GEAR JRNL

Sunday, February 22, 2026

Law enforcement kills armed man seeking to enter Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort, officials say

Administrator February 22, 2026

By Jasper Ward

WASHINGTON, Feb 22 (Reuters) - U.S. Secret Service and local police shot and killed a man armed with a shotgun early on Sunday after he breached a secure perimeter at ‌President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, law enforcement officials said.

Trump, who is ‌currently in Washington, was not at the social club at the time. The incident occurred at a time when the United States is facing a spike in political violence. In 2024, a gunman's bullet grazed Trump's ear during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, and a man later convicted of attempted assassination was spotted hiding in the bushes of a Florida golf course with a semi-automatic rifle while Trump was on the course.

The man in Sunday's incident, who appeared to be ‌in his early 20s, was carrying ⁠a shotgun and a fuel can, the U.S. Secret Service said, adding that he was observed at the resort's north gate around 1:30 a.m. EST (0630 GMT).

Two U.S. Secret Service ⁠agents and a Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputy confronted the man and ordered him to drop the two items, Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said at a press conference on Sunday morning.

The man put down the gas canister and raised the shotgun "to a shooting position," prompting law enforcement to open fire, Bradshaw said.

The man was declared ‌dead at the scene. No law enforcement officers were injured.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said the Secret Service "acted quickly and decisively to neutralize a crazy person, armed with a gun and a gas canister, who intruded President Trump's home."

Law enforcement officials did not reveal any information about the motive for the incident. The FBI has taken over the investigation and is collecting evidence from the scene, officials said.

FBI Director Kash Patel said in a ‌social media post that the agency is "dedicating all necessary resources" to the investigation.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he spoke with Trump after the incident. Bessent thanked the Secret Service for protecting the president and his family.

"We don't know whether this person was a mastermind, ‌unhinged or what," Bessent said on the Fox News program "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo."

In 2024, Trump faced two assassination attempts, including one at his golf course in West Palm Beach. The perpetrator of that incident was sentenced to life in prison this month.

Melissa Hortman, a Democratic state lawmaker in Minnesota, was ‌shot and killed in June 2025 along with her husband. Months later, conservative activist Charlie Kirk was also assassinated.

(Reporting by Jasper Ward in Washington; additional reporting by Andrea Shalal; writing by Andrew Goudsward; editing by Michelle Nichols and Chizu Nomiyama)

US sailor medically evacuated from nuclear submarine near Greenland: Official

Administrator February 22, 2026

A U.S. Navy sailor was medically evacuated Saturday afternoon from an American nuclear-powered submarine by Danish military forces, according to a U.S. and Danish official.

The submarine broke from its mission and surfaced about eight miles from Nuuk, Greenland, an extraordinary step for a vessel designed to remain hidden beneath the sea in secrecy.

The sailor was airlifted by a Danish Defense Seahawk helicopter, deployed from the Vædderen, a Danish military patrol ship.

It's unclear what the nature of the medical emergency was, but it was not combat-related, according to the U.S. official.

The sailor is being treated at a hospital in Nuuk, Greenland's capital.

Evgeniy Maloletka/AP - PHOTO: Greenland Daily Life

Trump considering initial limited strike against Iran, source says

The incident unfolded against the backdrop of the Navy's typically strict secrecy surrounding the movements and missions of its submarine fleet. Even acknowledging a sub's general location is highly unusual, underscoring the gravity of a situation that required assistance.

The waters surrounding Greenland have been among the most strategically consequential terrain for military planners.

It includes passageways and choke points between Russia, Europe, and North America, particularly as ice continues to melt and the area becomes easier to navigate. China is also aiming to expand its footprint in the Arctic.

Would a War Against Iran Be Legal? An Expert Explains

Administrator February 22, 2026

FILE - In this photo provided by the U.S. Navy, the USS Gerald R. Ford embarked on the first of its sea trials to test various state-of-the-art systems on its own power for the first time, April 8, 2017, from Newport News, Va. The world's largest aircraft carrier entered the Mediterranean Sea on Saturday, according to maritime tracking data. Credit - Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ridge Leoni/U.S. Navy via Associated Press

After building up amassive military forcein the Middle East over the last few weeks, President Donald Trump said Friday that he was considering strikes against Iran to pressure its leaders into accepting a deal on its nuclear program.

Trump has ratcheted up threats of action against the country's leadership in recent months alongside a steady buildup of military forces. Two aircraft carriers are currently deployed, and one more—the USS Gerald Ford—is expected to arrive imminently.When questioned by reporters on Friday whether he was weighing limited strikes against the country's leadership in order to get it to accept a deal over its nuclear program, Trump replied: "I guess I can say I am considering that."

Read More:Leavitt Says Iran Would Be 'Wise to Make a Deal' as Trump Escalates Military Buildup in RegionOn Thursday, Trump gave Tehran a deadline of 10 to 15 days to finalize a deal to solve the nuclear dispute or face "really bad things."

The United States joined an Israeli-led military operation against Iran in June last year that struckthree of the country'snuclear sites. After that operation, Trump claimed Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated."

Trump raised the prospect of further military action against Iran following a brutal crackdown on protests therethat killed thousands.

That prospect has drawn harsh criticism from inside and outside of the President's own party.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican, and Rep. Ro Khanna said they would table a War Powers resolution to prohibit the president from ordering military action in Iran without congressional approval.

"Congress must vote on war according to our Constitution. Rep. Ro Khanna and I will be forcing that vote to happen in the House as soon as possible,"Massiewrote on X on Feb. 18. "I will vote to put America first which means voting against more war in the Middle East."David Janovsky is the Acting Director of The Constitution Project at theProject on Government Oversight, and researches and develops policy reforms on separation of powers issues. He answered TIME's questions about the legality of potential strikes on Iran.

If Trump orders strikes on Iran tomorrow, however limited in scope, could that be legally justified?

DJ: The short answer is no. There's no indication that there's any sort of circumstance that would give the President the unilateral authority to order military action. It's true that presidents have some inherent authority to deploy the military as Commander in Chief, but that's really limited to true emergency circumstances where there is an attack underway that needs to be repelled, or maybe an extremely clear imminent attack. But there's no suggestion that that's the case today—that would make the strikes illegal.

What steps would the White House need to take for this military action to be legally above board?

DJ: Most simply, the administration would need to go to Congress. This is a contemplated attack against a sovereign state, and that, in simplest terms, is an act of war. And the Constitution gives the exclusive power to declare war to Congress, not the president. So this is something that would need a vote and congressional approval.

How would this operation be different from the strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in June 2025, legally speaking?

DJ: My position is that those strikes in 2025 were not legally justifiable and also that strikes now would likewise not be justifiable. In 2025, the administration put out a very brief explanation that relied on both the President's inherent authority and a notion of collective self-defense with Israel. But again, self-defense is properly understood to involve a threat that is much more immediate than anything that's at play now.

What would be the legal and political implications if Congress passed a formal War Powers resolution restricting the President's ability to strike Iran?

DJ: It's important to keep in mind that if Congress didnothing, that would be a sign that Congress didn't approve an act of war, and so it would be illegal.

So, congressional action isn't necessary, legally speaking, to prevent a strike against Iran. But, if Congress were to take the preemptive step of saying, "You cannot do this," I think it would do two things. First, it would change the legal calculus, because the executive branch, for decades— this is not a new phenomenon—has resorted to creative lawyering to come up with excuses for using the military abroad. A clear statement from Congress should at least make those executive branch lawyers a lot less willing to push the envelope. It could also change the calculus for the military lawyers who would need to reviewany actual strike order.

And, politically, I think it would send a powerful message. We have seen, especially recently, that the administration is sensitive to losing support, particularly from its allies in Congress, and a clear congressional statement that there is not the buy-in for military action in this case would also be a limiting factor.

Why has the reaction from Congress to this military buildup been so muted?

DJ: I think there are probably both long-term structural reasons and sort of short-term political reasons, hand in hand with the executive branch's decades-long effort to push the envelope of what it can do has been Congress's acquiescence in the face of those expansions. In some ways, this is part of a constitutionally very dangerous but long-running trend.

Back in 2025, there was an effort after the strikes to pass a war powers resolution. But the most charitable explanation for why Congress didn't act then was that there was a suggestion that the strikes were over and done. It was a one-off, and there was no need for Congress to prevent anything else. The fact that we're back here suggests that was not the correct assessment, and certainly underscores the need for Congress to act urgently now.

Contact usatletters@time.com.

'American Dad!' is back on Fox this Sunday. Here's how to watch.

Administrator February 22, 2026

Stan Smith and his wacky family are back, with Season 20 of "American Dad!" premiering on Fox this weekend.

The show follows CIA agent Stan Smith and his family, who live in Langley Falls, Virginia, as they navigate familial issues and growing up. And in the case of the alien who lives in their attic, taking on new personas while snarking on those around them.

Created by Seth MacFarlane, who voices the family's patriarch and Roger the alien, the show has gained popularity partly for its musical numbers performed by the Smith family's pubescent son and Roger.

The show originally debuted on Fox in 2005 and remained part of the network until 2014, when it moved to TBS. Inspring 2025, Fox announced the show would return to the network for at least four seasons.

Francine and Stan Smith during a March 1, 2026 episode of "American Dad!" During the episode, Stan struggles to appreciate Francine's interest in flume rides.

Other animated sitcoms:'South Park' escalates war with Donald Trump in brutal new episode

The show is part of Fox's"Animation domination"block, where the network airs hours of adult, animated sitcoms such as "The Simpsons," "Universal Basic Guys," "Family Guy" and "Bob's Burgers" on Sundays.

Here's how to watch this upcoming season and what's to come.

Looking for something good to watch? Amid the deluge of television in 2025, here are the very best, starting with number 20: "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds" (Paramount+)