The worst foreign policy blunder in decades..... And that is the GOP talking

Top Republican decries Trump’s Iran deal: ‘Reagan is rolling over in his grave’

Senator Bill Cassidy attacks ‘worst foreign policy blunder in decades’ while others in his party skeptical over peace deal

Marina Dunbar

A handful of Senate Republicans have sharply criticized the agreement Donald Trump reached with Iran, accusing the administration of committing “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades”.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration released the text of an interim deal between Washington and Tehran to end the 110-day conflict, framing it as a “major win” for the US – even as the 14-point accord made significant political and financial concessions to Iran to reopen the strait of Hormuz and prevent a “worldwide depression”.

“Reagan is rolling over in his grave,” the Republican senator Bill Cassidy declared, in a statement posted on X.

“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future,” the outgoing Louisiana senator wrote. “Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.”

Senior administration officials said the deal would help prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, pointing to a concession in the MOU in which Iran sats its enriched uranium stockpile “will be destroyed” through “down-blending”. But critics argue that the deal achieves less than the one Barack Obama negotiated with Iran in 2015.

“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive,” Cassidy said. “Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

Cassidy lost his primary last month when voters in Louisiana opted instead to advance two challengers to a runoff election after an extraordinary intervention by Trump to oust the incumbent. Trump has publicly feuded with Cassidy for years, after the Republican senator voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment after the January 6 insurrection.

Before the Louisiana Senate primary election, Trump repeatedly disparaged Cassidy on social media, calling him “a disloyal disaster”.

The Republican senator Ted Cruz, who previously voiced reservations about a potential Iran deal, said in an interview with the conservative outlet the Daily Wire that he hoped to see more details, but said elements of what is currently public appeared “ill-advised”.

“What has been released so far suggests that, unfortunately, the president is getting, I think, very poor advice when it comes to this deal,” Cruz said. “History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is a bad idea.”

The Republican senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s most vocal congressional allies, said in the immediate aftermath of the deal’s announcement he was “somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming”.

On Wednesday, Graham seemed to take a less skeptical view of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) following a “very lengthy and productive” conversation with the US special envoy Steve Witkoff.

“After this discussion, it is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop,” Graham wrote on social media.

“Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying.”

Vice-President JD Vance, who has maintained a complicated but publicly supportive stance on the war, responded to the post by thanking Graham for his statement.

The Republican senator Thom Tillis said it was “concerning” that the Trump administration is considering a $300bn fund for Iran as part of the agreement.

“I’m hearing a $300bn number and that’s concerning to me, so I just need the details,” Tillis told MS Now reporters on Wednesday. “I also need to know the methodology. I’m not interested in just an agreement that gets us through two and a half years, which is how much longer this administration lasts.”

The MOU, officially signed by the presidents of both sides on Wednesday, gives both sides 60 days to negotiate a comprehensive final agreement.

The conflict with Iran has cost thousands of lives and devastated the world economy, prompting a handful of Republicans to break with Trump on the issue. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives voted 215 to 208 in favor of the war powers resolution, as four Republicans voted with Democrats to curb Trump’s authority in Iran.

Trump defended his ceasefire deal on Wednesday at the G7 summit, further promising that if Iran misbehaved he would “go back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head”.

Two pieces of bread filled with shit and covered in vomit would be better...

A Bad Iran Deal and the Price of Credibility

By Yoni Michanie

The Iran Deal Won’t Buy America Security. It Will Cost It: Proponents of the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran have settled on a convenient argument: the American-Israeli alliance functions as long as interests diverge, and we have reached that point. Washington, they insist, is more secure with this deal than without it. 

It is a seductive argument. It is also wrong.

What We Know Right Now Looks Like a Mistake

The full text of this agreement has not yet been made public. But the architecture of what is being negotiated is already visible, and what it reveals is not a strategic realignment in America’s favor, but a willingness by the Trump administration to legitimize the Islamic Republic, guarantee its survival, and acquiesce to a regime currently celebrating its ability to coerce the world’s most powerful nation into diplomatic submission. 

Tehran did not come to the table from a position of weakness. It came having weaponized the Strait of Hormuz, having absorbed American and Israeli firepower, and having demonstrated to its own people and to the world that it could force Washington to blink.

That is not the backdrop of a deal that advances American interests. That is the backdrop of a capitulation dressed in diplomatic language, and the distinction matters enormously for what comes next.

The Islamic Republic is not celebrating because it made painful concessions. It is celebrating because it didn’t have to. Whatever technical constraints ultimately appear in the agreement’s text, the strategic signal has already been sent. A regime that was supposed to be brought to its knees through maximum pressure, military strikes, and international isolation has instead emerged with its government intact, its narrative validated, and its leverage confirmed. Its leaders will tell their population, and every regional actor watching, that they faced down the Americans and won. In the currency of Middle Eastern geopolitics, that is worth more than any centrifuge agreement.

A Bad Deal 

Consider what this deal will yield in practice, regardless of the fine print.

In an international system where power dictates state interests and alignment, Trump’s desperation to secure a deal that gives a clear pathway to the Islamic Regime’s survival, even at the expense of abandoning Israel and Gulf states pounded by Iranian ballistic missiles, will push critical Gulf partners towards Tehran. Normalization between the Gulf and Israel, one of the most consequential strategic developments of the past decade, becomes harder to sustain when Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are left to draw their own conclusions about where American loyalty ends. These are governments that made calculated bets on Washington’s staying power.

This deal forces them to recalculate. The Palestinian conflict, rather than moving toward resolution, gets prolonged as the regional spoiler most committed to preventing peace has its survival guaranteed. The architecture Washington spent years constructing does not survive a deal that rewards the force most dedicated to dismantling it.

The Real Winners: Russia and China

The beneficiaries extend well beyond the Middle East. Russia and China are major recipients of the spoils of this war. Moscow will be able to sustain and intensify its assault on Ukraine with Iranian-made drones and missiles, unfettered by the pressure campaign that was supposed to degrade Tehran’s capacity to supply them. China’s economy will boom from a resumption of Iranian oil at a fraction of the market price.

This inevitably charts a path toward prolonged war in Ukraine and a sharp increase in aggressive posturing toward Taiwan. A deal that stabilizes Iran on these terms does not stabilize the world. It redistributes leverage to every actor invested in seeing American power contract, and those actors are already aware of what they have been handed.

A Credibility Problem

Then there is the question of credibility, the most durable currency in international relations and the hardest to recover once spent.

Trump’s willingness to pave a path for Iran to restore its proxy terror infrastructure, its ballistic missile program, and an undeterred nuclear ambition will make clear to adversaries and allies alike that Washington no longer has the will to uphold its security commitments.

This erosion was already visible before negotiations concluded. When Iranian ballistic missiles struck Kuwait’s international airport, the Trump administration’s response was to minimize it, characterizing the attack as too limited in scale to warrant an American reply. Gulf partners noted that silence carefully. A regime that can bomb a civilian airport in a neighboring country and receive no response from Washington has learned something important about the boundaries of American resolve, and it will test those boundaries again.

One thing should be made clear. The error was not in launching this war against Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure. It was in failing to see it through, in succumbing to short-term pressure points like the World Cup, marginal increases in oil prices, and the shadow of midterm elections. These are not strategic calculations. They are political reflexes, and the Islamic Republic reads them with precision.

The argument that American and Israeli interests have simply diverged mistakes a failure of nerve for a realignment of strategy. Washington is not more secure because it chose accommodation over resolve. It is more exposed, and so is every partner who wagered that American commitments would mean something when it counted most.

Failure to overcome this pressure will result in short-term silence. It will make our world more dangerous.

His deal with Iran is bad... This shows he is insane...

Trump knows his deal with Iran is bad. His G7 speech made that clear

Story by Holly Baxter

If you’d like to know how Donald Trump’s closing speech at the G7 went, it’s probably best to start at the part where he asked Scott Bessent whether the stock market was smarter than his Treasury secretary.

“No, sir,” Bessent dutifully replied. He was disagreeing with a notion Trump had just posited, but it was clear from his tone of voice that he didn’t mean to disagree. He was simply trying to make real-time sense of what his boss had just said, which happened to be the semi-coherent and utterly baffling: “The stock market is more brilliant than anybody there is, including people on this stage, apart from me. What do you think, Scott, is the stock market more brilliant than you?”

Yes, sir? No, sir? What, sir? It was clear at that point, just a couple of minutes in, that nobody — including his own team, or perhaps especially his own team — had any idea what Trump was talking about.

This was probably the most alarming Trump appearance to date. He was breathless and incoherent, ill-seeming and off-piste. He spent 32 minutes justifying his deal with Iran to the world before mentioning a single discussion that had taken place among the G7 countries at the summit, and the justifications spoke for themselves.

“This wasn’t a three-month deal,” he declared. “This was years in the making. You know why? Because I was the one who killed General Soleimani.”

Soleimani, who has been dead since 2020, enjoyed repeated cameos throughout the proceedings. Trump called him “a mad genius” and “the boss of Iran,” returning to him again and again like an aging musician who keeps bringing audiences back to his biggest hit because the new material isn’t getting much applause. The implication, of course, was that Soleimani represented a job well done to Trump himself. This deal? Not so much.

Iran’s leadership, Trump explained, had suffered because “their first set of leaders is all gone. Their second set of leaders, all gone. Their third set of leaders is a little bit gone.” That’s not technically “regime change” but it sort of is, he added, if you think about it.

The asides got more and more bizarre.

“Bibi Netanyahu is a good man, by the way — he gets a little excited,” gave way to, “Afghanistan is kissing our ass.”

He thanked Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin for “being very neutral” during the Iran war, then immediately added that people probably wouldn’t like seeing him thank them.

He interrupted himself to swat a fly.

On lifting tariffs on Iran and investment in the region, he was defensive and juvenile: “Like, what are you gonna do, say you can never invest in a country?... We did $2 trillion of damage. Somebody’s gonna have to help them out.”

On whether it was true that the deal with Iran includes money for the country to rebuild, he started with, “We don’t give them money… What happens is with time, if they behave–” and then seemed to lose his trail of thought and went back to, “Regime change? The first group is dead. One morning they were having breakfast… They thought we’d never bomb during breakfast.”

In the middle of his speech, he took 10 minutes to mention the war in Ukraine, Ebola, the global economy, and his favorite piece of recurring fan fiction: that world leaders repeatedly tell him behind closed doors that they used to laugh at the US, but now it’s “the most respected country in the world.” Then he pivoted swiftly back to Iran, musing, “If they don’t behave, they’ll get hit again.”

It was hardly Churchill at Yalta.

The recurring villain of his piece was the media, which supposedly are all in a grand conspiracy to ignore or devalue his personal victories. “If they said ‘Praise be to Allah, Donald Trump is the greatest president ever’... then the New York Times would say ‘Iran had a great victory’,” he said, during a long segment about fake news.

When it came to questions, one reporter mentioned that the wording of the deal doesn’t actually seem to say much about not developing a nuclear weapon, despite Trump’s claims that it will ensure the country never has one, “permanently”. Trump responded that so long as America doesn’t have a “weak, pathetic president,” then Iran definitely won’t have nuclear bombs, because when they start developing them, he’ll just flatten their cities again.

“So you’ll bomb if they don’t comply, but there’s nothing specific in the deal, is that correct?” the reporter followed up.

“Doesn’t have to be,” Trump responded. Because why would a deal that stops Iran from developing a nuclear weapon in terms much more stringent and powerful than “Barack Hussein Obama” ever allowed make explicit mention of nuclear weapons? Below the bombast and the egotism, the impression that the president seemed to give was: I don’t know and I’m tired. Words don’t have to mean things, because bombs exist. Anyway, it all leads back to me, and once I’m out of picture, do you really think I give a crap?

Besides the other, worrying things this might imply about the 80-year-old’s ailing health, this speech also made extremely clear that Donald Trump himself doesn’t think he actually got a good deal.

But hey, remember General Soleimani?!

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

Trump faces bipartisan criticism over Iran deal... Stupid fucker...

Facing bipartisan criticism of Iran deal, Trump lashes out at "fools"

Story by Mark Osborne

Trump faces bipartisan criticism over Iran deal: "It's going to leave Iran stronger"

President Trump slammed the "fools" who oppose terms of the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding as "either jealous, bad people, or stupid" after several Republican lawmakers spoke out strongly against the deal.

"These fools, who think I haven't been tough enough on Iran, when the Stock Market Just Hit A RECORD HIGH, and Oil prices are 'tumbling' down, are either jealous, bad people, or stupid," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social early Thursday as he returned from the G7 summit.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy came out most strongly against the Iran deal, saying Ronald Reagan is "rolling over in his grave."

"Iran's nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future," Cassidy wrote on X. "Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal. Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive." 

"Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped," he continued. "This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades."

Cassidy has stepped up his criticism of Mr. Trump after losing his primary race to Trump-endorsed candidates Julia Letlow and John Fleming, who now face a runoff. The president repeatedly slammed Cassidy, who was one of just seven Republicans to vote to impeach Mr. Trump over the Jan. 6 attack. 

Trump ally Sen. Ted Cruz is also among the critics of the Iran deal. Cruz told the Daily Wire he thinks the president is getting "very poor advice when it comes to this deal."

"History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is a bad idea," the Texas Republican said. "Under the terms of what's been released, somewhere between $10 billion and $30 billion will flow to the Ayatollah immediately before they make even a single nuclear concession."

"I think that's ill-advised," Cruz continued. "That money, if it goes to the ayatollah, will go to fund terrorists trying to kill Americans and weapons that will be used to try to kill Americans. And it also appears to formalize a permanent role for the Islamic regime controlling the Strait of Hormuz. It is difficult to see what possible benefit to America could come from that."

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Trump ally who has previously advocated not making any deal and restarting military action against Iran, gave tepid endorsement of the deal after he said he spoke to Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff.

"After this discussion, it is my opinion that signing the MOU will be beneficial to the United States, in as much as the Strait of Hormuz will begin to open, and the hostilities with Iran will stop," Graham wrote on X. "Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying.   

"The economic stability that comes from opening up the Strait and the cessation of hostilities could create a pathway to peace well beyond the Iranian conflict."

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said he's hoping for more details than just the brief 14-point plan released on Wednesday, calling it "inadequate."

"If I'm ultimately asked by the administration to judge it on the basis of the 14 points that we know, then it will not be a good assessment," Tillis said during an Atlantic Council event on the upcoming NATO summit.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters at the Capitol on Thursday he anticipates the administration will brief senators on the Iran agreement early next week. 

"My understanding is the quote 'official language' is coming out today, but yeah, we have a request in," Thune said. "I assume once they do the initial briefing on it that we'll have folks up here. We've asked them to do that. I would anticipate probably early next week."

Thune called the deal "good for Americans," citing the potential economic relief if the strait reopens. He also noted the "long-term" issues remain "unresolved." 

Democratic senators, like Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, have been united in their disdain for the deal.

"When you look at the 14 points that the administration has agreed to, it looks like Iran has won on just about every one of them," Schumer told reporters on Capitol Hill. "Trump has done a very poor job of negotiating. We are worse off than we were when the war started. The Strait of Hormuz under greater Iranian control now than then. The leadership of Iran more militant now than then. ... This will be regarded as one of the biggest American disasters."

Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal called it a "seemingly disgraceful deal" and said it looks "like an unconditional surrender, not for Iran, but for the U.S."

"Contrary to the president's promises, this capitulation is not by Iran, seemingly, it is by the United States in lifting sanctions, providing hundreds of billions of dollars that can be used to support proxies. The absence of any kind of regime change, and an economic windfall for this regime, strengthening it," said Blumenthal, who added he believes the agreement must be approved by the Senate as the Constitution outlines for international treaties.

"Anybody advocating for it is going to need flame-resistant body armor, because it will meet with bipartisan condemnation when it reaches Congress, as it must do, because it has all the appearances of a treaty," he said. 

TACO Trump and the many concessions........

The many concessions for Iran in Trump's deal

Story by Brendan Cole

The agreement to end the Iran war has faced criticism for offering Tehran too many concessions while extracting little from the Islamic Republic in return. 

President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on Wednesday at the Palace of Versailles in France, saying it would ease the economic turbulence caused by Iran’s blockading of the Strait of Hormuz. 

But critics point to it giving Iran too much and leaving unanswered questions over the purpose of the war, which started on February 28 with joint strikes by American and Israeli forces on Iran. 

The framework to end sanctions linked to Iran’s nuclear program and free up billions in unfrozen funds for Tehran offers “a significant boon for Tehran,” Osamah Khalil, a Middle East expert at Syracuse University, told Newsweek. 

More will be hammered out over the next 60 days, but the deal so far has raised questions over the purpose of the 111-day conflict, which has killed at least 2,211 people, including 14 U.S. troops, and cost the U.S. government an estimated $50 billion.

“Washington seems to have paid in advance for promises that still need to be negotiated, verified and enforced,” Aurélien Colson, the academic co-director of the ESSEC Business School Institute for Geopolitics & Business, told Newsweek on Thursday. “That is always dangerous, but especially so with Iran.”  

What The Deal Does 

Trump said the agreement would immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran had in essence blockaded for three months, upending global energy markets. But there is a lack of clarity about how it addresses Iran’s control of the critical waterway through which one-fifth of the world’s energy transits. 

Iran has charged a toll for ships to use the waterway, and even if maritime traffic were restored, messaging from Tehran indicates it will not relinquish control. The framework would waive passage charges through the strait for 60 days, but what happens afterward is unclear.  

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)-affiliated Fars News reported that changes to an earlier deal included references to a joint Iranian-Omani administration of the waterway. Iranian officials have signaled that Tehran would keep control over the strait and that vessels transiting it should pay service fees in the future, presenting a scenario worse than before February 28.

The agreement would also see the U.S. terminate all types of sanctions, make available frozen or restricted funds and assets and end the American naval blockade of Iran’s ports, which has hit the Islamic Republic’s critical exports hard. 

This would provide vital funds for the sanctions-hit economy. State news outlet Mehr reported on Tuesday that Tehran would soon gain access to part of its frozen assets, have its oil sanctions suspended, and gain free access to oil revenue. This could see Iran earn up to $10 billion from 60 days of oil sales, with total revenue during this period exceeding $30 billion, according to Mehr. 

Khalil from Syracuse University said Iran “will be able to conduct unhindered trade globally and invite investments into the country,” adding that, “without the shadow of the nuclear program and U.S. regime change efforts, there should also be a significant reduction in regional tensions.”

Meanwhile, the deal would also see the U.S. work with regional partners to develop a plan with at least $300 billion for Iran’s reconstruction and economic development, although there is no commitment for U.S. funds.  

This prospect has been criticized.  

In an op-ed for the Times of Israel, David Horovitz wrote this: “will doubtless utilize to help keep its restive population in line, to massively fund Hezbollah, Hamas and its other terrorist proxies, and to spend as needed on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.” 

In its assessment on Wednesday, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said Iran will likely use renewed economic access to reconstitute the Axis of Resistance of regional proxies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon, during the 60-day negotiation period.  

“Iran has already told Hezbollah that Iran will increase its funding as soon as possible once the United States unfreezes Iranian assets,” the Washington, D.C.-based think tank said.  

Colson said: “From a negotiation perspective, this is not sequencing: it is front-loading concessions. While a proper interim agreement should buy time while preserving pressure, this one appears to buy time by spending most of the pressure upfront.“

What The Deal Doesn’t Do 

Trump entered the war with Iran with maximalist goals like eliminating its nuclear program, destroying its ballistic missile program and ending its support for regional proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. While Trump has said that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been depleted, reaching these aims has not been categorically addressed in the framework deal.

Iran will not be able to procure or develop nuclear weapons under the deal, and both sides would agree to discuss Tehran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which Washington says can be made into a nuclear weapon.  

But the fate of what Trump calls “nuclear dust” will rest for the second-phase talks over the next 60 days. 

Tehran has been successful in separating the nuclear question from the 60-day negotiation period,  Manuel Herrera, from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Monitor project at the security think tank BASIC, told Newsweek.

“This is quite skillful because this gives them leverage and time to address their main priorities regarding the nuclear file,” he said.  

Lebanon 

The deal also affirms Lebanon’s territorial integrity in the face of Israel’s invasion against the Hezbollah group, which entered the war when it fired rockets into northern Israel on March 2 in sympathy with Iran, its main backer.  

But the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said Thursday it would continue operating in southern Lebanon in the territory it has occupied since the start of the war. Israel has conducted a bombing campaign across Lebanon and invaded a significant part of the country’s south.

More than 3,800 people have been killed in Lebanon, according to the country’s health ministry, while Israeli authorities say 30 soldiers and four civilians have been killed on both sides of the border. Over one million people have been displaced, and the fate of Lebanon is a tricky obstacle to lasting peace.

“The real risk is that this MoU produces a pause rather than a settlement,” said Colson. “Iran gains relief, the U.S. trumpets diplomatic success, Israel contests the Lebanon provisions, but the hard questions are pushed into a 60-day framework that may not be strong enough to carry them.”

Full Text of the 14-Point Draft Agreement 

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran has jointly agreed in good faith on the following: 

1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. 
2. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. 
3. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent. 
4. Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.
5. Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf with Oil states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.
6. The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America. 
7. The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, i.e. 
8. IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them. 
9. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven with the minimum methodology to be down blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned, and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them. 
10. Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, and will not deploy additional forces in the region. 
11. The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, the US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc. 
12. The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly. 
13. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal. 
14. After signing this MOU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1,4,5,10, and 11 of this MOU and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs. The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution. 

It was all for nothing, except Iran is laughing their ass off.

Here's how much the Iran war cost — and how its effects will linger

By Scott Horsley, Ruth Sherlock, Tom Bowman, Danielle Kurtzleben

As conflicts go, the Iran war, should a loose framework and ceasefire deal hold, was relatively short in duration. But its costs and aftereffects will likely linger for years.

The months-long conflict, which pitted the world's most powerful military against a far weaker, yet strategically adept, adversary cost the lives of 13 U.S. service members and more than 3,300 Iranians, according to state media. Another 3,826 have been killed in Lebanon, nearly 60 in Israel and dozens across Gulf states, according to authorities in those countries.

It also led to higher oil prices and spiked inflation and mortgage rates in the U.S. -- and made the job of incoming Federal Reserve chief Kevin Warsh more complicated. And it roiled global energy markets, paralyzed a key waterway, led to fuel rationing in countries in Asia and Africa, disrupted supply chains of everything from semiconductors to fertilizers, while hitting the economies of key Middle East nations particularly hard.

While the framework provided little in-depth detail, here are some of the key areas where the war's costs are already clear:

Domestic costs

Moody's Analytics estimates the war has cost U.S. consumers and taxpayers about $132 billion so far, and the meter is still running.

The most visible piece of that cost is higher energy prices, resulting from the near shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz. Gasoline prices, which averaged just under $3 a gallon when the war began, soared as high as $4.56 a gallon after that vital artery for crude oil was cut off, according to AAA.

U.S. motorists use between 360 million to 380 million gallons of gasoline every day, according to the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the Energy Department. So at the peak, Americans were paying more than half a billion dollars a day in higher prices at the pump. While gas prices have cooled in recent weeks, the wartime surcharge is still adding more than $360 million a day in higher gasoline costs.

Similarly, diesel fuel prices jumped from $3.76 a gallon on the eve of the war to a peak of $5.69 in early April, according to AAA. That raises transportation costs for everything that travels by truck or train. The price of airline tickets has also jumped nearly 27% in the last year, largely as a result of higher jet fuel prices.

(Not everyone is a loser when energy prices soar. Oil companies have profited from the higher prices.)

Why high oil prices are good for oil companies — until they aren't

Other commodities that usually travel through the Strait of Hormuz have also seen dramatic price increases. A survey by the American Farm Bureau Federation in April found that fertilizer prices had climbed up to 47%, and about 70% of U.S. farmers said they were unable to afford all the fertilizer they need. That may or may not affect the price that consumers ultimately pay for food, since farmers are often unable to pass along their input costs. But it will certainly add to persistent challenges in the agricultural economy.

The war has also contributed to a jump in mortgage rates, making it more expensive to buy a home. Home sales have been in a slump for the last several years, but forecasters had been hoping for a modest rebound when mortgage rates briefly dipped below 6% earlier this year, just before the war began. Wartime uncertainty is not the only factor pushing mortgage rates higher, but it's a significant cause. By last week, the average interest rate on a 30-year home loan had risen to 6.52%, according to mortgage giant Freddie Mac. For someone buying a $400,000 home with a 20% down payment, the higher interest rate will raise the mortgage payment by about $110 every month. And higher costs will also keep some would-be buyers out of the market.

Global costs

The Iran war has delivered a tumultuous blow globally. This month the World Bank cut its 2026 global economic growth forecast to 2.5%, the lowest since the coronavirus pandemic.

Slowing economic growth and rising inflation have hit Europe, while shortages of fertilizer and cooking gas have caused problems in India and elsewhere. But Middle Eastern countries particularly bore the brunt of the bank's growth cuts. The World Bank estimates the Gulf economies' gross domestic product to expand just 1.3% this year, down from 4.5% in 2025.

The bank did not offer a new forecast for Iran, citing "exceptionally high uncertainty." In a sign of the scale of war damage in Iran, the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran includes a plan for $300 billion toward Iran's reconstruction and development after the war, according to the deal as read to reporters Wednesday by the Trump administration.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in April also slashed its global forecast. It said Qatar saw its steepest revision, by almost 16 percentage points down from October. Iranian attacks heavily targeted Qatar, especially its energy hub, Ras Laffan Industrial City, knocking off the country's liquefied natural gas export capacity and billions in lost revenue.

Iran's blockade on the Strait of Hormuz choked oil and gas exports, forcing Middle East producers to lower crude oil production by more than 11 million barrels a day in May compared to pre-conflict levels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Saudi Arabia was able to reroute much of its oil exports via its East-West pipeline. As the war drove up oil prices, Saudi oil company Aramco's profits surged, reporting a 26% increase in earnings in the first three months of 2026 compared to the previous year.

The war also pummeled the region's aviation sector, with flights out of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, a global hub for air travel, reduced by two-thirds and those out of Doha, Qatar, by three-quarters, according to the IMF. It devastated the lucrative tourism industry, with conferences postponed and hotels emptied.

A United Nations assessment said a shift in perception about the safety of Gulf states, which have for years billed themselves as safe and luxurious destinations for investors, could endure for years after the Iran war.

The war and disruptions to supply chains have also contributed to global poverty and hunger, according to U.N. agencies.

Military costs

The latest tally on the Iran war is $29 billion for operational costs, according to Pentagon comptroller Jules Hurst, who cited that figure during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on May 12. That estimate was $4 billion higher than the administration's figure in April. Hurst told the committee that the increased number was for repair and replacement costs of equipment.

He conceded that the Pentagon is not factoring in the cost to repair its bases in the Middle East, including those in Kuwait and Bahrain, which were attacked by Iranian drones and missiles. More than a dozen military facilities were attacked in the region with damage to aircraft, radars and buildings, according to U.S. officials not authorized to speak publicly. Thirteen U.S. servicemen were killed in those attacks. Pentagon officials could not come up with an estimate on those repairs, partly because there are uncertainties about what future U.S. military presence in the region will look like.

The Trump administration is expected to ask lawmakers for a supplemental appropriation to cover the war costs.

Political costs

The political cost of the U.S. and Israel-led war in Iran has been tangible, at least in terms of polling. As of Feb. 28, when the U.S. and Israel first attacked Iran, President Trump's net approval rating stood at -15 percentage points, according to The New York Times polling aggregate, meaning his disapproval (56%) was 15 points higher than his approval (41%) rating. That gap had already been slowly growing throughout his second term, and it only widened after the war started. By the end of May, Trump's net approval was at -22 percentage points. Since then, it has recovered slightly.

While Trump's approval didn't take a sharp plunge, the slow erosion was meaningful, as Trump is often said to have a "high floor" when it comes to approval polling. That means his intensely loyal MAGA base does not voice disapproval of him easily. Dipping below 40% approval put him right around his first-term lows, where he stayed for weeks – a sign of prolonged discontent as the Iran war pushed gas, diesel and myriad other prices higher. That also put the damper on an affordability message the administration had been trying to sell ahead of the midterms.

Striking back

Trump escalates his war on Senate Republicans — and senators are striking back

The president’s U-turn on Jay Clayton was the latest instance where “he just keeps pushing” on GOP lawmakers.

By Jordain Carney

President Donald Trump is making life almost impossible for Senate Republicans — and these days fewer of them are willing to just let it slide.

Some lawmakers that were once happy to brush off impulsive and disruptive behavior by saying they hadn’t seen the president’s social media posts or that it was just “Trump being Trump” are increasingly willing to speak out against what they view as bad decisions that undermine their ability to deliver legislative wins as the midterms approach.

The latest irritation was the early-morning Truth Social post Wednesday that upended GOP hopes of quickly confirming a new director of national intelligence and reviving a surveillance bill that Trump already derailed earlier this month.

The chaos that followed Trump’s sudden U-turn on Jay Clayton’s nomination, just hours before a scheduled confirmation hearing, further loosened tongues in the Capitol hallways — even from lawmakers who tend to be reliable allies.

“The president’s timing and communication needs improvement,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said. “I think it’s unfortunate. It throws a kicker into the system when we get going and then we have to readjust.”

Asked about frustration within the conference about the recent lack of coordination, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) added, “Well, duh.”

Kennedy added, “No, I don’t,” when asked if Trump takes senators into consideration: “He wants what he wants, and until he gets it, he just keeps pushing.”

The public frustrations are bubbling up at a crucial moment for Trump and Republicans more broadly. The president sent his wee-hours missive from France, where he was meeting with global leaders at the annual G7 conference and seeking to sell an Iran peace deal that many in his party despise.

Trump has faced recent pushback on several fronts in the Senate, with Republicans foiling plans to fund part of his White House ballroom project in a recent immigration funding deal and forcing the Justice Department to abandon plans for a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” that could compensate Trump allies.

The president’s frequent demands that the Senate abandon its longstanding filibuster rule to pass more legislation along party lines, including a controversial elections overhaul, have also gone unheeded — adding to Trump’s obvious frustration.

He has now responded on several occasions by simply infuriating GOP senators who believe they are on the precipice of delivering a legislative win — only for Trump to suddenly pull the rug out from under them.

His announcement of the DOJ payout fund, for instance, delayed and nearly killed a critical immigration funding bill. And his decision to tap Bill Pulte, a close political ally who heads a housing agency, as acting director of national intelligence blew up a brewing three-year deal on reauthorizing a key piece of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced his retirement last year after breaking with Trump on policy legislation, said the dynamic is “undermining our ability to produce the very results he wants.”

“Look, we are not the manufacturing department of the Article II branch — we are the board of directors for the Article II branch,” he said. “You start treating us like that, coordinating with us like that, we won’t have these embarrassing setbacks.”

Trump’s decision to call off Clayton’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee came as Republicans believed he was on track to be confirmed as soon as Thursday. That, they believed, would allow for an extension of the spy law — something administration officials had previously argued is crucial to protect Americans amid the World Cup and ongoing America 250 celebrations.

Instead, Clayton and the FISA reauthorization have become the latest tension point between Trump and the Senate, with the president again hammering Republicans for not passing the partisan elections bill known as the SAVE America Act, while also needling them about refusing to blow up the filibuster and the internal rules granting home-state senators deference on some presidential nominees.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has expressed his own frustrations in a more understated way than others in the GOP ranks.

Normally chatty with reporters, Thune was unusually tight-lipped Wednesday, saying that Senate Republicans would have to figure out the path forward on Clayton and the surveillance law “one day at a time” and that his relationship with Trump was “fine” amid the public turmoil.

“The president has his own mind, makes his own decisions, so do we,” Thune said.

He later explained in an interview that the White House and Senate Republicans do a “fair amount of coordination.”

“But sometimes you get surprised,” he added. “It’s a business model the White House employs, and we’ve had to figure out how to be adaptable.”

The White House said in a statement that Trump has worked closely with Senate Republicans on the party’s agenda over the past year, including last year’s $4.5 trillion tax cut and the immigration enforcement bill passed earlier this year.

“We look forward to continuing these close relationships and fulfilling President Trump’s priorities that Americans elected him to enact,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in the statement.

Thune and Trump developed a good working relationship at the outset of the president’s second term, a turnaround from tensions that emerged in the period after Trump’s 2020 election loss that included him calling for a primary challenge to Thune in 2022. Several Senate Republicans praised Thune Wednesday for trying to keep the conference focused and said they didn’t believe Trump’s salvos were personal.

“Hating Thune would be like hating golden retrievers. You can’t dislike Thune. I don’t think the president dislikes him,” Kennedy said, while adding that Trump is fixated on the elections bill: “I just think he wants what he wants, and he continues to push. I just don’t think in this instance he’s likely to get it.”

Several other members identified the SAVE America Act as a persistent friction point despite GOP senators showing over and over again that the bill doesn’t have the votes to pass in the Senate. They are eager for Trump, and some of their own colleagues, to turn their focus from infighting to hammering Democrats heading into November.

Senate Republicans, according to two people granted anonymity to describe a private meeting, directly criticized Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) during a closed-door lunch Wednesday over setting unrealistic expectations about passing the bill.

Without naming Lee, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took a jab afterward at those “making unrealistic promises and then when they’re not obtained, criticizing one another.”

Cornyn, who lost his bid for renomination to a fifth term this month after Trump endorsed his opponent, also acknowledged the president was the source of “some frustration” inside the Senate GOP around “basically being able to function.”

What a bunch of stupid assholes...

Have you read the bullshit the orange turd wants to sign with Iran? 

Do you understand what they are giving Iran? 

Iran is going to charge a fee now. Did they every charge a fee to ships? No. But now all ships have to pay a fee... 

Winner! Iran... 

Loser, Orange fucking turd.... 

What a fucking shitshow...

Hey you stupid fucking maggots... You are fucking stupid because you elected this fucking shithead turd...

They are giving $300,000,000,000 to Iran... This is insane!!!!!!

Guts Education Dept.

Trump further guts Education Dept. by shifting oversight of special ed, civil rights

By Jonaki Mehta, Cory Turner

Two of the U.S. Department of Education's biggest responsibilities will shift to other federal agencies: safeguarding student civil rights and administering programs for students with disabilities.

The Trump administration said Tuesday it will move much of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). OSERS manages programs that support students with disabilities, offering guidance and oversight to ensure states follow the landmark Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a law that guarantees disabled students access to an equitable public education.

The administration announced it would also move much of the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). OCR's staff of civil rights lawyers are tasked with protecting students in K-12 schools and universities from discrimination based on disability, gender, race and national origin. OCR has been in tumult for months, targeted repeatedly by the Trump administration for staff cuts, then reversals of those cuts.

The moves to HHS and DOJ would further dismantle an agency that President Donald Trump has vowed to close, and it would leave the Education Department with a shrinking number of responsibilities. For example, much of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education — the department's K-12 workhorse — was already moved to the U.S. Department of Labor.

In a press release, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said of shifting special education programs: "Through our partnership with HHS, we will align federal services with the goal of strengthening academic outcomes and supporting individuals with disabilities so that they can achieve greater independence, key life skills, and meaningful employment."

And of moving civil rights enforcement, McMahon said the partnership between OCR and the Justice Department would "ensure stronger, more coordinated civil rights enforcement and robust protections for student privacy."

The Trump administration announced the moves as "partnerships" between the Education Department, HHS and the Justice Department, though, in a call with reporters, senior department officials who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity were vague on how these new arrangements would affect current staff. With some previous interagency agreements, Education Department staff have simply been moved, along with their responsibilities, from one physical office to another.

According to the text of the agreements, which were obtained by NPR, HHS would do much of the work of administering formula grant programs related to IDEA while the Education Department would continue to provide management and leadership, likely because the law requires that these responsibilities still be overseen by the Education Department.

These moves are the latest effort in McMahon's self-described push to "peel back the layers of federal bureaucracy by partnering with agencies that are better suited to manage programs and empowering states and local leaders to oversee the rest."

However a former employee who worked at OSERS for more than a decade and left earlier this year argued the changes could make the agency less efficient and effective: "This isn't a late-model Toyota that you can sell for parts and get the best bang for your buck." They added OSERS "ensures that your children, your family's children, your neighbors' children — any child with a disability — gets to attend a public school and gets to have access to the same school that their non-disabled peers have."

Another former OSERS staffer told NPR, "my stomach drops for children and parents." The employee, who is the parent of an adult with disabilities added, "this move would separate out oversight of the implementation of IDEA and it would decimate civil rights protections that have been in place for more than 50 years." Both former OSERS employees spoke to NPR on the condition of anonymity because they fear professional repercussions for speaking publicly about this issue.

"No logical sense" 

For months, as rumors swirled about a move to HHS, disability rights advocates have pushed back.

"This is another vindictive attempt to undermine public education," said Denise Forte, president and CEO of EdTrust, a think tank focused on addressing education inequity. "And at this moment, when we know that children with disabilities need more support, not less — HHS is not the place for that."

Denise Marshall, CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) told NPR, "There is no logical sense why anyone would move [students with disabilities] under HHS." She added, "We're not going to all of a sudden go to our surgeon to learn how to read."

IDEA is "an education law," said Chad Rummel, CEO of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). "That means we need to have special education interacting with all of education at the department, not over here on its own in a medical environment."

Rummel added that he's worried the administration is trying to strip away federal oversight of special education.

However, in a letter obtained by NPR, Kimberly Richey, assistant secretary for civil rights, and Kelly Rogers, acting assistant secretary for OSERS, reassured members of the disability community that the work of OSERS and OCR would not be disrupted. They wrote the two teams "will continue to partner together, just as they always have, to vigorously enforce the law to ensure states and schools are in compliance."

Rummel may have reason for concern, based on what's outlined in Project 2025, a policy blueprint for a second Trump administration developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Right now, states have to apply for IDEA funding through OSERS. But Project 2025 proposes that "most IDEA funding should be converted into a no-strings formula block grant targeted at students with disabilities and distributed directly to local education agencies by Health and Human Service's Administration for Community Living."

The author of that section, Lindsey Burke, now works at the department, helping guide its dismantling from the inside.

One of the former OSERS employees told NPR that staffers at the department who have been working on special education services have spent decades building expertise on how best to serve students with disabilities. "HHS does not have that. It's medically oriented," the person said. "They may look at a child with a disability from the perspective of what medication they are taking or what their pathology is as opposed to 'How can this young baby, who's going to be an adult, thrive as an individual?'"

The other former OSERS employee noted that last year marked the 50th anniversary of IDEA, the law that created special education and made clear to states and schools that children with disabilities have a fundamental right to an education. With this move, they said, "I'm really concerned that we are going to go 50 years backwards."

As for moving OCR to the Justice Department, "it's a terrible idea," warned Catherine Lhamon, who previously ran the office under two different presidents, Obama and Biden, saying Justice has "no interest and no expertise in doing the kind of work that OCR does."

Lhamon pointed out that OCR existed before the creation of the Education Department, in 1979, and that it was Congress that voted to move it into the new agency "where everyone is focused on the school context. And the people in the Office for Civil Rights get to use their expertise to ensure that every student in every school every day experiences the guarantee that Congress promised."

Kenneth Marcus, who ran OCR during the first Trump administration, was more optimistic. In a statement he said: "Much will depend on implementation … but if done right, this could mark a critical step forward for students whose rights have gone unprotected on campuses across the country. The key issue is whether this will enable the Justice Department to more seamlessly cooperate on potential civil rights litigation and pursue enforcement when necessary."

Are moves like this legal?

Federal law requires that OSERS exist — and that it exist within the U.S. Department of Education. To get around that requirement, and to keep from having to get consent from Congress, the administration appears to be doing what it did in November, with other department responsibilities.

Late last year, the administration announced it would shift work dedicated to, among other things, elementary and secondary education, postsecondary education and Indian education to other federal agencies. All three offices were placed at the department by Congress when it created the agency in 1979, and the moves were made without Congress' consent.

In briefing lawmakers and staff about those November moves, the administration insisted that these programs' statutory responsibilities would remain at the department; it was simply outsourcing day-to-day operations to other agencies.

A small contingent of top staff would remain behind, at the Education Department, to continue to oversee these programs.

Plunging GOP into disarray

Trump upends careful compromise on intel chief, plunging GOP into disarray

By Sarah Ferris, Ted  Barrett, Kevin Liptak

Republicans on Capitol Hill believed they’d found a way to dump President Donald Trump’s controversial pick for temporary intelligence chief — while defusing a major fight with Democrats over a significant national security bill.

Then came Trump’s middle-of-the-night missive from Switzerland.

“I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it. Not complicated, actually, the Republicans fell into a trap,” the president wrote early Wednesday.

“We are cancelling the Senate Hearing RE: DNI today, and will not be going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney,” he added. “In the meantime, Bill Pulte will remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence.”

Trump’s Truth Social post on Wednesday blew up weeks of careful party strategy to usher in a compromise pick, Jay Clayton, to oversee the nation’s intelligence agencies. Instead, Trump made clear he’s now seeking to keep that contentious nominee — MAGA loyalist Pulte — in an interim position for even longer. Further complicating matters, the president also demanded the passage of his signature voter ID bill attached to the must-pass national security bill, which is already days overdue.

The move stunned Senate Republican leaders, who were just hours away from a key committee hearing for Trump’s pick. Clayton informed some members of the committee he was asked by the president to not show up for the hearing, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

Senate GOP leaders were ultimately forced to cancel that afternoon hearing just ahead of its start, after initially vowing to hold it. In response, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s chairman issued a rare statement of disapproval at Trump’s move, calling it “regrettable that the president has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today.”

It’s not yet clear when GOP leaders might try to hold another hearing for Clayton. But so far, it appears that Trump will succeed in his attempt to slow-walk the nomination — which would allow his hand-chosen temporary chief, Pulte, to formally begin the role Friday.

The situation has flummoxed many Republicans and left Congress in an uncomfortable limbo over the status of Trump’s nominee, as well as the lapsed security measure, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which authorizes the nation’s foreign spying powers designed to thwart terrorist attacks.

Even Senate Majority Leader John Thune was unable to answer questions on Wednesday morning about Clayton’s fate — and instead said he is still “awaiting clarity” from the White House about next steps.

Canceling a Senate hearing would typically be decided by the committee holding the hearing — in this case, the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was not immediately clear whether Trump had spoken to the panel’s chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton, before posting his message, but the Arkansas Republican initially said the hearing would proceed Wednesday afternoon without formal intervention by the president. (He was forced to backtrack later just hours later.)

“We’ll just have to take it a day at a time until we get more clarity on kind of what the White House’s position is on this,” Thune said, met by a crush of reporters as he entered the US Capitol.

Thune did not answer questions about whether he’s spoken with the president since the move. When asked why Trump was connecting the issues of voter ID to his intelligence nominee, Thune answered: “Good question.”

Democrats, meanwhile, were irate over Trump’s move. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Senate Intelligence Committee Democrat, described Trump’s intervention as “an extraordinary display of dysfunction from a president who seems determined to turn America’s national security into a political bargaining chip” — a key signal that the party won’t lend any votes to reauthorize the lapsed surveillance bill anytime soon.

Trump posted that he wanted the Senate to cancel the nomination hearing for Clayton. Later, Cotton – who had first held his ground, noting Clayton was a “pending nominee” before his panel – said that Trump had ordered him not to show, a highly unusual move.

CNN has reached out to the White House for more on Trump’s decision.

One of Trump’s allies in Congress, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, defended Trump’s move, arguing that the public wanted to see the president’s voter ID bill become law.

“If we actually voted up here based on what the American public wanted, this would pass in a heartbeat. We’d pass it by noon today,” Scott said. But he wouldn’t say whether he’d encourage Trump to veto the spy powers bill if his voter ID bill isn’t attached, as the president suggested overnight: “I’ll let him decide that.”

Asked if Trump was complicating Congress’s ability to govern with his last-minute demands, Scott said: “He’s talking about stuff that the American public wants. … He’s talking about what we ought to be doing.”

Senate GOP leaders had spent the last week trying to quell tensions in their party, and from Democrats, after Trump announced Pulte, who has no demonstrated national security experience, as the temporary intelligence chief. Pulte, notably, has used his current position atop a federal housing agency to go after Trump’s perceived rivals.

Ultimately, party leaders and the White House reached an agreement last week — Trump picked Clayton, Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, as the agency’s permanent successor.

But Trump never withdrew Pulte, whose tenure was slated to begin June 19. And Democrats never backed down on their demands, saying Trump needed to dump Pulte for good, or they would not help reauthorize the nation’s spy powers.

Now Democrats are blaming Trump for further inflating the situation and dragging out the intel law lapse.

“What we’re seeing is real-time chaos in the intelligence community,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said. “Bill Pulte remaining in that job is absolutely intolerable.”