Secretary of State Marco Rubio forcefully pushed back against allegations that President Donald Trump considered his personal financial interests when making decisions related to the recent conflict with Iran, delivering one of the most heated exchanges during a contentious House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing.

The confrontation unfolded as lawmakers questioned administration officials about U.S. policy toward Iran and the broader implications of the military operation that has dominated headlines in recent weeks. During the hearing, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., suggested that Trump’s financial holdings could have presented a conflict of interest and pressed Rubio on whether the president had considered the potential financial impact of military action.

Rubio wasted little time rejecting the suggestion.

The secretary of state said that throughout his extensive involvement in the administration’s foreign policy discussions, he had never once heard Trump raise his personal finances in connection with military decisions, international diplomacy, or any other major policy matter. Rubio emphasized that he has participated in virtually every major foreign policy meeting involving the president and categorically denied the accusation.

The exchange quickly became one of the most intense moments of the hearing. Meeks repeatedly questioned whether rising energy costs, shipping expenses, and broader economic consequences were discussed before military action was authorized. Rubio declined to provide the simple yes-or-no answers the congressman sought, arguing that complex foreign policy decisions cannot be reduced to one-word responses.

As tensions escalated, Rubio appeared increasingly frustrated with what he viewed as an attempt to suggest improper motives behind the administration’s actions. He argued that decisions involving national security are driven by strategic and security considerations, not by personal financial gain.

The questioning came after public disclosures showed thousands of securities transactions had been executed in investment accounts managed on behalf of Trump during the first quarter of 2026. According to reports, those accounts are overseen by outside financial professionals rather than being directly managed by the president himself.

Rubio noted that he is not involved in monitoring the president’s personal financial disclosures and said he had no knowledge of specific stock transactions. He also challenged the premise that any such investments played a role in administration policy.

The hearing reflected broader political battles that have intensified since the conflict with Iran began. Democrats have continued pressing administration officials over the military operation and its economic consequences, while administration leaders have defended the decision as necessary to protect American interests and counter Iranian aggression. Rubio has repeatedly maintained that the administration’s actions were focused on national security objectives and regional stability.

The fiery exchange was just the latest example of Rubio’s increasingly combative appearances before Congress. In recent hearings, he has repeatedly sparred with Democratic lawmakers over foreign policy, sanctions on Iran, diplomatic negotiations, and the administration’s broader approach to global conflicts. Rubio has consistently defended President Trump’s foreign policy agenda while rejecting accusations that political or personal considerations influence major national security decisions.

As lawmakers continue scrutinizing the administration’s handling of the Iran conflict, Wednesday’s hearing demonstrated that the debate remains far from settled. But Rubio left little doubt about where he stands, forcefully rejecting any suggestion that the president weighed personal financial interests when making decisions involving war, diplomacy, or America’s national security.

A federal review has uncovered widespread abuse of a special immigration program originally created to protect abused, neglected, and abandoned children, according to findings released by the Department of Homeland Security.

The program, known as Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status, was designed to provide legal protections for vulnerable minors who could not safely reunite with one or both parents. However, DHS officials say the system was repeatedly exploited over the years by adult applicants, convicted criminals, sex offenders, and gang members who were able to obtain legal status in the United States through loopholes and weak vetting procedures.

According to the report, more than 500 individuals with ties to the violent MS-13 gang were granted legal status through the SIJ program. Federal officials also identified more than 200 registered sex offenders who successfully received immigration benefits under the same pathway. The findings have intensified criticism of immigration policies that were in place during previous administrations and have renewed calls for stricter screening procedures.

The SIJ program was originally established to help children who had experienced abuse, abandonment, or neglect. Applicants are generally required to obtain findings from a state juvenile court before seeking immigration protections. DHS investigators now say the system lacked sufficient safeguards to prevent fraudulent claims and failed to adequately verify the backgrounds of many applicants.

Officials reviewing the program found that some applicants were not actually minors when they received benefits. Others allegedly concealed criminal histories or gang affiliations while moving through the immigration process. The report states that thousands of cases were approved despite significant concerns that should have triggered additional scrutiny.

The revelations come as federal authorities continue broader efforts to identify and remove criminal illegal immigrants from communities across the country. DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have highlighted numerous recent arrests involving individuals convicted of violent crimes, including child sexual assault, rape, manslaughter, gang-related offenses, and other serious felonies.

Homeland Security officials argue that the SIJ findings demonstrate how immigration programs can be manipulated when oversight is weak. They contend that a system intended to protect vulnerable children was instead exploited by dangerous individuals who were able to obtain legal status and remain in the country. DHS has indicated that it is reviewing additional cases and examining potential reforms to strengthen vetting standards and improve information sharing among federal agencies.

The report has also reignited debate in Washington over immigration enforcement and border security. Supporters of tougher immigration policies say the findings underscore the need for stronger background checks and more aggressive efforts to identify individuals who obtained benefits through fraud. Critics, meanwhile, caution against using isolated abuses to undermine protections for legitimate child victims who rely on the program for safety and stability.

DHS officials maintain that the goal is not to eliminate protections for vulnerable children but to ensure those protections are not abused by criminals seeking to exploit the immigration system. As investigators continue reviewing past approvals, lawmakers on both sides of the issue are expected to scrutinize how the program was administered and what changes may be needed to prevent similar abuses in the future.

A newly revealed immigration case is drawing national attention after federal authorities arrested a Mauritanian national accused of using a fraudulent asylum claim to enter the United States before later securing employment as a correctional officer at an Indiana county jail.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, Selah Dine Habib was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after investigators determined that his pending asylum application may have been based on false information. Federal officials allege that Habib entered the United States illegally near Lukeville, Arizona, in March 2023 and was subsequently released into the country under policies implemented during the Biden administration.

DHS officials say Habib sought asylum by claiming he was being persecuted because of his homosexuality. However, authorities later discovered that he married a woman after arriving in the United States, prompting questions about the legitimacy of the original asylum application. Federal officials now believe the claim may have been fraudulent and are pursuing removal proceedings.

The case became even more controversial after local reports revealed that Habib was hired as a correctional officer at the Jay County Jail in Indiana. According to local officials, he was employed after presenting work authorization documents and successfully passing the federal E-Verify employment verification system.

Additional reports indicated that Habib married the daughter of Jay County Sheriff Larry Ray Newton, making him the sheriff’s step-son-in-law. The relationship has intensified scrutiny of the hiring process and raised questions about how an individual with a pending asylum claim and unresolved immigration status was able to obtain a position within a law enforcement agency.

Sheriff Newton reportedly defended the hiring decision, noting that Habib provided documentation authorizing him to work in the United States and passed all required verification checks at the time of employment. Nonetheless, critics argue the situation exposes broader weaknesses in federal immigration screening and employment verification procedures.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a strongly worded statement following the arrest, emphasizing that the Trump administration has taken a more aggressive approach toward immigration enforcement. Officials stated that individuals who enter the country illegally and obtain public-sector positions undermine public trust in government institutions and law enforcement agencies.

Habib is currently being held in ICE custody at a detention facility in Indiana while his immigration case proceeds through the legal system. Reports indicate he is contesting a final deportation order and seeking to remain in the United States despite the allegations surrounding his asylum application.

The arrest comes as immigration enforcement remains one of the most hotly debated issues in American politics. Supporters of stricter border security argue that cases like Habib’s demonstrate how vulnerabilities in the asylum system can be exploited by individuals seeking entry into the country. They also point to the fact that Habib was ultimately able to obtain employment within a county jail as evidence that additional safeguards may be needed.

Meanwhile, immigration advocates caution that each case should be evaluated individually and stress that allegations alone do not constitute proof of wrongdoing until fully adjudicated through the legal process.

As the case moves forward, federal authorities are expected to continue investigating the circumstances surrounding Habib’s asylum application, employment history, and immigration status. The outcome could have broader implications for ongoing debates over asylum reform, employment verification systems, and immigration enforcement policies nationwide.