Rubio Declares ‘Old World Is Gone’ Following Iran Strikes
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a gaggle of reporters on Saturday, following U.S. and Israel strikes on Iran, that “the old world” he grew up in “is gone,” while urging American allies to realize that and help Washington forge a new path forward for the West.
“The world is changing very fast right in front of us,” Rubio said. “The old world is gone, frankly, the world I grew up in, and we live in a new era of geopolitics, and it’s gonna require all of us to sort of reexamine what that looks like and what our role is going to be.”
He added, “We’ve had many of these conversations in private with many of our allies. We need to continue to have those conversations.”
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Saturday that Rubio notified senior congressional leaders ahead of the joint U.S. Israeli military operation against Iran.
Leavitt’s statement, posted to X, came as critics questioned whether President Donald Trump authorized the strikes without the required approval from Congress.
“President Trump monitored the situation overnight at Mar a Lago alongside members of his national security team. The President spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu by phone,” Leavitt wrote.
“Prior to the attacks, Secretary Rubio called all members of the gang of eight to provide congressional notification, and he was able to reach and brief seven of the eight members,” she added.
“The President and his national security team will continue to closely monitor the situation throughout the day.”
Leavitt did not indicate whether Trump would return to Washington or remain at his Florida residence.
The so called “Gang of Eight” includes the Senate and House majority and minority leaders as well as the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed that the group had been briefed.
“The Gang of Eight was briefed in detail earlier this week about potential military action against Iran,” Johnson said, according to The Independent.
Under the 1947 National Security Act, Congress must be kept “fully informed” of significant intelligence activities.
However, according to the Harvard Kennedy School, presidents from both parties have interpreted that language to mean that notifying the “Gang of Eight” satisfies the requirement rather than briefing the full intelligence committees.
Leavitt’s comments followed criticism from Rep. Thomas Massie, R Ky., who wrote on X, “Acts of war unauthorized by Congress.”
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D Calif., had planned to force a vote next week that would restrict Trump’s ability to launch strikes on Iran without formal congressional authorization.
As the debate over war powers intensified, Rubio announced Friday that Iran had been designated a state sponsor of wrongful detention.
“When the Iranian regime seized power 47 years ago, Ayatollah Khomeini consolidated his control of power by endorsing the hostage taking of US embassy staff,” Rubio said in a statement.
“For decades, Iran has continued to cruelly detain innocent Americans, as well as citizens of other nations, to use as political leverage against other states. This abhorrent practice must end.”
Rubio said Trump signed an executive order last fall to protect U.S. nationals from wrongful detention abroad and that Congress later enacted the Countering Wrongful Detention Act of 2025.
“The Iranian regime must stop taking hostages and release all Americans unjustly detained in Iran, steps that could end this designation and associated actions,” Rubio said.
The Federal Move That Could Reshape Los Angeles — And Reignite America’s Homelessness Debate
Los Angeles has spent years trying to confront one of the most visible and politically difficult crises in America: homelessness.
Billions in public spending, emergency programs, housing initiatives, outreach campaigns, and years of policy experimentation have attempted to address conditions that continue to affect neighborhoods across the city. Yet despite unprecedented investment, public frustration has remained high.
Now, a major federal funding suspension and an expanding review process are placing Los Angeles’ homelessness response system under a level of scrutiny that could carry consequences far beyond Southern California.
At the center of the controversy is the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LASA), an agency that has played a central role in coordinating housing and homelessness programs throughout the region.
Federal officials, according to reports and public discussion surrounding the review, have raised concerns regarding oversight practices, financial controls, administrative safeguards, and whether current structures sufficiently protect taxpayer resources.
The move has immediately transformed what was once primarily a local policy challenge into a national political and governance debate.
A Growing Federal Spotlight on Public Spending
The latest developments emerged after reports indicated that federal housing-related funding connected to homelessness initiatives may face temporary suspension while investigators continue reviewing operational and financial procedures.
Officials involved in the review reportedly cited concerns involving internal controls, compliance structures, accountability mechanisms, and broader questions surrounding program effectiveness.
While no final findings have been announced, the decision alone signals an unusually aggressive level of federal oversight. That shift matters.
Los Angeles has become one of the most watched examples in the national homelessness conversation because of both the scale of the crisis and the scale of spending directed toward solving it.
Over recent years, agencies connected to homelessness response efforts have overseen enormous funding streams intended to support emergency shelter, housing access, outreach operations, treatment services, case management, and stabilization programs.
Supporters argue those investments reflect the complexity of modern homelessness.
Critics increasingly ask a different question:
If so much money has been invested, why do visible conditions remain so difficult across many communities?
Why This Debate Has Become Politically Explosive
Homelessness has evolved into one of the defining political issues in Los Angeles.
Residents continue raising concerns about encampments, public safety, sanitation, addiction treatment capacity, mental health services, and the availability of permanent housing solutions.
Political leaders across ideological lines have faced growing pressure to demonstrate measurable progress.
As frustration rises, spending itself has become part of the debate.
Supporters of stronger oversight argue that public trust depends not only on funding programs but also on proving that those programs deliver results.
They say transparency becomes especially important when large taxpayer investments are involved.
Others caution that judging outcomes purely through visible street conditions ignores the broader reality of homelessness policy.
Services often extend beyond shelter alone and include medical care, prevention programs, outreach networks, legal assistance, long-term housing support, and crisis intervention systems.
From that perspective, measuring success is more complicated than counting visible encampments.
The Numbers Conversation — And Why It’s More Complicated Than It Looks
One reason the issue continues generating national attention is the scale involved.
Reports frequently reference tens of thousands of individuals experiencing homelessness across Los Angeles County, making the region one of the largest service environments in the United States.
Those figures have fueled public calculations comparing total expenditures against estimated population counts.
Critics argue those comparisons suggest inefficient spending.
Program defenders respond that such calculations oversimplify costs associated with housing development, healthcare delivery, addiction recovery services, staffing, infrastructure, emergency response systems, and compliance requirements.
Both arguments now collide under increasing public scrutiny.
And that tension may ultimately become one of the defining policy battles of the coming years.
The Debate Expanded Beyond Homelessness
The federal review has also reignited broader conversations surrounding governance, public accountability, and institutional trust.
Questions have emerged about how large public-service systems operate, how oversight should function, and whether existing structures incentivize measurable outcomes.
Separate public debates have referenced concerns involving voter registration practices among vulnerable populations and how administrative safeguards should operate in public-facing systems.
Election officials and legal experts have repeatedly emphasized that isolated cases should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of widespread systemic abuse.
At the same time, critics continue arguing that stronger oversight remains necessary to maintain public confidence.
These debates increasingly overlap, creating a conversation that now extends well beyond homelessness itself.
Los Angeles Faces a Difficult Balancing Act
City leaders and organizations connected to homelessness programs have pushed back against suggestions that large-scale wrongdoing has been established.
Supporters warn that interruptions to funding could impact services relied upon by vulnerable residents.
That concern highlights the central challenge facing policymakers.
How do governments demand stronger accountability without disrupting care for people already living in crisis?
There are no easy answers.
But one reality appears increasingly difficult to ignore:
Public patience is wearing thin, and expectations for measurable outcomes continue rising.
What Happens Next May Extend Far Beyond California
Investigators, auditors, oversight officials, and legal authorities are expected to continue reviewing available information before any final conclusions are reached.
Until that process concludes, many allegations remain questions under examination rather than established findings.
But the broader impact may already be unfolding.
Because what happens next in Los Angeles could shape how cities across America structure homelessness programs, measure performance, distribute funding, and restore public trust.
This story is no longer only about one agency.
It has become a test of whether America’s largest cities can convince voters that ambitious social programs are capable of delivering visible results in an era of growing demands for accountability.
