dollar

THE HOOK

Late Monday, Donald Trump signaled the ceasefire with Iran was effectively over, threatening fresh strikes and casting doubt on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Brent crude jumped past $90 a barrel. By Wednesday morning, the US Dollar Index had climbed to 99.73 — its highest in nearly three weeks — and the 10-year Treasury yield touched 4.81%, just shy of a 52-week high. The reason: traders now put the odds of a September Fed rate hike near 65–70%, not a cut.

THE MECHANISM

The chain runs cleanly enough to name. Iran’s conflict with the US raises the odds of a shipping disruption through Hormuz, which carries roughly a fifth of global oil supply; oil-price risk feeds straight into headline inflation; and a Fed under Chair Kevin Warsh — already fighting credibility questions after an ambiguous hold in July — cannot afford to look soft on prices while a war pushes them up. That is why futures markets have swung from pricing no move in 2026 to pricing a hike at the September 15–16 meeting.

Higher US rates make dollar assets pay more relative to everywhere else, which is the direct channel behind both the stronger DXY and the 4.81% ten-year. The winners are near-term and narrow: holders of short-dated Treasury bills, whose yields rise with the policy rate; US money-market funds; and, oddly, the stablecoin issuers whose reserves sit almost entirely in T-bills and now earn more for holding them. The losers are broader and slower-moving: emerging markets carrying dollar-denominated debt face a double bill, since a stronger dollar raises the local-currency cost of repayment at the same moment their own borrowing costs rise in sympathy with Washington’s. Oil-importing economies — India, Turkey, Japan, the eurozone — take a second hit, paying more for crude in a currency that is simultaneously getting more expensive to buy. Gold, meanwhile, is caught between two forces: safe-haven demand from the war pulls it up, rate-hike expectations pull it down, which is why it sits near $4,304, off its recent peak but still up 21% over the year.

WHY IT MATTERS

The apparent contradiction — dollar strong this week, dollar weaker for the decade — is really two different clocks running at once. Reserve managers make multi-year diversification bets; traders react to a war in hours. The IMF’s COFER data put the dollar at 57.13% of allocated reserves in the first quarter of 2026, down from 72% in 2000, and a recent survey of reserve managers found roughly three-quarters expect that share to keep falling over the next five years. None of that is undone by one hawkish week from Kevin Warsh.

What is new is where the dollar’s reach is actually growing: not in central bank vaults but in stablecoins. The GENIUS Act framework — now the subject of a Treasury rulemaking comment period that closes in October — has pushed issuers to back their tokens almost entirely with short-dated Treasuries, and forecasts from Standard Chartered and Senator Bill Hagerty put potential T-bill demand from stablecoins as high as $2–2.3 trillion. That is dollarization happening retail-first, in emerging-market wallets and crypto exchanges, invisible to COFER. For Washington, a Fed hike timed to a war raises borrowing costs precisely when the deficit needs cheap financing, and when the countries least able to absorb dearer dollars — many of them US partners, not adversaries — get hit hardest. That is a form of collateral leverage no sanctions list ever names.

WATCH FOR

The September 15–16 FOMC meeting is the date that resolves this. A 25-basis-point hike would confirm markets are right to treat this as an inflation fight, not a growth scare, and would likely push the dollar and yields higher still. A hold — especially if Hormuz tensions ease and oil retreats from $90 — would suggest Warsh blinked, and could send gold back toward its highs faster than the dollar can catch up. Either way, watch the Fed funds futures curve shift in the two weeks before the meeting.

A fresh wave of US tariffs on a wide array of Canadian goods has come into effect as of midnight on Saturday after a last minute break down in trade talks.

Announcing the suspension of negotiations shortly before the Friday night deadline, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he would impose reciprocal tariffs on US goods “dollar for dollar”.

Carney said “last-minute changes in the US proposed terms were unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal”.

Trade negotiators had been engaged in intense talks since July, after President Donald Trump threatened to impose a 50% levy on nearly $20bn (C$28bn) of Canadian imports by 19 August.

Trump had temporarily paused those tariffs earlier in the week, saying the two sides were close to signing a trade deal that was “very good” for both countries.

But minutes before a deadline for a deal, Carney said that while “important progress” had been made in the talks it was “not enough to meet our objectives for Canadians”.

“As a result, this evening, I have decided to suspend trade negotiations with the U.S. and have directed negotiators to return to Ottawa,” he said.

“Last-minute changes in the US proposed terms were unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal.”

After Carney’s announcement US trade representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement: “Tonight, Canada declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week.

“Despite the US offer to Canada to receive the best treatment of any major exporter to our market, new demands and walk backs of other commitments by Canada have upended the careful balance reached in the past days,” the statement on X said.

The breakdown in talks marks a significant shift in tone from earlier in the week, when both US and Canadian officials sounded optimistic that a trade deal beneficial for both countries was within reach.

Negotiators were reportedly discussing a deal that would reduce US tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium from 50% to 25%, and on Canadian autos from 25% to 15%.

In exchange, Carney had asked Canadian provinces to restore US alcohol to store shelves.

Tensions between the two major trading partners have been simmering since Trump returned to office in January last year and unleashed a wide-ranging global programme of tariffs, upending decades of free trade between Canada and the US.

Now that talks have broken down, Canada will be hit with new 50% US tariffs imposed by Trump using a Depression-era law called the Tariff Act of 1930.

They will be applied on a range of goods, including wine, dairy, cement, clothing and hockey equipment.

They are in addition to existing tariffs the US had already imposed on Canadian steel and aluminium, autos and lumber.

Doug Ford, the traditionally outspoken premier of Canada’s largest province Ontario, said “the prime minister has my full support for a strong response—tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar,” following Carney’s announcement.

Canada has been engaged in on-again, off-again trade negotiations with the US for over a year in pursuit of a deal that would see the US drop or reduce tariffs on these key sectors.

The US, meanwhile, has been asking for a number of concessions from Canada, including removing its remaining retaliatory tariffs on American autos and adjusting its dairy quotas to allow greater access for US cheese producers.

It has also asked for the ban on US alcohol sales, imposed last year by most Canadian provinces in retaliation to Trump’s tariffs, be removed.

Businesses and stakeholders on both sides of the border had pushed for a deal to be reached, arguing that the new US tariffs on Canada will be harmful to both countries.

The US Chamber of Commerce said earlier in the week in a statement that “higher tariffs would damage both economies, drive up costs for US families, further disrupt critical supply chains, and risk the 13 million American jobs that depend on trade under the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement”.

A recent poll by Canadian firm Abacus Data suggested that around 36% of Canadian would support retaliating to US tariffs, while another 30% would want the Carney government to continue negotiating.

Retaliation risks upsetting the Trump administration, with trade representative Jamieson Greer saying the US is “not going to tolerate” counter-tariffs.

“We’ll take action,” he told reporters last week.

In the grand buffet of problems explaining President Trump’s abysmal approval ratings, reserve a tray for Mexican food.

Americans are rightfully frustrated with the myriad consequences of the war with Iran he plunged us into, the rising cost of living, his pharaonic obsession with monuments to himself and his overall doddering state of mind.

But as this president afflicts the country with a prolonged civic bout of Montezuma’s Revenge, Mexican food’s role in the overall mess Trump has left us with is notable.

One of this country’s most popular cuisines has inadvertently spent this summer embarrassing Trump in fundamental ways — and I’m not just talking about TACO, the acronym referring to how Trump Always Chickens Out on his most bombastic claims and threats. The most prominent — and disgusting — example has been outbreak of foodborne illness traced back to popular Mexican restaurant chains that have sickened tens of thousands of Americans while Trump has shrugged and effectively told us to eat frijoles.

The Food and Drug administration traced an outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a parasite-born intestinal disease, to contaminated lettuce grown in Mexico by Salinas-based Taylor Fresh Foods that made its way to Taco Bell. The world’s biggest Mexican fast food chain quickly put out a statement that it removed all suspected lettuce from its restaurants and that “we encourage all relevant restaurants, retailers, and foodservice operators to do the same.”

If only the Trump administration was as proactive in caring for the well-being of Americans as the creators of Doritos Locos tacos and Crunchwrap Supremes.

It turned out that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network told state inspectors last year that they were no longer required to report to the agency any instances of the parasite that causes cyclosporiasis they found in this country’s food supply. This was part of massive cutbacks at the CDC that reduced its staff by a quarter and cut billions of dollars in funding.

When reporters confronted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. with these facts, he responded that such criticisms were “invalid” and that the cyclosporiasis outbreak was “under control.”

Make America Healthy Again? More like Make Americans Heave Always.

A bean and cheese burrito with green chile sauce at Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights.

(Kirk McKoy/Los Angeles Times)

On Aug. 4, the Food and Drug Administration revealed that a salmonella outbreak traced back to contaminated jalapeños imported from Mexico had left hundreds of Americans sick. But the feds were two weeks late to the news: By July 20, Chipotle had already removed all suspected jalapeños from its stores. Unlike the Trump administration, it had invested in food-safety tracking that quickly spotted the problem, a system implemented after the company suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in sales losses and a $25-million federal fine last decade due to repeated foodborne illnesses originating in its stores.

I’m no fan of Chipotle’s underwhelming hipster vibe or Taco Bell’s over-salted options, but they know what the Trump administration seems to not understand: Americans deserve to eat without worrying about whether they’ll get ill as a result. And they also know Americans especially like Mexican food, a cuisine dependent on exported produce that is now more expensive than ever because of Trump’s misguided tariffs and overall bellicosity to our Latin America trading partners.

You would think Trump himself would know: Remember the infamous photo he posted on Cinco de Mayo during his first term of him smiling at his desk appearing ready to chow down on a giant taco salad bowl?

Which leads to the second section of Trump’s combo plate of bad Mexican food news this year. On the same day the FDA belatedly disclosed the jalapeño salmonella outbreak, Turning Point USA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet posted on social media that a college student complained to him that “a burrito shouldn’t cost $20.” Kolvet correctly pointed out that many people currently feel the cost of living is too high, and rightfully suggested that Republican Party leaders should sympathize with such concerns lest they lose even more voters that they already have during Trump’s second term.

Instead, Trump toadies from Vice President JD Vance to Rep. Dan Crenshaw urged young people to eat instant ramen and live frugally instead of splurge on burritos. That provoked other conservative activists to smack down the MAGA Men for showing how out of touch they are with how expensive everything is right now.

Forget the Consumer Price Index: The cost of a burrito is the best way to judge how much the cost of living actually is. I haven’t regularly bought them for years because they’re just not worth it anymore.

A delicious, slender bean-and-cheese burrito with no sauce at the venerable Al & Bea’s in Boyle Heights is going for six bucks and change right now when it was about $2 cheaper two years ago. The gargantuan breakfast burritos at my favorite place to get one, Athenian III in Buena Park, run about $13. Even my go-to fast-food treat, a half-pound Del Taco bean-and-cheese burrito, costs $2.61 with tax at the closest location to my house.

Remember when they were about a dollar? I do.

As someone whose wife runs a restaurant, I don’t blame businesses for hiking their prices; I blame Trump. He campaigned two years ago on stopping and reversing the runaway inflation that was happening toward the end of the Biden administration and won over a lot of Mexican Americans as a result. But when those voters can’t even enjoy a carne asada burrito for lunch without thinking about whether they’ll have enough money for the rest of the week, that should worry Trump and his team as the November midterms approach.

That they’re collectively still blaming Biden shows how pendejos they are at best, and uncaring at worst.

Back to that 2016 Cinco de Mayo photo of himself enjoying a taco salad sold at his Trump Hotel in Manhattan. It was peak Trump: daring opponents to call him out for appropriating a hallmark of Cal-Mex dining while thinking Americans would see the move as a metaphor for the bounties of riches and good times Trump would usher in for this country.

A decade later, Trump just makes too many Americans want to run to the proverbial toilet and barf from all the slop he and his minions have cooked up for our country.

The epic whining heard across MLB over the Tarik Skubal acquisition is evidence Andrew Friedman and Dodgers management are a masterclass in demonstrating creative leadership to cultivate a winning ballclub. If you doubt this, check Steve Cohen’s Mets: monster payroll, less than .500 record.

Any talk of changing the rules, salary cap or otherwise, to put reins on this kind of success would propagate underperformance and penalize this fascinating culture of constant improvement. No one’s breaking rules. Any team could be doing what the Dodgers are doing if they had the wherewithal.

Valerie Martinez-Bencomo
Claremont

Unlike the Saturday evening shocker that occurred when the Lakers acquired Luka Doncic, it was no Saturday night surprise to learn the Dodgers traded for Tarik Skubal.

What was a surprise was the relatively minor amount the Dodgers had to give up to acquire the reigning two-time AL Cy Young Award winner. It is highly doubtful that Zyhir Hope will turn into the next Yordan Álvarez, or that River Ryan or Brady Smith will develop into the next Pedro Martinez.

Irrespective of whether Skubal signs a contract extension, as long as he does not complain of a ‘dead arm’ or sustain another injury, this appears to be an excellent deal for the Dodgers.

Ken Feldman
Tarzana

The Dodgers’ acquisition of Tarik Skubal is just another example of the team’s willingness to cause a lockout and blow up the 2027 season.

I understand why. Destroying the 2027 baseball season will give the team’s starting rotation a full year to recover from its numerous injuries.

Ed Kaz
Oak Park

The excitement over the Dodgers getting Tarik Skubal should be tempered by a couple of factors.

Skubal could care less about a Dodgers three-peat. Sure, he wants to show he hasn’t lost anything because of injury. He will have several starts during the rest of the season to do that.

His main priority will then be to avoid any injury that might compromise his value in the marketplace. (Remember Max Scherzer?)

Some of the other top-notch Dodgers starters might also be unhappy if denied a chance to start a postseason game.

Richard Balsam
Mar Vista

A $1.15 trillion US defence bill passed by the House includes plans to expand military cooperation with Israel through joint work on missile defence, drones and AI. Critics warn the move could deepen ties amid growing political divisions over aid to Israel.

Is the Trump administration actually stealing from Venezuelans?

The Financial Times estimated the “likely value” of Venezuela’s oil revenues since January, when those income streams (not only from oil and gas, but also from gold and other minerals) came under the direct control and supervision of the US government. Using data from Kpler and Argus Media, the newspaper put the figure at $13 billion. 

Let’s assume that one figure is accurate or at least comes close to the real number. The key question here, which neither the United States nor Venezuelan authorities have bothered to answer, is how much of that has been trickling back to the Venezuelan economy.

American officials, in press conferences and hearings, have given remarks about how the revenue repatriation framework is supposed to work under the current arrangement. There was a temporary framework immediately after the gringo takeover (the famous Qatar fund we reported in January). Now, it allegedly works like this:

1) Oil revenues flow into accounts managed by the US Treasury. Crude buyers, such as India and Spain, route payments into US-controlled “Foreign Government Deposit Funds.” 

2) Secretary of State Marco Rubio (empowered by Executive Order 14373) provides instructions to the Treasury for disbursements to Venezuelan entities, particularly the Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV).

3) The funds land in BCV accounts.

4) One chunk of that pays pensions, public workers’ salaries, the military and the police apparatus, i.e. the basic components of the State.

5) Another part of those dollars is channelled to the domestic banking system through a select group of private banks—here’s where things start to get tricky. Rather than holding competitive auctions or floating currency rates on a free market, the BCV distributes capped quotas of dollars to these banks at the strictly controlled official exchange rate.

6) At the final stage, from commercial banks to the private sectors, the transaction is a direct cash sale: to purchase dollars, Venezuelan companies must have the full equivalent in bolivars ready in their accounts. Banks immediately debit the buyer’s bolivar account at the day’s official rate and credit the equivalent dollars into the company’s local foreign-currency account. It works as a rationing mechanism, since major corporations (e.g. those in key sectors like food and medicine) are prioritized, and smaller companies acquire USD on a first-come, first-served basis through online banking platforms until daily dollar quotas run out.

Good. So now we know how the repatriation framework is supposed to work.

Let’s go back to the $13 billion figure, and the stage of the sequence connecting the US Treasury and the BCV. The US calls itself de facto custodian of Venezuelan money (remember EO14373 speaks of the “Custodial Nature of United States Possession”), so it should showcase full transparency over those transactions and demand accountability from the Delcy Rodríguez government. How much money has the US disbursed? Has it published anything about those disbursements? What about the Delcy government?

The fundamental question is not only how much revenue the US and the Rodríguez administration are processing, but who ultimately benefits from these flows and whether they contribute to genuine economic recovery.

Here’s where the news is worse. Washington has not disclosed anything concrete. What we know is limited to what US officials tell journalists (mainly foreign correspondents) off the record, which is very vague, and very little. Most recently, a “senior US official” told reporter Stephania Taladrid (who wrote this 11-pager about Maria Corina Machado) that the Trump administration “authorized the disbursement of more than six billion dollars to Rodríguez’s government.” Officials had given some accounts of the amounts disbursed in the first days of the arrangement. For instance, Rubio mentioned that $300m were disbursed through the Qatari fund during a Senate hearing in late January. In early February, an anonymous US official confirmed that Venezuela received its first $500 million post-Maduro. That was the first full disbursement, the last one that the US addressed, though without offering any form of paper trail.

You could say things are equally opaque on Delcy’s front, with the caveat that we are used to this defining feature of the chavista regime. I should add something else about the US-Venezuela framework explained above: according to public statements from American officials, Caracas should submit monthly budget requests to the US, so Rubio can keep authorizing cash transfers with peace of mind. The State Department (through Western Hemisphere chief diplomat Michael Kozak, who is playing an important role in Venezuelan politics) said in April that the accounting firm KPMG was hired to produce quarterly audits of how Venezuelan oil revenues are being spent. He also claimed that, by then, $3 billion had been “moved through” to Venezuela.

Three months later, those reports do not exist. Or are not public at least. It seems that our friend El Kenedi was right when he warned Venezuela will never show you the money, but that’s the Viceroy’s fault, not just Delcy’s.

The Financial Times, which ran the story that ignited the controversy, is playing an interesting role in shaping the conversation about the value of Venezuelan assets and liabilities. Right before the devastating earthquakes, an FT scoop said the Delcy government would reveal a $240 billion debt pile (“much higher than expected”). The latest article might not paint the full picture (as a New York Times reporter suggests) but it’s perhaps the first major broadsheet to lambast Trump for his irresponsible (and misleading) remarks, and his team for the lack of transparency over the handling of Venezuelan money. This issue is nothing new, although the recent catastrophe makes full disclosure much more urgent. Other prominent figures and organizations had raised their voice before the quakes.

On June 2, Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann wrote a column in Project Syndicate titled “The Rape of Venezuela” where he addresses this issue and others, including the politics of the looming debt restructuring and the lack of a democratic recovery. In it, he accuses the Trump White House of viewing Venezuela not as a democratic reconstruction project, but as a strategic hydrocarbon asset in the service of American power. A day later, the Council on Foreign Relations (a leading liberal-leaning US think tank) broke down how US control of Venezuelan oil remains murky. That has served as a valuable source for much of the stuff we mention here.

Going back to yesterday’s story, it quotes Venezuelan economist Alejandro Grisanti noting clear indications of large dollar inflows over the past few months. While Grisanti had initially expected economic growth to accelerate in the fourth quarter of this year, he noted that the recent earthquake is now likely to push that recovery back into the middle of next year.

These “indications of large dollar inflows” provide a clear clue as to how the Delcy Rodríguez administration is spending the oil revenues disbursed by the US Treasury. The BCV continues to deploy significant foreign currency reserves to artificially stabilize the official exchange rate. As Juan Comella observed in May, Rodríguez’s monetary policy differs little from that of the Maduro regime. Grisanti and Ecoanalítica remain sharp critics of this interventionist model, the very mechanism that wrecked Venezuela’s economy in the first place by turning privileged access to official-rate dollars into a primary driver of systemic corruption and economic inefficiency.

In an April report, Ecoanalítica criticized the rigid framework governing the domestic private sector’s acquisition of foreign exchange. Only entities with foreign bank accounts (which can be cleared through the SWIFT network) can buy dollars from the select group of major Venezuelan banks, effectively excluding emerging firms and SMEs. Consequently, local businesses receiving US dollars often cannot execute international transactions (such as paying overseas vendors) because they lack the proper banking infrastructure or because their local financial institutions lack correspondent banks abroad. Furthermore, the report highlights that retail accounts held by natural persons capture 20-30% of total FX allocations. This reflects the classic playbook of rewarding cronies while perpetuating market distortions: privileged individuals purchase dollars cheaply at the official BCV rate and immediately offload them on the parallel market at a premium.

We may not know the exact figures, but funds are trickling through the system. The fundamental question is not only how much revenue the US and the Rodríguez administration are processing, but who ultimately benefits from these flows and whether they contribute to genuine economic recovery.

Published on
30/06/2026 – 11:57 GMT+2

The Japanese yen fell to around 162.4 per dollar in Asian trading on Tuesday morning, its lowest level since 1986.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The drop extends a punishing run for the yen, which has kept weakening despite the Bank of Japan’s efforts to support it, and now revives the prospect that the authorities will step into the market directly.

Japan’s finance minister, Satsuki Katayama, has already responded to the situation by stating that the government was ready to take “appropriate” and even “decisive” action against excessive currency moves, adding that she had confirmed with Washington that such a step remained an option.

Traders are now watching closely for any sign that Tokyo is selling US dollars to prop up the yen, as it did in the spring.

At the heart of the weakness is the current wide gap between Japanese and American interest rates.

Even after the Bank of Japan raised its benchmark to 1% in mid-June, its highest since 1995, Japanese yields remain far below those in the US, where ten-year government bonds have recently paid around 4.5%, compared with roughly 2.6% in Japan.

That gap sustains the so-called carry trade, in which investors borrow cheaply in yen to buy higher-yielding assets elsewhere, continually pushing the currency down.

A robust dollar has compounded the pressure.

The greenback has drawn safe-haven demand from tensions around the conflict involving Iran, while expectations that the US Federal Reserve could raise rates later this year, even as the Bank of Japan moves cautiously, have widened the divide further.

Japan’s heavy reliance on imported energy, which is costlier amid elevated oil prices, has also added to demand for US dollars.

A test for Tokyo

The renewed slide is a headache for policymakers who have already thrown considerable firepower at the problem.

Between April and May, Japan spent a record ¥11.7 trillion (€63.3bn) intervening in currency markets, the largest such effort on record, yet the Japanese yen has continued to weaken.

Domestic politics has not helped, with the big-spending, growth-focused agenda of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi raising doubts about Japan’s fiscal discipline.

Analysts say the immediate risk of intervention is high, given that speculative bets against the Japanese yen have climbed to multi-year peaks and a fresh four-decade low tends to sharpen political anxiety in Tokyo.

However, many doubt that buying the currency would reverse its course for long, since the underlying rate gap remains firmly against it.

The Bank of Japan’s next policy decision, due on 31 July, is now in sharp focus, with further rate rises seen as the more durable route to stemming the decline.

For now, the Japanese yen remains at the mercy of forces its central bank has struggled to control.

Yes, you should visit Mexico City. Don’t overthink it and don’t delay. Despite excessive tourism and rising gentrification fears, the seething capital of Mexico — 25 million souls strong — remains a top-tier international destination for any committed food lover. And the intensity of its dining scene seems to be only growing.

Sure, a wave of privileged remote workers oozing dollars and euros may have dampened the vibe for Mexico City natives, leading to protests. The post-pandemic issues of housing displacement and rising costs for locals are serious challenges that political leaders must address. Yet time and again, on every visit, the resiliency and passion that original defeños have for their gastronomical paradise proves to be boundless.

Use these handy dining guides for all of your summer travel, near and far.

I have traveled to Mexico City regularly since 2002 and lived there for nearly a decade. I won’t feel slighted if you prefer the dining advice of current residents, or from any of the numerous local dining guides online. But one thing about me, I have an aversion to hype, and tend to avoid the city’s contemporaneous food magnets where the ratio of foreigners to locals is too out of whack. (No, the Michelin-starred taqueria was never extraordinarily better than any others in its bracket.) Where my native friends go, I go.

Here are highlights of my top, top, top recommendations from my L.A. Times restaurant guides on Mexico City, plus a few more favorites. My goal here is to distill down your options for a concentrated, food-centric visit, from nostalgic jewels beloved by hardscrabble chilangos to the celebrated shrines of high-end chefs reaping the bounties of the Valley of Mexico.

June 23 (UPI) — President Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Iran releasing millions into the Iranian economy Monday,

allowing American dollar trade for the first time since 1979.

The U.S. Treasury on Monday issued a 60-day exemption allowing Iran to produce and sell crude oil, petrochemical and petroleum products in U.S. dollars through Aug. 21.

Under this general license, boats and entities that were sanctioned are also cleared to operate. The waiver could also open up allowing U.S. imports of Iranian oil, which hasn’t happened since the 1990s.

Trump defended the move on Truth Social Tuesday morning, saying that the money to Iran is to be used for food and supplies purchased from the United States.

“Despite their protestations and false statements to the contrary, coupled with the drumbeat of the Fake News, which is doing everything possible to make the U.S. Victory as small and insignificant as possible, Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!). This will insure ‘Nuclear Honesty.’ If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!” the president posted.

“Based on this and other major concessions being made by Iran, I have agreed to allow the Hormuz Strait to remain OPEN, with no further Naval Blockade. However, all ships are remaining in place should it be necessary to reinstitute the Blockade, which seems, at this point, highly unlikely. The Money and/or Sanctions that the U.S. Treasury is releasing goes into escrow, controlled by the U.S.A., and will be used for the purchase of food and medical supplies, exclusively from the United States, including Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers. These are things that are desperately needed by Iran. This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help, NOW, before it is too late. Talks are going well!” he said.

Vice President JD Vance said Monday that during peace talks on Sunday, Iran agreed to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency back into the country for inspections.

But Iran denied that concession Tuesday morning.

A controversial proposal to tax California billionaires to fund healthcare has tenatively qualified for the November ballot, setting the stage for a more intense and expensive battle over whether the state should squeeze the ultra-rich.

Supporters say the proposed tax is crucial to compensate for federal healthcare funding cuts, approved by President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, that will harm millions of the state’s most vulnerable residents.

In April, supporters of the billionaire tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures, roughly double the number needed to qualify. The California secretary of state’s office on Wednesday declared that enough valid signatures were submitted. The initiative will officially qualify for the Nov. 3 ballot on June 25 unless the proponents withdraw it beforehand.

The initiative would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exceptions, such as property. The levy could be paid over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on food assistance and education programs. The proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it.

Opponents of the measure say the proposal is an ineffective attempt to address the long-term effects of the healthcare cuts and would destroy California’s economy and budget.

The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

The proposal already triggered a fierce debate, accentuating the divide between the rich and poor in a state that’s expensive to live in.

The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and other supporters of the billionaire tax say that it would raise $100 billion, offsetting federal funding cuts to healthcare as well as funding education and state food assistance.

But supporters face strong opposition from billionaires with deep pockets. Tech executives and other business leaders oppose the idea and have threatened to move to other states. Opponents say taxing billionaires would harm California’s economy while not addressing underlying financial issues.

The proposal also has divided politicians within the Democratic Party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out against the billionaire tax, expressing fears that billionaires would move out of the state. But U.S. lawmakers such as California Rep. Ro Khanna and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders have backed a billionaire tax, saying the rich should pay their fair share to fund essential services.

Business executives have already poured millions of dollars into groups that oppose the billionaire tax or are promoting alternative solutions to wealth inequality.

Tech executives, venture capitalists and business leaders have donated roughly $118 million to a nonprofit called Building a Better California, according to data on the secretary of state’s website. Most of the funding comes from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who has given more than $82 million to the group. Executives from DoorDash, Ripple, Stripe and other companies also have contributed.

The group says it supports policies such as expanding access to affordable housing, protecting innovation, requiring government transparency and securing more stable education funding.

PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel has contributed $3 million to the California Business Roundtable, which opposes the tax. Former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt donated $1 million to that group as well.

California would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax if it passed, but it could also lose other tax revenue, a December letter from the state legislative analyst’s office said. The office also mentioned that it’s tough to predict the exact amount the state would collect because of factors that can affect a billionaire’s wealth such as fluctuating stock prices.

California billionaires who were residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be affected by the ballot measure if it passes. Some wealthy residents announced plans to moves out of state. On Dec. 31, venture capitalist David Sacks announced that he was opening an office in Austin, Texas, the same day Thiel publicized his firm had opened a new office in Miami.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A former senior CIA official accused of stashing more than $40 million worth of gold bars from the federal government at his Virginia home was ordered to remain jailed until his trial after a hearing Friday where a defense attorney accused prosecutors of smearing the official with “sensational,” irrelevant allegations.

The defendant, David J. Rush, has both the means and motive to flee while the case against him is pending, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick ruled, citing Rush’s professional experience.

“He’s in a different position than most people to flee and avoid detection by law enforcement,” Fitzpatrick said.

Rush is charged with fraudulently claiming tens of thousands of dollars in compensation for military leave after he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy in 2015. He was arrested last month after investigators searched his home and seized more than 300 gold bars, roughly $2 million in U.S. currency and about 35 luxury watches, according to an FBI agent’s affidavit.

Rush’s attorney, Jessica Carmichael, noted that Rush isn’t charged with any crimes related to the discovery of the gold bars, which she referred to as “basically a non-issue” and “nothing more than a sensational tidbit.” She said Rush properly obtained the gold bars and kept them locked in a safe in his basement.

“Mr. Rush never claimed they were his,” she said.

Between last November and March, Rush requested and received a “significant quantity” of foreign currency and tens of millions of dollars in gold bars for “work-related expenses,” according to the FBI affidavit. Justice Department prosecutor Gavin Tisdale said Rush wasn’t supposed to have the gold bars at his home.

“That’s the issue — his skirting of rules and regulations,” he said.

Tisdale briefly summarized the case against Rush in open court after a portion of the hearing was sealed from the public. The evidence against Rush “grows stronger by the day,” Tisdale told the magistrate judge.

“Mr. Rush simply cannot be trusted to abide by this court’s conditions,” he said.

Rush enlisted in the Navy in 1997 and was honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy Reserves as a lieutenant in 2015, according to the affidavit.

Authorities claim Rush lied about his education and military background on job applications, falsely claiming to be a former Navy pilot who graduated with a bachelor’s degree from Clemson University in South Carolina and a master’s degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York.

Investigators determined that he didn’t serve as a Navy pilot and didn’t attend either school.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.