Mar. 22, 2026, 2:56 PM EDT

Cuba is “preparing” for the possibility of U.S. military aggression against the Caribbean island nation, a top Cuban official said Sunday.

“Our military is always prepared, and, in fact, it is preparing these days for the possibility of military aggression,” Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, Carlos Fernández de Cossío, told NBC News. “We would be naive, if looking at what’s happening around the world, we would not do that.”

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Fernández de Cossío added, “But we truly hope that it does not occur. We don’t see why it would have to occur. We find no justification whatsoever.”

He spoke as Cuba began restoring power after a nationwide electricity blackout, which Cuban officials have blamed on a U.S. energy blockade driven by President Donald Trump threats to impose tariffs on any country that provides oil to Cuba. Cuba’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canal, acknowledged last week that his government is in talks with the U.S. government.

Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have repeatedly warned that Cuba could be next to see U.S. military intervention, adding to a growing number of countries, including Venezuela and Iran, where the U.S. military has interfered.

“I do believe I will be having the honor of taking Cuba,” Trump told reporters last week in the Oval Office. “Whether I free it, take it. Think I can do anything I want with it, you want to know the truth.”

Shortly after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January at Trump’s direction, Rubio said“I don’t think it’s any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime,  who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro.”

Rubio called the Cuban government “a huge problem.”

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Mar. 22, 2026, 7:59 AM EDT

CAIRO (AP) — Iran responded Sunday with threats of its own, a day after President Donald Trumpwarned the United States will “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if Tehran fails to fully open the Strait of Hormuzin 48 hours and Iranian missiles struck two cities near Israel’s main nuclear research center, injuring dozens and shattering apartment buildings.

The developments signaled the war in the Middle East, now in its fourth weekwas moving in a dangerous new direction.

Sirens blared across Israel as Iran launched new barrages Sunday. In the country’s south, residents faced the devastation in the cities of Dimona and Arad. In northern Israel, a man was killed in a strike by the Lebanese militant Hezbollah group.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu toured Arad and said it was a “miracle” that no one was killed by the blast, which heavily damaged several buildings. But he said that if all residents had rushed to shelters, no one would have been hurt and urged all to heed the sirens.

Iran responds to Trump’s ultimatum

Trump said on Saturday that he would give Iran 48 hours to open the vital Strait of Hormuzor face a new round of attacks. He said the U.S. would destroy “various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”

He may have meant the Bushehr nuclear power plant, Iran’s biggest, which was already hit last week, or Damavand, a natural gas plant near Tehran, Iran’s capital.

In turn, Iran warned early Sunday that any strike on its energy facilities would prompt attacks on U.S. and Israeli energy and infrastructure assets — specifically information technology and desalination facilities — in the region, according to a statement citing an Iranian military spokesperson carried by state media and semiofficial outlets.

The Strait of Hormuz connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean and is a critical pathway for the world’s flow of oil. Attacks on commercial shipsand threats of further strikes have stopped nearly all tankers from carrying oil, gas and other goodsthrough the passage, leading to cuts in output from some of the world’s largest oil producers, because their crude has nowhere to go.

Seyed Ali Mousavi, Iran’s envoy to the International Maritime Organization, said in remarks carried by two Iranian news agencies that navigating the strait is possible for “everyone except enemies” — indicating Tehran would determine which vessels are allowed passage. Iran has already approved the passage of ships through the waterway to China and elsewhere in Asia.

Iran strikes area near Israeli nuclear site

Israel’s military said it was not able to intercept missiles that hit Dimona and Arad on Saturday, the largest cities near the Negev Desert nuclear center. It was the first time Iranian missiles penetrated Israel’s air defense systems in the area.

“If the Israeli regime is unable to intercept missiles in the heavily protected Dimona area, it is, operationally, a sign of entering a new phase of the battle,” Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on X.

Rescue workers said at least 64 people were taken to hospitals after the direct hit in Arad. Dimona is about 20 kilometers (12 miles) west of the nuclear research center and Arad around 35 kilometers (22 miles) north.

Israel’s hard-line national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, visited Arad on Sunday, saying that Israel is in a “historic battle” against Iran and that it must “continue until victory.”

Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it doesn’t confirm or denythis. The U.N. nuclear watchdog said on X it had not received reports of damage to the Israeli center or any abnormal radiation levels.

Israel denies responsibility for attack on Natanz

Tehran’s main nuclear enrichment site at Natanzwas hit earlier on Saturday. Israel denied responsibility for the attack and the Iranian judiciary’s official news agency, Mizan, said there was no leakage.

The Pentagon declined to comment on the strike on Natanz, which was also hit in the first week of the ongoing war and in the 12-day warlast June.

The U.N. watchdog — the International Atomic Energy Agency — has said the bulk of Iran’s estimated 972 pounds (441 kilograms) of enriched uranium is elsewhere, beneath the rubble at its Isfahan facility.

The U.S. and Israel have offered shifting rationalesfor the war, from hoping to foment an uprisingthat topples Iran’s leadership to eliminating its nuclear and missile programsand its support for armed proxies. There have been no signs of an uprising, while internet restrictions limit information from Iran.

The war’s effects are felt far beyond the Middle East, raising food and fuel prices.

So far in Iran, the death toll in the war has surpassed 1,500, the state broadcaster reported Saturday, citing the health ministry. In Israel, 15 people have been killed by Iranian missiles. Four others have died in the occupied West Bank. At least 13 U.S. military members have been killed, along with well over a dozen civilians in Gulf nations.

Hezbollah claims deadly strike on northern Israel

Hezbollah said it was behind a strike on Sunday that killed a man in the northern Israeli town of Misgav Am in what the Israeli military said “seemed to be” a rocket attack. Israeli medics said they found the man dead in his car and released a video showing two vehicles ablaze.

Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, launched strikes on Israel soon after the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran started on Feb. 28, saying it was in retaliation for the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel struck back, bombarding Lebanon and targeting Hezbollah in deadly airstrikes, expanding its presence in southern Lebanon and amassing more troops near the border.

Lebanese authorities say Israel’s strikes have killed more than 1,000 people and displaced more than 1 million.

Crash in Qatar

Qatar said Sunday that all seven people aboard a Qatari helicopter that crashed the previous day in the Gulf Arab nation’s territorial waters are dead — including three Turkish nationals, a military officer and two civilians.

The confirmation came after the body of the missing Qatari pilot was found on Sunday. The crash was blamed on a “technical malfunction.”

Mar. 22, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

ByRay Brescia

When the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump this past February, one had to sift through seven different judicial opinions spanning 170 pages to understand that the court invalidated the sweeping tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Still, that decision left many issues unresolved, the most important of which was how the  administration was supposed to refund billions in illegal tariffs to those who paid them.

Instead of answering that important question, it returned the case to the relatively obscure Court of International Trade, a body created by Congress in 1980 to help resolve issues affecting, as its name suggests, international trade.

While one might think this was a recipe for mischief, an unlikely hero has arisen, Judge Richard Eaton of that court, who appears to be holding the administration’s feet to the fire and does not appear like he is about to tolerate many shenanigans should the administration seek to drag those feet in an effort to evade the law.

While Trump administration officials may have believed they could tie the case up in the courts for months, even years, Eaton has different thoughts about how, and when, to refund those who paid these illegal tariffs, and he has laid it all out in two opinions spanning no more than six pages of text combined.

At a time when lawyers and judges gravitate toward complex reasoning, obscuring jargon and legal briefs and opinions that seemingly go on forever, Eaton has taught a masterclass in simple, concise and clear language. What this straightforward approach has done is not only made it patently clear what the administration’s legal obligations are, he has left little wiggle room for the administration to avoid reparations.

Eaton, a 77-year-old jurist who once served as a village justice in rural upstate New York, has taken the reins of this sprawling, high-stakes legal battle. In the case of Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, the plaintiff is seeking an immediate refund of the payments it made under the illegal tariff scheme. Eaton’s first opinion in the case is a model of judicial brevity and clarity. And he has also shown no patience for bureaucratic stonewalling.

The first decision was issued on March 4, 2026. Importers across the country may have been bracing for a convoluted, multiyear slog to get their money back, but Eaton quickly eased those fears. In a simple, three-page order, he directed Customs and Border Protection to refund the illegal tariffs paid by American companies.

But that’s not all he did. He also brushed aside the government’s possible procedural defenses. Despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Trump v. CASA, Inc. — that frowned upon so-called “universal” or nationwide injunctions — in just a few plainspoken sentences, Eaton dismantled this hurdle. He pointed out that Congress provided the CIT with “national geographic jurisdiction” and “exclusive subject matter jurisdiction” over these very claims. Because he is the only judge hearing these refund cases, there is no risk of conflicting decisions from other courts.

He also extended the benefit of the Supreme Court’s ruling to all importers whose entries were subject to the illegal tariffs, declaring that finding otherwise would “thwart the efficient administration of justice.” There was no bloated dicta. No attempt at soaring or purple prose. No contortionist logic to reach a preferred decision or to justify refraining from reaching a decision. Just clear directives that have paved the way for nationwide relief.

Naturally, the government balked. On March 6, a representative of the CBP, the entity responsible for collecting, and now refunding, the tariffs, submitted a sworn statement to Judge Eaton that the agency could not comply immediately with the court’s order to refund those American companies that paid the illegal tariffs. Instead, CBP is now saying it is going to create a mechanism for facilitating refunds of the tariffs, but that it needs 45 days to implement the system.

Rather than letting the government use this excuse to indefinitely stall, Eaton issued his second order later that same day.

If his first order was brief, his March 6 order was a paragon of judicial economy — weighing in at just two pages. Acknowledging that CBP has proposed the creation of an automated process, he temporarily suspended the demand for immediate compliance but kept the agency on an incredibly tight leash.

He bluntly laid out the stakes to justify his speed: The $165 billion in collected duties is currently accruing approximately $650 million in interest every single month. If the entries are not liquidated by the end of the year, he explained, American taxpayers will be on the hook for an estimated $10 billion in interest alone. With that staggering figure stalking the administration’s processes, Eaton accepted the complexity of the task at hand but also ordered the government to file a progress report by March 12, promising to keep tabs on the CBP, which he has done. That March 12 briefing has come and gone, and Eaton is expecting regular briefings from the government to ensure it is making progress, including receiving one such briefing Thursday.

When it too often seems like the legal system is paralyzed by procedural gamesmanship and judicial opinions frequently span hundreds of pages, and sometimes constitute tales of sound and fury signifying little, Eaton’s approach is a breath of fresh air. His rulings demonstrate that the most effective jurisprudence is often the most direct. He saw a problem — billions of dollars in illegally collected taxes and an administration reluctant to return them — and he used his court’s unique jurisdictional power to solve it.

He didn’t write for the history books, even as he made history; he wrote to get American businesses their money back and to protect American taxpayers from footing a multibillion-dollar interest bill.

The Constitution requires that tariffs be lawful, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that these were not. But rights without remedies are meaningless. Thanks to the brevity, clarity and undeniable courage of a seasoned judge in lower Manhattan, who no doubt has seen his share of litigant mischief in his court for decades, the rule of law is being enforced in as straightforward and efficient a manner as possible.

In a world where the courts must serve as a significant check on abuses of power, particularly executive power, we need more judges like Eaton: those with the courage, and the willingness, to, in the words of Chief Justice John Marshall from over 200 years ago, “say what the law is” and to do so in a concise, fair, clear and accessible manner.