VERITY Bowditch has just announced that she’s gotten engaged to her boyfriend, Cameron Jack.
The Made In Chelsea star, 30, took to Instagram to share a series snaps with her followers to celebrate the major milestone.
Verity made the first post to her Instagram story, flashing her round engagement ring to the camera as she laughed.
Cameron had his arms wrapped around her while kissing her cheek, and the date of June 27 was written underneath the picture.
The second snap showed the happy couple kissing in a field, accompanied by the words: “Get to spend the rest of my life with the love of my life!”
Verity continued to gush while flashing the ring in the streets, describing the proposal as “the most perfect, romantic and thoughtful proposal that ever could have been created.”
Read more Verity Bowditch
A final snap showed a typed up letter addressed to Verity from Cameron that provided some insight into the proposal. It read: “Good morning my darling!
“Today is a very special day. A day I have been planning for over a year.
“A scavenger hunt has been laid out across London for you. Each clue you solve will lead you to another important location. Solve them all and meet me at the finish line.
“Expect the unexpected, and look out for some of my helpers along the way! Because in the words of The Beatles: ‘I get by with a little help from my friends.’
“Ps. I know you may be eager to skip straight to the end, but I have designed what I hope will be the best day of your life.
“So please, take your time and enjoy every minute of it, I’m not going anywhere! I love you xxx”
Verity also made a post to her Instagram grid that saw her scooped up in Cameron’s arms while going in for a smooch.
The star captioned the picture with: “I’m going to marry the love of my life.”
Verity and Cameron have kept their relationship very private, so it’s unknown when they first started dating.
However, they were first linked in public during 2024 when Cameron praised Verity online, saying how proud he was of her.
The Los Angeles City Council voted Tuesday to pull a measure from the Nov. 3 ballot that would have created a pathway to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections.
The council, on a unanimous vote, sent the draft ballot language to a committee for additional study after several councilmembers said it had not been properly vetted.
Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez acknowledged that he had not done enough outreach on the proposal, and had received letters from members of the Black community voicing concerns.
“I grew up in South Central Los Angeles. The Black and Brown solidarity is deep to me, and means something to me, and I don’t want this to be something that gets pushed through that is seen as a negative, something negative for the city of Los Angeles,” he said.
Soto-Martínez said he would keep pursuing the proposal in a future election so that when it passes, the city can have a “big celebration.”
The noncitizen voting proposal was not the only one dropped by the council at the 11th hour.
In a separate vote, the council scrapped plans for a Nov. 3 ballot measure that would have given council members power over policy at the Los Angeles Police Department. The Board of Los Angeles Police Commissioners, whose members are appointed by the mayor, currently have that responsibility.
The council voted 8-6 to further study the ballot proposal after the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file members, threatened to sue the city, saying labor negotiators failed to meet and confer with them over the proposal.
The plan for expanding voting rights for noncitizens was unveiled by Soto-Martínez two months ago, It would have authorized the City Council to pass an ordinance allowing noncitizens to cast ballots in L.A. city and school board elections.
But many of the details had not yet been worked out, such as which groups would receive the franchise and whether Los Angeles County election officials would be capable of adopting such a system.
These questions were raised again Tuesday by Councilmember Traci Park, who voted “yes” on the proposal two weeks ago, but said this time that too much is still unknown about how it would work. She voiced fears about the city’s ability to protect noncitizen voters if federal immigration agents show up at polling places.
“My concern here is that if this goes to the ballot, the voters won’t really know what they’re voting for, because we don’t really know either,” she said. “These are things that should be figured out well in advance before we put anything in the charter at all.”
Councilmember John Lee held up a print-out of a warning on the San Francisco elections website. San Francisco allows noncitizens to vote in school board elections, and the website includes a notice stating: “Any information you provide to the Department of Elections, including your name and address, may be obtained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies, organizations, and individuals.”
“Given the experience of the only California city that currently allows noncitizen voting, it is not fear mongering to raise these concerns,” he said. “They are real issues that must be addressed before Los Angeles asks voters to approve a similar system.
Soto-Martínez said he viewed the warnings from Lee and Park as fear mongering, noting that immigrant rights groups were ready to move forward with his proposal.
“This country was created by people taking courage and pushing so that everyone can have the right to vote,” he said.
Proponents of a tax on California billionaires vowed on Thursday to move forward with their November ballot measure despite mounting opposition from many of the state’s most powerful political forces.
A labor union spent $31 million gathering signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot in an effort to offset federal healthcare funding cuts that will affect millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. A representative for the campaign supporting the ballot measure pushed back at opposition to the effort as self-entitled wealthy Californians and entrenched Sacramento interests.
“While a few morally bankrupt billionaires and their buddies in Sacramento want to see California’s hospitals close, and tax breaks for billionaires protected — I assure you, the vast majority of voters do not,” said Debru Carthan, a spokesperson for the Billionaire Tax Now Coalition, which is funded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsor of the proposal.
The California secretary of state is expected to officially certify the measure for the Nov. 3 ballot on Thursday evening.
Carthan said their effort has support in public opinion polls, and from lawmakers, unions, community organizations and volunteers across the state, “something the billionaires and their buddies will never have.”
However, a coalition of healthcare, education, public safety, housing, business and labor leaders opposed to the proposal warned that it would make the state’s notoriously unstable budget even more unpredictable.
“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the leaders of the California Medical Assn., the California Primary Care Assn. and the California School Boards Assn. said in a statement. “That’s why so many leaders – both Democrats and Republicans – are joining us and saying NO. We look forward to ensuring voters have the facts, know the stakes, and resoundingly reject this reckless experiment in November.”
Supporters of the one-time proposed 5% tax on the assets of the state’s wealthiest residents pitched the effort as a stop-gap measure to offset devastating federal healthcare funding cuts passed by the GOP-led Congress and signed by President Trump nearly one year ago. The federal legislation is expected to result in $100 billion in cuts that would affect California’s most vulnerable residents.
The proposed tax, which would be retroactive to billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1, drew predictable opposition from the wealthy, notably Silicon Valley tech leaders.
But it notably divided liberals. While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) supported the proposal, Gov. Gavin Newsom was among the Democrats who opposed it because of fears about the potential impact on the state’s volatile budget.
Despite being the fourth largest economy in the world — the home of Hollywood and Silicon Valley — California’s budget is extremely dependent on the state’s most prosperous residents.
Newsom and others who generally support increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans also argued that the proposed billionaire tax in California was poorly crafted and that any such levies ought to be enacted nationally, because varying state policies would be ineffective.
Opponents also argued that the political priority in the 2026 midterm election should be squarely focused on efforts to make sure Democrats regain control of Congress to serve as a counter balance during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.
“It’s disappointing. This is a critical election where we need to concentrate on flipping the house and undoing the damage that was done” by Trump’s legislation that led to the healthcare funding cuts, said Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. The wealth tax “is short term and doesn’t address what is the long-term problem. And I’m not even sure the policy is a viable solution. It’s so critical to be sending the right message — holding Congress accountable and how we need to find long-term solutions to make sure Californians have access to healthcare.”
Rob Lapsley, co-chair of Californians Against Tax Increases and president of the California Business Roundtable, argued that the proposed wealth tax would ultimately affect every Californian.
“Strip away the spin, and this measure forces every California taxpayer, not just billionaires, to file a sworn declaration of their net worth with the Franchise Tax Board under penalty of perjury,” Lapsley said in a statement. “And it hands the Legislature the power to extend the wealth tax to all Californians and every kind of property, including home equity, retirement savings without ever returning to the voters – effectively gutting” voter-approved caps on property tax increases.
Supporters of the tax submitted nearly 1.6 million signatures in April to qualify the proposal for the ballot, roughly double the number required. However, support for the effort has grown increasingly shaky. Newsom’s team created a broad coalition of opponents, including healthcare and education activists, that undercut the foundational argument for the tax.
The union that crafted the proposal responded last week by proposing a legislative alternative that would create a 2% tax on billionaire’s assets. It was flatly refused by the Newsom administration. No deal was reached by the Thursday evening deadline for the union to withdraw the proposal from the November ballot.
Two efforts that were crafted to sink the proposed billionaire tax — dubbed as poison pills — also qualified for the Nov. 3 ballot, according to the California Secretary of State’s office. One would bar new state taxes on personal property, while the other prohibits any new taxes being exempted from existing state spending rules and to be regularly audited. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but either of the other proposals receives more votes, the tax measure would be voided.
The proposed billionaire tax would apply to more than 200 Californians, some of whom proactively left the state or moved their companies out of California because of the proposal.
The prospect of the wealthy fleeing the state is among the reasons that prominent Democrats such as Newsom opposed it, given California’s budget being so reliant on the state’s most prosperous residents.
Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, is among the billionaires who have reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to an organization that is funding efforts to invalidate the proposed billionaire tax.
Ballot measure proponents had a Thursday evening deadline to withdraw their proposals.
Other policy proposals that will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot include:
Two notable proposals were pulled off the ballot after negotiations between the California Hospital Assn. and labor unions:
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.
In a few days, Los Angeles voters will be casting ballots for city attorney — and in a few months, they could be voting to sharply diminish the city attorney’s authority.
The city’s Charter Reform Commission has proposed splitting the city attorney’s office into two parts — an elected city prosecutor, charged with handling criminal misdemeanors, and a mayor-appointed and City Council-confirmed city attorney who would represent the city in civil cases and advise the mayor, city council and city departments.
The City Council is reviewing the recommendation as part of sweeping changes to city government, including expanding the council from 15 to 25 seats, which could go before voters in the Nov. 3 general election.
The proposed changes to the city attorney’ office, however, come in the midst of a heated primary campaign, where incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto is up against three challengers, including a state deputy attorney general and a deputy district attorney.
Both of those challengers say plans to bifurcate the city attorney’s office are rooted in longstanding conflicts between Feldstein Soto and the City Council.
Council members have expressed frustration over her handling of rising costs from an outside law firm, where the payout amount has grown to nearly $7.5 million — with some attorneys billing the city roughly $1,300 an hour.
And last year, City Council took a 12-0 vote to direct Feldstein Soto to withdraw an effort to halt a federal judge’s order prohibiting LAPD officers from targeting journalists with crowd control weapons.
“When I first heard about this idea, I thought it was probably the greatest indictment of the current city attorney that I’ve heard yet,” said John McKinney, a Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who is running for city attorney in Tuesday’s primary.
McKinney opposes the bifurcation, saying it will cause overlap and confusion. “If she was doing a good job … we wouldn’t even be having this discussion,” he said.
Marissa Roy, another candidate in the race, hasn’t taken a position on bifurcation but said Feldstein Soto’s actions triggered the proposed change.
“The only reason that bifurcation, or splitting the city attorney’s office, is even going to be going before voters is because we’ve had an incumbent city attorney who has gone so rogue to politicize the role,” said Roy, a deputy state attorney general.
Roy said accused Feldstein Soto of inappropriately blocking an affordable housing project in Venice. And in her office’s role of drafting ordinance language, Roy said, Feldstein Soto has returned to city council ordinance language that isn’t “faithful to the intent of the drafter.”
Feldstein Soto said the proposal to bifurcate the office has nothing to do with her performance.
“This issue comes up every single time charter reform comes up,” Feldstein Soto said. “To me this is all political opportunism.”
Feldstein Soto has opposed the split, and former city attorneys have also come out against it, saying an appointed position threatens the independence of the city attorney’s office, takes away from voters the right to elect a city attorney and could cost taxpayers money in order to split the office.
In a March letter to the Charter Reform Commission, Feldstein Soto said an attorney “serving at the pleasure” of the mayor and city council would face an “innate, human pressure to harmonize legal advice with the political goals of the appointing officials.”
“I have been able to provide honest, accurate legal advice to the Mayor, City Council, Controller and departments — even when that advice is unwelcome — precisely because I am an independently elected officeholder with an ultimate duty to the public,” she wrote. “An appointed City Attorney, serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and City Council, faces enormous political pressure on all of these issues, behind closed doors, cloaked in privilege without an independent voice.”
Burt Pines, a former city attorney who served from 1973 to 1981, deeply opposes the bifurcation proposal, citing the threat to independence as the largest issue at stake. As city attorney, he said, he was empowered to tell city officials when a proposed action was unlawful and refuse to support it.
“You want to be able to call the shots as you see them, true to the law,” Pines said in an interview.
Advocates say other cities have bifurcated offices, and splitting it could reduce conflict and provide a clear delineation of roles.
After consulting with experts and good governance groups, the commission agreed the benefits of bifurcation outweighed the negatives, and it passed unanimously by the commission.
“It was easy to get consensus on this,” said Raymond Meza, chair of the commission. The commission’s proposal calls for the city attorney to be nominated by the mayor, and confirmed by the City Council.
In its report, the commission said that “the current structure creates conflicts when the same office advises the city and prosecutes cases. Separation provides clearer roles, reduces conflicts, and allows each function to be performed effectively.”
Other cities have different models for the city attorney’s office: Long Beach has a similar model with bifurcated duties, while New York City has legal representation split up several ways. The San Francisco City Attorney provides legal representation for the city and county of San Francisco, and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office handles criminal cases in the city and county.
Mike Bonin, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute, said he has seen the question of splitting the office come up with at least three different city attorneys to varying degrees.
“Given that the city attorney is an elected position, there’s always going to be somebody who doesn’t like them,” Bonin, a former city council member, said. “You need to divorce the question from the occupant and focus on the role — the charter is not about a particular person, the charter is about the function of the office.”
For thieves looking to strip Los Angeles for parts, copper has become a fast-moving currency.
The problem has become so persistent that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is now asking for its own armed police force to protect vulnerable utility equipment, street lighting and critical infrastructure, insisting that the department’s contracted and unarmed security guards aren’t cutting it.
“They lack the authority to detain or arrest suspects, intervene in crimes in progress, conduct searches, or carry firearms for enforcement purposes,” according to a May 21 report from the city agency. “Delays hinder timely intervention, reduce investigative effectiveness, and contribute to repeat victimization of LADWP facilities.”
Under DWP’s current “observe and report” security model, an officer who sees someone cutting a fence or stripping copper from a transformer has little authority apart from yelling a warning or making a 911 call, according to the department report.
The proposal asks for 20 to 50 sworn officers to start, hired over a five-year period, along with support staff. If approved, the force would give the agency’s officers the authority to carry a firearm, make arrests and investigate thefts. The plan was scheduled to be discussed Thursday by the City Council.
The push comes as citywide service requests for streetlight repairs have surged over the last several years.
L.A.’s historic streetlights outside the Bureau of Street Lighting near Virgil Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard.
(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
The city logged 14,328 electronic streetlight service requests in 2018, according to data from the Bureau of Street Lighting. Requests have tripled since then, reaching an all-time high of 46,079 in 2024, the last full year of available data.
Mayor Karen Bass’ office said in March that copper thefts are a leading cause of streetlight outages. Repairs have been backlogged for months.
Prices for the metal are at an all-time high, driven by major supply disruptions in Indonesia and Chile, and soaring demand from artificial intelligence data centers and electric grid infrastructure. Thieves typically exchange the metal for cash at recycling centers, where it can fetch up to $5.30 per pound. The City Council last year approved a program offering up to $5,000 for information in metal and wire theft cases.
Theft losses alone exceed $1 million annually, according to DWP.
Establishing a new police force would require changing the city charter, meaning voters will have a say come the November midterm elections. Authorities will also need to obtain state legislative approval for the plan.
Officials said rolling out the police department would cost $9.7 million over three years, plus up to $6 million annually to pay for staffing. They maintain those costs are less than the $46 million combined DWP spends each year on private security contractors and unarmed staff security.
On Hill Street in downtown L.A., streetlights have been targeted by thieves and vandals.
(Jason Armond/Los Angeles Times)
Any cost overflows would be paid for by DWP customers.
Timothy O’Connor, executive director for the Los Angeles Office of Public Accountability, a spending watchdog, said his office is not convinced that the agency could minimize long-term cost creep, or that the new force would offset enough costs to justify the program. The proposed force of a few dozen officers, he said, would be too small to get the job done.
“Theft losses at DWP are real and are increasing. However, eliminating these losses is not enough to offset the proposed costs,” he said. “Furthermore, DWP will be unable to fully eliminate theft given the diffuse nature of the DWP system.”
But O’Connor also said the department is faced with real security risks like those posed by drone attacks or terrorism threats, which he said “appear to justify the proposal at some level.”
In February, a man shot himself after he drove his car through the perimeter fence of a power substation while carrying explosives and several firearms. Dubbing the incident an attempted terrorist attack, officials said the episode could have caused catastrophic infrastructure damage.
David Levitus, executive director of the advocacy group LA Forward, said he was surprised to learn of the proposal so late in Los Angeles’ ongoing charter reform process, which his organization has monitored closely.
“The fact that this is being dumped in late May — what’s the rush?” Levitus said. “I think we really need to be wary of creating new police departments in general, but especially without a clear case and clear constraints and accountability mechanisms.”
May 23 (UPI) — Iran and Pakistan submitted a revised proposal Saturday to the United States in the hopes of ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
A response from President Donald Trump is expected by Sunday, Al Jazeera reported.
Trump told Axios Saturday that he would meet with his negotiators to discuss the offer and would likely decide by Sunday. He said odds were a “solid 50/50” on whether he would be able to make a deal or “blow them to kingdom come.”
Trump conducted a call on Saturday with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, Axios reported.
Trump also skipped Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding in the Bahamas Saturday because of the Iran war, he said.
“While I very much wanted to be with my son, Don Jr., and the newest member of the Trump Family, his soon to be wife, Bettina, circumstances pertaining to Government, and my love for the United States of America, do not allow me to do so,” the president said on Truth Social. “I feel it is important for me to remain in Washington, D.C., at the White House during this important period of time. Congratulations to Don and Bettina!”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio alluded to news coming possibly today.
“There may be news later today. I don’t have news for you at this very moment, but there might be some news a little later today. There may not be. I hope there will be, but I’m not sure yet,” Rubio told reporters in New Delhi on Saturday.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Axios that some leaders in the gulf have pushed Trump to strike Iran to weaken the regime and get better terms. But other leaders and the president’s advisors are urging him to take the deal that’s been offered. They say Iran can destroy Gulf oil operations if attacked.
“Count me as a strong skeptic that Iran can’t be prevented from terrorizing the Strait of Hormuz and that we can’t defend vital interests in the region after massive attacks against Iran — if they have been truly obliterated they shouldn’t be able to do either,” Graham said. “Time will tell. I am hoping for a good outcome still.”
Trump told Axios he’d meet with Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner and Vice President Vance later Saturday.
“I think one of two things will happen: either I hit them harder than they have ever been hit, or we are going to sign a deal that is good,” Trump said.
Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan Reza Amiri Moghadam said on X that he discussed the “achievements of the negotiations with the officials of my country after returning from Tehran” with Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi.
“With conservative optimism, we can hope that, if the other side is adequately committed, a positive stride is taking shape which is the result of the positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran based on dignity, the steadfastness of the courageous armed forces and the resistance of the brave Iranian nation, as well as the initiative and dedicated endeavors of the Pakistani mediator,” Moghadam said.
Iran has publicly outlined key elements of its latest peace proposal to the United States, demanding reparations for war damage, the withdrawal of United States forces from areas near Iran, and the lifting of economic sanctions as part of any broader agreement.
According to comments from Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, the proposal also calls for the release of frozen Iranian assets, an end to restrictions affecting Iranian trade and shipping, and a halt to hostilities across regional conflict zones including Lebanon.
The proposal emerged after United States President Donald Trump announced that he had paused a planned military strike against Iran to allow additional time for negotiations regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme and regional security issues.
Tehran’s proposal reflects an effort to expand negotiations beyond nuclear issues into wider geopolitical and security concerns across the Middle East.
Iran appears to be seeking a comprehensive arrangement that addresses not only sanctions and military pressure but also the broader regional balance of power involving Lebanon, the Gulf region, and United States military deployments.
The demand for reparations is particularly significant because it frames the recent conflict as an act requiring compensation for damage caused by joint United States and Israeli military operations.
Iranian officials also continue insisting that economic sanctions and frozen overseas assets remain central obstacles to any sustainable agreement.
Trump stated that there was a strong possibility of reaching a deal that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while avoiding renewed military escalation.
However, Washington has not publicly confirmed any major concessions in negotiations. Reports suggesting the United States may release a portion of frozen Iranian funds or allow limited peaceful nuclear activity under international supervision remain unverified by American officials.
At the same time, United States officials continue denying claims that sanctions on Iranian oil exports would be fully waived during negotiations.
The situation reflects a complex diplomatic balancing act in which Washington seeks to maintain leverage while preventing a wider regional conflict that could destabilise global energy markets and military alliances.
Regional governments including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates reportedly urged Trump to delay military action in hopes that negotiations could succeed.
The involvement of regional mediators highlights growing concern across the Gulf about the economic and security consequences of another large scale conflict involving Iran.
The Strait of Hormuz remains especially important because it serves as one of the world’s most critical shipping routes for oil and energy exports. Any escalation threatening maritime trade could have severe consequences for global energy prices and economic stability.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has reportedly continued acting as a communication channel between Tehran and Washington after previously hosting peace talks between the two sides.
Although a ceasefire has largely held since the suspension of major hostilities earlier this year, tensions remain extremely high across the region.
Iran and its regional allies continue facing accusations of supporting drone activity and proxy operations targeting Gulf states and Israeli interests. At the same time, Iran maintains that it has survived military pressure without abandoning its nuclear capabilities, missile programmes, or regional alliances.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump previously justified military operations as necessary to weaken Iran’s nuclear programme and reduce its influence through allied militias across the Middle East.
However, analysts note that Iran still retains significant strategic capabilities despite extensive military strikes and economic sanctions.
Iran’s latest proposal demonstrates that Tehran is attempting to negotiate from a position of resilience rather than surrender.
By demanding reparations, sanctions relief, and troop withdrawals, Iran is signalling that it expects recognition of its regional influence and strategic endurance despite months of conflict and economic pressure. The proposal also reflects Tehran’s broader objective of reducing the long term military presence of the United States near its borders.
For Washington, the negotiations present a difficult challenge. The United States wants to prevent Iran from advancing toward nuclear weapons capability while avoiding another prolonged regional war that could damage global markets, strain military resources, and increase political pressure at home.
The talks are also shaped by wider geopolitical realities. Gulf states increasingly prioritise regional stability and economic security, making them more supportive of diplomacy than direct military confrontation. Rising energy prices and fears of shipping disruptions further increase international pressure for a negotiated outcome.
At the same time, deep mistrust continues to define relations between both sides. The United States remains sceptical of Iran’s regional ambitions, while Tehran sees sanctions and military deployments as tools of long term containment.
Ultimately, the negotiations reveal a broader struggle over the future balance of power in the Middle East. Even if temporary agreements are reached, the underlying strategic rivalry between Iran, the United States, and Israel is unlikely to disappear in the near future.
With information from Reuters.
WASHINGTON — A proposal to fund $1 billion in security additions for the White House campus and President Trump’s new ballroom fails to meet procedural rules, according to the Senate parliamentarian, dealing a blow to Republican plans to include it as part of a bill to fund immigration enforcement agencies for the next three years.
The parliamentarian’s ruling, described late Saturday by Senate Democrats, said that funding for a project as large and complex as Trump’s massive East Wing renovation is too broad to be included in the narrow GOP budget bill, which cannot be filibustered and needs only a simple majority to pass.
It’s unclear whether Republicans will be able to immediately salvage any part of the billion-dollar Secret Service proposal, which would fund security for Trump’s ballroom along with other parts of the White House, including a new visitor screening center, additional training for agents and extra reinforcements for large events. Republicans said Saturday night that they are revising the legislation based on the parliamentarian’s advice.
Ryan Wrasse, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), wrote in a post on X that “none of this is abnormal” during the complicated budget process that Republicans are using to try to pass the immigration enforcement and White House security money on a partisan basis.
“Redraft. Refine. Resubmit,” Wrasse said in the post.
Democrats have seized on the security request, accusing Republicans of dedicating federal resources to the ballroom project instead of focusing on helping Americans with rising costs. Republicans have insisted that private donations will be used to build the ballroom and that the federal dollars are focused just on much-needed security enhancements.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) took credit for the ruling after Democrats argued to the parliamentarian that the security money doesn’t belong in the bill.
“Republicans tried to make taxpayers foot the bill for Trump’s billion-dollar ballroom,” Schumer said Saturday evening. “Senate Democrats fought back — and blew up their first attempt.”
Schumer added that Democrats “will be ready to stop them again” as Republicans say they will revise the bill.
The ruling from the Senate parliamentarian is advisory, but such rulings are rarely if ever ignored when lawmakers put together legislation that can pass with a simple majority. Most bills are subject to a filibuster and thus need 60 votes for passage — meaning Republicans must find some Democratic support in the 53-47 Senate.
Republicans are looking to approve a roughly $72-billion package to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection until the end of Trump’s term after Democrats have blocked the money for months.
As part of that package, Republicans included $1 billion for White House security enhancements, part of it connected to Trump’s ballroom. The Secret Service had requested the money after a man was charged with trying to assassinate Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last month.
The overall budget package is providing another boost of funding for Trump’s immigration and deportation agenda, fueling operations through September 2029. It comes on top of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol funds Congress provided last year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed into law.
The parliamentarian kept most of the immigration portion of the legislation intact, though some minor provisions were blocked, including Customs and Border Patrol funds to hire, train and pay Border Patrol agents. Republicans said those were only technical fixes.
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, said Saturday evening that “Democrats are prepared to challenge any change to this bill.”
Americans shouldn’t spend “a single dime” on Trump’s “Louis XIV-style ballroom and throw tens of billions more at two lawless agencies,” Merkley said.
Jalonick and Freking write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi speaks at a press conference after attending the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting at the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in New Delhi, India, Friday. Araghchi signaled a willingness to negotiate with the United States. Photo by Rajat Gupta/EPA
May 15 (UPI) — President Donald Trump told reporters Friday that the first sentence of Iran’s peace proposal was “unacceptable” and accused the country of backtracking on its nuclear policy, but Iran signaled it’s still ready to negotiate.
Trump said the first sentence was an “unacceptable sentence, because they have fully agreed no nuclear, and if they have any nuclear of any form, I don’t read the rest,” CNN reported he said. He added that he is unsatisfied with the “level of guarantee from them.”
Trump said Iran had agreed to give up its enriched uranium, which he calls “nuclear dust.” But “then they took it back,” he said.
But Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that discussion about uranium enrichment “is currently not on the agenda of discussions or negotiations,” but the country is willing to talk about it later in negotiations, according to Iran’s news agency Tasnim.
Iran has said it doesn’t plan to build a nuclear weapon but has refused to give up its uranium.
Trump’s comments were on his trip from Beijing after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
When reporters asked if Xi had agreed to pressure Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the president replied, “We don’t need favors,” but that “we may have to do a little cleanup work,” without clarifying what he meant.
“We had a little monthlong cease-fire, I guess you’d call it, but we have a blockade that’s so effective, that’s why we did the cease-fire.”
China appears hesitant to get involved in the conflict, Al Jazeera reported.
Trump said the United States and China agree that the strait must be opened and the war must end. About half of China’s crude oil comes through the strait.
Araghchi said Iran would welcome Chinese diplomacy to help defuse the war with the United States.
“Any effort made by the Chinese to support diplomacy will be welcomed by the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he said at a press conference in New Delhi, India. He was attending the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting.
But he also said that Iran considers itself as the protector of the strait.
Araghchi said on X that with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, he “clarified that Iran will always carry out [its] historical duty as protector of security” in the Strait of Hormuz.
He added that “all friendly nations” can “rely on safety of commerce.”
Following his visit with Xi, Trump also said he is considering removing sanctions on Chinese companies that have been buying Iranian oil as the war and high gas prices linger.
“I’m going to make a decision over the next few days. We did talk about that,” Trump said on Friday.
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC Friday that China will likely buy more oil from the United States.
“I suspect we’ll see a growth in their oil imports from the United States,” Wright said.
“But ultimately, the world needs to get the Persian Gulf open. Iran’s attempt to hold the whole world hostage, people know it’s temporary.
“One way or the other, we will see an end to the Iranian nuclear program and we will see free flow of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. That can happen relatively rapidly with an agreement with Iran,” he said.
Iran’s parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US has ‘no alternative but to accept’ Tehran’s 14-point proposal to end war.
Published On 12 May 202612 May 2026
Share
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei says Tehran’s response to the latest US proposal to end the war was “not excessive.” He says it’s the US that continues to make “unreasonable demands” during negotiations over ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
Published On 11 May 202611 May 2026
Share
Published on •Updated
Oil prices surged in early trade as investors digested the latest developments in the Middle East, with both Brent and US crude climbing over 4%.
It comes after Trump’s rejection of Tehran’s response to the latest US proposition on bringing the conflict in Iran, and subsequent impact on trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz, to an end.
In other trading, US futures edged lower, while Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 fell 0.4% to 62,486.84 after briefly reaching another record high in intraday trading at above 63,300.
South Korea’s Kospi gained 4.1% to 7,804.71. It also hit an all-time intraday high, led by gains from tech-related stocks including Samsung Electronics and memory chip maker SK Hynix.
Technology-related stocks and growing artificial intelligence-related interest have supported markets in Japan and South Korea despite the Iran war, with the Nikkei 225 and Kospi rising more than 10% and 30%, respectively, over the past month.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump will head to China this week for talks with his counterpart, Xi Jinping. The two leaders are expected to discuss a wide range of topics, including trade concerns.
SlavkoSereda/iStock via Getty Images
Crude oil futures gained Sunday after President Trump rejected Iran’s latest response to his proposal to end the Middle East as “totally unacceptable,” while the Strait of Hormuz remains mostly closed.
Iran’s proposal reportedly emphasizes Iranian sovereignty over the strait while calling
May 10 (UPI) — Iran has communicated its response Sunday through a mediator to a proposal by the United States to end the war, its state media reports.
The Islamic Republic News Agency reported Sunday that Iran’s response has been sent through Pakistan, which has mediated talks between Iran and the United States. IRNA did not share details about what the response was.
“According to the proposed plan, negotiations at this stage will focus on the issue of ending the war in the region,” IRNA said.
The war has centered on the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, with U.S. and Iranian forces continuing to exchange fire in the Persian Gulf region as recently as Saturday.
“We will never bow our heads before the enemy, and if talk of dialogue or negotiation arises, it does not mean surrender or retreat,” Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian posted on social media Sunday. “Rather, the goal is to uphold the rights of the Iranian nation and to defend national interests with resolute strength.”
Mike Waltz, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on Fox News on Sunday that he expects President Donald Trump to remain firm that Iran must abandon its nuclear program.
“We’ll see what the Iranians just came back with overnight in terms of their response to our very clear red line,” Waltz said.
Trevor Bauer wants to pitch in the majors again — so much so that he’s willing to start over in the lowest levels of the minor leagues and work his way up.
And he’s willing to do it without being paid.
That’s the hypothetical Bauer proposed Friday on X: A talented former Cy Young Award winner signs a minor league deal with an MLB team for a “$0 salary” and can be cut at any time at no financial risk to the organization.
Since his last MLB start on June 28, 2021, as a member of the Dodgers with a $102-million, three-year contract, Bauer has been accused of sexual assault by four women. He served a 194-game suspension for violating the league’s sexual assault and domestic violence policy. He has denied all the allegations and has never been charged with a crime.
While some might think signing Bauer might be a risky move for an MLB organization, Bauer feels his plan is foolproof in that regard.
“Hypothetical: You’re the owner of an MLB team,” Bauer wrote. “I offer to take $0 salary and sign a minor league contract and go to Low A. If the ‘he sucks now’ crowd is right and I get lit up, you cut me, lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club.
Hypothetical: You’re the owner of an MLB team. I offer to take $0 salary and sign a minor league contract and go to Low A.
If the “he sucks now” crowd is right and I get lit up, you cut me, lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club.
If the “clubhouse cancer” crowd is…
— Trevor Bauer (トレバー・バウアー) (@BauerOutage) May 8, 2026
“If the ‘clubhouse cancer’ crowd is right, you see it immediately at Low A and cut me. You lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club. If there’s massive negative PR, which we already know there won’t be, you just cut me and move on. The story is dead in a couple days, you lose $0, and there’s no risk to the big league club.”
In the comments on Bauer’s post, someone challenged him on the notion that “we already know there won’t be” any negative PR if he is signed. In response, Bauer pointed to his current stint with the Long Island Ducks of the independent Atlantic League to support his argument.
“Where has the negative PR been?” wrote Bauer, who is 3-1 this season and pitched a no-hitter for the Ducks late last month. “I’m playing in America. In New York of all places. Most ‘hostile’ media market in the United States. Stadiums are sold out when I pitch. There’s no boycotts. No media frenzy. Where is it?”
Bauer wrote in his proposal that if none of the negatives he laid out earlier happen, then the organization can promote their cost-free pitcher through the ranks, re-evaluating him every step of the way, until he reaches the big leagues — “if I earn it,” he wrote, “which you’d be 100% in control of deciding.”
“If you don’t think I’m good enough, you lose $0 and there’s no risk to the big league club,” Bauer wrote. “You could take away my ‘antics’. You could take away my social media. You could ask anything of me. If I don’t comply, you cut me, lose $0, and there’s no risk to the big league club.”
One X user asked why Bauer doesn’t just take away his “antics” on his own.
“Because no teams actually care about that,” Bauer responded. “They enjoy the content. And I’m not going to rob baseball fans of great baseball entertainment just to solve a problem that only exists in the minds of x bots.”
Informed that the MLB Players Assn. might have an issue with him playing for free, Bauer replied, “Who gives a crap about what mlbpa does or doesn’t want?”
This isn’t the first time Bauer has made what he considers to be a low-risk proposal for an organization to bring him back into the league. In 2024, Bauer spoke with The Times’ Bill Shaikin about an offer he made to play for the league minimum.
“The reason for that was, I want to go back to work, and I am trying to find any way that I possibly can to limit the risk and exposure for a team,” Bauer said. “I realize there are a lot of other things, outside of the on-field stuff, that go into whether to sign me. So I figured that, if I could limit the on-field risk as much as possible, perhaps that offsets some of the other perceived risks.”
It remains to be seen whether any club is willing to take up Bauer on his current offer.
“What logical reason is there to not do this?” Bauer wrote. “At worst, you cut me and there’s no risk to the big league club. At best, you get a Cy Young winner for $0 who you know can still pitch and could help the big league team if and when you see fit.”
Former Miami Marlins president David Samson weighed in on Bauer’s proposal in a post on X.
“This will never happen,” Samson wrote. “First of all, no team wants to sign him. Secondly, no player is allowed to play for $0. And finally, no team wants to sign him.”
¿Qué en la fregada?
What the hell?
That’s what I muttered after learning that Los Angeles Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez wants to allow noncitizens to vote in city and school board elections.
Talk about a solution in search of a problem, considering everything Angelenos are facing right now.
While the specter of la migra continues to haunt the city, far more crushing are problems that affect everyone — affordability, housing, traffic, pollution. Maybe Soto-Martínez and his colleagues should double down on fixing those things first and sell their message better to voters instead of picking up a new issue?
I know the first-term council member comes from a good place. His parents were formerly undocumented, just like my dad, and he has been a fierce advocate for immigrants going back to his labor organizing days. I have friends without legal status and others in the DACA program for people who came to the U.S. illegally as children. I think giving them, as well as green card holders and others with papers, a chance to participate in elections is a righteous idea.
But to paraphrase the Book of Ecclesiastes, there’s a time and a place for everything. In 2026, Angelenos should be focused on electing people and approving initiatives that will improve the city for everyone, not a narrow plank benefiting a slice of the population.
So I called up Soto-Martínez and challenged him to convince this doubting Tomás.
He hopes his proposal will reach the City Council later this month for a vote on whether to place it on the November ballot. If voters pass the measure, it goes back to the council to decide when — if ever — to enfranchise the immigrants.
The proposal, already vilified in conservative media, isn’t as radical as it seems. Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal elections, but there’s a well-established history of their participation in local ones, including in Vermont and Maryland. They can already vote in L.A. neighborhood council elections, and in San Francisco school board elections if they have a child in the district.
Besides, L.A. has long led the way in weaving undocumented immigrants into the fabric of civic life.
This is a sanctuary city where Mayor Karen Bass has stood up to President Trump’s xenophobia. Where eight of the 15 council members are immigrants or the children of immigrants. Where LAUSD Supt. Alberto Carvalho — himself formerly undocumented — has striven to make local schools as welcoming as possible (Carvalho is on paid leave after the FBI raided his home and office earlier this year). Even the LAPD learned decades ago that it’s better to embrace undocumented immigrants than castigate them for their lack of legal status.
“If you’re contributing to this economy, you should have the right to decide who represents you,” Soto-Martínez told me.
Fair point. But isn’t thumbing our noses at Trump asking for more of what he has already inflicted on L.A., making life even more miserable for undocumented immigrants? Could he use the noncitizen voter rolls as a list of whom to deport? Besides, doesn’t extending the franchise to noncitizens give fuel to his crazy conspiracies about stolen elections?
“You always hear, ‘Don’t poke the bear, don’t instigate them,’ but that’s not how you deal with a bully,” Soto-Martínez replied. “They’re coming at us already. While they’re removing people’s right to vote in the Supreme Court, we’re expanding it. … And it has nothing to do with Trump. It’s about fairness.”
Tell that to Trump.
I mentioned that Santa Ana — a city far more Latino than Los Angeles, though not as liberal — decisively rejected a similar measure in 2024. Soto-Martínez’s fellow Democratic Socialist council members, Ysabel Jurado and Eunisses Hernández, have voiced their support for his measure. But I wonder whether the full council will move it along to voters in a year when some members, including Soto-Martínez, are running for reelection.
I couldn’t get a comment from Bass. Councilmember Nithya Raman, who’s running against her, said in a statement that Soto-Martínez’s push “is worth taking seriously” but that it’s “critical to getting this right, and we must not make decisions lightly or quickly.”
“We’re going to have to organize,” Soto-Martínez acknowledged. “But we live in a political moment where it’s the right conversation to have about what this city stands for.”
Avance Democratic Club President Nilza Serrano at Mariachi Plaza in Boyle Heights in 2022.
(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)
He’s going to have to convince people like Nilza Serrano. She’s president of Avance, L.A. County’s largest Latino Democratic club, and heads the California Democratic Party’s Latino caucus. Serrano is no wokosa — she supported Rick Caruso in the last mayoral election and is now siding with Bass.
While Serrano thinks Soto-Martínez is on to something, she said that voting rights for noncitizens are a nonissue for the people she’s trying to get to the polls for the June primary and November general elections. The economy and Trump’s deportation deluge are more on their minds.
I asked if Soto-Martínez’s proposal would cheapen citizenship for people like her. Serrano and her family came here legally from Guatemala in the 1980s before becoming U.S. citizens, a process that took years.
“Not for me,” she replied. “But it’s hard to say for others. I’d have to do a little bit more research.”
So I continued with my own research, calling someone I was sure would have a fit about the idea: Los Angeles County Hispanic Republican Club President David Hernandez.
“Isn’t San Francisco already doing it?” the Navy veteran cracked.
I thought Hernandez would go on an anti-liberal rant, but.…
“I believe there’s a strong argument,” he said, “that if someone has established residency and is a member of the community and suffered the consequences of whatever local policies will be enacted, they should have a say in who gets elected.”
Did the ghost of Joaquin Murrieta, California’s original avenging Latino, suddenly possess Hernandez? To make sure I was hearing right, I asked again if noncitizens voting in L.A. elections is a good thing.
How could he support that, as a Trump-voting Republican?!
“We have to be pragmatic,” he replied. He approves of noncitizens voting in L.A. neighborhood council elections, because that’s true local control.
He understands that allowing them to vote in municipal elections might come off as an insult to the memory of civil rights activists who lost their lives fighting for that right for Black Americans. But U.S. citizens are already taking it for granted, he noted — turnout in the November 2022 L.A. mayoral election was a pitiful 44%.
“Maybe noncitizens will appreciate voting more than citizens,” he said.
I’m still not fully convinced that Soto-Martínez’s push is wise right now, but I like that he’s being careful.
“We need to get in the weeds of this,” he said of the City Council’s deliberations, which he characterized as attempting to ensure maximum benefit and minimum fallout.
Let’s see what they come up with in a few weeks.
The United States on Sunday responded to Iran’s latest proposal to end the U.S.-Isreali war there, which has led to tankers like the pictured Indian-flagged carrier unable to transit the Strait of Hormuz. File Photo by Divyakant Solanki/EPA
May 3 (UPI) — Iran said on Sunday that it is reviewing the United States’ response to its most recent peace proposal, a 14-point plan that was reviewed by President Donald Trump on Saturday night.
The response was delivered to Iranian negotiators on Sunday, Iranian state media outlets PressTV and Tasnim reported, with officials clarifying some reports on the plan they said have been incorrect.
The 14-point plan is entirely focused on bringing an end to the two-month-old conflict, with no provisions about nuclear materials or other weapons, Esmaeil Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry, said in an interview.
When asked about Iran’s new plan on Saturday, Trump expressed doubt that it would meet U.S. requirements but said that he would be reviewing its exact language last night.
“The plan we have presented is centered on ending the war,” Baghaei said. “There are absolutely no details regarding the country’s nuclear issues in this proposal.”
The basics of Iran’s proposal are focused on ending hostilities and then opening a 30-day period for intense negotiation of other issues, including the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from areas around the country, lifting the U.S. naval blockade and ending the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, Tasnim reported.
But Baghaei said that reports of a suspension of nuclear activities or U.S.-Iran cooperation on clearing mines from the Strait of Hormuz are not true.
“These are among the things that I believe are fabricated by the imagination of some media outlets,” Baghaei said. “We are not currently engaged in any negotiations over the nuclear issue and decisions about the future will be made in due course.”
Iranian officials said that the U.S. proposal had included a two-month cease-fire, which Iran countered with a 30-day period to resolve issues and to actually end the war.
Before reviewing the proposal on Saturday, US President Donald Trump said he could not imagine it “would be acceptable”.
Source link
Iran has offered a new 14-point proposal to the United States in the latest diplomatic step to reach a permanent end to the war, which has exposed the limits of US military dominance and shaken the global economy.
Responding to the new proposal on Saturday, US President Donald Trump said he is studying it but is not sure he can make a deal with Iran, a day after he voiced frustration with a previous offer from Tehran through the mediator Pakistan.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Late on Thursday, Tehran sent the proposal to Pakistan, which got the two sides to agree on the ceasefire. According to the Iranian Tasnim news agency, the 14-point plan was formulated in response to a nine-point US plan.
But weeks since the ceasefire began on April 8, Washington and Tehran have been unable to negotiate a peace deal. Tehran wants a permanent end to the war, while Trump has insisted that Iran first end the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil and gas exports pass. The US president has also made the issue of Iran’s nuclear capability a “red line”.
Iran’s de facto blockade of the strait came in response to the US and Israel launching attacks on the country on February 28. A naval blockade of Iranian ports by the Trump administration, despite the ceasefire deal, has heightened tensions.
The US and Iran have also been continuing to attack, capture, and intercept each other’s ships, pointing to an ongoing naval war still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz.
So what’s the new proposal, and will President Trump accept it?
Here’s what we know:
According to Iranian media reports, Tehran’s new proposal came in response to a Washington-backed nine-point peace proposal, which primarily sought a two-month ceasefire.
However, in its latest peace proposal, Iran said it wants to focus on ending the war instead of extending the truce and wants all issues resolved within 30 days.
The new proposal calls for guarantees against future attacks, a withdrawal of US forces from around Iran, the release of frozen Iranian assets worth billions of dollars and the lifting of sanctions, war reparations, ending all hostilities, including in Lebanon, and “a new mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz”.
Iran, which was also attacked by the US and Israel last June, wants a guarantee against future aggression. Israel has previously targeted Iranian nuclear scientists and run campaigns to sabotage its nuclear sites.
Tehran also wants its right to uranium enrichment guaranteed as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), but Trump has made the nuclear issue a “red line”. Iran wants decades of sanctions, which have devastated its economy, to be lifted as part of any deal. The navigation through the strait and demands for war reparations are other sticking points in the talks.
According to a report by Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, after delivering the proposal, Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said, “Now the ball is in the United States’ court to choose the path of diplomacy or the continuation of a confrontational approach.”
Paul Musgrave, an associate professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, said Iran has “slightly softened” its proposal.
“The news reports on it indicate that there is a slight softening in the proposal, or rather a run-up to discussing the proposal, namely that the Iranian side may have given up its precondition that the US cease its distant blockade of Iranian traffic [in the Strait of Hormuz],” he told Al Jazeera.
“Beyond that, though, a lot of the things that are reportedly in the proposal include maintaining Iran’s sovereign ability to enrich uranium, its nuclear programme and, of course, what it delicately refers to as a ‘control mechanism’ over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.”
Musgrave said on the two biggest issues – enrichment of uranium and transferring its highly enriched uranium – the US and Iran remain “far apart”.
“President Trump has been unyielding that Iran must surrender its nuclear capability,” he said.
Kenneth Katzman, a senior fellow at New York-based nonprofit Soufan Center, said Iran’s mistrust of Trump remains a bigger obstacle.
“The differences on the nuclear issues are actually … not that great a difference any more. It’s still substantial, but can be narrowed. The issue is that Iran really mistrusts Trump and the United States and does not want to move, really, into full discussion until this blockade is lifted,” he said.
“That’s a problem that could lead to US escalation. As Trump knows, he must break this Iranian control of the strait, so that’s where the issue is.”
Katzman said while both sides are “frustrated”, neither is likely to give up on the negotiations in the immediate future.
Trump has said he is reviewing Iran’s proposal, but warned that Washington could resume attacks if Tehran “misbehaves”.
Speaking to reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One on Saturday, Trump confirmed that he had been briefed on the “concept of the deal”.
Despite the diplomatic opening, the president struck a characteristically blunt tone regarding the possibility of renewed hostilities, which have been paused since the ceasefire.
“If they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump said when asked if strikes would resume.
Trump added that the US was “doing very well” and claimed that Iran was desperate for a settlement because the country had been “decimated” by months of conflict and a naval blockade.
Trita Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft told Al Jazeera the economic cost of the blockade on Iranian ports has exceeded what the White House anticipated and argued that the broader strategic damage to the US was probably more significant.
“Iran has been under all kinds of economic pressure and sanctions for 47 years,” Parsi told Al Jazeera. “None of them has managed to break the Iranians or force them to capitulate,” he said.
In a post on Truth Social later on Saturday, Trump said it was difficult to imagine that the Iranian proposal would be acceptable as Tehran had “not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years”.
Trump seems to have rejected the new Iranian proposal “without reading it or being briefed on it”, according to Musgrave from Georgetown University.
Iran’s latest proposal comes amid a fragile three-week truce that came into effect on April 8 and has put a pause on the US-Israel war on Iran.
A day before the ceasefire, Iran had proposed a 10-point peace plan, which included an end to conflicts in the region, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions and reconstruction, state-run news agency IRNA reported.
Trump had said Iran’s 10-point plan was a “significant proposal” but “not good enough”.
The April 7 proposal from Iran came in response to a 15-point plan drafted by the US on March 25.
Washington’s plan included a one-month ceasefire while the two sides negotiated terms to end the war, via Pakistan.
According to Israel’s Channel 12, it also included the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, a permanent commitment from Iran to never develop nuclear weapons, the handover of Iran’s stockpile of already enriched uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a commitment from Iran to allow the United Nations watchdog to monitor all elements of the country’s remaining nuclear infrastructure, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and end of all sanctions on Iran, alongside the ending of the UN mechanism that allows sanctions to be reimposed.
Iran, however, rejected this plan and said a temporary ceasefire would give the US and Israel time to regroup and launch further attacks and in turn proposed its 10-point plan.
Despite a ceasefire, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it remains on “full standby” for a return to hostilities, citing the US’s lack of commitment to previous treaties.
In a post on X on Sunday, the IRGC’s intelligence unit said, “There is only one way to read this: Trump must choose between an impossible military operation or a bad deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The room for US decision-making has narrowed.”
The impasse is further complicated by technical obstacles to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, including the presence of Iranian sea mines. Tehran has closed the strait since the war began on February 28, upending global oil and gas prices.
To pressure Iran to open the strait, the US imposed a blockade of all Iranian ports on April 13, stoking the oil and gas crisis. On Friday, Brent crude, the international benchmark, was at $111.29 per barrel at 08:08 GMT, compared with about $65 before the war.
Tensions have been further stoked by Trump’s recent characterisation of the US naval blockade as a “very profitable business”.
“We took over the cargo. Took over the oil, a very profitable business. Who would have thought, we’re sort of like pirates, but we’re not playing games,” Trump said at an event in the US state of Florida on Saturday.
Tehran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs seized on the remarks, labelling them a “damning admission of piracy”.
Parsi from the Quincy Institute told Al Jazeera the US naval blockade of Iran has backfired on Trump and is making the situation worse.
“The negotiations were taking place and could have continued regardless of the blockade,” he said.
“The blockade has nothing to do with the Iranians being at the table. If anything, it is blocking diplomatic progress more than anything else,” Parsi noted.
He argued that Trump had actually secured his greatest advantage through diplomacy before the blockade was imposed.
“Once he managed to get the ceasefire, the primary pressure on him, the war itself and the way it was pushing up gas prices, was lifted. Had he stayed in that scenario and used time to his advantage, he would have been in a much stronger position vis-a-vis the Iranians, because the Iranians had not managed to get the key thing they wanted: sanctions relief.”
Instead, by imposing the blockade, Trump took more oil off the market.
“Oil prices are now higher during the ceasefire than they were during the war itself. All of these economic indicators show that the blockade is making the situation worse for Trump,” Parsi said.
However, Trump has been looking at options to resolve the oil crisis, including setting up a naval coalition called the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC) to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
According to US media reports, core functions of the naval coalition would be to share intelligence among member nations, coordinate diplomatic efforts, and enforce sanctions to manage shipping traffic through the strait.
US president says he is considering the 14-point peace plan, but warns strikes could resume if Tehran ‘misbehaves’.
Published On 3 May 20263 May 2026
United States President Donald Trump has said he is reviewing Iran’s 14-point proposal to end his war on the country, while warning that Washington could restart air strikes if Tehran “misbehaves”.
Speaking to reporters in Florida before boarding Air Force One on Saturday, Trump confirmed that he had been briefed on the “concept of the deal”.
list of 3 itemsend of list
Despite the diplomatic opening, the US president struck a characteristically blunt tone regarding the possibility of renewed hostilities, which have been paused since the announcement of a ceasefire between the sides on April 7.
“If they do something bad, there is a possibility it could happen,” Trump said when asked if strikes would resume.
Trump added that the US was “doing very well” and claimed that Iran was desperate for a settlement because the country had been “decimated” by months of conflict and a naval blockade.
In a post on Truth Social later, Trump said it was difficult to imagine that the Iranian proposal would be acceptable as Tehran had “not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity, and the World, over the last 47 years.”
Tehran’s 14-point plan reportedly calls for the lifting of the US naval blockade, war reparations, and the release of all frozen assets.
It also seeks a 30-day window to finalise the terms of their peace, a timeline at odds with Washington’s preference for a longer transition.
The diplomatic push comes amid a fragile three-week truce that has put a pause on the US-Israel war on Iran, which began in late February.
Despite the ceasefire, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Saturday that it remains on “full standby” for a return to hostilities, citing the US’s lack of commitment to previous treaties.
Tensions have been further stoked by Trump’s recent characterisation of the US naval blockade as a “very profitable business”.
Tehran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs seized on the remarks, labelling them a “damning admission of piracy”.
The impasse is further complicated by technical obstacles to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, including the presence of Iranian sea mines, and a growing rift with NATO allies following Trump’s decision to withdraw 5,000 US troops from Germany.
May 2 (UPI) — An Iranian general said more fighting with the United States is “possible” after President Donald Trump rejected the most recent peace plan offered by Iran.
The United States and Iran are now in a fragile cease-fire.
“Evidence has shown that the United States is not committed to any promises or agreements,” said Iranian Brig. Gen. Mohammad Jafar Asadi, spokesman for Iran’s military headquarters, Iranian news agencies reported.
“Surprise measures are planned for the enemy, beyond their imagination,” Asadi said.
President Donald Trump, speaking at an event in West Palm Beach, Fla., said Friday that the United States is “better off” without making a peace agreement.
“Frankly, maybe we’re better off not making a deal at all. Do you want to know the truth? Because we can’t let this thing go on,” CNN reported he said. “Been going on too long.”
Trump had told CNN before leaving for Florida that he wasn’t satisfied with Iran’s latest peace offer.
Trump said he doesn’t think Iran can make a deal, saying, “They’ve made strides, but I’m not sure if they ever get there,” saying there is “tremendous discord” among Iranian leaders.
The president also said Friday that his options, as it relates to Iran, are making a deal or to “blast the hell out of them and finish them forever,” CNN reported.
Iran is holding to its plan to continue to control the Strait of Hormuz.
“With its dominance and control over nearly [1,300 miles] of Iran’s coastline in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the IRGC [Revolutionary Guards] Navy will make this water area a source of livelihood and power for the dear Iranian people and a source of security and prosperity for the region,” the Iranian Tasnim news agency reported Saturday.
Trump has repeatedly demanded the strait be fully open.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Iran believes in interest-based diplomacy, Al Jazeera reported.
“Iran has presented its plan to Pakistan as a mediator with the aim of permanently ending the imposed war, and now the ball is in America’s court to choose the path of diplomacy or to continue the confrontational approach,” Al Jazeera reported that Gharibabadi said. “Iran is ready for both paths in order to ensure its national interests and security, and in any case, it will always maintain its pessimism and distrust of America and its honesty in the path of diplomacy,” he added.
