Iran's exiled crown prince said he had been told Fatemeh Pasandideh, Zahra Ghanbari, Zahra Sarbali, Atefeh Ramazanzadeh and Mona Hamoudi were in a "safe location".
US President Donald Trump said on social media that five of the team had "been taken care of" but indicated the others were returning home.
The Australian government had been under pressure to protect them after they were knocked out of the Asian Cup.
The players were reportedly criticised on state TV, with a commentator saying they had committed the "pinnacle of dishonour" for staying silent during the national anthem before their match with South Korea.
"Traitors during wartime must be dealt with more severely," presenter Mohammad Reza Shahbazi said, according to Reuters news agency.
Some believed the team's silence was an act of resistance, while others saw it as a show of mourning following the initial US-Israel attacks on their country.
The team has not made any specific comment on their stance.
They sang and saluted ahead of defeats to Australia on Thursday and the Philippines on Sunday, but there were concerns they had been ordered to do so.
The team failed to get past the group stage and players' union FIFPRO said it was "really concerned" about their welfare and had been unable to contact them.
Dozens of people chanted "let them go" and "save our girls" as the team's bus left the stadium on the Gold Coast after Sunday's match.
Supporters said they could see at least three players making the international hand signal for help, according to CNN.
Mr Trump said on Monday he had spoken to Australia's prime minister, Anthony Albanese, about the matter.
"He's on it!" Mr Trump posted on Truth Social.
"Five have already been taken care of, and the rest are on their way.
"Some, however, feel they must go back because they are worried about the safety of their families, including threats to those family members if they don't return."
'Ongoing threat'
Exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi, who lives in the US, earlier said the team faced an "ongoing threat" after their "brave act" not to sing the anthem.
"As a result of their brave act of civil disobedience in refusing to sing the current regime's national anthem, they face dire consequences should they return to Iran," he said on social media.
"I call on the Australian government to ensure their safety and give them any and all needed support."
The Australian Iranian Council previously urged the government to protect the players during their time there.
It launched an online petition asking authorities to "ensure that no member of Iran's women's national football team is to depart Australia while credible fears for their safety remain".
Read more:
Iran war latest
'Panic' as oil price sees biggest single-day spike in years
Australia's foreign minister, Penny Wong, declined to comment on whether the government had made contact with any of the team.
But she told Australian Broadcasting Corp: "It has been really moving for Australians to see them in Australia, and (Australia's women's team) swapping jerseys with them was a very evocative moment.
"We know this regime has brutally oppressed many Iranian women."
The 52-year-old double murderer died in hospital on Saturday after allegedly being attacked by an unknown inmate at HMP Frankland.
Huntley, who killed 10-year-olds Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Cambridgeshire, in 2002, had been in a critical condition in hospital after being hit with a metal bar on Thursday morning.
The former school caretaker was allegedly attacked in a workshop at the high-security jail in Durham. Police said earlier that their investigation into the circumstances of the incident is ongoing.
It is a longstanding policy for the prison service to contribute up to £3,000 towards basic funeral expenses for any death in custody.
The money is only permitted to be paid directly to a funeral director, and must be used to cover "reasonable costs" which include a "simple" coffin, a hearse, and cremation or burial fees.
It cannot be used for a headstone, flowers or order of service sheets, or other expenses considered "non-reasonable", such as hospitality related to any funeral or transportation for mourners.
Previous prisoners whose funeral costs have been covered include the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, in 2020, and Raymond Morris in 2014.
If Huntley's next of kin or family members have alternative arrangements, such as a pre-paid funeral plan, money from the state would not be used.
Read more from Sky News:
Soham murders shocked the UK
Two jailed after 'dangerous' lorry pursuit
Huntley's daughter told The Sun on Sunday newspaper that she does not believe he deserves a funeral.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "The murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman remains one of the most shocking and devastating cases in our nation's history, and our thoughts are with their families."
Three men are bringing legal action against the former Sinn Fein president and are seeking £1 in damages.
John Clark, a victim of the 1973 Old Bailey bombing in London, Jonathan Ganesh, a 1996 London Docklands bombing victim, and Barry Laycock, a victim of the 1996 Arndale shopping centre bombing in Manchester, all allege Mr Adams was a leading member of the Provisional IRA on those dates, including of its Army Council.
Mr Adams denies that he had any role in the Provisional IRA and is opposing the claim.
On Monday, he arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, wearing what appeared to be a bullet-proof vest, and was driven into the car park.
The court heard the three men want to show how Mr Adams was involved in the Provisional IRA "in the course of that conflict and to show on the balance of probabilities that he was as involved as the people who planted and detonated those bombs".
Opening her case, Anne Studd KC, representing the men, said Mr Adams was "directly responsible for and complicit in those decisions made by that organisation to detonate bombs on the British mainland in 1973 and 1996".
She said they are seeking £1 in damages against Mr Adams for "vindicatory" purposes and their case is "not a focus on their injuries".
In written submissions, Ms Studd said: "The defendant carefully draws a distinction between being a member of 'the Army' and being a member of Sinn Fein.
"In reality, the evidence will demonstrate that this was not the clear either/or choice as the defendant would have you believe.
"For many individuals, we say, including Mr Adams, that was a distinction without a difference."
Read more from Sky News:
'Panic' as oil price sees biggest single-day spike in years
Masked fan unplugs VAR monitor during match
Lawyers for Mr Adams said he "played an instrumental role in the peace process which culminated in the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998, which brought an end to the decades-long conflict".
In written submissions, Edward Craven KC, representing Mr Adams, said: "The defendant's alleged factual and legal responsibility for the claimants' injuries is strongly contested, as is the claimants' ability to bring these claims against the defendant several decades after the expiry of the applicable limitation period."
He added there was "no shortage of people with an axe to grind" who sought to discredit the former Sinn Fein leader.
Mr Craven claimed British officials, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or other republicans opposed to the peace process had an interest in discrediting Mr Adams.
The trial before Mr Justice Swift is expected to end next week.
Speaking after the first day, Mr Adams said: "I'm here to defend myself and to challenge the allegations being made against me."
"We will let the court get on with its business. But I would like to say for the record and at the outset that the only thing that I am guilty of is being an Irish republican committed to ending British rule in our country and seeking to unite the people of Ireland on the basis of freedom, equality, peace and solidarity."
The Pentagon designated the artificial intelligence company a "supply chain risk" on Thursday over its refusal to allow unrestricted military use of its technology.
It has been involved in an unusually public dispute over how Anthropic's AI chatbot Claude could be used in warfare.
Anthropic responded on Monday by filing two separate lawsuits, one in California federal court and another in the federal appeals court in Washington DC each challenging different aspects of the Pentagon's actions against the company.
"These actions are unprecedented and unlawful," Anthropic's lawsuit says.
"The Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech. No federal statute authorises the actions taken here. Anthropic turns to the judiciary as a last resort to vindicate its rights and halt the Executive's unlawful campaign of retaliation."
The defence department declined to respond, saying its policy is not to comment on ongoing litigation.
Anthropic, whose financial backers include Alphabet's Google and Amazon, has insisted on restricting its technology from being used for mass surveillance of Americans and fully autonomous weapons.
US defence secretary Pete Hegseth had threatened to punish Anthropic if it did not accept "all lawful uses" of Claude.
Donald Trump also said he would order federal agencies to stop using Claude, though he gave the Pentagon six months to stop using the AI assistant, which is deeply embedded in classified military systems, including those used in the Iran war.
Designating Anthropic a supply chain risk would cut off its defence work by using powers designed to prevent foreign adversaries from harming national security systems.
It is the first time the federal government is known to have used the designation against a US company.
Read more from Sky News:
Trump's furious response to Anthropic
Anthropic's model is scaring lawyers
AI willing to 'go nuclear' in wargames
Anthropic, which has been recently valued at $380bn (£284bn), has attempted to convince businesses and other government agencies that the Trump administration's penalty is narrow, and only affects military contractors when they are using Claude for defence work.
Most of its projected $14bn (£10.5bn) in revenue this year comes from businesses and government agencies, which are using Claude for computer coding and other tasks.
The defence department signed agreements worth up to $200m each with major AI labs in the past year, including
Anthropic, OpenAI and Google.
Microsoft-backed OpenAI announced a deal with the US military to use its technology, shortly after Mr Hegseth moved to blacklist Anthropic.
Ministers have been accused of "losing the plot" after promising to ban depictions of incest in online porn but not step-incest.
Politics Live: Reeves ready to support release of oil reserves
The debate is part of efforts to crackdown on harmful pornographic content online, following a review by Conservative peer Baroness Gabby Bertin.
Her amendment calling for step-incest to be included in the ban was backed by 144 votes to 143 in the House of Lords last week, meaning it could now face a vote in the Commons.
Sky News understands efforts are ongoing to find a way around what ministers regard as a key complication - that relationships between adult step relatives are not illegal in real life.
Ministers believe this will make banning their depiction in pornography difficult to enforce.
However a "significant number" of female Labour MPs are prepared to rebel if the government does not back a ban, Sky News has been told.
One senior MP said the government's argument "doesn't pass the sniff test" as half of all sexual abuse cases against children are perpetrated by step-parents.
They told Sky News: "Once you are arguing about the detail you have lost the plot, it's the principle.
"No one wants to go through the lobby and vote for step-incest porn.
"If the Conservatives are minded to back the [Bertin] amendment, it wouldn't take huge numbers to get to a defeat."
Another MP described the row as "more cockup than reasoning", saying the government does support the ban in principle but "took their eye off the ball".
"I think we will get to the right place", they said.
The Labour leadership is on thin ice with female MPs after the Peter Mandelson and Matthew Doyle scandals and wider concerns about a Number 10 "boys club".
Sir Keir Starmer has made halving violence against women and girls (VAWG) one of his main missions in government.
He is facing cross-party calls to regulate online pornography as part of that plan.
Baroness Bertin's review, commissioned by the previous Conservative administration, found content that is banned offline is still allowed online.
The review made 32 recommendations in total, including banning degrading, violent and misogynistic content.
Ministers have already backed a ban on strangulation pornography, which the review found was establishing it as a sexual norm. Non-fatal strangulation is an offence in its own right, but it is not currently illegal to show it online.
The new offence will be included in the Crime and Policing Bill making its way through parliament.
Last week, the government also wrote into the bill a ban on possessing or publishing pornographic images of sex between relatives.
Speaking for the government, justice minister Baroness Levitt said the offence won't include step-relationships as while they are "controversial" they are "not illegal in real life".
In total peers defeated six defeats on the government, including over banning adult pornography styled to look like a child.
Meanwhile, peers agreed to a government-backed plan to make it a criminal offence to screenshot or copy an intimate image without consent that a victim has shared only temporarily.
The bill faces further scrutiny in the Lords, and both Houses must agree the final draft before it can become law.
A government spokesperson said: "Online abuse against women and girls has developed at a terrifying pace over the last decade, and the law needs to adapt. That's why we are determined to tackle dangerous and degrading pornography, part of our goal to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
"We are actively and constructively working across government to develop an effective response to these amendments to deliver on that."