President Donald Trump seeks to enlist the international community in helping the United States clear the Strait of Hormuz and suggested that a lackluster showing by NATO members may place the alliance’s future in doubt.

Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday, “The United States of America has beaten and completely decimated Iran, both Militarily, Economically, and in every other way, but the Countries of the World that receive Oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — A LOT!”

‘Whatever it takes.’

“The U.S. will also coordinate with those Countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well,” continued Trump. “This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be — It will bring the World together toward Harmony, Security, and Everlasting Peace!”

After the U.S. and Israel again bombed Iran last month, Tehran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz in what War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Friday was an act of “sheer desperation” that people “don’t need to worry about.”

According to Lloyd’s List Intelligence, 16 commercial vessels have been attacked in and around the Strait of Hormuz since the outset of the conflict. The attacks, effected largely with surface-to-surface missiles but also with the use of drones and mines, have killed numerous crew members and forced others — at least in the case of the Safeen Prestige, a container ship flying under the flag of Malta — to abandon ship.

The strait’s corresponding closure has proven globally consequential, as roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil normally transits the strait, which lies between Iran and Oman and links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.

RELATED: The most honest phrase you’ll hear all week

Photo by Nikolas Kokovlis/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Energy prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks. The price of Brent crude, for example, was over $100 per barrel ahead of market opening on Monday. U.S. gas prices are reportedly at their highest level since Oct. 7, 2023.

Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, noted on Sunday, “Americans today will spend $300 million more on gasoline than they did 30 days ago.”

On Saturday, Trump specifically expressed hope that China, France, Japan, South Korea, and Britain “will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated.”

Trump told the Financial Times the next day that it is “only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there.”

“If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response, I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO,” added Trump, who told U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer on March 7 that he didn’t need the help of British aircraft carriers.

“We have a thing called NATO,” Trump told the Times. “We’ve been very sweet. We didn’t have to help them with Ukraine. Ukraine is thousands of miles away from us … but we helped them. Now we’ll see if they help us. Because I’ve long said that we’ll be there for them but they won’t be there for us. And I’m not sure that they’d be there.”

When asked what kind of help is needed, the president said, “Whatever it takes.”

It appears that some nations are not in a rush to help.

Japanese Prime Minister Sane Takaichi said her nation, which has begun releasing oil reserves, has yet to make “any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships,” reported the Independent.

Australian Transport Minister Catherine King said her country “won’t be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz,” adding that “we know how incredibly important that is, but that’s not something we’ve been asked or we’re contributing to.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Strait of hormuz, Hormuz, Iran, Oil, Gas, War, Conflict, Missiles, Tehran, Donald trump, Israel, Mines, Drones, Bombing, Energy, Tankers, Politics 

Qualified immunity, a doctrine the Supreme Court created in 1967, bewilders ordinary citizens who run headlong into it after government officials trample their constitutional rights. In plain English, the doctrine often blocks lawsuits against officials unless a prior court decision “clearly established” that the specific conduct at issue violated the Constitution. That standard leaves many victims without a remedy and lets many constitutional wrongs go unanswered.

That is not right. The Constitution exists to protect individual rights, not to insulate officials who violate them from accountability.

Qualified immunity can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.

Recent years have also supplied fresh reasons to question the doctrine’s scope. Abuses tied to the weaponization of law enforcement and the criminal justice system have come to light with unsettling regularity. Think of Crossfire Hurricane, where senior officials used a discredited dossier — commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and funded through political channels — to pursue surveillance warrants and to monitor an opposing campaign before and after the 2016 election.

Or consider Arctic Frost, the childishly named operation (Arctic Frost is a type of orange, as in “Orange Man Bad”) that targeted hundreds of Americans, including one of the co-authors (Eastman) and relied on sweeping demands for private communications and records in search of a predicate offense in hopes of derailing President Trump’s 2024 campaign.

Episodes like these, and others, zero in on a basic question: When government power crosses constitutional lines, who answers for it?

Qualified immunity often supplies the answer: nobody.

Now the Supreme Court appears to be taking an unusual look at the doctrine — at least if its recent handling of three qualified immunity petitions offers any clue.

What’s different this time

In prior years, the court has frequently disposed of qualified immunity petitions quickly, sometimes through summary action with no explanation. This term looks different. Three cases involving qualified immunity have sat on the court’s docket far longer than the usual pattern would suggest. The justices have repeatedly requested responses and, in several instances, called for lower-court records. The court has also rescheduled cases for conference after conference without issuing a decision.

That process does not prove the court plans to revisit the doctrine. But it does suggest heightened attention.

Case 1: Smith v. Scott

The petition for writ of certiorari in Smith v. Scott was filed nearly a year ago. The case arises from a tragic encounter that began as a call for help. A 65-year-old man contacted police because he believed intruders lurked outside his apartment. Officers arrived, found no intruders, and then attempted to handcuff him. The encounter escalated. Officers restrained him on the ground, and an officer allegedly applied pressure that impeded his breathing until he died.

Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity. The officers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The respondent (Scott’s estate) initially waived a response, which commonly happens in cert-stage litigation. The court did not let the waiver stand. It called for a response after the case’s first conference last May. After a later conference, the court requested the record. Since then, it has repeatedly relisted the petition — an astounding 13 times — without resolving it.

Case 2: Zorn v. Linton

Zorn v. Linton involves a protest at the Vermont State House. Demonstrators occupied the chamber floor to protest government policy. Most left when the building closed. Shela Linton stayed and refused to leave. Officers removed her using a rear wristlock. She sued, alleging unreasonable force that caused pain, injury, and trauma.

The district court granted qualified immunity. The Second Circuit reversed and denied qualified immunity. The petition reached the Supreme Court in September. Once again, the respondent waived a response, and once again the court requested one. The case then cycled through conference after conference before the court requested the lower-court record on February 27.

This case matters for another reason. Many qualified immunity disputes involve fast-moving encounters where officers make split-second judgments. This one involves an interaction with warnings, time, and repeated opportunities to comply. It tees up an issue courts often sidestep: the obligations citizens assume when they knowingly violate a lawful order and force officers to escalate to removal. Does a protester’s refusal to leave reduce the scope of what counts as “unreasonable” force, so long as officers use measured escalation? Put differently: Were Linton’s rights even violated?

Case 3: Villarreal v. Alaniz

Villarreal v. Alaniz sits at the intersection of qualified immunity and the First Amendment. Police arrested journalist Priscilla Villarreal under a state statute that barred solicitation of nonpublic information. The reporter argued that the arrest violated her First Amendment rights.

The procedural history highlights the doctrine’s power. The district court granted qualified immunity. A Fifth Circuit panel denied it. The full Fifth Circuit later granted it en banc. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision for further consideration. The Fifth Circuit again granted immunity.

Judge Andrew Oldham, in a concurring opinion, made an observation that cuts to the heart of qualified immunity’s justification. Courts often defend the doctrine by pointing to the realities of policing: officers must act quickly, sometimes under threat, with incomplete information. Oldham questioned whether that rationale “makes sense” in a case involving time to find a statute, plan an arrest, consult counsel, and investigate facts. Under those circumstances, why should immunity hinge on whether a prior case matches the fact pattern with near-photographic precision?

The cert petition was filed last July. The Supreme Court requested a response in August. It later requested the record after multiple conferences.

What the Supreme Court might do next

No outsider can know what the justices plan. But these three cases, taken together, give the Supreme Court a menu of options.

The court could reinforce qualified immunity, especially in excessive-force cases, and use the term’s docket to signal more protection for officers facing a rising tide of litigation.

The court could narrow qualified immunity — particularly in cases where officials have time to deliberate, plan, and consult — because the “split-second decision” rationale does not apply.

RELATED: The common-sense case for nationalizing US elections

Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

The court could also recalibrate the doctrine without overruling it: clarify what counts as “clearly established” law, tighten the inquiry, or distinguish between scenarios that demand rapid judgment and those that involve considered decisions.

In the abstract, “immunity from liability for violating rights” begins to resemble artificial judicial indemnification. Modern society does not grant that kind of blanket protection to most other professions. A surgeon, an engineer, or a corporate executive cannot avoid accountability because no prior case warned that the precise mistake at issue would cause harm. The law often holds them to general standards of care, not hyper-specific precedent.

Qualified immunity operates differently. It can turn constitutional protections into paper rights — recognized in theory, unavailable in practice.

Whatever the court’s destination, the road looks different this term. The extended consideration, repeated relists, and requests for records in multiple cases point to sustained attention. That alone marks a change.

If the court means to revisit qualified immunity, even in part, the consequences will ripple far beyond these three cases. Federal courts hear thousands of civil rights claims each year. The doctrine shapes whether citizens can vindicate constitutional rights at all.

At minimum, one conclusion now seems hard to avoid: The Supreme Court is looking closely. And when the court looks closely, doctrine can move significantly.

​Opinion & analysis, Supreme court, Constitution, Rights, Weaponized justice, Law and order, Qualified immunity, Pierson v. ray, Smith v. scott, Zorn v. linton, Villarreal v. alaniz, Precedent, Police, Ninth circuit court of appeals, Fifth circuit 

Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw was overwhelming rejected by voters on March 3 in his state’s Republican primary. Crenshaw — whose notably conservative opponent, state Rep. Steve Toth, handily secured over 57% of the total vote — has apparently decided to blame voters for his defeat, claiming that they were misled and failed to come out in sufficient numbers.

CBS News’ Margaret Brennan, the liberal talking head who suggested last year that free speech was responsible for the Holocaust, asked Crenshaw on Sunday to unpack his concerns “about this culture of misinformation we’re living in.”

‘In Crenshaw’s case, the problem wasn’t misinformation, but repeated exposure to information.’

Crenshaw, who previously blamed the loss on his branding as “Red Flag Law Crenshaw” and allegations of insider trading, told Brennan, “I’m a unique Republican. You know, I’ve been the target of online smears and conspiracies for a very long time. My election was basically a product of that.”

“First of all, you have about 20% of Republican voters bothering to even vote at a primary, and then you have dozens of online smears and conspiracies that people were going into the voting booth actually believing,” continued Crenshaw. “I mean, believing that I was worth millions of dollars from insider trading. Doesn’t matter how many times we thought we had debunked that, or that other people and influencers and what have not have debunked it, all of these things, people still went in believing it.”

Crenshaw said that “ultimately, this is a question for the American people: Are you going to believe everything you read online or that’s sent to you in your mail?”

RELATED: ‘Hell of a fighter’: Trump endorses famous YouTuber turned boxer for office while in THIS congressman’s district

Crenshaw previously told the Texas Tribune, “A large part of this election was about the power of clickbait.”

“Memes became truth. Too many people are not discerning through the clickbait,” continued Crenshaw. “People voting — one after the other — literally thought I was making millions in the stock market doing inside trading. Even though I haven’t made a trade in three years. I’ve made under $46,000 over my entire seven years in office. The truth didn’t matter to people.”

Crenshaw, faulted by some critics over his insistence that President Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and his Jan. 6 commentary, told the paper that “telling the truth thing” is regarded as “a real crime” among some voters.

Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz said in response to Crenshaw’s remarks to Brennan, “Dan Crenshaw begins to audition for a left-leaning TV commentary gig following his blow out loss.”

Wade Miller, executive director of the Center for Renewing America, wrote, “I think in Crenshaw’s case, the problem wasn’t misinformation, but repeated exposure to information and Dan’s own condescending attitude.”

Ben Larrabee, a data analyst with Turning Point Action’s Chase the Vote initiative, said that contrary to Crenshaw’s framing, the reason the congressman lost was that in 2018 and in 2020, “His district had a CPV of R+11, so it was redistricted to an R+15. And as Crenshaw’s voting record worsened over time, his new conservative base started voting for a more conservative representative. Ain’t more complicated than that.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Congress, Dan crenshaw, Crenshaw, Rino, John mccain, Gop, Republican primary, Primary, Margaret brennan, Texas, Lone star state, Elections, Misinformation, Media, Liberal media, Politics