The below Trump exchange with reporters in the Oval Office on Monday seems a tacit admission from the Commander-in-Chief that yes, the United States is running out of standoff munitions...
Q: Several military leaders have reportedly told Hegseth that a prolonged, large-scale operation in Iran weakens our ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the homeland. Have you heard that?
TRUMP: We're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it... We have unlimited amounts of... older stuff.
Q: Several military leaders have reportedly told Hegseth that a prolonged, large-scale operation in Iran weakens our ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the homeland. Have you heard that?
TRUMP: We're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it. We… pic.twitter.com/nBbjAXhxmn
The suggestion here is that the "older stuff" will of necessity be tapped in order to both support allies abroad and keep the 'homeland' safe from external threats.
The White House has at this point been dealing with similar media inquiries for months. It has batted down such claims as a dwindling Pentagon missile arsenal, due to the simultaneous and costly Iran and Ukraine wars.
For example, Trump himself in an August 6 Truth Social post asserted: "The U.S. has massive amounts of 'munitions,' especially of certain types." He had added at the time: "Additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the US as needed."
Perhaps the Iran conflict hitting the six-month mark made the White House realize that if sporadic military tit-for-tat continues on the current track, then missile stores are in serious trouble, and the 'old stuff' must be increasingly relied upon.
While the full exchange involved Trump seeking to reassure that in his view there's no problem with American stockpiles, the reference to 'mid-grade' and 'older stuff' has some analysts worried - and also given the somewhat defensive reference of blaming Ukraine:
REPORTER: And back on Iran, several military leaders have reportedly told Secretary Hegseth that a prolonged, large-scale operation there weakens our ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the homeland. Have you heard those?
DONALD TRUMP: Well, number one, we have nothing else in mind. Number two, we're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it. Number three, we have so much ammunition and munitions, as they like to call it, all over the world that we can always take from if we want.
And this is a relatively little war for us. This is not a big war. You know where the money went was Ukraine. The money was really taken out - the ammunition, if you talk about low, we have tremendous amounts, unlimited amounts of mid-grade and older stuff that's also very powerful. Unlimited amounts.
We're only talking about what we call the elite - the elite stuff - and even that, we're in very good shape. But we can always take from other sources. But I don't think we're going to need it because nobody's going to mess with us.
Trump is meanwhile said to be considering a Hegseth-backed CENTCOM plan for periodic strikes on Iranian radar, air-defense and anti-ship missile sites - particularly in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
A little Russian media trolling...
US stockpiles 'DEPLETED' in Europe and Asia due to Iran war — Wall Street Journal
Patriot and ATACMS missiles reportedly at 'CRITICAL' levels pic.twitter.com/m3DAX9TW1h
One official told Axios this would be akin to "mowing the grass" from time to time (borrowing Israel's disturbing phrase related to Gaza) - but clearly this is on an indefinite timeline, setting up for potential 'forever war'. And this is where the missile arsenal would likely come up short, according to some estimates.
Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 18:50Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,
A federal judge ruled on Monday that New York cannot enforce a 2024 state law that sought to impose an estimated $75 billion in charges on carbon-emitting companies for allegedly causing climate damage between 2000 and 2018.
Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes in Syracuse, New York, sided with 22 Republican state attorneys general, as well as industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in finding the state measure preempted by federal law. The judge said the Clean Air Act, which gave the federal Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, did not authorize states to adopt emissions compensation schemes.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law in December 2024. It required about three dozen covered fossil-fuel companies to pay a combined $3 billion annually for 25 years, or $75 billion in total. The funds would have been earmarked for infrastructure work, including coastal wetlands, stormwater systems, roads, bridges, and responses to extreme weather.
Sannes said enforcing the law risked upsetting the balance of protecting the environment, "a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation," and promoting economic growth, energy production, foreign policy interests, and national security.
West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey led the coalition of states challenging the legislation in a February 2025 lawsuit. The attorneys general said at the time that New York's law was politically motivated "overreach" that punished traditional energy companies, including West Virginia-based coal and natural gas companies, that now comply with applicable laws. They said payouts from coal, oil, and natural gas producers could wipe out thousands of jobs if the producers were forced to shut down.
"We were the first to challenge this law because we saw it for what it was - a money grab by the elites in New York, who want to punish West Virginians for doing the jobs that enable them to heat their homes and build their cities," McCuskey said in an Aug. 31 statement.
Hochul's office is reviewing the decision to determine possible next steps, spokesperson Ken Lovett said.
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for damages caused by polluters," he said.
New York was the second U.S. state to establish a superfund requiring major fossil-fuel companies to help finance infrastructure projects such as flood mitigation and coastal protection.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute sued Vermont on Dec. 30 to block that state's superfund. That case remains pending.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson from the Justice Department's Energy and Natural Resources Division welcomed Monday's decision.
"New York's law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law," Gustafson said. "We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans."
Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 18:25