A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



June 22, 2026

Totally Bonkers

The Totally Bonkers Race to Replace Elise Stefanik

The chaotic congressional battle pits a traditional Republican against a first-time candidate whose campaign embodies the spectacle, grievance and combativeness of the MAGA movement.

By Nick Reisman

At first blush, the vibes at the warehouse where Republican House hopeful Anthony Constantino was holding his campaign rally were decidedly wholesome. American flags bedecked the walls of the cavernous space, which smelled of free pizza. Constantino — a 43-year-old who bears a passing resemblance to tough-guy actor Tom Hardy — led the crowd in singing “Happy Birthday” to his campaign manager. A local minor league team official praised him for his help refurbishing the baseball stadium in this rust belt city.

Constantino’s backers, decked out in black and white t-shirts touting his recent endorsement from President Trump, cheered as their candidate name-dropped the MAGA leader and his assorted disciples, from Rudy Giuliani to Elon Musk to Roger Stone.

But the energy shifted as Constantino — a local businessman whose previous political experience includes a rap video dissing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — got more and more worked up as he aired grievances about his political enemies, namely Democrats (“They’re evil”) and his primary opponent State Assemblymember Robert Smullen (“A very dishonest person”).

And then, when the boxer-turned-politician opened up the floor to questions, things turned combative.

At the mic was a man who’d sparred with Constantino on Facebook over immigration nearly a year before — and who seemed intent on reliving that online confrontation. Constantino’s views on immigration align closely with Trump’s deportation agenda. The attendee argues closing borders will only exacerbate human trafficking.

“When I brought that up,” the man said, “you challenged me to a fight and said that I was a fake gangster.”

Constantino, standing in front of dozens of balloons fashioned into the American flag, hit back.

“It’s clearly illegal, human trafficking,” Constantino said, leaning forward. “And anyone who supports that, maybe you do need to get beat up a little bit.”

Security swarmed the man and he was soon ejected from the rally. And as the man was being led away, the candidate got the final word.

“There’s something about getting into the ring that changes the way people think,” Constantino said, waxing philosophical about his past boxing career. “He might benefit from that experience. I don’t know if words otherwise are going to get to him.”

The boxing metaphor is apt: Constantino is waist-deep in a bristling Republican primary to replace GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik in a sprawling upstate House district that borders Canada. And the primary, which will take place on Tuesday and lacks any independent polling, is pitting the first-time candidate against someone who also loves a good fight.

His foe, Smullen, a retired Marine colonel who served three tours of duty in Afghanistan, has launched broadsides dinging him for his past Democratic Party enrollment, disparaging his at-times profane hip hop lyrics and generally painting him as deeply unfit to represent the region in Congress.

In turn, Constantino, who owns the Sticker Mule factory that makes custom stickers, threatened to sue Smullen over the attacks and sent him a text message calling him “an evil person” who must be stopped.

So it should come as no surprise that the raucous, bitter battle to succeed Stefanik has become a circus, tearing Empire State Republicans asunder — and offering a crystal ball look, albeit cloudy, into a GOP future centered exclusively around Trump-accented spectacle. The spiraling brawl even has its own collateral damage, including a defamation suit from New York Conservative Party Chair Jerry Kassar against Constantino, heated confrontations with local officials and social media feuds.

The race is testing whether Smullen, a stalwart Republican with sterling GOP credentials, can compete against someone born wholly out of the MAGA movement. Shell-shocked New York Republican leaders aren’t quite sure what to make of Constantino and his sharp-elbowed battle against the alternative, who has endorsements from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Rifle Association. Privately they wonder if Constantino, who has never run for public office until now, is up to the task of representing the district in Washington.

Yet what some Republicans won’t publicly acknowledge is Constantino represents a climax of the MAGA era, the logical conclusion of Trump’s sweeping impact on American politics manifesting all the way down to the House level. His candidacy might also be inevitable in a district where Stefanik herself has evolved from a moderate Paul Ryan aide to a MAGA stalwart. (Stefanik, for her part, has declined to endorse in this high-stakes race to succeed her, and did not comment for this story.)

The race is a potential window into the Republican Party’s future, a coming era in which first-time candidates like Constantino in New York or reality TV star Spencer Pratt in Los Angeles can capture attention by distilling Trumpism’s essence down to performance, pageantry — and an eagerness to fight.

Pratt lost his bid for mayor in deep blue LA. And Trump’s support doesn’t always translate to electoral success. It underscores that whoever wins the fight for MAGA now will control the future of the Republican Party as it braces for a post-Trump world.

Either way, Constantino’s candidacy offers a test case for just how far a MAGA candidate can go as Trump winds down his time in the Oval Office.

“All my attacks are honest and things that people need to know,” Constantino told me inside his factory. “President Trump changed a lot of norms. Why don’t you want politicians talking to citizens?”

Republicans, including those who have quietly coveted the Stefanik seat, are happy to not be Smullen.

The state lawmaker is a traditional Republican whose compelling background — combat experience and legislative record — would normally make him a shoe-in for this ruby red seat, but he is now withstanding daily pummelings from his opponent. In turn, Smullen has attacked Constantino in often personal terms, calling him “mentally unfit” to be in Congress. What has chafed Smullen the most, though, is an attack on his bravery and the implication from a Constantino supporter that he politically leveraged his 14-year-old son’s death after he was struck by a car.

“My opponent calls me a ‘fucking coward’,” Smullen told me in an interview. “Utterly ridiculous. Certainly I’m no coward by any stretch of the imagination.”

Armed with a selfie stick, he’d just shot a short video outside the state Capitol in Albany and was slightly out of breath when he settled into a leather upholstered chair to unspool his complaints with Constantino in the lounge outside of the ornate Assembly chamber.

“Beyond the pale.” “Unfit.”

These are fighting words in any Republican-on-Republican feud and Smullen uses them freely to blast back at Constantino. Perhaps the most devastating punch Smullen wants to land on Constantino is this charge:

“He’s no Donald Trump.”

This is a district that went hard for Trump in 2024 — 60 percent of voters here cast their lot with the then-former president. And in many ways, voters here fit the profile of the traditional MAGA voter: Overwhelmingly white, predominantly blue collar and weary of status quo politics.

In some parts, the rural expanses of New York’s North Country resemble Alaska or western Maine. Forbidding in the winter and capable of becoming blisteringly hot in the summer, the Adirondack Park has been shedding population for generations and struggles with housing affordability. Battles over land use in the protected area are legion. Towns that line the border have reported declining business with Canada after Trump’s expansive tariff program. And the Mohawk Valley is where the nation’s rustbelt begins — home to decaying factories and farms that are increasingly likely to be turned over to solar panel companies.

Fighting is in the historical DNA. Abolitionist John Brown would work his farm outside Lake Placid when he wasn’t fomenting a violent overthrow of the South’s slaveholding elite. There is an overriding libertarian streak that runs through this region — a don’t-tread-on-me ethos that’s entwined with a strong distrust of strangers and government officials.

“That suspicion of outsiderism is larger than the forces of political allegiance or ideology,” said Aaron Wolf, a 2014 Democratic House candidate who unsuccessfully ran against Stefanik.

These rough-and-tumble crosscurrents make the district an amalgam of the nation’s political duels, with self-sufficiency a common throughline. While Trump has been successful in the district, Barack Obama also won a prior version of this seat.

“I think that being an outsider is worse than being a Democrat sometimes, and that’s not because we’re not open-minded,” Wolf said. “This is a place whose decision making has often been in the hands of outsiders. Going back to the British and the French warring over the Champlain Valley and the North Country, and determining the fate of the indigenous population as well, and then you have, in another era, the environmentalists versus the timber interests.”

Stefanik has represented versions of the district for more than a decade. She framed herself as a pragmatist, touting bipartisan efforts on anodyne concerns like dairy prices. Initially the youngest woman elected to the House — a distinction she held until Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory — Stefanik set out to help elect more GOP women.

Then the Trump era hit, scrambling the nation’s politics and the trajectory of Stefanik’s district.

She morphed into an ardent Trump supporter — “ultra MAGA” in her words — a shift that was in keeping with any ambitious Republican who could spot where the party’s voters were headed. Trump-skeptical Republicans lost their seats; Stefanik was elevated to House GOP leadership.

Now as she prepares to leave after the twin disappointments of losing her bid to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a scuttled run for governor, Stefanik’s presence looms largest — perhaps more so than Trump’s — over the district.

“At the end of the day Elise Stefanik has the biggest voice in the entire room,” Saratoga County GOP Chair Joe Shurada told me. “She has a megaphone no one else has. I don’t know if she’s going to make an endorsement. But if she did, her opinion counts the most.”

The stakes are high for Republicans — even in a blood red district.

National Democrats have not shown a public interest in a race for a district Trump has won handily in three elections. That may change if Constantino wins the primary and Smullen remains in the general election on the Conservative Party’s ballot line. That’s a scenario that haunts Republican Party leaders.

Appearing on the Conservative Party ballot line can be a boon for Republicans — especially in New York’s red pockets.

New York’s Conservative Party was formed in 1962 — a William F. Buckley-infused answer to Republican Nelson Rockefeller’s liberalism. Over the decades as the state became a deeper shade of Democratic blue, the Conservative Party has tried to pull New York Republicans to the right. It’s now in an unofficial partnership with the New York GOP, often cross-endorsing the Republicans’ preferred candidates and reinforcing establishment support.

Sometimes, though, that relationship breaks down.

Smullen has the backing of the Conservative Party and is currently slated to remain on the November ballot. He hasn’t committed to dropping out if he loses the June 23 primary. If both men continue to duke it out through the summer and fall, Democrats would have a significantly better chance of flipping the seat — a state of affairs the party would have considered unimaginable if Stefanik was seeking another term.

Complicating matters is Conservative Party Chair Jerry Kassar’s defamation suit against Constantino. The case is working its way through the state Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

A year ago, Constantino told supporters Kassar threatened to kill him and implied the party leader ordered the campaign’s press aide to be murdered. Constantino recorded a phone call with Kassar, in which the chair is heard warning the candidate against challenging a Republican incumbent in 2026 and that doing so “is just a bigger reason why we intend to kill you,” he said. In an interview, Constantino said Kassar was among those he considers a “swamp creature” — part of a broader problem for candidates like him trying to break into politics.

“Mr. Constantino made false claims against Mr. Kassar that he widely publicized, accusing Mr. Kassar of orchestrating a plot to murder Mr. Constantino,” said Kassar attorney Christian Browne. “Mr. Kassar is suing Mr. Constantino to hold him accountable for his false and reckless conduct and to protect Mr. Kassar’s unblemished reputation after nearly five decades in political and public life. The fact that Mr. Constantino is presently running for office is irrelevant to Mr. Kassar’s case.”

I asked Constantino if it was possible Kassar may have not meant this threat “to kill you” literally.

“It’s a strange word choice, and sometimes people let things slip,” Constantino said. Kassar, he added, did clarify that “I’ll do everything in my power to destroy you.”

It remains to be seen if all this intra-party combat will provide an opening for Democrats in the fall. The last time a Democrat represented a version of the district came in 2009 as the Tea Party movement gained steam. Republicans picked then-Assemblymember Dede Scozzafava to succeed Rep. John McHugh, who had joined the Obama administration. The Conservative Party, believing Scozzafava wasn’t sufficiently to the right, picked a local accountant, Doug Hoffman. The ensuing race became a disaster for Republicans and a gift for Democrats, who took advantage of the split. Democratic Rep. Bill Owens won a special election and held the seat until January 2015.

Republicans, fighting to retain control of the narrowly divided House in what’s shaping up to be a tough election year, desperately need to avoid a replay of 2009 this November.

In many ways, Smullen’s pedigree fits the Old School, GOP mold. He’s got degrees from elite institutions like The Citadel and Georgetown University. He’s a high-ranking military officer who’s seen action. (He prefers to speak in person, rather than the phone, after “too many bangs and booms” during training and combat damaged his hearing.) He served as a White House fellow during the George W. Bush era. He’s clocked in a seven-year tenure in the New York State Assembly. And he fits the mold of an upstate New York Republican: Attuned to rural issues with a fiscal conservative streak.

But he’s sometimes been out of step with his own party, even as the New York GOP took the rare step of endorsing him in the contentious House primary.

He’s feuded with Stefanik’s political allies in upstate New York — a potentially fateful series of interactions that stand to make an endorsement from the powerful outgoing lawmaker highly unlikely. Smullen sued the chair of the Fulton County Republican Committee Sue McNeil, who is close with Stefanik, in a bid to remove her from the leadership post and install his own ally. The legal challenge was ultimately unsuccessful and Stefanik endorsed McNeil’s push to remain the head of the local party.

Then there was a 2021 incident in Stefanik’s Washington, DC office in which he threatened to launch a primary bid against her, according to two people with direct knowledge of the exchange and granted anonymity to discuss the private conversation. (The alleged threat came as the current district lines were in doubt ahead of the 2022 district redrawing.) Smullen’s campaign has denied he ever planned to challenge Stefanik; he insists he has a positive relationship with the outgoing House lawmaker, who attended his son’s funeral and wake. (Stefanik’s team declined to comment.)

He’s also had a much-publicized run-in with the law: He was arrested in 2018 after claiming a property tax exemption for veterans on a non-primary residence. Smullen paid a reimbursement to the local government; the charge was reduced to a violation. He’s dismissed the incident as a paperwork error.

Despite these instances, Smullen’s political tenure has overall been predictable, even staid. He’s willing to work across the aisle on non-ideological issues, like rural safety or getting a bipartisan organ donation bill passed after his son was killed.

Indeed, Smullen is running on a traditional Republican platform of growing the economy, securing the border and supporting the Trump administration’s agenda. Yet much of his campaign has been spent responding to Constantino’s barrage of attacks.

He’s had enough. In May, after the conclusion of their only televised debate, Smullen refused to shake Constantino’s outstretched hand.

Four days later, Smullen called reporters down to a windowless, air conditioned Albany hotel conference room to explain why. After the press assembled, he quietly placed posters on easels arrayed around him.

The “evil” text message on one poster. The Facebook post by a Vermont-based Constantino supporter accusing Smullen of politicizing his son’s death blown up on another. A Sticker Mule sticker that said, “Kill the police.”

“Let it sink in,” Smullen said. “This is the temperament of the lifelong Democrat asking you to send him to Congress as a Republican.” (Constantino says he previously registered as a Democrat to support a friend running for Albany mayor.)

His voice cracked.

“Would you shake hands with someone who believes that you’re an evil person?”

Later, I asked Smullen if he will endorse Constantino if he’s the Republican nominee.

“You know, he’s threatened me and tried to intimidate me and called me evil,” said Smullen, adding that he is confident he will prevail in the primary. “You know, his team have said the things that they’ve said about my son and so I’ll leave it at that.”

When I pointed out to Smullen that his answer was neither a “yes” nor a “no,” his voice went quieter.

“I’ll leave it at that,” he said.

In 2024, after an assasination attempt on Trump’s life in Butler, Pa., Constantino erected an illuminated 12-foot-tall “Vote for Trump” sign on his warehouse roof.

That act of adulation served to jump-start an improbable candidacy.

His Trump sign caught Roger Stone’s attention, who reached out to the youngish CEO. Over dinner, the infamous political operative, whose 40-month prison term for seven felony charges was commuted by Trump, convinced Constantino to run for Congress. (Trump later pardoned Stone.) Since then, the candidate has been embraced by MAGA, receiving warm endorsements from Giuliani and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and he was invited to stand in line with Musk at Trump’s inauguration.

Constantino was born in Albany and attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the prestigious university in nearby Troy and studied economics. He never finished. When he was 7, his Navy veteran dad died and his father’s business struggled after his death. So, at 19, Constantino dropped out of college to take over his father’s former photo envelope company. In 2010, he launched his own firm, Sticker Mule, with the motto, “Custom printing that kicks ass.” It’s now a 90,000-square-foot factory with 1,000-employees.

In his late 30s, he became a boxer — a risky venture for anyone approaching middle age. One video posted online shows Constantino unleashing a quick, violent barrage of punches on his opponent. He wins in the second round after his foe dropped to one knee and the referee ended the fight. And he’s dabbled in music, some of it rap, some gospel or country-inspired, much of it fitting in the growing genre of MAGA praise music.

“Can’t fuck with America, bitch,” Constantino raps in a diss track aimed at Mamdani. “This is New York City, home of Donald Trump, Tupac and Biggie.” Another song, which Trump shared on Truth Social, ends with Constantino winkingly suggesting he would run for president one day. He insisted to me that line was meant to be broadly aspirational: Anyone, including a guy like Trump, can become president one day.

A political generation ago his candidacy would have been dismissed as a gadfly effort by a local crank.

Yet Constantino has excelled at wielding the current coin of the realm: an uncanny ability to capture voters’ attention and stoke their support. He’s pledged to give his congressional salary away to a local veteran’s family. He stages block party-style events at his sticker factory. He gifted Trump with a giant bronze statue depicting him raising his fist in defiance after he survived an assasination attempt. The shooting in Butler, he has said, is what propelled him to get involved in politics and endorse Trump.

Self-funding his campaign with $10 million, Constantino has spent more than $3.8 million on TV and digital ads, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact. He’s spending at a fast clip, with some of that cash plowed back into Sticker Mule. The campaign has reported spending money on “donor mementos” as well as merchandise, design and marketing, according to federal campaign finance records. By contrast, Smullen’s campaign recorded just over $500,000 in ads, which often air back-to-back with Constantino. Smullen has also loaned his campaign money — $1 million, a tenth of what Constantino has poured into the race.

His campaign hires have come under scrutiny. That includes Alec Flores, a Nevada man who was brought on as a “support agent” last year and is set to face a murder charge in November. He faces a Nevada-specific “open murder” charge, leaving it up to a jury to determine if Flores is guilty of first or second-degree murder or voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. (Flores, who Constantino has said briefly worked for the campaign and soon left, did not respond to a request for comment.) Constantino, who has not met the man, told me he would “put a better structure in place” if his campaign hires again.

A “Vote for Trump” sign on top of a building owned by Anthony Constantino on Thursday, June 18, 2026, in Amsterdam, N.Y. Mr. Constantino is hoping to be the Republican party’s nominee to run in the general election for New York’s 21st Congressional District.  Cindy Schultz for POLITICO
A “Vote for Trump” sign on top of a building owned by Constantino in Amsterdam, N.Y.

In keeping with his confrontational zeal, Constantino earlier this year was removed from a local Republican meeting, escorted out of the room by the county sheriff. The ejection came after Constantino repeatedly claimed Smullen was “lying” about his business. The New York Republican establishment took stock of Constantino’s antics and endorsed Smullen, who also has the backing of the state’s GOP House delegation, save for Stefanik.

Constantino believes the rejection by the state party is a blessing for how he’s framed the campaign.

“If we win, it’s a victory for the forces of good,” he told me. “If it goes the other way, it would be a victory for the corrupt swamp people protecting their power, entrenching themselves more and scaring out outsiders.”

In this insiders vs. outsiders race, anything seems possible.

Received all their funds from a super PAC that also supports Republicans.

FEC filings confirm GOP meddling in Dem primaries

Two shadowy groups, Lead Left and Real Change, received all their funds from a super PAC that also supports Republicans.

By Jessica Piper

A Republican-linked group was the sole funded of two pop-up super PACs that spent more than $4.3 million across a swath of Democratic congressional primaries to support candidates seen as less electable.

Democrats had speculated that the two groups, Real Change PAC and Lead Left, were Republican meddling as they spent heavily across Democratic primary races in Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Nebraska and Maine in recent months.

New filings submitted to the Federal Election Commission late Saturday night show both groups got all of their money so far from Conservative Americans PAC, a super PAC founded in 2023 that this cycle has also sent money to the Senate Leadership Fund — Senate Republicans’ super PAC arm — and a host of other Republican groups.

The meddling super PACs, which have spent entirely in open Democratic primaries, have a mixed record so far. In Maine’s 2nd District, state auditor Matt Dunlap — who benefited from a bit over $500,000 in spending from Real Change PAC boosting him and attacking one of his primary rivals — was declared the winner in recent days and will be Democrats’ nominee in a light red seat they are hoping to keep in November.

And in Nebraska’s 2nd District, Lead Left spent $435,000 to oppose state Sen. John Cavanaugh, who lost to political activist Denise Powell.

But the groups came up short in other races. Real Change PAC also spent more than $650,000 against Navy veteran Rebecca Bennett in New Jersey’s 7th District, while Lead Left spent $1.7 million fighting union leader Bob Brooks in Pennsylvania’s 7th District and just over $1 million to boost Maureen Galindo — a sex therapist who faced criticism over perceived antisemitic comments — in Texas’ 35th District. Galindo ultimately lost to sheriff’s deputy Johnny Garcia.

Conservative Americans PAC has received all of its funding so far this year from a Virginia-based nonprofit called the American Prosperity Alliance. The PAC did not immediately respond to an email listed in its FEC filings on Sunday morning.

Pop-up super PACs, which take advantage of the timing of FEC reporting deadlines to avoid reporting their sources of funding before primary elections, have become increasingly common in recent cycles.

Reconciliation meeting to gut the country

House GOP races to make Recon 3.0 real

House GOP leaders are tentatively planning another senior-level reconciliation meeting for Wednesday.

By Mia McCarthy and Meredith Lee Hill

House Republicans have eight days to prove Reconciliation 3.0 might actually happen.

The House returns Tuesday with only eight legislative days before they break again for the July 4 holiday. If members want a realistic chance at fulfilling their self-imposed timeline for advancing the legislation before the end of July — when they pause work again for another five weeks — they need to move fast.

That means assembling, and then adopting, a budget resolution — the first step in unlocking the filibuster skirting power of the reconciliation process. It took Republicans months to advance such a blueprint during their two earlier reconciliation efforts this Congress.

House GOP leaders are tentatively planning another senior-level reconciliation meeting for Wednesday, according to three people involved in the talks granted anonymity to discuss private plans.

Still, the House is coming back with several other moving items to deal with this week, including promised briefings on the president’s Iran deal and a major housing affordability package GOP leadership wants to clear as soon as Wednesday.

Reconciliation talks also come as President Donald Trump is expected to join the Senate’s GOP lunch Wednesday, where he’ll likely continue pushing the chamber to pass his SAVE America Act or attach pieces of the GOP elections bill to the party-line legislation (an idea one of the bill’s biggest backers, Sen. Mike Lee, spiked Sunday).

Republicans involved with Reconciliation 3.0 discussions also warn they need to reach a final agreement on how to pay for the bill as well as what policy items will be included before GOP leaders can try to advance any budget resolution.

At this point, however, many fiscal hawks and at-risk incumbents are largely unhappy about how the discussions are coming along.

“It’s fake pay-fors for defense spending no one has fully agreed to and no meaningful reforms,” said one House Republican granted anonymity to discuss private talks.

Back on the other side of the Capitol, GOP senators have been in no rush to start working on a third party-line bill, especially as they are consumed with other political fires — like trying to confirm Jay Clayton as director of national intelligence to speed up a FISA reauthorization (more on that below).

Rep. Morgan Griffith said he was confident if the right policies are included in the House plan the Senate would then take it up — although he, too, acknowledged the challenges of a short timeline.

“If we do it right, yeah,” Griffith said. “There’s some interesting things out there that are being discussed that could make it a real possibility.”

Kids online safety package

Guthrie and Pallone cement deal for kids online safety package

The new package complicates a separate push for a kids safety bill coming from the Senate.

By Owen Dahlkamp and Kelsey Brugger

The House Energy and Commerce Committee leadership reached a bipartisan deal for legislation to protect kids on the internet — a development that complicates Congress’ push to pass child safety legislation by the year’s end.

Committee Chair Brett Guthrie of Kentucky and ranking member Frank Pallone of New Jersey have an agreement on the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA, which aims to set stricter online safety standards for kids, according to committee spokesperson Matt VanHyfte.

The legislation, which already cleared the committee in March, will be updated under an expedited procedure and could be considered on the House floor next week, according to a person familiar with the deal who was granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Even if the House passes it, lawmakers would still need to resolve differences with a competing Senate version of KOSA, while addressing questions such as whether federal requirements on artificial intelligence should override state rules.

“We worked across the aisle for many months and have now found common ground on policies to significantly improve the digital environment for kids,” Guthrie and Pallone said in a joint statement.

“Through empowering parents, establishing safety as a default, strengthening privacy for children and teens, increasing transparency around data brokers, and holding Big Tech accountable, the KIDS Act delivers the 21st century protections parents have demanded and our kids deserve,” the pair added.

The committee passed a version of KOSA along partisan lines in March in a larger package called the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act, or KIDS Act, but Guthrie wanted to make the legislation bipartisan. The pair negotiated for months and reached an agreement late last week, said a committee aide granted anonymity to discuss private negotiations. Staff are expected to be briefed today on the updated language.

The House version of KOSA would not include the “duty of care” standard that would require companies to design social media platforms with kids’ safety in mind — a major sticking point for Democrats who previously rejected versions of KOSA without that language.

The bill would also override state laws that do not meet the federal standards while still allowing states to enact stricter regulations.

The language would also preempt state AI laws that relate to the policies in the proposal.

The KIDS Act, which includes KOSA, also includes bills that would require pornographic websites to implement age verification technology, bar minors from using disappearing messaging features and require AI-powered chatbots to disclose that they are not humans.

The White House and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) are working on a package that would include several online child safety bills and preempt some state AI laws.

That package is expected to include the Senate version of KOSA, which includes the “duty of care” standard; the NO FAKES Act, which would create new restrictions on AI deepfakes; and the App Store Accountability Act, which would require minors to obtain parental consent before downloading apps.

Meta, which killed a Senate-approved version of KOSA two years ago, is no longer opposing the Senate version of KOSA if the App Store Accountability Act and limited preemption of state AI laws are included.

British PM

Andy Burnham on course to be British PM in weeks after Keir Starmer quits

Britain could now have a new prime minister by mid-July after embattled Starmer quit — and Burnham’s main rival folded.

By Sam Francis, Dan Bloom and Matt Honeycombe-Foster

Andy Burnham, the man widely expected to replace Keir Starmer as U.K. prime minister, is on course to be running the country within weeks after a key rival for the Labour leadership folded and endorsed him.

Starmer announced his resignation as British prime minister Monday morning, bowing to pressure after Burnham, the popular former mayor of Greater Manchester, resoundingly won a by-election that would let him challenge for the leadership of the governing Labour Party.

In an at-times tearful statement outside No.10 Downing Street, Starmer — who has battled dire poll ratings and collapsing support among his own members of parliament — said he had informed King Charles III of his decision to quit.

He set out plans for a Labour leadership contest that would allow a new prime minister by September, and said he would stay in office to “ensure an orderly handover of power.” 

But in a significant move, Burnham has already been endorsed by Wes Streeting, the former cabinet minister who had been expected to be his main challenger for the job. It means it now looks almost inevitable that Burnham will become Britain’s prime minister in three and a half weeks’ time — without a full contest.

Streeting, the former health secretary, was seen as the only viable candidate who might have run in opposition to Burnham in a contest for the top job.

This is consequential not just for the shape of the race but the timing of a new administration.Many of Burnham’s allies wanted him to enter parliament in September no matter what — giving him time to firm up a policy platform.

But it now looks like he will be denied this chance. The thinking in Starmer’s camp is that, if there is a full contest, the new PM would be in office by Sept. 1. But if there is no contest the new PM would start work on July 17 or 18 — shortly after MP nominations close.

Labour’s ruling body will sign off the timetable for the contest this week. Three people familiar with its workings told POLITICO that it was likely to back this proposed timetable.

Streeting said of Burnham Monday: “We could spend the summer exaggerating small differences, or we can roll up our sleeves and help him to deliver the change our Party and our country needs. That is the choice that I am making and I hope that everyone else will back Andy, too.”

Starmer bows out

The dramatic change in the U.K.’s political scene comes after Burnham decisively beat the right-wing Reform UK in a special election in the northern English Makerfield seat, allowing him a route back in to parliament to challenge Starmer. The scale of Burnham’s win in Makerfield significantly boosted his momentum — and dashed Starmer’s hopes of fighting on in the job.

Since coming to office with a commanding House of Commons majority in 2024, Starmer’s Labour government has repeatedly struggled to gain momentum. It suffered huge losses to Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK in local elections, has been hit by multiple scandals, and Starmer has U-turned on a series of key policies in the face of pressure from his own ranks.

“The question my party is asking now is whether I am best placed to lead us into the next general election,” Starmer said outside No.10 Downing Street Monday, after reeling off his achievements as opposition leader and then in office.

“I have heard the answer of my parliamentary party to that question, and I accept that answer with good grace. Every decision I’ve taken has been about putting the country I love first. That is why I will resign as leader of the Labour party.”

Legacy

It’s a far cry from Starmer’s record in opposition. He took the reins of the Labour Party after its worst-ever general election defeat under leftist leader Jeremy Corbyn, and ended 14 years out of government by leaping forward to eclipse the Conservatives in a single parliamentary term.

Talking up his record, the outgoing prime minister said he had inherited a Labour Party that was “politically, financially and morally bankrupt.”

“We changed our party, ripping out the poison of anti-Semitism, restoring trust on the economy, defense and national security, and becoming a party that once again stood proudly with, not against, our national flag,” he said.

Britain now has an “economy that is stronger, growing faster than our peers” and “wages rising faster than inflation,” he added.

His voice cracking with emotion, Starmer told the crowd he was leaving “the biggest job in the country” to focus on “being the best husband I can to my fantastic wife Vic, who has been a rock by my side through good times and bad, and being the best dad I can to my beautiful children, who are my pride and my joy.”

Starmer’s most loyal allies watched on as he gave his Downing Street statement.

Among them were Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones and Attorney General Richard Hermer. 

Jenny Chapman, the international development minister who helped Starmer win the Labour leadership six years ago, was also there. 

June 18, 2026

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.