Trump says he has left “standing orders” for the U.S. military to strike Iran if Tehran assassinates him, with Vance making the decision

President Donald Trump suggested he has left standing directions for the U.S. military to carry out strikes against Iran if Tehran assassinates him, according to a report from The Washington Times published July 13, 2026. The remarks were framed around what Trump described as Iran’s long-standing threats to kill him and were presented as a pre-arranged response plan aimed at deterrence and speed of action.

In the report, Trump also indicated that Vice President J.D. Vance would be the official to make the call on whether to execute the response. The Washington Times said Trump tied the operational details to targeting “levels they’ve never seen before,” but did not describe specific targets, timing, or the scope of any proposed military action beyond the reported characterization.

The question of who can authorize use of military force, and under what circumstances, sits within a complex U.S. constitutional and statutory framework. While the reported comments describe an internal decision process within the executive branch, the record provided here does not include any executive order, classified directive, or public legal memo that would clarify how the described “standing” posture would operate in practice or how it would interact with existing authorities for military action.

Trump’s remarks come amid ongoing public discussion about U.S.-Iran tensions and the risk of escalation tied to attempts to threaten or kill U.S. officials. The Washington Times framing focused on the president’s stated belief that Iran has threatened him, and the reported intention that U.S. forces would respond at once rather than waiting for a new deliberation after any assassination attempt.

The reported mention of a vice presidential decision-maker is notable because it would imply continuity in executive-branch leadership during an extreme emergency, even as the president remains the commander in chief. However, the supplied information does not specify whether the proposed decision role for Vance would be consistent with established command-and-control procedures, emergency continuity guidance, or any congressionally authorized war powers requirements.

The practical effect of the reported comments would be to raise the stakes for deterrence and risk calculations on both sides, but the reporting does not supply additional verified details such as the specific command authorities involved, the form of targeting approval, or whether any military operation would occur only after confirmation of an assassination attempt.

Opposition and administration critics typically challenge how such statements align with constitutional limits, congressional oversight, and the separation of powers involved in authorizing force. In this case, the materials provided to draft the story contain only the Washington Times account of the remarks and do not include an official White House transcript, accompanying legal rationale, or statements from congressional leaders in response.

Absent additional primary documentation, the only confirmed facts here are what Trump reportedly said and that the report attributed the decision role to Vance. Any subsequent action, if it occurred, would require further verification through official statements, military records, or judicial and congressional oversight materials, none of which are included in the provided packet.