• Market Position: YouTube Established Status As The Worlds Largest Media Company In 2025
• Financial Record: Platform Generated Over 60 Billion Dollars In Total Revenue During 2025
• Competitive Analysis: Estimated Earnings Surpass The Walt Disney Companys Media Business Results
• Corporate Valuation: Market Value Estimated Between 500 Billion And 560 Billion Dollars
• Revenue Streams: Income Sources Include Advertising Subscriptions Plus Virtual Multichannel Video Services
• Creator Economy: Milestone Payment Of Over 100 Billion Dollars Distributed To Partners And Content Creators
• Future Growth: Expansion Driven By Artificial Intelligence Tools And Strategic Industry Positioning
• Service Scaling: YouTube TV Reaches 10 Million Subscribers With Projections To Overtake Traditional Cable Competitors

YouTube‘s cultural influence is already hard to ignore, but 2025 could nonetheless be a turning point for the Google-owned video platform: It’s the year it became the world’s largest media company.

YouTube had more than $60 billion in revenue in 2025, parent company Alphabet reported last month. Now, the influential financial research firm MoffettNathanson runs the numbers and comes to the conclusion that YouTube’s estimated $62 billion in 2025 will have allowed it to pass The Walt Disney Co.’s media business, which generated $60.9 billion last year (excluding Disney’s lucrative experiences division).

Related Stories

[

](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/youtube-politicians-journalists-ai-deepfake-detection-tool-1236525427/)

Business

YouTube Gives Political Figures and Journalists Access to AI Deepfake Detection Tool

[

](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/somebody-feed-phil-moving-to-youtube-1236525778/)

TV

'Somebody Feed Phil' Moving to YouTube From Netflix in 2027

The firm, which declared YouTube the “new king of all media” last year, is now valued at between $500 billion-$560 billion, far above any traditional media competitors. The closest would be Netflix, which has a market cap of about $409 billion as of writing.

YouTube’s ad revenue hit $11.4 billion in Q4, totaling over $40 billion for the year. But it also has an enormous subscription business, encompassing YouTube Premium, YouTube Music, NFL Sunday Ticket, and the YouTube TV virtual multichannel video service.

YouTube TV now has around 10 million subscribers, and is likely to overtake pay-TV leaders Charter and Comcast in the coming years.

YouTube has now paid out more than $100 billion to creators, music companies and media partners, reflecting its starring role in the entertainment ecosystem.

“There are two really fundamental things that we do for creators,” YouTube CEO Neal Mohan told The Hollywood Reporter last year, just a few hours after announcing the milestone. “One is help them build an audience and connect with their fans, regardless of where those fans are in the world; and the second thing we do is we help them build businesses. That’s what that $100 billion represents for me.”

MoffettNathanson argues that the scale as a distributor, both of pay-TV and of creator-led content, will help it continue its explosive growth. So will its heavy investment into AI tools, which will allow creators to produce more content at a faster cadence.

“Over the next few years, unlike almost any other asset we cover, we strongly believe that YouTube will be a major beneficiary of both the structural tailwinds and headwinds facing technology and media companies,” Michael Nathanson writes.

Indeed, there may not be another company that sits so squarely at the intersection of media and technology.

“I am a technologist, but I also love media and storytelling. I’ve been that way since I can remember, I’m a fan myself, fundamentally,” Mohan said. “Leading YouTube is a privilege where I can actually bring both those pieces together, that human storytelling and creativity and the best of technology, that’s what motivates me every morning.”

One top YouTube creator says that they are already aggressively experimenting with the tools, mostly to help with things like set design, costumes, makeup and visual effects that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive or time-consuming.

And a time when essentially every other media company is stuck in neutral, if not going in reverse, YouTube and Netflix appear to be the only players still able to put their foot and the pedal and accelerate. YouTube’s 2024 revenue topped $50 billion, and last year it topped $60 billion, with plans to roll out skinnier bundles for YouTube TV, and a creator-driven economy that shows no signs of slowing, how high can it go?

• Defense Department Leadership: Emil Michael Serves As The Under Secretary For Research And Engineering Reporting Directly To Secretary Pete Hegseth
• Public Conflict Resolution: Michael Engaged In High Profile Disputes With Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei Regarding Contractual Terms And Usage Guardrails
• Negotiation Strategy: Professional Colleagues Characterize Michael As A Tenacious Tactician Who Utilizes Empathetic Yet Assertive Methods To Gain Maximum Advantages
• Military Integration Goals: The Current Administration Prioritizes Accelerating The Adoption Of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Technologies Within Defense Infrastructure Networks
• Departure From Anthropic: Negotiations Terminated After Public Statements From Anthropic Effectively Ended Prospects For A Future Partnership With The Department Of Defense
• Alternative Strategic Alliances: Following The Failed Anthropic Agreement The Defense Department Secured New Artificial Intelligence Contracts With OpenAI And XAI
• Corporate Background Context: Michael Previously Played A Central Role In The Rapid Growth And Resource Acquisition Strategies During His Tenure At Uber
• Professional Career History: The Under Secretary Possesses Extensive Experience In Government Service Private Equity And Law Including Backgrounds At Goldman Sachs And Harvard University

“Even if you’re a master dealmaker, at some point you realize the other side doesn’t want to make a deal,” Michael said Thursday in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. 

As the department’s under secretary for research and engineering reporting to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Michael has been the public face of the Pentagon in a saga that has consumed attention spans in Washington and Silicon Valley. In posts on X, sometimes in all-caps, Michael has blasted Anthropic Chief Executive Dario Amodei, accusing him of lying and having a God complex. Amodei has called some of Michael’s public statements lies and said he has mischaracterized the company’s position, which is that it only sought assurances about guardrails for its technology.

But Michael insists that his behind-the-scenes discussions with Amodei were always polite and cordial. “He and I never yelled at each other, never screamed,” Michael said.

Of his “edgy” posts on X, he said, “It was in response to their public denigration of this administration, our work and our mission. I was matching fire with fire,” Michael said.

Dario Amodei, co-founder and CEO of Anthropic. Samyukta Lakshmi/Bloomberg News

A little edginess is nothing new for Michael. In his time at Uber, where he spent four years as chief business officer and the closest confidant to then-Chief Executive Travis Kalanick, the company was in almost continuous conflict with local governments, regulators and labor organizations. Michael was personally involved in some of the controversial episodes that led to Kalanick’s ouster, and his own.

Friends, associates and former colleagues and bosses describe Michael as a sharp-elbowed negotiator and a tactician who can turn a mess into a lucrative payday. They describe his negotiating style as patient, respectful and empathetic, even as he presses for maximum advantage.

“He is one of the best deal guys in the world. And he wants to play on the biggest field,” said Joe Fernandez, who founded the startup Klout in 2008 and spent eight months recruiting Michael to work for him as chief operating officer.

The Pentagon’s decision to punish a tech company for refusing to comply with contract demands underscores the Trump administration’s eagerness to integrate an evolving and powerful technology into the world’s most powerful military, on its own terms. 

Those who know Michael, who is also a Stanford-trained lawyer, chalk up his public bellicosity toward Anthropic to a fierce professional loyalty.

“Emil’s job when he worked for Travis was to zealously represent Travis. And his job when he works for the Department of Defense is to zealously represent the Department of Defense,” said Joe Sullivan, the former chief security officer for Uber.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Emil Michael at a Pentagon event last summer. Win McNamee/Getty Images

In its lawsuit, Anthropic has warned that the administration’s moves could cost it billions of dollars in revenue this year and hurt its future fundraising. Even as the company has accused the Defense Department of pressuring private-sector customers to turn their backs on Anthropic—a claim Michael called absolutely untrue—it has continued to insist it is eager to play a role in national defense.

Michael said the window for that has closed.

“There is no chance. There’s no partnership that can be had.”

Uber’s A-team

Michael, 53 years old, was born in Cairo and grew up in New Rochelle, N.Y., where he attended public school. He went on to study government at Harvard University, where he got involved in Republican politics and joined a fraternity.

Michael left a job at Goldman Sachs for Silicon Valley during the dot-com boom and was an early employee at Tellme Networks, which made phone-based voice-recognition software. The company survived the bust and was sold to Microsoft for $800 million in 2007. Michael’s job included convincing big, bureaucratic companies such as FedEx and AT&T to partner with a startup, said David Weiden, a founding partner at Khosla Ventures who attended Harvard with Michael and remains a friend.

He joined the Obama administration as a White House fellow and assistant to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He has been a registered Republican since adulthood, but his financial contributions have split party lines, public records show. His largest was a $1 million donation in 2024 to MAGA, President Trump’s super PAC.

He returned to Silicon Valley and eventually joined the so-called A-team at Uber, the inner circle that led the company to become one of the fastest-growing and most richly funded startups at the time. There, he leveraged his Goldman connections. He courted investors at San Francisco parties, bringing in large Middle East funds and eventually raising $20 billion. His preferred fundraising style was “less based on relationships, much more based on math and giving everyone a chance to participate,” versus the clubby tactic of playing investors against each other, Michael said.

Michael speaking during a 2014 TV interview as a senior Uber executive. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

Michael speaking during a 2014 TV interview as a senior Uber executive. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

He secured $3.5 billion from the Saudi sovereign-wealth fund to give Uber the leverage to strike a deal with its largest competitor in China, Didi Chuxing. Michael told Didi executives that Uber would spend the entire sum to compete with Didi in China if they didn’t agree to buy Uber’s operation there, which was burning $100 million a month. Michael completed the sale, which he called the most satisfying deal of his career, in two months. Uber took home around $7 billion.

In 2014, Michael and other Uber executives visited an escort karaoke bar during a work trip to South Korea, prompting an employee to file a complaint about the incident. Michael in 2014 publicly apologized after he suggested digging up dirt on the personal lives of journalists critical of Uber. One of his direct reports obtained and shared the private medical records of an Uber passenger who was raped in India. The incident prompted an investigation into alleged bribery by Uber executives and a lawsuit from the victim, although neither led to civil or criminal penalties.

In 2017, independent investigators determined that Uber tolerated a culture of sexual harassment and bullying, setting the stage for Kalanick’s ouster. Around the same time, Michael left after the board pushed for his removal.

“Emil is one of the most inspiring and effective leaders I know. Our country is stronger, safer, and better because of his service,” Kalanick told the Journal.

Deal collapses

After Uber, Michael led a lower-profile life, marrying and having two children. He founded a blank-check company with venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar, an Uber investor who was forced out of his own venture firm amid sexual harassment claims. Pishevar didn’t respond to a request for comment.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Should an AI company be allowed to tell the military how its tools can be used? Join the conversation below.

Michael’s name was in the mix for Transportation Secretary before Trump nominated him for the Defense Department role in late 2024, people familiar with the matter said. In a reorganization that began last year, six key organizations, including the military’s AI office, were all put under Michael’s purview.

“Coming to the department from the private sector, he is helping spur a new era of innovation,” said chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell.

Michael said his top priority is to accelerate the Defense Department’s adoption of AI. “Moving fast to do that is very important when you have a four-year term.”

After assuming his role, Michael reviewed the Pentagon’s contract with Anthropic and found it relied on the AI company giving the department exceptions for using its tools in certain military scenarios, a clunky process. He began negotiating a new deal.

The Pentagon gave Amodei a Feb. 27 deadline for agreeing to new terms. After both sides went back and forth with proposals, Amodei on Feb. 26 said publicly that the company was declining the Defense Department’s latest offer and couldn’t accede to its requests. The pre-emptive, public move by Amodei escalated the spat to Hegseth, after which there was a near-zero chance of reconciliation, an administration official said.

“It got out of my hands. I report to the secretary of war, who reports to the president,” Michael said.

Michael said he spent the following weekend, after the deadline passed, trying to save the deal, without success. But ever the dealmaker, he was working other options. As Anthropic was bowing out, the department signed deals with two of its biggest rivals, OpenAI and xAI.

Corrections & Amplifications
Joe Fernandez founded the startup Klout. An earlier version of this article misspelled his name as Fernanzez. (Corrected on March 13.)

• Security Guidelines: Nist Explicitly Prohibits Mandatory Password Expiration Policies In Its Latest Requirements
• Industry Obsoletion: Microsoft Removed Password Expiration From Security Baselines Labeling It An Obsolete Mitigation
• Government Stance: Regulatory Bodies Like The Uk National Cyber Security Centre And The Ftc Advise Against Periodic Password Changes
• Pattern Predictability: Forced Rotation Cycles Encourage Users To Create Weak And Incremental Password Variations
• Attacker Efficiency: Credential Thieves Typically Utilize Stolen Information Immediately Rather Than Waiting For Expiration Intervals
• Statistical Vulnerability: Research Indicates Attackers Can Successfully Guess Sequential Passwords With Minimal Attempts
• Recommended Protection: Effective Security Relies Upon Multi Factor Authentication And Persistent Password Screening Mechanisms
• Functional Standards: Modern Compliance Requires Supporting Password Managers And Paste Functionality Within Login Portals

If your company forces password changes every 90 days, your company is making you less secure. Not more.

NIST, the people who literally write the security standards, upgraded this from "you shouldn't do it" to "you shall not do it" in 2025.

Microsoft dropped password expiration from their security baseline in 2019, calling it "an ancient and obsolete mitigation of very low value."

The UK's National Cyber Security Centre: "Regular password changing harms rather than improves security."

The FTC said the same thing back in 2016.

We've known this for over a decade.

Why it backfires

A UNC Chapel Hill study looked at 7,700+ accounts and found that knowing a user's previous password let attackers guess the next one in under 5 attempts for 17% of accounts. With access to the hash, they cracked 41% of current passwords within 3 seconds.

Because Password1 becomes Password2 becomes Password3. Everyone does it. Forced rotation trains people to pick predictable passwords.

And attackers who steal credentials use them immediately. Not 90 days later.

What actually works

MFA. Breached-password screening. A password manager like 1Password or Bitwarden that generates unique, long passwords for every service. Change passwords only when there's evidence of compromise.

NIST even requires that systems allow password managers and paste functionality. If your company blocks paste on login fields, they're actively fighting against the standard.

That's it. That's the policy.

• Research Discovery: A Cornell University study identifies a correlation between susceptibility to vague corporate rhetoric and impaired practical decision-making skills in employees.
• Measurement Tool: The Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR) was developed to quantify an individual’s tendency to find meaning in semantically empty business jargon.
• Functional Definition: Corporate rhetoric is distinguished from standard technical jargon by its use of abstract buzzwords that obfuscate rather than clarify communication.
• Cognitive Implications: Individuals receptive to organizational fluff demonstrate lower performance in cognitive reflection, analytic thinking, and fluid intelligence testing.
• Workplace Dynamics: Employees who favor high-concept jargon frequently perceive supervisors as visionary, which can lead to the promotion of dysfunctional leadership styles.
• Positive Correlation: Susceptibility to abstract corporate messaging is linked to higher levels of reported job satisfaction and increased alignment with company mission statements.
• Organizational Risk: Heavy reliance on misleading corporate language can conceal critical operational information, leading to potential reputational and financial damage.
• Analytical Necessity: Establishing critical scrutiny of organizational messaging serves as a safeguard against rhetoric that prioritizes superficial impressions over objective reality.

LinkedInFacebookTwitterEmailShare

Employees who are impressed by vague corporate-speak like “synergistic leadership,” or “growth-hacking paradigms” may struggle with practical decision-making, a new Cornell study reveals.

Published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, research by cognitive psychologist Shane Littrell introduces the Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale (CBSR), a tool designed to measure susceptibility to impressive-but-empty organizational rhetoric.

“Corporate bullshit is a specific style of communication that uses confusing, abstract buzzwords in a functionally misleading way,” said Littrell, a postdoctoral researcher in the College of Arts and Sciences. “Unlike technical jargon, which can sometimes make office communication a little easier, corporate bullshit confuses rather than clarifies. It may sound impressive, but it is semantically empty.”

Although people anywhere can BS each other – that is, share dubious information that’s misleadingly impressive or engaging – the workplace not only rewards but structurally protects it, Littrell said. In a work setting where corporate jargon is already the norm, it’s easy for ambitious employees to use corporate BS to appear more competent or accomplished, accelerating their climb up the corporate ladder of workplace influence.

Corporate BS seems to be ubiquitous – but Littrell wondered if it is actually harmful. To test this, he created a “corporate bullshit generator” that churns out meaningless but impressive-sounding sentences like, "We will actualize a renewed level of cradle-to-grave credentialing” and “By getting our friends in the tent with our best practices, we will pressure-test a renewed level of adaptive coherence.”

He then asked more than 1,000 office workers to rate the “business savvy” of these computer-generated BS statements alongside real quotes from Fortune 500 leaders. Divided into four distinct studies, the research verified the scale as a statistically reliable measure of individual differences in receptivity to corporate bullshit, then, through use of established cognitive tests, made connections between receptivity to BS and analytic thinking skills known to be essential to workplace performance.

The results revealed a troubling paradox. Workers who were more susceptible to corporate BS rated their supervisors as more charismatic and “visionary,” but also displayed lower scores on a portion of the study that tested analytic thinking, cognitive reflection and fluid intelligence. Those more receptive to corporate BS also scored significantly worse on a test of effective workplace decision-making.

The study found that being more receptive to corporate bullshit was also positively linked to job satisfaction and feeling inspired by company mission statements. Moreover, those who were more likely to fall for corporate BS were also more likely to spread it.

Essentially, the employees most excited and inspired by “visionary” corporate jargon may be the least equipped to make effective, practical business decisions for their companies.

“This creates a concerning cycle,” Littrell said. “Employees who are more likely to fall for corporate bullshit may help elevate the types of dysfunctional leaders who are more likely to use it, creating a sort of negative feedback loop. Rather than a ‘rising tide lifting all boats,’ a higher level of corporate BS in an organization acts more like a clogged toilet of inefficiency.”

When BS goes too far or gets called out, real reputational or financial damage can occur, Littrell said. For instance, a leaked 2009 Pepsi marketing presentation with language such as “The Pepsi DNA finds its origin in the dynamic of perimeter oscillations…our proposition is the establishment of a gravitational pull to shift from a transactional experience to an invitational expression …” led to widespread ridicule in various news outlets.

And in 2014, a memo from the former executive vice president of Microsoft Devices Group to employees, later dubbed in the press “the worst email ever,” opened with 10 paragraphs of jargon, including “Our device strategy must reflect Microsoft’s strategy and must be accomplished within an appropriate financial envelope,” burying the real news in paragraph 11 – that 12,500 employees were going to lose their jobs.

Overall, the findings suggest that while “synergizing cross-collateralization” might sound impressive in a boardroom, this functionally misleading language can create an informational blindfold in corporate cultures that can expose companies to reputational and financial harm.

Littrell’s scale offers practical applications and could someday provide insights into job candidates' analytic thinking and decision-making tendencies. More work needs to be done, but for now, it’s a promising tool for researchers, Littrell said. 

Researching BS also points out the importance of critical thinking for everyone, inside the workplace and out. 

“Most of us, in the right situation, can get taken in by language that sounds sophisticated but isn’t,” Littrell said. “That’s why, whether you’re an employee or a consumer, it’s worth slowing down when you run into organizational messaging of any kind – leaders’ statements, public reports, ads – and ask yourself, ‘What, exactly, is the claim? Does it actually make sense?’ Because when a message leans heavily on buzzwords and jargon, it’s often a red flag that you’re being steered by rhetoric instead of reality.”

An open-access version of the study is available here.

Kate Blackwood is a writer for the College of Arts and Sciences.

Social & Behavioral Sciences

Media Inquiries

Media Contact

Adam Allington

aea235@cornell.edu

Get Cornell news delivered right to your inbox.

Subscribe

You might also like

Talent loss proves costly to businesses following corporate wrongdoing

Complex incentives shape worker effort, for better or worse

• Corporate Consolidation: Powerus is entering the public market through a reverse merger with a golf-course holding company backed by Eric and Donald Trump Jr.
• Market Positioning: The enterprise aims to expand domestic aerial and maritime drone production to over 10,000 units monthly to capitalize on recent federal policy shifts.
• Strategic Investment: Financial backing for the transaction involves Trump-affiliated investment vehicles, including American Ventures and the advisory firm Dominari Securities.
• Regulatory Environment: National bans on new Chinese-made drone models have created significant commercial opportunities for emerging U.S.-based manufacturers.
• Pentagon Procurement: Federal initiatives like Drone Dominance seek to allocate over $1 billion for the rapid procurement of large quantities of domestic systems by 2027.
• Industrial Scaling: CEO Andrew Fox intends to utilize public capital market access to fund manufacturing expansion and the acquisition of smaller industry competitors.
• Technology Integration: Management is pursuing the acquisition or licensing of Ukrainian drone technology to adapt and repackage systems for the American defense market.
• Diversification Efforts: The Trump family is concurrently investing in other international drone makers, such as the Israeli firm Xtend, as part of broader efforts to capture market share.

By

Heather Somerville

Updated March 9, 2026 8:21 am ET

232

Your browser does not support HTML5 video.

Keep hovering to play

The Pentagon is testing portable 3D-printing labs in Hawaii that let soldiers design, print and assemble drones in hours. In December 2025, WSJ visited Oahu to learn more. Photo: William Paris for WSJ

Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., the president’s sons, are backing a new drone company that is vying to meet fresh demand from the Pentagon and fill a hole left by the administration’s ban on new Chinese drones in the U.S.

Powerus, a drone roll-up company based in West Palm Beach, Fla., is merging with a publicly traded golf-course holding company backed by the Trumps, Powerus executives said. The reverse merger will result in Powerus, which was formed last year, trading on the Nasdaq stock exchange in the coming months.

Investors in the deal include one of the Trumps’ investment vehicles, American Ventures, and Unusual Machines UMAC 0.90%increase; green up pointing triangle, a drone components company where Donald Trump Jr. is a shareholder and advisory board member, the company said. Powerus is also a customer of Unusual Machines.

The Trump brothers-backed investment bank Dominari Securities DOMH 5.70%increase; green up pointing triangle, which has been involved in the family’s crypto deals, is also involved in the transaction, the company said. Separately, asset manager the Korea Corporate Governance Improvement Fund has invested $50 million.

The deal brings deeper involvement by the Trump family into a multibillion-dollar sector that has new opportunities for growth following changes imposed by the Trump administration. Those include the Pentagon’s emphasis on large-scale, rapid adoption of small drones, and a national ban on new models of the Chinese drones that have for more than a decade dominated the consumer and commercial markets.

Powerus Chief Executive Officer Andrew Fox said the reverse merger for Powerus would provide access to the public capital markets to give the company the funding it needs to scale manufacturing and acquire more companies. Powerus, which sells aerial and maritime drones after acquiring three small companies in the past six months, said it was working toward building more than 10,000 drones each month. That quantity is more than almost any other U.S. drone manufacturer produces and far more than the Defense Department has historically bought.

New initiatives such as the Pentagon’s Drone Dominance, an initiative to spend $1.1 billion to procure hundreds of thousands of U.S. systems by 2027, aim to encourage more domestic manufacturing in a sector China has long dominated. The U.S. drone market is highly fragmented with small companies that are mostly competing for a sliver of defense purchases and have little revenue. 

Eric Trump is also investing in Israeli drone maker Xtend as part of a $1.5 billion deal to take the company public through a merger with JFB Construction.

Powerus will become public after merging with Aureus Greenway Holdings AGH 5.23%increase; green up pointing triangle, a holding company for golf courses in Florida, whose shareholders include the Trumps’ American Ventures and Dominari Securities, according to securities filings. Aureus’s stock recently recovered from trading below $1 per share.

The drone market “is certainly going to grow faster than, say, golf courses are,” Fox said.

Fox, an entrepreneur who spent close to three decades managing a building services company in New York and said he has no prior drone experience, added that Powerus has drones designed for putting out wildfires and carrying up to 1,000 pounds.

Powerus co-founder Brett Velicovich, a U.S. Army special operations veteran who has advised drone companies in the U.S. and Ukraine and is a regular commenter on cable news shows, said Powerus is working on deals to acquire Ukrainian drone companies or license their technology and build and white-label it in the U.S. He declined to share details.

Ukrainian drone manufacturers face numerous hurdles in exporting their drones, and the U.S. military, while it is pursuing technology from Ukraine, has requirements for American-made weapons that make direct purchases from overseas tricky. 

“There does need to be an American face in front of it or behind it,” Velicovich said.

Watch: How the U.S. Army 3-D Prints Lethal Drones in Hours

Eric Trump, left, and Donald Trump Jr. The Trump brothers-backed investment bank Dominari Securities is involved in the transaction. Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Heather Somerville is a reporter at The Wall Street Journal in San Francisco covering technology and national security. Her articles explore the national-security implications of emerging technology, U.S. efforts to counter China's rise as a technology power, and the relationship between Silicon Valley and the U.S. defense complex.

Heather joined the Journal in 2019 to cover venture capital and technology companies. Before that, she wrote about venture capital and Silicon Valley startups for Reuters and the Mercury News. She was previously a reporter for the Fresno Bee and the Charlotte Observer and wrote about national security for outlets in Washington, D.C.

Videos

• Strategic Initiative: President Trump initiated the military operation against Iran based on intelligence that an Iranian attack was imminent, rather than responding to external pressure.
• Security Imperative: Both the United States and Israel view the dismantling of Iran's nuclear capabilities, missile programs, and support for terror proxies as a critical matter of national security.
• Direct Threat: Iran's military advancements, including the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, pose a clear and present danger to the American homeland, its military bases, and its allies.
• Historical Context: The ongoing conflict serves as a decisive response to decades of Iranian aggression, including the taking of American hostages and the killing of service members.
• Collaborative Execution: The June 2025 military engagement featured a coordinated strategy where Israeli forces conducted the initial phase of suppressing air defenses before American intervention.
• Operational Burden: Israel independently managed the majority of the combat risk during the early stages of the conflict, demonstrating an unprecedented level of ally participation.
• Precision Impact: American involvement focused on high-value, hardened targets like the Fordow nuclear facility, significantly degrading Iran's strategic capabilities.
• Refutation Of Allegations: Claims that Israel manipulated American policy are characterized as baseless narratives that ignore the reality of a strategic, mutually beneficial security partnership.

A dangerous lie has taken hold in Washington: that Israel somehow pressured the United States into war with Iran. It’s wrong. And both President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have said so directly.

When a White House correspondent asked Trump whether Israel had pulled America into the conflict, he didn’t hesitate. “I might have forced their hand,” he said. “We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first.”

Rubio was equally blunt after a deceptively edited video suggested he believed otherwise: “The president made a decision that negotiations were not going to work . . . this was a threat that was untenable. The decision was made to strike them.” Untenable. That word deserves to sit with you for a moment.

“We were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first,” says Trump of the US attack on Iran.

Iran has spent years building nuclear weapons, developing long-range ballistic missiles, and encircling Israel with a terror army stretching from Lebanon to Gaza to Yemen. It has fired ballistic missiles directly at Israeli civilians. No Israeli government — left, right, or center — could ignore that. Jerusalem’s decision to join a combined American-Israeli operation targeting Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities drew near-universal support across Israel’s political spectrum. This wasn’t Netanyahu’s partisan gamble. It was a national security imperative. And it was no surprise ambush on America.

When Netanyahu met Trump at Mar-a-Lago last December, reporting indicated Trump had already green-lighted an Israeli strike on Iran’s missile infrastructure. When they met again at the White House, that green light held. Washington knew exactly what was coming and decided to lead the war.

The claim that Israel pressured the president of the United States into war is not just factually hollow — it veers dangerously close to the antisemitic fringe narratives about shadowy, unaccountable Jewish power that serious Republicans rightly reject.

The war in Iran is a national security imperative for both the US and Israel.

But here’s the bigger point that keeps getting buried. Iran’s missiles and nuclear program and terror are America’s problem. Those missiles don’t just threaten Israel. They are being fired right now at US forces, American bases, our embassies and our Gulf Arab allies. Iran is actively developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could one day reach the American homeland.

This is the same regime that declared war on the United States in 1979 — that has killed and maimed thousands of Americans from Beirut to Baghdad to Kabul, taken Americans hostage and armed the terrorist proxies that have American blood on their hands for decades.

Dismantling that regime’s nuclear, missile, and terror infrastructure is not a favor to Israel. It is core American national security.

Now here’s what Americans should actually understand about the 12-Day War that took place against the regime in Iran in June 2025.

Israel didn’t ask American pilots to do the heavy lifting. For the first 11 days, Israeli aircraft flew deep into Iranian territory — more than a thousand miles from home — dismantling Iran’s air defenses and striking key military targets. No American fighter jets alongside them. No boots on the ground. No American pilots risking their lives over Iranian skies. Israel did that work itself.

Only once Iran’s defenses were shattered did President Trump act. On day 11, American B-2 bombers struck Fordow — the deeply buried nuclear facility that had long kept American planners up at night. The result was a devastating blow to Iran’s nuclear program.

Rubio confirmed the idea that the US acted in tandem with Israel.

Even now, by some estimates, Israel is responsible for roughly half of all strikes against Iranian targets in this conflict.

In the entire modern history of American warfare, we have rarely — if ever — had an ally carry that kind of operational weight against a shared enemy.

So let’s retire the wrong question. Stop asking why America helped Israel.

Ask instead: when was the last time an American ally flew a thousand miles to tear down the air defenses of one of America’s most dangerous enemies — before we ever put a single pilot at risk?

I’m an American who is furious that Iran spent decades killing our citizens, maiming our soldiers, and taking our people hostage while Washington too often responded with half-measures and hand-wringing. This time was different. Israel didn’t drag us into this war. It enabled us to fight it smarter, faster and at far less cost than we ever could have alone.

That’s not pressure. That’s what real partnership looks like.