Comet 220P/McNaught

Comet 220P is unexpectedly bright. Normally, periodic Comet 220P/McNaught is so dim that to see it requires a telescope. Two surprising outbursts this year, however, have made it about 20,000 times brighter than usual, so that it is now visible with binoculars and long-duration camera exposures. As expected, Comet 220P continues to orbit the Sun between Mars and Jupiter with a period of over 5 years. The featured long duration exposure, taken 10 days ago from South Africa, shows the comet's bright green head and short dust tail. Reasons for Comet 220P's impressive outbursts are unknown but could be caused by the release of built-up subsurface gas or comet quakes. Comet 220P will pass about one Earth-Sun distance from the Earth in October, after which it is expected to fade quickly as it begins its return to the far part of its orbit.

Trump can’t stop undermining this blame-Biden strategy

Trump can’t stop rocking the economy — and causing more political problems for the GOP

Analysis by Aaron Blake

The Republican Party’s response to questions about the continued economic pain ahead of the 2026 midterm elections is now essentially: A noun, a verb and “Joe Biden.”

But President Donald Trump can’t stop undermining this blame-Biden strategy — and giving his party major new headaches.

He’s made several economy-shaking moves that not only risk the GOP’s 2026 hopes, but also link the state of the economy directly to him and his party.

In recent days, Trump has doubled down on an all-out “economic D-Day” against Iran that could drag into the closing weeks of the election, announced a major intervention into the beef market that could harm the domestic industry and now launched what appears to be a real trade war with Canada.

All three appear to be giving at least some in his party heartburn about what they could mean for the 2026 election.

And the latter moves could cause the GOP problems in some key states with crucial Senate races.

The big question with the Iran strategy: Is it actually a good strategy or is it just the strategy that the administration has left, after military strikes failed to force Iran to capitulate?

Regardless, it’s a strategy that likely brings the war and its domestic harm to the US economy (read: $4 per gallon gasoline) dangerously close to when Americans will be voting. The election is just 71 days away, and it will take time to figure out whether all-out economic pressure on Iran will pay dividends.

And this is a war that the administration predicted would last four to six weeks when it began in late February. The whole thing has led to increased grumbling and uncertainty among Republicans about a prolonged war endangering their House and Senate majorities.

Adding to that political anxiety are two other recent economic moves by Trump, which could play significantly in some important states.

First came Trump’s decision to try to alleviate high beef prices by temporarily pausing tariffs on imported beef, and allowing up to 300,000 metric tons of ground beef to be imported tariff-free for the next 90 days.

The move has been pretty roundly lambasted by US cattle producers. It’s also been criticized by GOP senators in some top cattle-producing states, whose industries could suffer. And some of them feature key Senate races.

The two top cattle-producing states are Nebraska and Texas, which are both hosting significant Senate races in 2026. Nebraska GOP Sen. Pete Ricketts, who faces independent Dan Osborn in November, posted on X: “Flooding the market with lower quality beef compromises Nebraska farmers and ranchers.”

Iowa is in the top 10 in that category and also has a competitive open Senate race this year. There, GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley said he was “concerned for the cattle markets” and cited the recent closure of a Tyson beef plant just across the Iowa-Illinois border in Joslin, Illinois. And Rep. Ashley Hinson, the GOP candidate in the state’s open Senate race, added: “I want to lower prices but this is a bad idea.”

And perhaps the most unwelcome new Trump move is his ramped-up 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. This risks a pitched trade war with the US’ northern neighbor that could raise prices at a very bad time for the GOP.

It could also raise prices more in some states Republicans particularly want to keep happy — i.e. more key Senate races in states that border Canada and trade extensively in it. In fact, four of the six states rated as toss-ups by the Cook Political Report border Canada: Alaska, Maine, Michigan and Ohio.

Maine’s Susan Collins, the only GOP senator up for reelection in a state Trump lost in 2024 and therefore a top Democratic target, said Saturday tariffs “will increase costs for Maine families” and that the whiplash of trade negotiations is causing “higher costs, risk, and uncertainty for Maine businesses.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said last month when asked about the potential 50% Canada tariffs that he was “not a huge fan of tariffs as a general rule” and said he had not seen a “rationale” for them.

But even beyond the impact on specific states, the moves jeopardize the GOP’s broader economic message — trying to pass the buck onto Biden.

It’s become abundantly clear that the stock GOP talking point on questions about persistent inflation and poor jobs numbers is to cite the Biden administration and the lingering effects of its purported economic mismanagement. Inflation peaked even higher back during Biden’s term (and that was also the case throughout the world amid the Covid-19 pandemic).

The administration’s strategy of blaming economic ills on the former president dates back to last year. But it has become much more conspicuous both in the frequency of its usage and because of the large amount of time elapsed since Biden was actually president (now more than 19 months).

But Trump already undercut that message by launching his global tariffs early in his second term and then the Iran war back in February — two major actions that made it very simple for people to connect whatever happened with the economy and inflation specifically to him.

What’s more, Trump already accepted ownership of the economy. He told NBC News early this year that it was now the “Trump economy.” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in September 2025 that the “economy that Donald Trump owns starts at the end of this year” — i.e. when the calendar turned to 2026.

And voters seem to agree. A Reuters-Ipsos poll in February showed that majorities of Americans said Trump would be more responsible for major economic problems, while very few said Biden would be more responsible.

Now Trump is doubling down on the same types of major economic interventions that led people to those conclusions, with just more than two months until the midterms.

Not in a position

US is "not in a position" to limit economic relations, Iran’s top negotiator says

By Aida Karimi and Mitchell McCluskey

After US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent threatened new sanctions targeting countries with ties to Iran, top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf argued that the US is not in an economic position to restrict its relations with other countries.

“The Americans know that no one believes their bluster. Economically, the United States is not in a position to further restrict its relations with other countries,” Ghalibaf said.

Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliamentary speaker, wrote in a post on X that “Iran’s trading partners have stated — both publicly in the media and in messages sent to us — that they attach no importance to these remarks.”

Meanwhile, Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency quoted a senior Iranian intelligence source as claiming the new US measures were aimed primarily at influencing public opinion rather than imposing meaningful new restrictions.

The source said the measures were “based solely on the design of Trump’s media team” and were intended to increase “psychological pressure on the people of Iran,” Tasnim added, without naming the source.

Fully prepared

Tehran is "fully prepared" for sanctions, Iran's finance minister says

By Mitchell McCluskey

Tehran is “fully prepared” to counter US sanctions targeting countries that maintain ties to Iran, Finance Minister Ali Madanizadeh told the state-run Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (IRINN) on Monday.

United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the planned measures during a press conference on Monday as part of what he has dubbed an “economic D-Day” against the regime.

“Apparently, (the US) have now decided to try another failure. We have long been expecting these days and were well aware of the plans they had. The government has a two-year plan and is fully prepared, and has been prepared, for these developments,” Madanizadeh said.

The official accused the US of wanting to “ wage economic terrorism” against Iran.

“We know how to play this game. This time, they should not think our response will be purely defensive and that we will only defend ourselves. They should also expect us to go on the offensive,” he added.

Running the fuck away.........

‘The writing on the wall’: Trump’s staff departs ahead of possible turmoil

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt and his top liaison to Congress James Braid are both leaving. But the forces that made their jobs tough aren’t changing.

By Alex Gangitano, Megan Messerly and Myah Ward

President Donald Trump heads into the second half of his term with key vacancies among his senior White House staff. That means whoever comes off the bench must contend with the possibility of a Democratic-controlled Congress, a slew of subpoenas, a lingering war in the Middle East and an open Republican presidential primary.

James Braid, the top liaison to Congress, this week announced his exit. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she would depart the week before. Replacements for either have not been announced.

Though it’s not unusual for staff to depart around the midterms, Trump’s desire to run the country through a handful of close, fiercely loyal aides means each loss is more impactful than in a White House where power and responsibility are more diffuse.

These departures don’t guarantee a tougher road for the administration, but they inject a dose of uncertainty at an already tenuous time, when the president is facing a slew of challenges — both foreign and domestic.

“I think people are seeing the writing on the wall and thinking Republicans probably aren’t going to have the House, might not have the Senate either, and things are going to be stalled,” said an official who served in Trump’s first term, who like others in this article was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

“People are thinking, ‘what are my post administration business prospects? Is it worth taking these hits every single day, being part of these battles, and how does that hurt my prospects when I go to the private sector?’” the person said.

The president is also losing two key legal hands as he girds for an onslaught of congressional oversight and potential litigation if Democrats take control on the Hill. Trump announced Friday that his pardon attorney and longtime ally Ed Martin would leave for the private sector, coming on the heels of a similar announcement regarding White House counsel Dave Warrington.

Before these departures, Trump’s second term was notable for most aides staying in their posts and faithfully executing Trump’s desires — largely without infighting or distractions.

“President Trump has built the greatest political movement in history, staffing his administration with talented, dedicated patriots who work tirelessly to execute his agenda,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. “This movement is bigger than any one staff member, and the President’s mission to make America greater than ever before will continue unabated.”

The optics of leaving ahead of a contentious midterms battle aren’t ideal. But White House allies concede that waiting until after the election may reduce their political capital, particularly if Republicans lose one or both chambers of Congress.

One person close to the White House framed it as an issue of “marketability.”

“If you want a decent job downtown, you need to bounce now, because there are still relationships to trade on in the majority. It might be the last time clients get anything done,” the person said.

Braid has yet to publicly announce his next steps. But his last day at the White House will be Sept. 30, according to a person familiar with Braid’s plans, granted anonymity to discuss them.

Leavitt said on X that she decided to leave the White House after returning to work after the birth of her second child. She said at the time, “I have felt in my heart that I cannot be the best mom my two young children deserve while devoting the constant time, energy, and attention required of the White House Press Secretary.”

The announcement immediately sparked questions over who could replace one of the president’s most public-facing and loyal aides.

“I’ll tell you this: I don’t know why anyone would want [the press secretary job]. To use a football analogy, it’s also like coming in after Vince Lombardi won the Super Bowl for the Packers. She was so good,” said a second person close to the White House. “It’s sort of a no-win.”

The job of press secretary and director of legislative affairs “require being on the clock 24/7,” a White House official said, adding that “Karoline’s departure is tied specifically to her recently becoming a mother of two, something no one who has held the position has experienced.”

The official, granted anonymity to speak about internal thinking, said, “people who have been here since the campaign and since day one cycle out, and other qualified individuals from inside and outside the administration come in to take their place.”

Of course, there are plenty of people auditioning, but filling her job — or Braid’s — is not the same as filling her shoes.

“If you’re working with someone for multiple years and you know they’re not a leaker and you know they’re good at the job and you know they’re loyal and they are ideologically on the same team as you — it’s not easy to find someone like that,” said Tevi Troy, a presidential historian and former Bush White House aide. “And so bringing somebody else new, there’s a learning curve and a comfort curve.”

Still, some believe the personnel changes won’t make that much of a difference if only because the challenges the administration faces would be tough for any combination of staff.

“Nothing but choppy waters ahead, treacherous waters ahead,” said Chris Whipple, political analyst and a contributing writer at Vanity Fair. “But I’m not so sure that these departures are — it’s sort of we’re talking about degrees of being dead in the water — he’s dead in the water with or without them. It’s going to be ugly and unproductive and maybe even worse over the next two years.”

50 percent tariff on Canada..........

Trump announces 50 percent tariff on Canadian vehicles, steel after trade talks collapse

The duties would not go into effect until January, leaving the door open to more negotiations.

By Jalen Beckford and Oliver Ward

President Donald Trump on Monday announced the U.S. will impose a 50 percent tariff on Canadian vehicles, steel and other items next year, after trade talks between the two countries collapsed last week.

“On January First, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50" percent, he wrote on Truth Social.

“Build in the U.S. and there are ZERO TARIFFS. Canada will be treated like a State no longer!” the president wrote.

The four-month grace period is likely aimed at triggering a new round of talks, but at this point, both governments are digging in.

A 50 percent U.S. tariff on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian imports went into effect Saturday morning after Washington and Ottawa failed to reach a trade deal to lower tariffs and other trade barriers.

In the aftermath, both countries blamed the other for the breakdown, saying they made last-minute demands and changes that tanked the deal.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada would retaliate dollar-for-dollar for the U.S. new tariffs that went into effect, with duties on American steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics set to kick in Sept. 8.

Speaking in Quebec on Monday, Carney said he wasn’t surprised by Trump’s escalation, but warned the U.S. president to consider the economic impacts of a trade conflict on American workers, particularly in the automobile sector — a key sticking point in last week’s negotiations.

“What message does that send to the workers in Michigan and Ohio and Kentucky and Alabama, who rely on Canadian demand?” he said, pointing out that Canada is largest buyer of U.S. automobiles. But Carney also left the door open to returning to the negotiating table, if the U.S. returns “with the right attitude.”

Tempers, however, were flaring on Monday.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford promised in an interview with a local radio station in Ottawa “to throw everything in the kitchen sink at” at the Trump administration, calling the U.S. president “arrogant,” “cocky” and a “bully.”

Trump can “kiss my a--,” Ford added.

That prompted a follow-up post from the president on Truth Social Monday afternoon, in which he dismissed Ford as “less charismatic, intelligent and overall unimpressive” compared to his late brother Rob Ford — who served as Toronto mayor from 2010 to 2014.

“Someone should get these clowns to ‘fall in line’ or, the consequences for Canada will be far WORSE!” Trump wrote.

Ford wasn’t the only Canadian premier to call for resolve in the face of higher U.S. tariffs. British Columbia Premier David Eby also denounced the duties, saying in an interview Monday on CNN News Central that “Canada has to hit back” and that the policies are “going to hurt” Americans.

Eby also said that Canada hopes other countries “follow along” in pushing back on Trump.

On the other side of the border, Trump’s intensifying trade war with Canada drew criticism from at least one member of his own party.

GOP Sen. Susan Collins — who’s in the middle of a high-stakes Senate race in Maine — called the president’s decision to impose the new tariffs “a mistake,” saying she met recently with the Canadian ambassador and urged him to focus on Ottawa’s barriers to U.S. dairy products.

“We produce a lot of meat, our blueberries, our potatoes, our lobster, our lumber, that is processed across the border,” Collins told reporters Monday at an annual parade in her home state. “If it comes back with a huge tariff on it, perhaps as much as 50 percent, that increases the cost of heating, building homes, and merchants eating our best-known products.”

In a social media post over the weekend, the veteran Republican lawmaker urged “both sides to return to the negotiating table,” noting the “on-again/off-again” talks between the two North American neighbors lead to “higher costs, risk, and uncertainty for Maine businesses.”

Voter backlash is turning into a lasting political crisis

Data centers’ ‘oh shit’ moment

Some industry leaders fear voter backlash is turning into a lasting political crisis.

By Gabby Miller and Owen Dahlkamp

The intensifying late-summer backlash against data centers is inspiring panic among some corners of the tech sector — amid fears that the industry is mishandling a political crisis that will stretch into 2028 and beyond.

Those worries have deepened in recent weeks as politicians across the political spectrum embraced various curbs on data center construction, with Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, potential Democratic White House hopeful Josh Shapiro and Michigan GOP Senate nominee Mike Rogers being among the latest to sign on.

Some tech industry advocates maintain that the public pushback against the hulking artificial intelligence hubs is a fleeting storm generated by candidates seeking wedge issues for November. Tech companies’ best course, they say, is to avoid any political dealmaking until temperatures lower after the midterms.

But others call that foolish wishful thinking.

“AI is going to be a massive issue for the presidential election in a way that technology has never been an issue,” a representative from a major AI company told POLITICO, adding: “Nobody wants to lose their job and they’re already feeling squeezed while these very, very rich people who are richer than anything we have ever seen in the history of Earth are making more. And I think people are sick and tired of that.”

The person, like others quoted in this story, was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the industry’s political strategy.

The swiftness and ferocity of the backlash has caught the tech industry on the backfoot, where it’s struggled to find an effective message that assuages voters’ worries that data centers will raise their power bills, hog their water supplies and blight the landscape. One result is the growing, bipartisan push for temporary moratoriums on data center construction, a cause that just months ago was mainly associated with progressive outliers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

The split inside the tech world is not hard to find.

“Some are viewing it as an ‘oh shit’ moment,” an AI industry advocate told POLITICO. “Others are brushing it off like it’s nothing, and those people have to get their heads out of their asses. This could go south for them, fast.”

Governors weigh in

What’s undeniable is that politicians of all stripes have decided that cracking down on data centers is in their best political interests, even if it’s a U-turn away from their previous embrace of projects they once saw as economic growth engines.

In Pennsylvania, Gov. Shapiro signed an executive order last week that would require local community approval before the state grants them permits to build, despite previously positioning his state as a hub for data center investment.

“I will not allow Pennsylvanians to be bullied by greedy developers and bulldozed by the lawyers working for these big tech companies,” Shapiro wrote on X. Some AI supporters saw that as a stunning turnaround for a governor who had earlier lured tens of billions of dollars of investments to his state from companies such as Amazon, Microsoft and Google.

Now the governor is running for reelection against Republican state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, who — unlike Shapiro — has endorsed a temporary moratorium on data centers in Pennsylvania.

In Texas, Abbott this month paused approval for new data center buildouts while state regulators and power grid operators conduct audits that will collect information including the projects’ tax breaks, ownership and proposed water use. He took that step amid complaints about the data projects from longtime conservative voters in far-flung parts of the state.

And in Michigan, Rogers came out last week in support of a one-year moratorium on building new data centers. That possibly puts Rogers on par with his progressive Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, who called for stricter standards on data center impacts throughout his campaign and later endorsed state and local moratoriums until Congress can enact national standards.

The political tide is also turning against the generous tax breaks that states had dangled for data center projects as they sought the tech industry’s presence. Even Virginia, considered the world’s data center capital, this year slapped a consumption tax on their energy usage to break a budget stalemate in a Democratic-trifecta commonwealth.

Red and blue states alike saw a flurry of activity this year looking to reel in data center incentives. Eight states in 2026 enacted legislation rolling back data center tax subsidies, while another 17 considered legislation, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which opposes tax breaks for businesses.

In some cases, states this year targeted longstanding sales-tax exemptions for materials and technologies that data centers purchase. Maine lawmakers even tried to restrict new data centers from all state tax breaks, though Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the effort.

While the backlash doesn’t have Wall Street worried about the tech giants behind the AI boom, it may be a sign that the Silicon Valley ethos of “move fast and break things” that has defined the data-center buildout to date may no longer be tenable. James Maloney, founder and managing partner of Tiger Hill Partners, which advises investment firms, said data center developers need to engage early and proactively at the local, state and federal level.

“Data centers are very clearly on the ballot box this election cycle,” Maloney said. “This is not lost on the investment firms.”

Threat or opportunity?

The turnabouts from traditionally pro-business politicians have left some AI supporters’ heads spinning.

“I actually think it’s disingenuous for governors and elected officials who pontificate about workforce and hiring and economic development to then go and basically throw a grenade to the center of what is the new industrial revolution that literally powers almost every single business on earth,” said Caleb Max, president and CEO of the National Artificial Intelligence Association.

But even the national party organizations are recognizing data centers as a salient issue in the midterms, or possibly beyond.

One striking example was a memo last week in which the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm warned that the data center backlash is hurting GOP Sen. Jon Husted in his Ohio reelection bid. It pointed the blame at tech companies, saying they have failed to get ahead of the “toxic brand” that’s taken hold of these AI factories.

The industry, which has long relied on tech’s image as a catalyst for the economy to build political support with leaders of both parties, has struggled to come up with an effective messaging strategy that resonates with the communities they want to build in. Their slow reaction was punished last November when Democrats Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey both won governor’s races in part by campaigning to force data center operators to pay for their costs up front.

But with opposition to data centers reaching a new crescendo, some in the tech industry are beginning to embrace the backlash, telling POLITICO that this newfound attention — if channeled properly — can help communities and government leaders understand the positive impacts of these data facilities.

“It highlights that politicians are hearing community concerns and that they need to respond,” said Gordon Bitko, executive vice president of public sector at ITI, a tech trade group that represents Amazon, Google and Vantage Data Centers.

Bitko noted that rather than impose a blanket moratorium, Shapiro’s new directive instead created an opportunity for tech companies and local policymakers to take a step back, do smarter planning and home in on the benefits that data centers can bring to communities, such as property tax relief.

“We, the tech industry, would be thrilled if an active part of the 2028 presidential election was about how do we build the right modern infrastructure for our economy,” Bitko said. “What are the real concerns, and what are the real benefits? And what do we need to do to address the concerns and recognize the benefits?”

But many have been reluctant to take up this mantle, an AI industry advocate said. Instead, the person said, AI labs, data center developers and electric utilities have engaged in a game of finger-pointing, with each camp shunting the responsibility for the public relations battle onto the other.

‘Somebody had to do something’

Now some of Silicon Valley’s biggest dogs are entering the fight.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is positioning himself as a positive voice on AI, even as some other tech executives warn that the technology will usher in large-scale unemployment and mass societal change.

Earlier this month, Zuckerberg laid out a positive view of AI in a 6,500-word post that previewed a $1 billion Meta fund to invest in communities that host data centers. “Thank God for Mark, because somebody had to do something,” a political operative who works on AI issues said.

But there are limitations to this approach, said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, a center-left tech industry policy coalition. “People don’t generally associate data centers with a single company,” he said, “and so I think there’s an open question about whether the data centers’ reputational challenge is a collective problem or a single-company problem.”

An executive at OpenAI, one of the country’s top AI developers, acknowledged during a POLITICO forum this month that “we have real work to do” to address public concerns about data centers.

“If you think about the amazing work we’re trying to do with AI … it’s all incredible and it’s inspiring,” Ann O’Leary, OpenAI’s vice president for global policy, said during an AI policy panel at POLITICO’s The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit. “But when you have a data center in your backyard, it’s not inspiring you.”

Economic D-Day?????

Bessent’s ‘economic D-Day’ against Iran begins with a ‘warning shot’

The move marks the Trump administration’s latest attempt to force an end to an increasingly unpopular war that has stretched into its sixth month.

By Michael Stratford, Megan Messerly, Nahal Toosi and Phelim Kine

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday unveiled a sweeping new effort to economically isolate Iran, warning foreign governments and companies that they could lose access to the U.S. financial system if they continue doing business with Tehran.

The campaign, which Bessent dubbed “Operation Economic Outcast,” stopped short of immediately imposing penalties against financial institutions located in China and other countries that facilitate trade with Iran for oil and other commodities.

Instead, Bessent delivered what he called a “warning shot” to countries around the world that they should get in line behind the Trump administration’s efforts to isolate Iran or face significant financial repercussions.

Bessent and the Trump administration for days had signaled its plans to drastically step up economic pressure on Tehran, which the Treasury secretary had likened to an “economic D-Day” operation.

Pressed during a press conference Monday on why Treasury was not immediately imposing those penalties, Bessent said the U.S. wanted to give countries a “cure period” to comply. He said the clock “just started ticking.”

“We are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior,” Bessent said. “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?”

Bessent said Treasury expects to sanction a major foreign financial institution by the end of the week as part of the new effort.

The Treasury Department expanded its ability to penalize foreign companies that operate in or support five sectors of Iran’s economy: digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping. Treasury also imposed fresh direct sanctions on dozens of people and entities tied to Iran and ended waivers that had permitted the flow of remittance payments to the country and allowed Iranians to access the U.S. cultural and academic universities.

Bessent said President Donald Trump was calling foreign leaders with “specific requests” to cut economic ties with Tehran. Officials from Treasury, the State Department and the Pentagon are also pressing their counterparts for “immediate action” to cut off economic ties to Tehran, Bessent said.

Bessent said every country had been given a deadline to shut down specific Iran-related activities identified by the U.S., though he declined to disclose the nature of those requests or the timelines.

“It’s no longer acceptable to operate in the gray spaces of this conflict,” Bessent said.

The move marks the Trump administration’s latest attempt to force an end to an increasingly unpopular war that has stretched into its sixth month. The war has disrupted global energy markets, raised the price Americans pay for gas and become a growing political liability for Republicans ahead of the midterm elections months away.

It also puts Bessent at the center of the administration’s war efforts after months of military strikes, a blockade of Iranian ports and diplomatic talks have failed to secure a lasting agreement to end the conflict.

The latest strategy could significantly raise tensions with China, which is a large buyer of Iranian oil. Treasury has already sanctioned smaller Chinese refineries, shipping companies and financial networks accused of helping Tehran sell oil.

But targeting larger Chinese banks or companies that facilitate Iran-linked transactions could provoke retaliation from Beijing as Trump prepares for expected talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Asked about whether the U.S. would move forward on sanctioning Chinese banks on Monday, Bessent said that “no one is above the reach of U.S. sanctions.”

Those who have been involved in past negotiations with Iran are skeptical the announcement will move the needle with Tehran — and especially Beijing.

“The announcement itself was a nothing burger,” said Ali Vaez, the International Crisis Group’s Iran project director, who helped work to bridge differences between Iran and world powers during negotiations over the 2015 nuclear agreement. “The only thing that would make a difference at this stage is the U.S. delivering on its threats, not threatening. ”

“Doubt it,” said one person close to the White House, who was asked whether the move would help end the war with Iran and granted anonymity to speak candidly on administration policy. But “I support all non-war avenues to pressure Iran.”

A second person close to the White House, who was also granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive issue, added, “I think it has the potential to be impactful if they actually execute. However, without addressing the China angle it leaves an economic escape route for Iran.”

Bessent’s refusal to say the word “China” during a press conference despite repeated questioning about whether the threatened sanctions would hit Beijing, underscores the administration’s aim to avoid derailing Trump’s summit with Xi next month.

Beijing provides Tehran an economic lifeline by purchasing around 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports via the “shadow fleet” of vessels that sell those cargoes to small-scale “teapot refineries” in China.

The Chinese government is likely equally skeptical that the administration will apply disruptive sanctions to its Iran trade ahead of a summit at which Trump is seeking to expand U.S. agricultural exports to China while avoiding any disruption in China’s supply of rare earths.

“Beijing is betting that Washington will be reluctant to jeopardize the current leader-level dynamic by targeting major Chinese entities before the summit, and nothing Bessent said today is likely to alter that calculation,” said Craig Singleton, senior China fellow at the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank.

The Chinese embassy in Washington didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The embassies of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Oman and Azerbaijan didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Those countries contain branches or subsidiaries of Iran’s Bank Melli, which Bessent on Monday demanded to be shuttered. The Washington-based Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office also didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the status of the Bank Melli in Hong Kong.

POLITICO also reached out to Persian Gulf countries, as well as countries with substantial trade with Tehran. The embassies of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey and India didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The embassy of Pakistan declined to comment.

Foreign diplomats, who were granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, were even-keeled in response to the new pressure campaign. Some noted that only a few countries had trade of major significance with Iran, one of the world’s most heavily sanctioned nations.

“The risk here is that the [Iranian] regime may react in a way that will further aggravate the situation. If they feel cornered, it’s a question of survival for the Revolutionary Guard,” one European ambassador said, referring to a major Iranian military institution.

A senior European diplomat said one question is how quickly the new pressure campaign will lead to results — and what results Trump wants to see.

Such sanctions campaigns take time to bear fruit, and the effort “may not be as rapidly imposed” as the president wants, the diplomat warned.

European officials, who have been reluctant to help with Washington’s war while Trump is still ordering missile strikes against Iran, are worried that the U.S. administration will make more demands to help them out with sanctioning Tehran.

“The big question now is whether Europe will be asked to match the U.S. sanctions,” said Giuseppe Spatafora, a policy analyst at the Brussels-based EU Institute for Security Studies think tank and a former NATO official. “It could cause a repeat of the spring tensions, in which [the] U.S. got angry at Europeans for not falling in line. It also depends on how serious the U.S. sanctions will be, and whether they hit China and Russia hard.”

Vaez, the former negotiator, was skeptical that other countries would accede to the U.S.’s demands because they have their own reasons to play nice with Iran.

“Iran’s neighbors cannot afford to alienate their neighbor,” he added. “Some of them do not want the United States and Israel to succeed — a country like Turkey, for instance — because it would make them a target. They would be next on the list.”

Causing civilian casualties

Ukraine widens its targets — and its tolerance for causing civilian casualties 

Unlike Moscow, Kyiv has not deliberately tried to kill civilians.

By Jamie Dettmer and Daria Zakharova

For most of Russia’s years-long war against Ukraine, Russian civilians have been relatively insulated from Kyiv’s attacks. That is changing. 

Since July, Kyiv has broadened its long-range drone campaign beyond conventional military targets, intensifying strikes on Russia’s oil and gas industry and hitting the vast warehouses of Wildberries, Russia’s answer to Amazon. 

While these are primarily intended to cause economic damage, in the words of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “to bring the war back home – to Russia,” they also mark another important shift. Ukrainian authorities are increasingly seeing Russian civilian casualties as a price they are prepared to pay for taking the war deeper into enemy territory. 

The numbers help illustrate the change. In 2025, Ukrainian attacks inside Russia killed 253 civilians, according to the United Nations, which says it was not able to independently verify the numbers. This year, in the month of July alone, Russian authorities reported that 79 civilians were killed and 601 injured, a marked increase in the casualty rate. 

Zelenskyy has said that Wildberries is a legitimate target because it has been “used by the aggressor to ensure the supply of sanctioned components for the production of drones and navigation equipment.” Russian soldiers supplement their equipment by purchasing items from Wildberries.

Maryana Bezuhla, a Ukrainian lawmaker and one of the most outspoken critics of Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s military leadership, is unapologetic about the increased risk to civilians. “Russia’s logistics system is used to wage the war of aggression against Ukraine,” she told POLITICO. “Russia has been targeting Ukrainian civilians all the years of the war.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has denied accusations from Ukraine that Wildberries handles military supplies but conceded to journalists that “the situation is indeed difficult” for the company. 

There is no indication that Ukraine is deliberately targeting civilians — even as Russia continues to hit apartment buildings, hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure with ballistic missiles and drones. And yet, there is no indication that the rising civilian toll in Russia is causing Kyiv to reconsider its approach. 

“It is a very important thing to stress from the outset, that any civilian casualties resulting from Ukrainian attacks are collateral damage,” said Jaroslava Barbieri, Ukraine expert at Britain’s Chatham House. “No Ukrainian strikes have deliberately targeted civilian districts.”

“But we know that Russia has been systematically targeting Ukraine’s critical energy infrastructure and civilian districts with the deliberate intent to cause civilian casualties,” she added. “That’s an important underlying distinction to draw.”

On Friday, a Russian drone attack on a busy shopping mall in Kryvyi Rih, Zelenskyy’s hometown, left 16 people dead and more than a 130 wounded, including children. The strike was a double-tap — that’s when second attack on a target is conducted around half-an-hour later and is designed to catch first responders, a tactic used frequently in northern Syria.

Since the war began, Russian officials have consistently denied their forces intentionally target civilians and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has instead accused Ukraine of deploying troops and heavy weapons close to civilian infrastructure. 

Russia has “a clear pattern” of targeting Kyiv and other urban centers with large civilian populations, Rosemary DiCarlo, the U.N. under-secretary-general for political and peacebuilding affairs, told the U.N. Security Council in July.

The U.N. has verified that at least 16,874 Ukrainian civilians, including 820 children, have been killed since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale assault on the country in 2022. Ukrainians believe the toll is likely higher, arguing there are many unrecorded deaths near the front lines and on territory occupied by Russian forces.

DiCarlo also expressed concerns about Ukraine’s drone attacks. “Any attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure, wherever they occur, are a clear violation of international humanitarian law,” she said. 

It is an argument that infuriates Ukrainian officials, who bristle when asked about the risks to Russian civilians with the tactical switch. Even asking the question triggers accusations of echoing Moscow propagandists. “You are helping Russia by pushing this civilian stuff,” a presidential aide said. He declined to answer when asked whether Ukrainian commanders adhere to any pre-strike procedures to assess risks to civilians.

The change in tactics has alarmed some European officials, according to Adrian Karatnycky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and author of Battleground Ukraine, who regularly meets with senior European officials and diplomats. “They have always been low-risk and fearful of Russian escalation,” he said.

The shift, he added, has been enabled by Ukraine’s growing ability to manufacture its own long-range drones and by cuts in U.S. assistance that have reduced Washington’s leverage over Kyiv. “There will be noncombatant casualties, but in an existential war you can’t fight with a hand tied behind your back,” Karatnycky said. “Ukraine’s ability to counterpunch is a relatively new phenomenon.” 

How will the Ukrainian attacks play out in Russia — will they weaken Putin politically?  Tim Willasey-Wilsey, a former U.K. diplomat now at the Royal United Services Institute, a defense think tank in London with close ties to Ukraine’s defense ministry, said Kyiv must try to minimize civilian casualties with the long-range drone campaign. 

“There are some risks,” he said. “As we know from the history of warfare, the bombing of civilians tends to actually harden people’s resistance rather than weaken it. Just think of the London Blitz, but also Ukraine now. And second, there is a danger of losing what still is a remarkable degree of Western support for Ukraine.” 

“But you cannot wage war without casualties,” he added.