The Dictatorship
U.S.-Iran ceasefire: What we know
When President Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran shortly before his own deadline for Tehran to comply with U.S. demands or be wiped off the Earthhe didn’t simply say hostilities had halted.
He said the United States had favorably received a 10-point proposal from Iran and billed the two weeks not as a temporary end to fighting, but a chance to simply formalize a deal the countries had been negotiating since before the U.S. and Israel attacked at the end of February.
“Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran,” Trump said in a Truth Social post Tuesday night.
Since then, the two sides seem to have agreed on very littleincluding whether the war has actually been paused. Iran has alleged it has faced attacks even after the ceasefire was announced; the U.S. military has said it was not them.
That 10-point plan — the one Trump called “a workable basis on which to negotiate” Tuesday night — was dismissed Wednesday by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt as “fundamentally unserious, unacceptable and completely discarded,” saying the president literally threw it in the garbage.
In fact, after thousands of deaths, more than a month of regional instability and a hit to the global economy, it’s unclear how much of what’s on the table even differs from the lead-up to the war.
Here’s a closer look at some of the points of contention that could determine whether the ceasefire holds:
The Strait of Hormuz
Trump called the ceasefire contingent on Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow trade route at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which about 20% of the global oil and gas supply passes. He even floated the strange possibility of Washington and Tehran jointly collecting tolls on tankers that use the lane.
Iran said it would only reopen the strait once a series of conditions were met, including some that may be beyond Trump’s control, such as whether Israel withdraws from Lebanon.
Control of the strait is arguably Iran’s greatest strategic advantage. After it was attacked, Iran effectively closed the tightly curved passage by striking ships that tried to sail past, sending the price of oil and other goods skyrocketing. Trump’s threat to destroy an entire civilization was meant to force Tehran to allow tankers to once again pass through, even though he has insisted over the course of the conflict that he would leave other nations to cope with the closure since the U.S. sources relatively little energy from that route.
Nuclear enrichment
The U.S. has demanded Iran completely stop its uranium enrichment, and of the shifting reasons the Trump administration has provided for why it went to war alongside Israel, this one eventually became the most consistent.
Before the war, Iran was working toward enriching its nuclear fuel to the point that it could be considered weapons-grade, well beyond the level agreed upon by several countries in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement during his first term in 2018, calling it a bad deal. Tehran responded by ramping up enrichment despite international pressure to stop.
In its ceasefire proposal, Iran emphasized its right to enrichment. Without a return to something like the 2015 arrangement, this could be the single biggest sticking point.
Sanctions
Iran has been burdened with its own economic crisis even before the war started. Iran’s national currency, the rial, fell to a record low in December, leading shopkeepers in Tehran to take to the streets in protest. U.S. sanctionson Iran, some of which have existed since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, have further strained an already struggling economy. Iran has called on the U.S. to lift primary and secondary sanctionswhich not only directly affected Iran, but also prevent third parties from conducting trade with the country.
The most crippling U.S. sanctions are on Iranian oil.
“We are, and will be, talking Tariff and Sanctions relief with Iran,” Trump said Wednesday.
Lebanon
Iran has demanded the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, an unlikely scenario considering the positive relationship between the U.S. and Gulf Arab countries that host its military bases. More immediately pressing is the issue of Lebanon.
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who has emerged as a the primary diplomatic intermediary in the war, said all parties agreed to “an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.” Israel and the U.S disagreed.
Lebanon was dragged into the war after the Iran-backed militia Hezbollah mounted an attack against Israel in retaliation for assassination of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Not even 24 hours after the ceasefire was announced, Israel struck central Beirut in what Israel called the largest coordinated military strike in the war, with more than 100 Hezbollah targets hit within 10 minutes in Beirut, southern Lebanon and other areas.
Israel’s attack on Lebanon could jeopardize the fragile agreement, with Iran threatening to pull back. Following the attack, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said, “The U.S. must choose — ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both. The world sees the massacres in Lebanon,” adding that “the ball is in the U.S. court.”
What’s next?
Sharif proposed direct talks between the U.S. and Iran on Friday in Islamabad. Leavitt said Wednesday that Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, will represent the U.S. in negotiations, though Trump said it was possible Vance would not attend due to security concerns.
In the meantime, Sharif asked all warring countries to adhere to the ceasefire amid reports of attacks in the region. While Israel has continued to bombard Lebanon, countries such as Qatar, the UAE and Kuwait said they have continued to intercept missiles and drones coming from Iran.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House said Thursday night that Vice President JD Vance was delaying a trip to Switzerland, where he’d been set to lead a new round of negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program — raising questions about what’s next for the tentative agreement to end the war.
The team led by Vance had been ready to leave but was postponing, the White House said, citing difficult logistics for negotiations. The announcement followed a report from Al-Mayadeen, a pan-Arab satellite channel that is politically allied with the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, that Iran was delaying sending its delegation to Switzerland over Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Lebanon.
Vance, who was initially personally skeptical of the U.S. going to war with Iranhas increasingly become the administration’s face of the conflict and has been outspoken in defending the deal.
Earlier Thursday, he took the relatively unusual step of appearing at the White House to defend the initial deal to extend the ceasefire 60 days and allow for more negotiating — arguing that while it offers concessions, Iran first has to comply with U.S. demands.
“As they dial up their good behavior, we can dial up the economic relief,” Vance said. “If they dial down their good behavior, we can turn it off.”
But the vice president also had said during those remarks that he was not sure of the timing of his planned to Switzerland and that talks might not begin this week. The formal postponement now makes that even less clear.
Vance staying put in Washington came after the U.S. said it had lifted its blockade, allowing oil tankers to begin freely moving through the Strait of Hormuz after months of being unable to use the critical channel. Still, the tentative agreement has drawn sharp criticism from some in the U.S. — including a few congressional Republicans — who worry Washington ceded too much to Iran with relief from sanctions and a potential $300 billion fund to help with rebuilding.
Earlier, a top Trump administration envoy told U.S. lawmakers in a private briefing that Iran will invite the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency to inspect its nuclear sites.
And Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei had seemed to endorse direct negotiations for his officials.
“It is obvious that the face-to-face negotiations that will be held in the future will not mean accepting the enemy’s opinion,” he said in a statement read by state media.
It was Khamenei’s first reaction to the agreement, and it was interpreted as a shift in Iran’s approach. Hard-liners, especially Khamenei’s father, the previous supreme leaderhave long opposed direct talks, especially after the U.S. pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers.
The supreme leader has not been seen in public since he was wounded in a strike at the start of the war.
Lawmakers told Iran will invite UN inspectors to its nuclear sites
The agreement states that Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium must at minimum be diluted under international supervision. It also says that Iran shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons — a commitment it has made previously.
Trump envoy Steve Witkoff told members of Congress that Iran will invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its nuclear sites and begin work on identifying and uncovering the locations of Tehran’s enriched material, which is believed to be buried under rubble.
Witkoff’s private briefing was described by two people familiar with the conversation who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to share the closed-door details.
The agreement requires Iran to “commit to renounce their nuclear ambitions in writing,” said White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales. The IAEA did not respond to a request for comment.
Witkoff told congressional leadership and members of national security-related committees that the agreement the U.S. struck with Iran did not include any side deals, but a side letter was drafted between Tehran and the IAEA extending the invitation.
Witkoff said the letter to IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi would enable him to bring U.S. nuclear inspectors to Tehran.
Vance defends US-Iran deal and has sharp words for Israel
Before Vance delayed his trip, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif postponed a planned visit to Switzerland, where Islamabad officials had originally planned to host a ceremonial signing ceremony for the agreement. That visit was postponed because the agreement had already been signed by both Iran and the U.S., said two senior officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
President Donald Trump signed the initial pact with Iran on Wednesday while dining with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles. The deal is slated to take immediate effect and extends a ceasefire while giving each side 60 days to hammer out broader agreements on larger issues.
Vance, in his comments at the White House, shrugged off criticism about the confusing rollout of the initial deal, saying, “I don’t think our public messaging has been chaotic.”
He also offered a blunt warning to Israel, which has pushed the U.S. to take a harder stance against Iran and launched attacks on the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon throughout the war, including just before the deal extending the ceasefire was reached. Those attacks complicated the peace efforts with Iran.
Trump “is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” Vance said. “And he happens to be the head of state of the world’s superpower.”
Shipping starts to pick up
Trump said he signed the agreement to avoid “economic catastrophe” in the U.S., after the war caused oil prices to skyrocket, made financial markets skittish and fueled inflation. The deal caused gas prices to fall and stock markets to rise — though rallies could be threatened again depending on how the next round of U.S.-Iran talks go.
The vice president said more than 12.5 million barrels of oil went through the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday night and said that the U.S. easing its blockade of Iran means “honoring our end of the early part of the agreement on the military side.”
U.S. Central Command said American warships “will remain in the general area to make sure that all aspects of the agreement are adhered to, obeyed and in full force and effect.”
Iranian state media said shipping had “normalized” at Iran’s southern ports but added that the strait remains supervised and under the control of the Iranian military, and transiting through the vital waterway still requires coordination.
Major shipowners began moving vessels through the strait after the agreement was signed, according to maritime data company Lloyd’s List Intelligence, though Lloyd’s did not give data on how many ships have passed through the strait as of Thursday.
In a media briefing, Richard Meade, editor-in-chief of Lloyd’s List, said for the first time in 110 days, ships owned by major companies are transiting the strait after effectively being marooned there since February. It could take weeks or months to fully reopen the strait, and the two alternative routes do not have as much capacity as the strait’s central passage.
___
Associated Press writers Munir Ahmed in Islamabad; Aamer Madhani in Zurich; Collin Binkley in Washington; Mae Anderson in New York; and Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators on Thursday ordered regional grid operators to help large energy users connect more quickly to the nation’s inefficient and aging electric transmission system, a step they said is needed to accommodate surging demand from power-hungry artificial intelligence data centers.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright had urged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to act in an effort to help the United States better compete with China for superiority in the fast-growing AI sector.
Tech companies and data center developers welcomed the chance to connect faster to the country’s power supply for the biggest energy users ever built in the United States, including some that consume more electricity than a small city.
Utilities, states and regional grid operators had worried that the Republican administration’s plan would remove their authority to manage the process, but FERC said the order leaves states in control of retail electric rates, terms and conditions. Clean energy advocates have urged regulators not to undermine state-level efforts to require the use of renewable energies.
The commission’s actions come as a backlash grows against data centers over concerns about the massive amounts of energy and water they use and fears about noise and air pollution, water shortages and a loss of open space or farmland.
Unanimous vote and affordability
FERC members voted unanimously to direct six regional grid operators to ensure that AI data centers and other large power users are “able to connect to the transmission system in a timely and orderly manner.”
Laura Swett, an appointee of President Donald Trump who chairs the commission, called the vote “historic” and said it would push the country’s electricity market into the future while respecting states’ rights, protecting reliable electric service and shielding ratepayers from shouldering the costs of connecting big power users to the grid.
“I know that Americans across the country are concerned about affordability, and so are we,” Swett said, referring to the five-member commission. As chair, “I am taking extremely seriously the mission that Congress has entrusted us to ensure that rates are reasonable,” she said.
The vote comes eight months after Wright asked the independent agency to take more control over ensuring that the vast network of massive computing warehouses needed to power AI are connected quickly to high-voltage transmission lines.
Wright hailed the commission’s action, saying it would “remove barriers, accelerate development and ensure America has the affordable, reliable and secure energy needed to power a new era of prosperity.”
Data centers would pay the full cost of any grid upgrades needed for their connection, under the commission order. But that order can do little to address the tightening energy supplies that are driving up electricity bills in some areas and raising warnings of blackouts as the construction of data centers outpaces the speed of new power plants coming online to serve them.
Robert Montejo, a lawyer who represents data centers, said the most important message from FERC’s action is that AI “has fundamentally changed the electricity landscape. The grid and prior policy were not built for the pace and scale of demand we’re seeing from AI infrastructure, and FERC is signaling that standing still is no longer an option.”
The six regional grid operators under the order serve 200 million Americans, or two-thirds of FERC’s jurisdiction. FERC, meanwhile, invited utilities that handle their regional transmission systems to also participate and analysts said the agency could eventually pressure them, too.
A search for power
Tech giants are scrambling to find enough power for their data centers and report that, in some places, it will take years to connect to the electric grid.
The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned electric utilities, said FERC’s order builds on regional and state processes already underway while “supporting flexibility and innovation.”
Besides power bottlenecks, the tech industry is running into widespread opposition from communities where residents don’t want to live next to or near a data center.
More than 4,000 data centers now operate in the U.S., according to one estimate, with an additional 3,000 planned or under construction.
Trump has tried to deflect public concerns about AI, seeing the fast-evolving technology as crucial for the U.S. to attract foreign investment and maintain its economic and military prowess. He signed an executive order this month establishing a framework for the federal government to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems for up to a month before their public release.
In December, FERC took an earlier step to help data center operators get electricity quickly, voting to allow tech companies to effectively plug a data center directly into a power plant and Thursday’s order sought to ensure that option is accessible around the country.
Power demands from data centers
FERC told grid operators to respond within 30 days on how they will ensure there is adequate power supplies for new and future data centers, and within 60 days on plans to integrate large power users in line with the new guidelines. Swett told reporters after the meeting that she hoped faster connection processes are in effect in “as little time as possible.” She didn’t set an exact timeline.
Jeff Dennis, executive director of the Electricity Customer Alliance, said FERC’s order is responsive in particular to big power users and state regulators.
Tech giants are confronting unclear rules to connect data centers to high-voltage transmission systems, while states need more clarity on who should bear the cost of regional transmission projects approved at the federal level, he said.
Rob Gramlich, a Washington-based energy consultant, said states should quickly develop rules to accommodate large power users and prevent cost shifts to residential and business customers. FERC could assert broader jurisdiction over interconnection issues if states don’t act quickly, he said.
Data from the Electric Power Research Institute shows that data centers now account for about 5% of U.S. electricity demand, but could triple by 2035.
Tech companies have continued to raise their spending on building and equipping data centers, but there is evidence that construction is lagging and projects are hitting roadblocks, including permitting delays, growing local opposition or bottlenecks around gas turbines, transformers and skilled labor.
___
Levy reported from Harrisburg, Pa.
As talks loom between the U.S. and Iran, negotiators face a simple and daunting task: turning a 14-point memorandum of understanding into a comprehensive nuclear deal within 60 days.
The ticking clock was set in motion on Thursday, according to Vice President JD Vance, following the signing of the MOU one day earlier. That signing brought an official end to military hostilities. What it did not do is resolve the conflict that caused them.
Some agreements took effect immediately upon signing: a cessation of hostilities, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade, the issuing of oil waivers and initial steps to unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets.
But those were the easy parts.
What remains are the metaphorical landmines — the unresolved questions the MOU largely deferred rather than decided, each with the potential to blow up any prospect for a nuclear deal. On Thursday evening, the White House announced that Vice President JD Vance will not attend talks in Switzerland that had been planned for Friday — a decision that may well be read as a signal of just how far apart the two sides are. A White House spokesperson acknowledged in a statement that while the U.S. delegation has been prepared to depart at the first available opportunity, “the logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable.”
Here is what the negotiators will actually have to solve:
The future of the Strait of Hormuz
The MOU ensures safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz “with no charge for 60 days only,” and outsources the negotiating responsibility for ensuring long-term toll-free passage to Gulf allies — ceding responsibility for a key outstanding issue.
“We don’t ever want this to happen again — that’s not about tolling, that’s about ensuring that the Straits are never used as a choke point for the global economy ever again,” Vance said at the White House on Thursday. “If that’s not reflected in the final deal, there’s not going to be a final deal.”
Recognizing the Iranians will “assert their rights as aggressively as they can,” a senior U.S. official was confident Gulf states would preserve their own self-interests and press Iran to allow toll-free passage.
There’s also the matter of demining the waterway. Iran has 30 days for “removing the technical and military obstacles and demining,” but mine removal could take weeks or even months — potentially testing U.S. patience if ship traffic doesn’t recover quickly.
In a joint statement following this week’s G7 summit in France, leaders said a defensive initiative led by France and the UK could help by “protecting merchant vessels, reassuring commercial shipping operators, and supporting verification that all mines are removed.”
Sanctions and frozen assets
Senior U.S. officials have said sanctions relief for Iran would be tied to its performance — but haven’t yet indicated what those benchmarks will be.
“As they dial up their good behavior, we can dial up the economic relief,” Vance said in broad terms on Thursday at the White House. “If they dial down their good behavior, we can turn it off.”
The MOU commits the U.S. to ending all Iranian sanctions — including those imposed by the U.N. Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency — “in an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal.” How quickly the U.S. is willing to provide this economic relief could become a sticking point.
Complicating matters further: whether lifting of sanctions would require congressional action, and how the State Department’s designation of Iran as a State Sponsor of Terrorism factors in.
Then there’s the unfreezing of billions of dollars of Iranian assets. Though the Trump administration insists any release would be tied to Iran’s performance, the MOU’s own text undercuts that: Paragraph 13 says the process of releasing assets must begin before negotiations even start, handing Iran an upfront incentive rather than one to earn.
“It’s clearly a huge loophole and a potential for disagreement,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East advisor and negotiator for the State Department, calling the text’s language “destructive ambiguity.”
The Lebanon front
The MOU calls for “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
“We expect Hezbollah is not going to be firing rockets and firing drones at the Israelis, and we also expect that the Israelis are not going to be going wild in Lebanon, right? Both sides have to honor their end of the deal,” Vance said at the White House on Thursday.
Yet Israel did not sign the aforementioned “deal.”
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said it’s “unnecessary” for Lebanon to have been included in an agreement between the U.S. and Iran, pouring cold water on the idea that Israel would cease its offensive against Hezbollah and occupation of southern Lebanon — even if Iran says that’s a dealbreaker for negotiations.
“This is something that we simply can’t live with,” Leiter told NPR on Tuesday. “We can’t have jihadi terrorists on our border. … We’re not going to withdraw from South Lebanon, and the mad men of Tehran have no business poking their nose into Lebanon.”
A U.S. official confirmed that U.S.-brokered peace talks between Israel and Lebanon will continue as planned next week at the State Department. Whether the Lebanon provision holds will depend on Iran keeping Hezbollah in check and Trump keeping Netanyahu in line.
Iran’s reconstruction
The MOU promises that within 60 days, the U.S. would work “with regional partners” to develop a plan guaranteeing at least $300 billion for Iran’s “reconstruction and economic development.”
Trump has insisted that there “is no 300 Billion Dollar payment to Iran by the U.S.” using taxpayer money. That may technically be true, but the U.S. has still committed to delivering that sum in the form of investment. That means convincing private corporations and Gulf allies — many of which are dealing with economic disruption and rebuilding costs after facing strikes from Iran — to invest in a country the Trump administration is still threatening to attack again if Iran reneges on its end of the deal.
Vance said there is a “great desire from the Arab world and from outside the Arab world to actually get involved in Iran if they behave properly.” Pressed by MS NOW whether private money would be included, Vance said he assumes countries like the United Arab Emirates would be part of the picture.
But Gulf leaders expressed concern to MS NOW about the agreement’s financial provisions that could strengthen Iran economically at a time when many Gulf states believe pressure should have been maintained.
Iran’s highly enriched uranium and nuclear program
For the duration of negotiations, Iran will “maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program,” per the MOU. What happens after that is the central outstanding question — the one that led to war in the first place.
The MOU provides no consensus on what to do with Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium, only an agreement to “resolve” the matter. It doesn’t distinguish between the roughly 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium — material close to bomb-grade — and the 11 tons enriched to various levels above the 3.67% threshold set by the JCPOA, which Trump withdrew from during his first term.
A senior U.S. official said downblending the stockpile would be the minimum standard, with Washington pushing for “more than that” during negotiations. Vance alluded to “gentlemen’s agreements,” noting that Iran has “promised that they would allow inspectors in to destroy that highly enriched stockpile, and then, of course, it’s not usable anymore, you take it somewhere else.” Iran has not formally agreed to anything beyond a general promise to resolve the issue.
Whether Iran will be permitted to enrich in the future, and to what extent, remains an open question. The MOU commits the two countries to discussing “the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters,” promising a “satisfactory framework” related to Iran’s “nuclear needs” in a final deal.
Notably, the U.S. has already backed down from one of its previous red lines, dropping Trump’s earlier demand for zero enrichment forever in favor of allowing Iran to maintain a civilian nuclear program.
“We’re not bothered at all by the idea of civilian power plants in Iran,” a senior U.S. official said. “What we’re bothered by is the type of infrastructure that would allow them to jump from civilian power generation to nuclear weapons development. … We feel quite confident that if they meet their obligations under this agreement, they’re not going to have that infrastructure to build a nuclear weapon.”
A senior administration official insisted Iran has committed to dismantling its nuclear weapons program, including its nuclear site, noting that the countries would “figure out how to do that in the technical negotiations that will follow.” But abandoning its nuclear program will be a tough domestic sell for the Islamic Republic to make.
Inspections and implementation
Trump has repeatedly hammered the Obama-era JCPOA for not having a strong enough verification and inspections system. But his own MOU offers little clarity on what will replace it, only a vague commitment that “an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.”
Given that Iran blocked IAEA inspectors from accessing its nuclear facilities under the JCPOA, a stronger inspection system represents perhaps the most important potential U.S. win in final deal talks — if Washington can secure one.
“If we feel comfortable with the inspection and enforcement regime, that is when they will get some of the benefits of negotiation,” a senior administration official told reporters last week, without providing specifics of what that verification regime would entail nor confirming the role of the UN or IAEA.
Miller, the former State Department negotiator, compared the MOU to Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan — a document that pushed the conflict out of the headlines but left unsolved problems on the humanitarian, disarmament and reconstruction fronts.
“I see very little chance, without significant flexibility on the part of both sides, that 60 days is going to be enough” to bridge the “Grand Canyon-like gaps that separate Tehran and Washington,” Miller said.
And though the MOU’s 60-day deadline allows for extension “with mutual consent,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the military is “prepared to restart if we need to” if Iran does not show progress in complying with U.S. demands.
Trump, speaking at the G7, was blunter still.
“If it doesn’t get done in 60 days, that’s all right,” Trump said. “We go back to bombing.”
- Campaigns get in the game
- Inside FIFA’s plans to commemorate Juneteenth
- Where Massachusetts wants to take its Scottish love affair next
- Kennedy and Wright cheer on US
- The politician who kicked his way to power
- The US-Australia face-off that isn’t happening
- The soccer boss in Mark Carney’s ear
- Vance says US allows more than dozen ships through to Iranian ports
- Regulators back Trump plan to speed power to energy-hungry AI data centers
- The accidental American
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words