White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt became the subject of much social media mockery on Wednesday for her explanation behind President Donald Trump’s recent decision to bomb Iran . The administration has offered a series of shifting reasons for the strikes, but Leavitt added one more to the mix: vibes, basically. During Wednesday’s press briefing, a reporter from The Independent asked why the administration “can’t say what the imminent threat against the United States was” that required the US to launch Operation Epic Fury. The press secretary declared that she would “explain to you exactly what led the president to make the decision” — and it seemed to boil down to feelings. “This decision to launch this operation was based on a cumulative effect of various direct threats that Iran posed to the United States of America, and the president’s feeling, based on fact, that Iran does pose an imminent and direct threat to the United States of America,” she said. Leavitt called Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” said it was “rapidly and aggressively building up” its missile programme, and accused the country of being “hellbent on death and destruction.” She continued: “The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike the United States, was going to strike our assets in the region, and he made a determination to launch Operation Epic Fury based on all of those reasons.” You can see the complete exchange in the video below. Considering that “facts don’t care about your feelings” is a pet phrase of many conservatives thanks to podcaster Ben Shapiro, many people on social media couldn’t help but notice Leavitt’s phrasing. A feeling, based on fact to go along with the concepts of a plan. https://t.co/3qgkWXPuul — Oliver Alexander (@OAlexanderDK) March 4, 2026 We went to war based on a "feeling" that Iran was going to attack the US (even though they do not have the capacity to launch a strike against our homeland). I'm starting to think the initial explanations over the weekend for this war were better than the day-5 rationals. https://t.co/Tsx1r2j4Yh — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) March 4, 2026 Can you imagine the Republican reaction if a woman president said she went to war because she had a “feeling” https://t.co/eJq82K1FB8 — Ally Sammarco (@Ally_Sammarco) March 4, 2026 This is what, their 4th attempt to offer a coherent rationale for this war? About all one can say is that it gets less and less convincing as they go along. Karoline Leavitt is now talking about "feeling[s] based on fact." What does that even mean? Give us actual facts and… https://t.co/49dKqqH75V — Scot Lehigh (@GlobeScotLehigh) March 4, 2026 in other words, the president felt a disturbance in the Force https://t.co/MkaCmPTJkw — Peter Twinklage (@PeterTwinklage) March 4, 2026 A president attacking another country based on a feeling is unacceptable. It's like Alex Jones saying God called on him to expose the deep state while he was eating a chicken fried steak. Except people are dying because of it. https://t.co/G5MEU9oR49 — Mike Rothschild (@rothschildmd on blu sky) (@rothschildmd) March 4, 2026 Reason number 4537 we've gotten since Saturday. https://t.co/DAFIx1Qhx7 — Stephen Hunter Johnson (Foundational Bad Dem #afa) (@stephenhjohnson) March 4, 2026 Remember after 9/11 they took almost two years convincing the American people that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 and was creating weapons to do something worse. Now it’s just “I felt like it.” https://t.co/ARa78YVcSD — evan loves worf (@esjesjesj) March 4, 2026 To quote the Boston track, going to war requires More Than "A Feeling" https://t.co/o5DolDraas — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) March 4, 2026