes the importance and difficulty of the
mission of the Secret Service, the First Amendment does not permit the government to censor
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 12 of 21
13
political speech, which no reasonable observer would view, in context, as actually conveying a
threat of violence, merely because the speaker uses a phrase that, in addition to other more
common meanings, has been used to refer to an act of violence.
The question whether “8647” constitutes a true threat cannot be resolved in the abstract,
without consideration of context, and, here, the relevant context makes clear that no reasonable
observer could have viewed Plaintiff’s display of the flag as a threat to the President’s life or
physical safety. To start, the flag itself contains no symbols of violence; it is red, white, and
blue, and is simply adorned with white stars. It contains no knives, skulls, nooses, or other
threatening symbols. Even more to the point, the flag was displayed outside the courthouse, as
part of an ongoing demonstration seeking President Trump’s impeachment and removal from
office. Dkt. 10-2 at 2 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 6). In a video submitted by Plaintiff, the flag can be
seen hanging from one side of Plaintiff’s tent, surrounded by not one, but four signs that read
“IMPEACH. CONVICT. REMOVE.” Dkt. 19. Yet another sign merely reads: “IMPEACH.”
Id. In short, the surrounding signage urged Congress “to throw out” the President.
Nor is there any evidence that Plaintiff or the volunteers who staffed the demonstration
engaged in any threatening speech or conduct. To the contrary, when approach by the Secret
Service on May 12, the volunteer was cooperative and friendly. Even more importantly, when
the officer informed the volunteer that the Secret Service had “received a phone call because of
the flag . . . and what it can stand for,” the volunteer seemed genuinely stunned and responded: “I
never heard of it standing for anything other than Trump shouldn’t be in office.” Dkt. 15 at 2.
When the officer continued, “[s]o you have no ill-will towards” the President, the volunteer said,
“I want Trump to live forever,” adding that she also wanted him to “rot in jail.” Id. Given this
response, the officer left without taking any further action and, instead, reassured the volunteer
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 13 of 21
14
that he wanted “to make sure that [her] First Amendment rights are protected” and that “there’s
no ill-will.” Id.
Under these circumstances, it is difficult to fathom how the NPS (or the Secret Service)
could have concluded that a reasonable observer would view the flag as a true threat. The term
“86” is used far more often to mean “throw out” than “kill,” and it appeared at a demonstration
that was focused, of all things, on the constitutional impeachment and “removal” of the
President. Dkt. 10-2 at 2 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 6); see also Dkt. 19. And, for safe measure, the
volunteer informed the Secret Service that the flag merely sought President Trump’s removal
from office. Dkt. 15 at 2.
At oral argument, Defendants’ counsel conceded that (1) the inquiry of whether particular
speech is a true threat is context-dependent; (2) there are circumstances in which the term “8647”
does not represent a true threat to the President, May 28, 2026 Hrg. Tr. (Rough at 15–16); and
(3) the Defendants are “not going to prosecute or go after everybody with an 8647 flag,” id.
(Rough at 19). But when asked, how, then, did Defendants conclude that Plaintiff’s specific
invocation of “8647” constituted a true threat, id. (Rough at 16–18, 20, 21–22, 29), Defendants’
counsel retreated, repeatedly asserting that the use of the term in the context of unprecedented
and recent assassination attempts against the President constitutes a true threat, id. (Rough at 16–
17, 22, 27, 29, 40). When asked whether the agency engaged in any case-specific fact-finding or
undertook any analysis of whether Plaintiff’s usage of 8647 in the context of its ongoing
demonstration violated 18 U.S.C. § 871, Defendants’ counsel demurred, noting that he either did
not know or that there was nothing in the record before the Court. Id. (Rough at 29–30, 34, 36,
38).
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 14 of 21
15
Given the centrality of this type of context-specific inquiry, and the absence of any
evidence that the NPS ever considered the context in which the flag was displayed, the Court
invited Defendants to supplement the record with any evidence or material explaining the NPS’s
thinking. Id. (Rough at 38, 43). Defendants failed to offer any analysis or consideration of
specific context surrounding Plaintiff’s display of the flag. Instead, Defendants simply repeated
Deputy Director of the Secret Service Matthew Quinn’s averment that he regards “the statement
‘86-47’ as a potential call for acts of violence directed at the President,” Dkt. 16 at 1 (citation
modified) (quoting Dkt. 13-1 at 3 (Quinn Decl. ¶ 8)), and noted that “a shooting occurred in the
vicinity of the White House” on May 24, 2026, and that this “potential assassination attempt”
was a “significant intervening event from when [the Secret Service] first encountered the
individual holding [the] flag,” id. (citation modified); that “the Secret Service shared information
with the U.S. Department of the Interior about its ongoing investigation relating to the individual
holding [the] flag,” id. at 1–2 (citation modified); that the Secret Service has investigated or is
currently investigating “over 1,300 instances of individuals using ‘86-47’” as a threat, id. at 2;
that “[m]ost ‘86-47’ investigations by the Secret Service involve online threats” and that the use
of the “flag near the White House is a novel event[,]” id.; and, finally, that “[t]he Secret Service
does not construe ‘86-47’ to mean impeachment[,]” id.
Strikingly, only two or three of these assertions have any plausible nexus to the specific
context of Plaintiff’s display of the flag, and none of those assertions amounts to anything. The
first relevant assertion merely notes that the Secret Service is conducting an ongoing
investigation of the volunteer who spoke with the officers on May 12. Dkt. 16 at 1–2. But the
government says nothing about whether that investigation has revealed any evidence to support a
true threat claim, and an investigation is just an investigation. The second and third assertions
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 15 of 21
16
merely note that Plaintiff was displaying the flag in the same city in which the White House is
located—albeit almost two miles away—and that a shooting occurred on the street near the
White House on May 24. Id. It sweeps far too broadly, however, to suggest that anyone
displaying an “8647” flag in Washington, D.C. after the May 24 shooting has made a true threat
to the President’s life or safety. The Court does not doubt that political violence is on the rise
and that it poses a grave threat not just to the targets of the threats but to the country as a whole.
But the enormity of that problem does not change the meaning of Plaintiff’s speech, which by
any reasonable measure merely advocated for the President’s impeachment and removal from
office—that is, “to throw [him] out.” What does “eighty-six” mean?, Merriam-Webster,
https://perma.cc/3KZD-9LXL.
Finally, the Court notes that Defendants have yet to ascribe any conclusions to the NPS,
which is the agency that directed Plaintiff to remove (that is, to 86) the flag and that admonished
the association that the flag’s reappearance would constitute a violation of Plaintiff’s
demonstration permit. Dkt. 10-2 at 1 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 2). It is possible that the NPS decided to
defer to the views of the Secret Service, Dkt. 16 at 1–2, that it conducted its own inquiry, or that
it was simply told to see to it that the flag was removed. The record, however, offers no
explanation for why the agency acted, other than its mis-citation to 18 U.S.C. § 871, Dkt. 10-2 at
1 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 2). Absent some explanation of the NPS’s actual reasoning—including an
assessment of the context surrounding Plaintiff’s display of the flag—the Court can only guess as
to why the agency decided to censor Plaintiff’s speech.
In short, the record contains compelling evidence supporting Plaintiff’s contention that it
displayed the flag merely to urge President Trump’s removal from office but contains no
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 16 of 21
17
evidence supporting Defendants’ contention that the flag represented a true threat on the life or
physical well-being of the President of the United States.
2. Incitement
In a single paragraph in their brief in response to Plaintiff’s TRO motion, Defendants
contend that displaying the “8647” flag constitutes incitement and, as a result, is unprotected by
the First Amendment. Dkt. 13 at 2. Notably, the NPS’s direction that Plaintiff remove the flag
was premised on 18 U.S.C. § 871 alone, and not on a theory of criminal incitement, and
Defendants offer no reason to believe that the NPS premised its decision on a theory of
incitement. As Defendants’ counsel conceded at oral argument, May 28, 2026 Hrg. Tr. (Rough
at 28–29), there is reason to doubt that the agency can defend its action based on a theory that
appeared first in litigation. Cf. Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“assessing the
reasonableness of an agency’s action, we look only to what the agency said at the time of the
action—not to its lawyers’ post-hoc rationalizations.” (citation modified)).
But, even if the Court were to reach this alternative theory, it would fare no better (and, if
anything, worse) than Defendants’ true-threat theory. Although words of “incitement” are
unprotected by the First Amendment, this category of speech is narrowly defined to include
words that are “directed [at] producing imminent lawless action and [that are] likely to incite or
produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam) (emphasis
added). Like true threats, “incitement inheres in particular words used in particular contexts[.]”
Counterman, 600 U.S. at 76. But incitement “demand[s] more” than even true threats: it requires
the speaker to have “specific intent, presumably equivalent to purpose or knowledge.” Id. at 81.
For many of the reasons already discussed, the evidence shows that Plaintiff displayed
the 8647 flag to urge that Congress impeach and remove President Trump from office. Dkt. 15
at 2; Dkt. 10-2 at 2 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 6). The record contains no evidence that a reasonable
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 17 of 21
18
observer would have viewed the flag as an incitement to imminent violence or that Plaintiff
intended to incite political violence. Dkt. 15 at 2. Although Deputy Director Quinn attests that
he believes that the term 8647 “as it is understood today, can incite violence by others,” Dkt. 13-
1 at 3 (Quinn Decl. ¶ 8) (emphasis added), Brandenburg does not refer to words that “can incite”
imminent lawlessness—it refers to words that are “likely to incite,” 395 U.S. at 447—and
Defendants do not even suggest that Plaintiff’s flag comes close to satisfying that demanding
standard. Indeed, the Secret Service knew about Plaintiff’s flag, see generally Dkt. 15, yet
permitted Plaintiff to continue to display it for more than two weeks, Dkt. 10-2 at 1–2 (2d Carey
Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4), which the agency undoubtedly would never have allowed if it believed that the
flag was “likely” to incite an imminent attack on the President or any imminent violence at all.
The Court, accordingly, concludes that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of its
challenge to the NPS’s direction that it remove the flag or face revocation of the existing permit.
B. Irreparable Injury
Perhaps for good reason, Defendants do not even address this factor. The law is well-settled that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time,
unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Pursuing Am.’s Greatness v. Fed. Election
Comm’n, 831 F.3d 500, 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citation modified). The NPS directed Plaintiff to
remove its flag—that is, to refrain from engaging in protected expression—and informed
Plaintiff that if the flag reappears, the agency would view such conduct as a violation of
Plaintiff’s demonstration permit. Dkt. 10-2 at 1 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 2). The government has
appeared at Plaintiff’s demonstration on multiple occasions, id.; Dkt. 15, and has made clear on
at least one of those occasions that, in the government’s view, displaying the flag constitutes a
criminal offense, Dkt. 10-2 at 1 (2d Carey Decl. ¶ 2). Without preliminary relief, Plaintiff cannot
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 18 of 21
19
display the flag without fear of retribution, and will likely suffer an ongoing and irreparable
deprivation of its First Amendment rights.2
C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest
The balance-of-equities and public-interest factors merge if “the [g]overnment is the
opposing party[.]” Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (quoting Nken v.
Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009)). That is, “the [Defendants’] harm and the public interest are
one and the same, because the government’s interest is the public interest.” Pursuing Am.’s
Greatness, 831 F.3d at 511 (emphasis in original). Here, these factors also favor Plaintiff.
As the D.C. Circuit has frequently observed, there is “generally no public interest in the
perpetuation of unlawful agency action,” League of Women Voters of United States v. Newby,
838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (collecting cases), and that principle applies with particular force
when the government engages in content-based censorship of political speech. To be sure, a true
threat to the life or safety of the President would undoubtedly outweigh the interest of the public
or the speaker in continuing to urge that unlawful conduct. But, for the reasons explained above,
that is not this case. The government seeks to squelch core political speech without any
articulable—much less evidentiary—basis for concluding that the speech actually threatens the
life or safety of the President. On the current record, Defendants have offered no basis to doubt
that Plaintiff is engaged in fully protected First Amendment activity, and it is a bridge too far to
suggest that the “important issue of safety for the President of the United States,” Dkt. 13 at 4,
2
It is no answer, moreover, to posit that Plaintiff could always re-display the flag and then
challenge the NPS’s revocation of its permit. A plaintiff should not be required to endure a
violation of its First Amendment rights—that is, revocation of an otherwise valid permit to
demonstrate—to obtain judicial review of another violation of its First Amendment rights—that
is, a restriction on what the plaintiff may say at that demonstration.
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 19 of 21
20
provides a permissible basis even briefly to suppress political speech based on nothing more than
the unsubstantiated possibility that it might unreasonably be misunderstood as a call to violence.
Notably, by granting Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO, the Court is not precluding the
government from responding to other speech that constitutes a true threat or an incitement to
lawlessness. Those are demanding doctrines, however, and for good reason—they protect core
First Amendment values that are essential to liberty and democracy. An agency’s mere say so—
a conclusory assertion that it “regards” that flag “as a potential call for acts of violence,” Dkt. 16
at 1 (citation modified), without consideration of specific context and without sound reason to
conclude that a reasonable person would, in fact, understand that message as a true threat—is not
close to enough. Under these circumstances, “the public’s interest in protecting First
Amendment rights and [Plaintiff’s] ability to exercise those rights outweigh any interest in the
continued enforcement.” Pursuing Am.’s Greatness, 831 F.3d at 512.
* * *
Because all four factors weigh decisively in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court will grant
Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order, Dkt.
10, is hereby GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that:
Defendants, their agents and employees, and all persons acting in concert with them, are
hereby RESTRAINED, for 14 days from the date of this Order, from revoking Plaintiff’s
demonstration permit as a result of Plaintiff’s display of its “8647” flag, or otherwise ordering
the removal of or seizing Plaintiff’s “8647” flag.
Case 1:26-cv-01385-RDM Document 20 Filed 06/01/26 Page 20 of 21
21
It is further ORDERED that this order shall be effective upon the posting of a bond in
the amount of $1.00 with the Clerk of the Court.
A separate order will follow.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: June 1, 2026