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.
US President Donald Trump says the latest Iranian peace proposal includes demands he ‘can’t agree to’.
Published On 2 May 20262 May 2026
United States President Donald Trump has voiced frustration with Iran’s latest peace proposal, saying “they’re asking for things I can’t agree to”, and cautioning against ending the conflict too early, only for tensions to resurface “in three more years”.
At the same time, Washington has warned that ships paying tolls or fees to Iran to transit the Strait of Hormuz could face US sanctions, signalling a tougher stance on maritime activity linked to Tehran.
Meanwhile, a new Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll shows 61 percent of Americans believe Trump’s use of military force against Iran was a mistake.
Here is what we know:
April 30 (UPI) — The Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern corporations announced Thursday a new merger proposal after a federal regulator rejected their initial plan in January.
The two companies applied for a merger in July, seeking to create the United States’ first transcontinental freight railroad.
The Surface Transportation Board rejected the proposal saying the application was incomplete.
A statement from the two companies said they resubmitted the application with “additional analysis” indicating cost savings for customers and improvement to the U.S. supply chain. It said the deal would take 2 million truckloads off the nation’s roadways and save $3.5 billion each year.
“After completing the additional work requested by the STB, the facts remain clear: This merger enhances competition and delivers real public benefits that make America’s supply chain stronger, Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena said in a statement.
The new submission includes traffic data from each of the six North American Class I railroads instead of sample data provided by the STB, the companies said.
The STB will have 30 days to review the new application.
The United States is considering a new proposal from Iran to end the ongoing war amid a fragile ceasefire between the longtime adversaries.
The offer focuses on reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz while postponing a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme, arguably the most contentious issue between Tehran and Washington.
list of 3 itemsend of list
According to US media outlets, the proposal has drawn scrutiny in Washington, and officials there have expressed scepticism.
Early indications from the Trump administration suggest the plan is unlikely to be accepted in its current form, potentially further delaying any prospect of permanently ending the currently paused US-Israel war on Iran, which has killed thousands and sent global energy prices soaring.
Here is what we know so far:
Iran’s latest proposal aims for de-escalation in the Gulf without immediately placing restraints on its nuclear programme, as the US has demanded. Tehran has offered to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on the condition that the US lifts its naval blockade on Iranian ports and agrees to end the war.
Iran has effectively closed the strait to shipping, creating global economic pressure by driving up energy prices and disrupting supply chains. In peacetime, one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies are shipped through the narrow passage, which links Gulf oil producers to the open ocean.
Days after the ceasefire began on April 8, Trump announced a blockade on Iranian ports and ships, restricting Tehran’s ability to export oil and cutting off a crucial source of its revenue.
However, a central feature of Iran’s offer to reopen the Strait to all traffic is that discussions over Iran’s nuclear activities would be postponed until after the war ends.
The proposal was conveyed to Washington through Pakistan, which has been acting as a mediator.
“These messages concern some of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s red lines, including nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz,” Iranian state media Fars News Agency reported.
“Informed sources emphasise Mr Araghchi is acting entirely within the framework of the specified red lines and the diplomatic duties of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”
The news agency said the messages relayed were “unrelated to negotiations” and are “considered an initiative by Iran to clarify the regional situation”.
Iranian analyst Abas Aslani said Iran’s latest proposal is based on an “altered” approach.
Aslani, a senior research fellow at the Centre for Middle East Strategic Studies, told Al Jazeera that Tehran believes its previous model – which was based on making compromises on its nuclear programme in exchange for economic sanctions relief – is no longer a “viable path towards a potential accord”.
“Iran believes this can also function as a trust-building measure to compensate for the trust-deficit issue,” he added.
On Monday, Tehran’s envoy to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said “lasting stability and security” in the Gulf and the wider region can only be achieved through a durable and permanent cessation of aggression against Iran.
US President Donald Trump met with top security advisers on Monday to discuss the Iranian proposal, the White House confirmed.
However, according to media reports, the US response has been largely dismissive. According to Reuters, an unnamed US official said President Trump was unhappy with the proposal because it did not include provisions for Iran’s nuclear programme. The official noted that “he doesn’t love the proposal”.
Citing two people familiar with the matter, US media outlet CNN reported that Trump was unlikely to accept the proposal. It said Washington lifting its blockade of Iranian ports without resolving questions over Tehran’s nuclear programme “could remove a key piece of American leverage in the talks”.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Monday that the proposal was “better than what we thought they were going to submit”, but questioned Tehran’s intentions.
“They’re very good negotiators,” he said. “We have to ensure that any deal that is made, any agreement that is made, is one that definitively prevents them from sprinting towards a nuclear weapon at any point.”
Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna, reporting from Washington, said, “There’s been a complete lid over what was discussed” during the meeting between Trump and his national security team.
“It was so tight that we do not know exactly who in his national security team was present at that meeting,” Hanna added.
“Normally, there is some form of readout or some form of more information giving, fleshing out the details of a meeting like this.”
While the “US and Iran feel that time is on their side, the longer this goes on, the more difficult it’s going to be,” Mohamed Elmasry, an analyst for the Doha Institute of Graduate Studies, said.
“I really don’t think time is on anyone’s side. I really do think the Europeans are losing patience,” he told Al Jazeera.
On Monday, German Chancellor Merz stated that the “Iranians are negotiating very skilfully”, Elmasry noted. He said this shows that Trump is coming under increasing pressure from his allies, “who believe he [Trump] got them into this big mess and isn’t able to clean it up”.
“Trump isn’t going to be happy hearing that and the chancellor is hitting Trump where it hurts.”
In a social media post, President Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire in the war on Iran, but with the US blockade still in place. Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher says there are signs of movement as Trump shifts towards discussing a ‘unified proposal’.
Published On 22 Apr 202622 Apr 2026
Share
WASHINGTON — NASA recaptured the world’s attention with Artemis II, which took astronauts to the moon and back for the first time in half a century. But the agency’s scientific projects could again be under threat as the Trump administration makes a renewed push to drastically cut their funding — including at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
The cuts, proposed in the Trump administration’s 2027 budget request to Congress, would pose further challenges to the already weakened Caltech-managed lab and could be broadly damaging to American efforts to bring back new discoveries from space. They echo last year’s attempt by the administration to slash NASA funding, which Congress rejected.
Though the Artemis project is billed as laying a foundation for a crewed NASA mission to Mars, exploration of the Red Planet is among the endeavors that could be slashed. The rover currently exploring Mars’ ancient river delta and a mission to orbit Venus are among projects with JPL involvement targeted for spending cuts, according to an analysis of the NASA budget proposal by the nonprofit Planetary Society.
“This isn’t [because] they’re not producing good science anymore. There’s no rhyme or reason to it,” said Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, which led opposition to the administration’s similar effort to cut NASA funding last year.
Storm clouds hang over the Jet Propulsion Laboratory on Feb. 7, 2024.
(David McNew / Getty Images)
This time, the administration is asking Congress to cut NASA funding by 23% — including a 46% cut to its science programs, which are responsible for developing spacecraft, sending them into outer space to observe and analyzing the data they send back.
The proposal would cancel 53 science missions and reduce funding for others, according to the Planetary Society analysis. The effort to pare down NASA Science comes amid the Trump administration’s broader effort to cut scientific research across federal agencies.
The plan swiftly drew bipartisan criticism from members of Congress, who rejected the administration’s similar 2026 proposal in January. Republican Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that oversees NASA, indicated last week that he would work to fund NASA similarly for 2027, saying it would be “a mistake” not to fund science missions.
Moran plans to hold a hearing with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman before the end of April to review the budget request, a spokesperson for his office said. The president’s budget request is an ask to Congress, which ultimately holds the power to allocate funding.
But until Congress creates its own budget, NASA will use the plan as its road map, which could slow grants and contracts. The proposal “still creates enormous chaos and uncertainty in the meantime for critical missions, the scientific workforce, and long-term research planning,” said Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park), whose district includes JPL.
A NASA spokesperson declined to comment Friday. In the budget request, Isaacman wrote that NASA was “pursuing a focused and right-sized portfolio” for its space science missions in order to align with Trump’s federal cost-cutting goals.
The budget “reinforces U.S. leadership in space science through groundbreaking missions, completed research, and next-generation observatories,” Isaacman wrote.
Jared Isaacman testifies during his confirmation hearing to be the NASA administrator in the Russell Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on Dec. 3, 2025.
(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)
At JPL — which has for decades led innovation in space science and technology from its La Cañada Flintridge campus — questions had already swirled about the lab’s role in the future of NASA work.
Multiple rounds of layoffs over the last two years, the defunding of its embattled Mars Sample Return mission and a shift by the Trump administration toward lunar exploration and away from the type of scientific work that JPL executes had pushed the lab into a challenging stretch.
It has had a steady stream of employee departures in recent months, and those left have been scrambling to court outside funding from private investors, sell JPL technology to companies and increase productivity in hopes of keeping the lab afloat, according to two former staffers, who requested anonymity to describe the mood inside the lab.
“If we’re not doing science, then what are we doing?” asked one former employee, who recently left JPL after more than a decade there.
A spokesperson for the lab declined to comment, referring The Times to the budget proposal.
The NASA programs marked for cancellation or cutbacks support thousands of jobs at JPL and other centers, said Chu, who has led a push for increased funding for NASA Science. After last year’s layoffs, JPL “cannot afford to lose more of this expertise,” she said in a statement.
Among the JPL projects that appear to be slated for cancellation are two involving Venus, Dreier said. One, Veritas, is early in development and would give work to the lab for the next several years, he said.
The project would be the first U.S. mission to Venus in more than 30 years, Dreier said, and aims to make a high-resolution mapping of the planet’s surface and observe its atmosphere.
The Perseverance rover, which is on Mars collecting rock and soil samples, could face spending reductions. The budget request proposes pulling some funding from Perseverance to fund other planetary science missions and reducing “the pace of operations” for the rover.
Though how the Mars samples might get back to Earth is uncertain, the rover is still being used to explore the planet and search for evidence of whether it could have ever been habitable to life.
Researchers hope the tubes of Martian rock, soil and sediment can eventually be brought back to Earth for study. The team has about a half a dozen more sample tubes to fill and the rover is in good shape, said Jim Bell, a planetary scientist and Arizona State University professor who leads the camera team on Perseverance, which works daily with JPL.
He said NASA’s spending proposal put forth “no plan” for the future of the agency’s work.
“Are people just supposed to walk away from their consoles,” Bell asked, “and let these orbiters around other planets or rovers on other worlds — just let them die?”
The NASA document did not clearly show which programs were targeted for cuts and did not list which projects were targeted for cancellation. The Planetary Society and the American Astronomical Society each analyzed the proposal and found that dozens of projects appeared to be canceled without being named in the document.
Across NASA, other projects slated for cancellation according to the Planetary Society’s analysis include New Horizons, a spacecraft exploring the outer edge of the solar system; the Atmosphere Observing System, a planned project to collect weather, air quality and climate data; and Juno, a spacecraft studying Jupiter.
The administration’s plan also doesn’t prioritize new scientific projects, Bell said, which further jeopardizes long-term job stability and space discovery at centers like JPL.
“We’re going through this long stretch now with very few opportunities to build these spacecrafts,” Bell said. “All of the NASA centers are suffering from the lack of opportunities.”
Last year, the Trump administration proposed to slash NASA’s 2026 funding by nearly half. Instead, Congress approved funding in January that provided $24.4 billion for the agency — a cut of about 29% rather than the proposed 46%. The 2027 budget request asks for $18.8 billion.
Congress kept funding for science missions nearly steady, allocating $7.25 billion for science missions, about a 1% decrease from 2025. The administration had proposed cutting the science investment down to $3.91 billion. This time, the budget requests $3.89 billion.
Under the Trump administration, NASA has put an emphasis on moon exploration, including this month’s successful Artemis II mission. Isaacman, who defended the proposed cuts on CNN last week, touted the agency’s lunar plans, including a project to build a base on the moon.
The agency has indicated commitment to some existing science missions, including the James Webb Space Telescope, the to-be-launched Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the Dragonfly spacecraft set to launch for Saturn’s moon in 2028, and other projects.
“NASA doesn’t have a topline problem, we just need to focus on executing and delivering world-changing outcomes,” Isaacman said on CNN.
Scientists have urged the government not to choose between funding science and exploration but to keep up investment in both.
“It’s ultimately kind of confusing, especially on the heels of the Artemis II mission,” said Roohi Dalal, deputy director for public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “The scientific community … is providing critical services to ensure that the astronauts are able to carry out their mission safely, and yet at the same time, they’re facing this significant cut.”