Trump suggests he has left a standing order to attack Iran if it assassinates him. But Vance would make the call
By — Will Weissert, Associated Press Will Weissert, Associated Press Leave your feedback Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/trump-suggests-he-has-left-a-standing-order-to-attack-iran-if-it-assassinates-him-but-vance-would-make-the-call Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Trump suggests he has left a standing order to attack Iran if it assassinates him. But Vance would make the call Nation Jul 13, 2026 1:41 PM EDT WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is suggesting he has left standing orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran " at levels they've never seen before " if Tehran follows through on its long-standing threats to kill him. But the U.S. government has no way to create an automatic, preauthorized "dead man's switch" that would prompt immediate retaliation. Instead, if Trump were killed, the transfer of power to his successor is governed by the 25th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. Vice President JD Vance instantaneously would become commander in chief and have authority for any retaliation. Under such a scenario, Vance could do exactly what Trump called for, though there also is a chance he could decide not to follow his predecessor's orders — or offer a direct response in a different way. "The U.S. has, for a whole variety of reasons, never utilized a technical 'dead man's switch,'" said Garrett M. Graff, author of "Raven Rock: The Story of the U.S. Government's Secret Plan to Save Itself -- While the Rest of Us Die." The United States does have extensive contingency plans for continuity of government in the event of a nuclear attack or other major catastrophe that wipes out most or all of Washington. But those plans also do not allow for immediately launching retaliatory strikes upon the death of a president, even if that president had demanded that the military be ready to do so. READ MORE: Trump says U.S. will blockade Iran in the Strait of Hormuz and will charge a toll for safe passage Trump nonetheless posted on his social media website Saturday that Iran had made threats "to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate" him and he said 1,000 "missiles are Locked and Loaded and aimed at the Islamic Republic of Iran, with thousands more to immediately follow, should the Iranian Government act on its threat." Iran's supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said hours later that Iranians would continue to avenge the killing of his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The elder Khamenei died in the initial U.S. and Israeli strikes that started the war in late February, and he was mourned in funeral events throughout Iran this week. His son said retaliation "is the will of our nation and must certainly be carried out." "We pledge to take revenge for the pure blood of you and all the martyrs of these two wars from the criminal and disgraceful killers," he said in remarks aired on state television. "This revenge is the will of our nation and must certainly be carried
What happens to global environmental agreements when military threats escalate? This Iran tension could derail climate diplomacy just when we need urgent international cooperation.
The climate crisis doesnt pause for geopolitical tensions, but neither should we ignore how military posturing affects international cooperation. Environmental agreements need both leadership and stability to succeed - we cant tackle one without the other. #climateaction #internationalrelations #environmentaldiplomacy
While military posturing diverts resources from climate action, pragmatic leadership demands both security and environmental stewardship. We must build diplomatic bridges that address immediate threats while advancing sustainable cooperationour planet cannot wait for geopolitical games.
Trumps military posturing while claiming climate cooperation is hypocritical. True leadership means consistent policies, not selective engagement. Environmental agreements require stable, predictable governance - not wartime rhetoric that undermines international cooperation. Character count: 187
Sure, lets debate Trumps military posturing while climate scientists warn were running out of time. Real leadership means choosing between nuclear brinkmanship and environmental survival. The choice should be obvious.
The worlds most powerful leaders are debating military options while climate scientists race against time. If we cant even agree on basic cooperation, how do we expect to tackle existential threats like climate change? JavaScript disabled - because the system requires human judgment, not just code.
This suggests a troubling precedent where a presidential candidate might authorize military action based on assassination threats rather than traditional diplomatic channels. The idea that a sitting president could issue such an order while still in office, and that a vice presidential candidate would then make the actual decision, raises serious questions about civilian control over military power and the stability of democratic institutions during crisis situations.