weighs

Mandy Moore shared her take on the drama swirling around her celebrity mommy group, months after fellow child actor Ashley Tisdale shaded the bunch in scathing essay last winter.

The “This Is Us” star and mother of three, during a recent appearance on Andy Cohen’s Sirius XM show “Radio Andy,” said she found the former “Suite Life of Zack & Cody” star’s article “very upsetting” and that it shocked both herself and fellow mommy group member Hilary Duff. “We have both grown up in this business and had people dissect who we are and the choices we make and all of that,” Moore, 42, told the Bravo host, “but this was something altogether different and decidedly way more upsetting … because it just cuts to the core.”

In December, New York magazine published “High School Musical” star Tisdale French’s essay for its “It’s Been a Year” series. The actor’s piece, titled “Breaking Up With My Toxic Mom Group,” accused other group members of snubbing Tisdale French from various gatherings and group chats. “‘This is too high school for me and I don’t want to take part in it anymore,’” Tisdale French, who shares two children with composer Christopher French, recalled texting the group.

As Tisdale French’s essay sparked speculation online about the identity of the group members, Duff’s husband Matthew Koma appeared to confirm his wife’s membership in a since-expired Instagram story post throwing the shade right back at Tisdale French.

For Moore, married to musician Taylor Goldsmith, kindness is “the most important thing” in her life, as is creating a legacy of kindness, she told Cohen. She said that she finds “anyone even insinuating that might not be the case” to be “very upsetting.” Moore said she is a “huge proponent” of addressing conflict head-on via face-to-face communication.

“‘I wouldn’t have handled the situation this way,’” she recalled feeling about the essay. Moore did not mention Tisdale French by name.

Moore said she also felt the scandalous essay “perpetuates this silly trope that women can’t be supportive of one another” and that women, specifically mothers, are “inherently petty” and committed to “one-up each other.”

“I have not felt that one iota since becoming a parent,” Moore said, adding she has formed “meaningful relationships” with other parents. She further stressed the importance of parents finding their community wherever they can.

Duff, 38, addressed the mommy group drama with The Times in February, telling pop music critic Mikael Wood that “this is not new for me” and she felt the situation was “escalated by the talking heads on TikTok that need clickbait.” Amid the social media chatter, Duff said her family is her focus.

”Knowing that I get to open up the back doors and play soccer as a family and take a hot tub and go get our chicken eggs — that’s the purpose of life,” she said. “On the days when crazy s— happens, I go home and quiet the noise.”

Global currency markets remained broadly stable on Monday despite escalating geopolitical tensions linked to the ongoing conflict involving the United States and Iran. The limited movement in the US dollar came after President Donald Trump rejected Iran’s response to a United States peace proposal, reinforcing concerns that the conflict in the Middle East may persist for an extended period.

At the center of global financial attention is the interaction between geopolitical risk, energy prices, and monetary policy expectations. Rising oil prices, driven by uncertainty in the Strait of Hormuz and broader regional instability, continue to shape inflation expectations across major economies. However, currency markets have shown relative restraint, suggesting that investors are balancing immediate geopolitical risks against expectations of eventual diplomatic stabilization.

The US dollar index, which measures the currency against a basket of major global currencies, remained largely unchanged. At the same time, oil prices rose sharply, reflecting renewed concerns about supply disruptions and prolonged conflict conditions.

Geopolitical Risk and Market Equilibrium

Financial markets are currently operating in a state of tension between short term geopolitical shocks and longer term expectations of resolution. The stability of the US dollar suggests that investors are not fully pricing in a sustained breakdown in global energy flows, despite elevated uncertainty in the Middle East.

The oil market, by contrast, continues to respond rapidly to political developments. The rise in crude prices reflects concerns that prolonged instability could restrict supply routes and tighten global energy availability. This divergence between currency stability and commodity volatility highlights the uneven transmission of geopolitical risk across financial systems.

Market analysts note that expectations of diplomatic engagement between the United States and China remain a key stabilizing factor. Investors increasingly view high level diplomatic meetings as potential mechanisms for de escalation, particularly given the influence both countries exert over global energy and trade systems.

The Role of the United States and China in Market Sentiment

A major factor influencing market behavior is the anticipated summit between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The meeting is expected to cover a wide range of strategic issues including energy security, artificial intelligence, nuclear policy, and regional conflicts.

Markets are closely monitoring this engagement because both the United States and China possess significant leverage over geopolitical and economic developments in the Middle East. China’s role as a major energy importer and diplomatic stakeholder in the region gives it potential influence over Iranian policy, while the United States remains the dominant military and financial actor in global markets.

This dual influence creates expectations that broader geopolitical tensions may eventually be moderated through strategic dialogue. As a result, investors are partially pricing in the possibility of containment rather than escalation, which helps explain the relative stability of major currencies.

Inflation Expectations and Central Bank Positioning

Energy price movements remain central to global inflation dynamics. Rising oil prices directly influence transportation costs, production expenses, and consumer prices, creating upward pressure on inflation across both advanced and emerging economies.

In the United States, recent economic data has reinforced expectations that the Federal Reserve will maintain a cautious monetary stance. Strong employment figures combined with persistent inflation risks have reduced expectations of near term interest rate cuts. This has contributed to support for the US dollar, as higher interest rate expectations typically attract capital inflows into dollar denominated assets.

The interaction between monetary policy and geopolitical risk is becoming increasingly complex. Central banks are now required to respond not only to domestic economic indicators but also to external shocks originating from energy markets and international conflicts.

In this environment, currency movements reflect not just economic fundamentals but also expectations regarding central bank behavior under conditions of sustained uncertainty.

Diverging Currency Movements and Global Economic Signals

While the US dollar remained stable, other major currencies exhibited modest weakness. The euro, yen, and British pound all recorded slight declines, reflecting broader caution in global markets.

The movement of the Chinese yuan, which briefly strengthened to its highest level in several years, adds another dimension to the global currency landscape. This reflects both domestic economic data and broader expectations regarding China’s role in global trade and energy markets.

China’s economic performance, particularly in exports and industrial activity, continues to be closely linked to global energy prices and supply chain dynamics. Strong export growth suggests resilience in external demand, even amid geopolitical uncertainty and rising production costs.

These currency movements collectively indicate that global markets are navigating a period of uneven economic signals, where regional conditions and geopolitical developments interact in complex ways.

The Interplay Between Markets and Political Uncertainty

One of the defining characteristics of the current financial environment is the speed at which geopolitical developments translate into market expectations. Currency traders and investors are increasingly sensitive to political signals, particularly those involving energy producing regions and major global powers.

However, despite heightened volatility in oil markets, the US dollar’s stability suggests that investors still view the global financial system as structurally resilient. Rather than anticipating systemic disruption, markets appear to be pricing in cyclical instability followed by eventual stabilization.

This reflects a broader pattern in which financial markets absorb geopolitical shocks through short term volatility without fully abandoning long term confidence in global economic integration.

Analysis

The stability of the US dollar amid escalating geopolitical tensions highlights a critical feature of contemporary global markets. While energy prices and regional conflicts generate significant short term volatility, currency markets remain anchored by expectations of monetary policy stability and eventual diplomatic resolution.

The current environment is characterized by three overlapping dynamics. First, geopolitical risk is elevated due to sustained conflict in the Middle East and uncertainty surrounding diplomatic negotiations. Second, energy markets are highly sensitive to supply disruptions, producing rapid price fluctuations. Third, central bank policy expectations continue to play a stabilizing role in currency valuation.

The anticipated meeting between the United States and China represents a key focal point for market sentiment, as investors look for signals of broader strategic coordination or de escalation. However, the underlying structural tensions in the global system remain unresolved.

Ultimately, the current stability of the dollar should not be interpreted as a sign of reduced risk, but rather as evidence that markets are temporarily balancing competing expectations of conflict, diplomacy, and monetary policy. In such an environment, volatility in commodities and geopolitical headlines may continue, even as major currencies appear relatively stable on the surface.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON. April 29 (UPI) — Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot left Haiti in 2010 after a deadly earthquake hit the island nation. As hundreds of thousands of Haitians died in the catastrophe, Miot fled to the United States, where he was granted temporary protected status, a short-term visa program.

Miot, 33, has lived in the States ever since and now researches Alzheimer’s disease in California as a doctoral candidate.

But last year, the Trump administration attempted to revoke his status and send him back to Haiti, along with all other Haitians who had been granted temporary protected status.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Miot’s case, along with a similar case that affects Syrian nationals living under temporary protected status. These legal battles, Trump vs. Miot and Mullin vs. Doe, could decide the future of some 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians living in the United States.

What is TPS?

Temporary protected status began in 1990, enacted as a way to provide foreign nationals relief from war, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Those with temporary protected status are granted legal status for up to 18 month periods, which can be extended based on an evaluation of the safety conditions in the countries they have left behind.

Currently 1.3 million people in the United States — from 17 countries — rely on temporary protected status. The Trump administration has attempted to terminate that status for those from 13 of those nations in the last year, including Afghanistan, Venezuela, South Sudan and Nicaragua.

Lower courts have blocked many of these terminations, deeming them unlawful, and immigrants under temporary protected status have remained in a state of limbo since. The results of these cases could set a legal precedent that would allow the termination of temporary protected status for citizens from these countries, with minimal oversight.

Two questions

Central to Wednesday’s debate were two questions: First, did then Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem follow correct procedure when deciding it would be safe to send people back to Haiti and Syria? Second, did the judicial branch have the legal right to interfere in the secretary’s decisions on temporary protected status?

Noem was criticized for not sufficiently consulting other state agencies when evaluating Haiti and Syria’s safety conditions. She was accused of violating the Administrative Procedures Act. Some Democratic-appointed Justices highlighted brief email exchanges Noem made with the State Department that led her to terminate Haiti and Syria’s status.

In the case of Haiti, she wrote last September to the State Department in an email, “Can you advise on State’s views on the matter?” The State Department simply replied, “State believes there would be no foreign policy concerns with respect to a change in the TPS status of Haiti.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Wednesday questioned whether a “meaningful exchange” of information was made and whether Noem made any effort to actually evaluate the nation’s safety conditions, which is the basis of how temporary protected status is granted.

The government’s attorney, Solicitor General John Sauer, argued that minimal oversight was required of the DHS secretary in these decisions. But Jackson took issue with that, saying it would mean that Noem “can basically do whatever she wants.”

Sauer also vehemently argued that the DHS secretary’s actions should not even be open to judicial review, citing a law that states judges cannot interfere in “any determination with respect to the designation, or termination or extension,” of temporary protected status.

However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded that while the courts can’t challenge the secretary’s ultimate decision, they can question whether the procedures taken to come to those decisions fall within the law.

The immigrants’ attorney, Sotomayor and Jackson all later grilled Sauer on whether the Trump administration’s terminations were racially discriminatory.

Sotomayor and Jackson referenced Trump’s previous hostile rhetoric toward both communities. The justices repeatedly referenced one particular post on Truth Social in which Trump said that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.”

Sotomayor said Trump’s statement showed that “discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision.”

Immigrant advocates watched the case closely.

“Certainly the goal of this Trump administration is to make people… immediately vulnerable,” Lucas Guttentag, a Stanford law professor who started the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in an interview.

He said this was part of a much larger campaign to “de-legalize” lawful immigrants and potentially “eviscerate the immigration and asylum protection system covered in this country for decades and generations.”

However, Ira Mehlman, the media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said that many of the immigrants living under temporary protected status had been here far too long.

He said many Haitians arrived 16 years ago. “By no reasonable assessment of the law or English language could you consider that time frame temporary,” he said in an interview.

He added that refugees from many countries, including Haiti and Syria, received temporary protected status because of natural disasters or civil wars that have already ended. So the reason to keep them in the United States has also ended.

“None of them were the Garden of Eden before the earthquake or hurricane … and they’re probably never going to be,” he added.

Kavanaugh echoed this sentiment, saying “The whole thing was the Assad regime was 53 years of brutal treatment and repression. It’s gone.”

Return to literally nothing

Liana Zogbi, a spokesperson from the non-profit Syrian Forum USA, painted a different picture. She said that Syrians would be “returning to literally nothing” should the Supreme Court rule in the government’s favor and Syrians be sent home.

“The majority of the country has been destroyed physically,” she said, explaining that schools, hospitals and even roads are still being rebuilt.

The State Department currently advises U.S. citizens not to travel to Syria “for any reason due to the risk of terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, hostage-taking, crime and armed conflict.”

Haiti is under a similar travel advisory from the State Department, which cites “crime, terrorism, unrest and limited healthcare.” Zogbi said the government would be contradicting itself were it to rule these countries safe for its nationals’ return but not safe enough for U.S. citizens to visit.

Hundreds of thousands of immigrants await a decision by the court, which is expected before July.

“Not only does it bring back up … the kind of trauma around instability and destabilizing their lives,” Zogbi said. “They [TPS holders] never know what can happen and how fast they have to leave. They constantly have to make plan A, B, C and D to just kind of prepare for any outcome of a situation.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is in discussions to potentially send more than 1,000 Afghans who assisted America’s war effort and relatives of U.S. service members stuck in Qatar to a third country, the U.S. government and some advocates said. Congo is an option, the advocates said.

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said Wednesday that U.S. officials informed him and other groups of discussions between the United States and Congo about taking the Afghan refugees who have been in limbo at a U.S. base in Doha for the last year.

The 1,100 refugees at Camp As-Sayliyah include Afghans who served as interpreters and with Special Operations Forces as well as the immediate families of more than 150 active-duty U.S. military members.

The State Department said Wednesday that it is working to identify options to “voluntarily” resettle the refugees in a third country, but it did not confirm which nations were being discussed.

An alternative provided to the refugees, VanDiver said, is to return to Afghanistan, where they face likely reprisal or even death at the hands of the Taliban for working alongside the U.S. during the two-decade war.

“You cannot call a choice voluntary when the two options are Congo and the Taliban, civil war or an oppressor who wants to kill you,” VanDiver said at a virtual news conference. “That is not a choice. That is a confession extracted under duress.”

The discussions — which were reported earlier by the New York Times — come more than a year after President Trump paused his predecessor’s Afghan resettlement program as part of a series of executive orders cracking down on immigration.

That policy left thousands of refugees who fled war and persecution, and had gone through a sometimes years-long vetting process to start new lives in America, stranded at places worldwide, including the base in Qatar.

From one war-torn country to another

Negotiations between the U.S. and several other countries, including Botswana and Malaysia, started months ago, according to an executive at a refugee resettlement agency who was briefed by U.S. officials. The executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity to share private negotiations, said that Botswana was seen by many refugee advocates as the most promising option but that talks between senior U.S. officials and the country’s leadership fell through. In early April, the executive was briefed that Congo was now the main option being discussed.

A person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity said they had heard from State Department personnel that the U.S. was looking at sending the Afghans at the base in Qatar to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The person said the Afghans were told Wednesday that there was no final deal on where to send them.

The base in Doha “was always intended as a transit platform. It was never designed to hold families for months or years, which is the situation that people are currently in,” said Jon Finer, who was deputy national security advisor to then-President Biden. “What I want to emphasize is that this was intended to honor a wartime commitment.”

Finer and other former U.S. officials and refugee advocates warned of the risk of resettling Afghans in Congo, a country that U.N. officials say is facing “one of the most acute humanitarian emergencies in the world.”

The African country has been battered by decades-long fighting between government forces and Rwanda-backed rebels in its eastern region.

Congolese authorities did not immediately respond to AP’s request for comment on the discussions, which did not come as a surprise to some there. Congo is one of at least eight African nations that were paid millions in controversial deals with the Trump administration to receive migrants deported from the U.S. to countries other than their own.

Like most other African nations involved in the deportation program, Congo is also among the worst-hit by the Trump administration’s policies on aid and trade. At least 70% of the country’s humanitarian aid came from the U.S. before Trump’s second term, and aid workers say American aid cuts have led to avoidable deaths in the conflict-hit region.

Sean Jamshidi — an Afghan American who served in the U.S. military, including a stint in Congo — said he was deeply concerned about his brother possibly being sent from the Doha base to the war-torn country.

“I saw the security situation and what it looked like there. I saw the displacement camps. … I stood in places where the United Nations has counted the dead,” Jamshidi said. “I’m telling you, as someone who has been in uniform, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a place you send vetted Afghan allies and their children to live.”

Refugees are in the dark as they await their fate

Negina Khalili, a former prosecutor in Afghanistan who fled during the 2021 U.S. withdrawal, has been waiting to hear about the resettlement status of her father, brother and stepmother since they arrived at the Doha base in January 2025. That was just days before Trump suspended the refugee program soon after he returned to the White House.

Khalili told the Associated Press on Wednesday that she spoke to her family about reports that they could be sent to Congo.

“They are not giving them any information or updates regarding which countries they will go to,” she said. “They were so stressed and worried about it and said that Congo is not a safe place either. They don’t know if it’s a temporary location for them there or a permanent location. They are worried.”

She said U.S. officials at the camp have been suggesting to refugees that they go back to Afghanistan and offering them money to do so.

Amiri, Santana and Asadu write for the Associated Press. Amiri reported from New York and Asadu from Abuja, Nigeria. AP writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — A man carrying a gun and a cellphone entered a federal credit union in a small town in central Virginia in May 2019 and demanded cash.

He left with $195,000 in a bag and no clue to his identity. But his smartphone was keeping track of him.

What happened next could yield a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court on the 4th Amendment and its restrictions against “unreasonable searches.”

Typically, police use tips or leads to find suspects, then seek a search warrant from a judge to enter a house or other private area to seize the evidence that can prove a crime.

Civil libertarians say the new “digital dragnets” work in reverse.

“It’s grab the data and search first. Suspicion later. That’s opposite of how our system has worked, and it’s really dangerous,” said Jake Laperruque, an attorney for the Center for Democracy & Technology.

But these new data scans can be effective in finding criminals.

Lacking leads in the Virginia bank robbery, a police detective turned to what one judge in the case called a “groundbreaking investigative tool … enabling the relentless collection of eerily precise location data.”

Cellphones can be tracked through towers, and Google stored this location history data for hundreds of millions of users. The detective sent Google a demand for information known as a “geofence warrant,” referring to a virtual fence around a particular geographic area at a specific time.

The officer sought phones that were within 150 yards of the bank during the hour of the robbery. He used that data to locate Okello Chatrie, then obtained a search warrant of his home where the cash and the holdup notes were found.

Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, but the Supreme Court will hear his appeal on April 27.

The justices agreed to decide whether geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment.

The outcome may go beyond location tracking. At issue more broadly is the legal status of the vast amount of privately stored data that can be easily scanned.

This may include words or phrases found in Google searches or in emails. For example, investigators may want to know who searched for a particular address in the weeks before an arson or a murder took place there or who searched for information on making a particular type of bomb.

Judges are deeply divided on how this fits with the 4th Amendment.

Two years ago, the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled “geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the 4th Amendment.”

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in a 4th Amendment privacy case in 2018.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Historians of the 4th Amendment say the constitutional ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” arose from the anger in the American colonies over British officers using general warrants to search homes and stores even when they had no reason to suspect any particular person of wrongdoing.

The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers relies on that contention in opposing geofence warrants.

Its lawyers argued the government obtained Chatrie’s “private location information … with an unconstitutional general warrant that compelled Google to conduct a fishing expedition through millions of Google accounts, without any basis for believing that any one of them would contain incriminating evidence.”

Meanwhile, the more liberal 4th Circuit in Virginia divided 7-7 to reject Chatrie’s appeal. Several judges explained the law was not clear, and the police officer had done nothing wrong.

“There was no search here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a concurring opinion that defended the use of this tracking data.

He pointed to Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s declaring that check records held by a bank or dialing records held by a phone company were not private and could be searched by investigators without a warrant.

Chatrie had agreed to having his location records held by Google. If financial records for several months are not private, the judge wrote, “surely this request for a two-hour snapshot of one’s public movements” is not private either.

Google changed its policy in 2023 and no longer stores location history data for all of its users. But cellphone carriers continue to receive warrants that seek tracking data.

Wilkinson, a prominent conservative from the Reagan era, also argued it would be a mistake for the courts to “frustrate law enforcement’s ability to keep pace with tech-savvy criminals” or cause “more cold cases to go unsolved. Think of a murder where the culprit leaves behind his encrypted phone and nothing else. No fingerprints, no witnesses, no murder weapon. But because the killer allowed Google to track his location, a geofence warrant can crack the case,” he wrote.

Judges in Los Angeles upheld the use of a geofence warrant to find and convict two men for a robbery and murder in a bank parking lot in Paramount.

The victim, Adbadalla Thabet, collected cash from gas stations in Downey, Bellflower, Compton and Lynwood early in the morning before driving to the bank.

After he was robbed and shot, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective found video surveillance that showed he had been followed by two cars whose license plates could not be seen.

The detective then sought a geofence warrant from a Superior Court judge that asked Google for location data for six designated spots on the morning of the murder.

That led to the identification of Daniel Meza and Walter Meneses, who pleaded guilty to the crimes. A California Court of Appeal rejected their 4th Amendment claim in 2023, even though the judges said they had legal doubts about the “novelty of the particular surveillance technique at issue.”

The Supreme Court has also been split on how to apply the 4th Amendment to new types of surveillance.

By a 5-4 vote, the court in 2018 ruled the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before it required a cellphone company to turn over 127 days of records for Timothy Carpenter, a suspect in a series of store robberies in Michigan.

The data confirmed Carpenter was nearby when four of the stores were robbed.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, joined by four liberal justices, said this lengthy surveillance violated privacy rights protected by the 4th Amendment.

The “seismic shifts in technology” could permit total surveillance of the public, Roberts wrote, and “we decline to grant the state unrestricted access” to these databases.

But he described the Carpenter decision as “narrow” because it turned on the many weeks of surveillance data.

In dissent, four conservatives questioned how tracking someone’s driving violates their privacy. Surveillance cameras and license plate readers are commonly used by investigators and have rarely been challenged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer relies on that argument in his defense of Chatrie’s conviction. “An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements that anyone could see,” he wrote.

The justices will issue a decision by the end of June.

WASHINGTON — With a fragile ceasefire set to expire with Iran in a matter of days, President Trump is still deciding between diplomacy and a resumption of fighting that may ultimately hinge on his definition of victory.

Negotiations have continued over the last week between the warring sides over a potential agreement that would end the conflict and curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with interlocutors from Pakistan passing messages that have kept talks alive. Tehran has floated an extension of the two-week ceasefire, set to expire Tuesday, that is under active consideration by the American side.

But the Islamic Republic has simultaneously vowed retaliation over a new U.S. blockade of Iranian ports that in effect cut off Tehran’s oil sales, which make up nearly 85% of the country’s export revenue. And the Trump administration is deploying up to 10,000 additional troops to the region, on top of the 50,000 already there, both reinforcing the blockade and threatening ground operations if diplomacy fails.

Conflicting messages from the Trump administration are designed to escalate pressure on Tehran ahead of the ceasefire deadline, potentially extracting concessions at the negotiating table.

But speaking with reporters, Trump has made it clear he is seeking a way to end the war for good.

“I think it’s close to over,” Trump told Fox Business Network’s “Mornings with Maria” on Wednesday. “I view it as very close to over. If I pulled up stakes right now, it would take them 20 years to rebuild that country. And we’re not finished. We’ll see what happens. I think they want to make a deal very badly.”

Negotiations toward that end have proved more challenging than the administration initially anticipated.

Trump has said he started the war in order to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, degrade its ballistic missile and drone programs, and destroy its navy. But in talks, the Iranians have not relented on their right to enrich uranium, to maintain conventional defensive capabilities and to police traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most vital waterways.

Tehran rejected a proposal by U.S. negotiators last week for a 20-year pause on Iran’s domestic enrichment of fissile material, with the Iranians countering with a five-year moratorium, one official said.

In his interview with Fox, Trump said the talks were going so well that an extension of the ceasefire might not be necessary. Yet, speaking with the New York Post, Trump suggested he wouldn’t settle for less than an indefinite cap on Iran’s nuclear work.

“I’ve been saying they can’t have nuclear weapons,” Trump said, “so I don’t like the 20 years.”

“I don’t want them to feel like they have a win,” he added.

The U.S. ceasefire with Iran was predicated on the resumption of free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. But Iranian threats of a new toll system and warnings of drifting mines have limited traffic, prompting the Trump administration to announce a full blockade of the strait. Despite the U.S. threat, ships have continued transiting the passage this week, suggesting the U.S. blockade has focused more specifically on Iranian ports.

Amid the impasse, global oil prices remain stubbornly high — a concern for Republicans entering this year’s midterm election season. Trump told Fox that he expected prices to drop to prewar levels by the time of the vote in November.

“There’s gonna be a hit, but it’s going to recover, I think, fully,” Trump said. “I think that we will be somewhere around where we were — maybe even lower. And when this is over, I think the stock market is going to boom.”

A second round of high-level negotiations could take place in Islamabad, Pakistan, over the next several days, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters at a news briefing Wednesday.

Pakistani officials traveled to Tehran on Wednesday to deliver a message from the U.S. delegation, potentially laying the groundwork for new, in-person talks.

“He’s made his red lines in these negotiations very clear to the other side,” Leavitt said. “We feel good about the prospects of a deal.”