Federal prosecutors indict three men in alleged Iran-backed attack plot
The Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee released a report on its investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associates, concluding that the federal government mishandled the criminal investigations and failed survivors. The release came as House Republicans worked through a packed post-election agenda that also included a leadership election and the referral of Rep. Thomas Massie’s impeachment articles against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Federal prosecutors have separately indicted three men accused of being Iran-backed operatives allegedly involved in nearly 20 terrorist attacks and attempted attacks in Europe and the United States. The charges include a plot in September against a British air base where American forces were stationed, and the Justice Department says some of the attacks were directed live via FaceTime from Iraq.
Prosecutors in Manhattan accuse the men of working for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and the Iraqi militia Kata’ib Hezbollah, both classified as terrorist groups, according to NPR reporter Willem Marx. Seven of the attacks happened in Britain and included arson, explosives and a near-fatal stabbing of two Jewish men in London.
In a separate case that authorities emphasized is not linked to the Iran-related case, British counter-terrorism police arrested a 41-year-old U.S. Army soldier on suspicion of spying for Russia under the National Security Act, Marx noted. Marx said the incidents raise significant concerns about security around American military bases in Britain and the safety of nearby residents.
House Republicans voted to make Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio the House’s new minority leader, replacing Speaker Mike Johnson, who is stepping down after last week’s midterm losses. At 62, Jordan brings experience from the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, the two panels poised to play a central role in the new Congress as Democrats plan investigations into President Trump and his administration.
NPR’s Barbara Sprunt said she viewed the leadership election as a choice between continuity and change, and that Jordan clearly represented change. She said Jordan’s selection, along with Stephen Miller’s appointment as the president’s new chief of staff, highlights a shift toward a combative political approach. Democratic leadership elections are expected next week and are likely to keep current leaders Hakeem Jeffries in the House and Chuck Schumer in the Senate in place.
The House also voted 211 to 204 to send Massie’s impeachment articles back to the House Judiciary Committee for review. The referral circumvents any potential floor vote on the impeachment and virtually ensures the articles will not be addressed before the current Congress session ends.
Massie had reintroduced the articles on Monday, accusing Hegseth of high crimes related to the war with Iran and U.S. strikes against drug boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. NPR’s Eric McDaniel described the vote as a game of attendance: enough Democrats were in Washington for the impeachment resolution to pass, but not enough were on the floor to vote, leaving Republicans the simple majority. Rep. Warren Davidson, an Ohio Republican, told McDaniel the day before the vote that he thinks the war in Iran is unconstitutional, but argued that Hegseth was just a scapegoat for the “status quo politics in Washington.”
The election results themselves carried a military thread, NPR veterans correspondent Quil Lawrence noted. A Navy admiral fired by the Trump administration is returning to Washington as a Democratic congresswoman. In Virginia, a former Army colonel beat another former Army colonel, and a female Navy veteran won a rematch to unseat another female Navy veteran. In Florida, a staunchly pro-Trump Air Force veteran narrowly fended off a former Army brigadier general, with both candidates women. In Montana, two military veterans lost, splitting the votes against a Republican former attorney general with no military background.
As for what conclusion to draw from those results, Lawrence’s answer was that there isn’t one. Americans dependably say they admire military service, and political campaigns recruit veterans to run in tough races. Whether it works remains an open question, though some research suggests Democrats in particular may benefit from veteran status with voters.
The next Congress includes at least 80 veterans, with a few races still too close to call, and according to With Honor, which supports veteran candidates from both parties who promise to sponsor legislation across the aisle, more than 50 vets in the next Congress have signed the group’s pledge. But the number of veterans is shrinking, down to 15% from the 19% currently in office. Lawrence said that decline is probably just demographics: relatively few Americans serve in today’s all-volunteer military, while past generations were drafted by the millions to Vietnam and Korea. During World War II, military service was almost a given for men, and when that generation entered politics, both chambers had around 70% veterans for a decade, from 1965 to 1975.
The 120th Congress will host more female veterans than ever, about double the last class. Analysis by the Veterans Campaign and the University of San Francisco found that Democrats chose veterans as candidates for the toughest races, in districts President Trump won in 2024 by an average of 22 points.
Veterans served in another way as well: as poll workers. Vet the Vote, which recruits veterans and their families to help run elections, started from a goal of 150,000 volunteers during the 2024 presidential cycle and counted more than 175,000 for this midterm, from all 50 states, helping bolster the understaffed and overworked polling officials nationwide, the group said. It said it had volunteers in 4 out of 5 zip codes across the country.
Syracuse University’s D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families found that veterans turned out in relatively higher numbers than civilians in every election since 2014, a difference especially pronounced in midterm elections.
NPR’s Life Kit also passed along advice from social psychologist Vanessa Bohns on the dilemma of giving feedback. Bohns says giving feedback or criticism often feels like a dilemma, and that deciding whether to say anything at all can be harder than finding the right words. With care, she says, you can make better choices about when to share your thoughts. She shared three questions to consider before voicing an opinion: Is this information helpful? Would I want to hear this? Do they want your feedback?
On the first question, honesty is beneficial if feedback helps someone improve, avoid embarrassment or learn something about themselves, while comments that are mean-spirited, irrelevant or impractical to enact are probably better left unsaid, per Bohns’ guidance. On the second, just because you don’t want to share the truth doesn’t mean the other person doesn’t want to hear it — a 2022 survey found that people often underestimate others’ desire for feedback even when it is constructive. On the third, don’t assume you know what someone needs: pre-assessing how valuable your advice is, or how well someone can handle the truth, can make well-meaning feedback sound patronizing.
Volunteer musicians from Musicians On Call perform for veterans at the VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and other hospitalized patients nationwide, typically visiting hospitals three to four times a month.
The Rembrandt House Museum in Amsterdam recently came alive as a renowned tattoo artist brought 17th-century masterpieces to life on visitors’ skin.
And the Professional Women’s Hockey League announced the name of its new women’s hockey team: the San José Sea Lions, according to KQED.