Politics

U.S.-Iran ceasefire: What we know

Published

4 weeks ago

April 8, 2026

Apr. 8, 2026, 6:06 PM EDT

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 ha 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.

Politics

Poll: Americans uneasy with AI, crypto even as they spend big on midterms

Published

2 hours ago

May 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Deep-pocketed political groups tied to artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency are rapidly reshaping the midterm money landscape — but many Americans are uneasy with the industries behind the spending.

New results from The POLITICO Poll find broad public skepticism about crypto and AI, creating a possible conflict for candidates benefitting from an influx of contributions from the two industries. These groups are pouring millions of dollars into competitive 2026 races to elevate politicians who they believe will support their agendas in Washington.

Meanwhile, Americans have been slow to embrace either technology.

A 45 percent plurality of Americans say investing in cryptocurrency is not worth the risk, even if it can yield high returns, and a 44 percent plurality say AI is developing too quickly, according to the April survey conducted by independent firm Public First.

Nearly half of Americans say they trust a traditional bank with their money more than a cryptocurrency platform, while just 17 percent say the opposite. And two-thirds support lawmakers either imposing strict regulations or setting broad principles for the AI industry.

The results raise an emerging challenge for the industries as their aligned super PACs seek to translate financial might into political influence. Several of these groups are already becoming the most dominant players on the political battlefield, spending heavily for candidates on both sides of the aisle and in some cases rivaling the fundraising of long-established party groups.

It’s too early to say how candidates associated with these groups will fare in November — and the two industries could draw different reactions from voters. Still, in hypothetical head-to-head matchups, poll respondents were much less likely to choose candidates backed by a campaign group seeking looser regulations on artificial intelligence than candidates backed by a group advocating for more stringent rules on AI and tech companies. Those polled were also more likely to support a group advocating for policies to protect the environment and prevent climate change.

Skepticism of the industries, those results suggest, could turn into voter backlash if Americans grow fed up with the heavy spending.

“Democrats’ best approach is to make their spending an issue,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has been outspoken about the need for AI regulation. “People do not want AI companies to run them over culturally and economically. They don’t trust crypto.”

Some of the resistance to the AI and crypto groups may reflect broader American dissatisfaction with special interest groups’ spending. A 41 percent plurality say special interest groups have too much influence over politics in the U.S., while 23 percent say they have the right amount. Just 12 percent say they have too little influence.

But the AI and crypto super PACs are on a new level, and the rise of these groups is creating shockwaves throughout politics. These groups could easily become the biggest spender in any House or Senate race that they choose — or several.

Leading the Future, a pro-AI super PAC founded in August, has already raised more than $75 million since its launch, according to recent filings with the Federal Election Commission. Through a network of PACs, it has deployed money on primaries in North Carolina, Texas, Illinois and New York for Democratic and Republican candidates. Fairshake, a pro-crypto group primarily funded by Coinbase, Andreessen Horowitz and Ripple Labs, is expected to back candidates in both parties and has already spent $28 million across several competitive primaries through its network of PACs.

Both industries are also spending big on Washington lobbyists to ensure their influence continues past Election Day. The AI lobby in particular has ballooned in recent years; OpenAI and Anthropic spent record amounts of money on lobbyists in the first quarter of 2026. The crypto industry has also poured millions into lobbying efforts in recent years to push Congress to enact a sweeping overhaul of how digital assets are regulated.

“The universal thread, from their perspective, is, I think an attempt to maintain a degree of bipartisanship and identify people whom they think will be champions on these issues,” said Jason Thielman, former executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, of the crypto-aligned groups.

For the crypto industry, the super PAC spending is aimed at pushing through a market structure bill called the CLARITY Act that is pending in the Senate. Industry executives and lobbyists hope the proposed law would give the industry a stamp of legitimacy from Washington and deliver long-term certainty about how digital tokens will be overseen by market regulators.

The super PAC money acts as both carrot and stick: It could benefit lawmakers facing competitive reelection campaigns in 2026 who back the industry’s goals — and threaten those who stand in the way.

In 2024, a Fairshake-affiliated super PAC spent more than $40 million to help defeat then-incumbent Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown, a longtime crypto critic, is running again and could again be a major target for the crypto PAC network.

“Crypto groups are absolutely becoming a disruptive force in political spending, including in Ohio,” said former Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Renacci, who unsuccessfully challenged Brown in 2018. “But let’s face it, they’re not unique. It’s just the latest version of outside money.”

Fairshake declined to comment.

The AI groups spending big in elections want to ensure their nascent industry is regulated by one set of federal rules, not a state-by-state patchwork, as state legislators rapidly pass new laws regulating the technology. The White House and congressional Republicans have generally supported that goal, but have so far floated light-touch regulations that most Democrats believe don’t go far enough. While the tech sector leans toward the GOP’s deregulatory approach, some lobbyists are open to strong federal rules on AI in exchange for a ban on state laws.

“A national framework will prevent a patchwork of conflicting state laws from harming our ability to win the global AI race against China,” Leading the Future spokesperson Jesse Hunt said in a statement.

But the polling suggests these industries’ efforts may run into broader public skepticism.

More than half of Americans say they have never and would not consider buying or trading cryptocurrency. On artificial intelligence, nearly half of respondents say it is likely to eliminate more jobs than it creates, and a 43 percent plurality say the risks of the technology outweigh the benefits.

“There is a lot of work that needs to be done to help the voting public fully appreciate the national security threat that we face if we are not first in [the AI] race,” Thielman said of AI-affiliated groups. “It’s essential that [the] industry continue to invest very aggressively here, both to increasingly educate the public, educate policy makers because the issue is somewhat mixed from a public opinion perspective.”

The skepticism cuts across partisan lines, with pluralities of voters for both Trump and former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 saying that investing in crypto is not a risk worth taking, even if it gives high returns. A near majority of both groups — 49 percent of Harris voters and 46 percent of Trump voters — say AI is developing too quickly.

For now, many of the super PACs tied to the AI and crypto industries remain relatively unknown to many voters, allowing them to fly under the radar.

Americans associate political spending with more established industries, with a 29 percent plurality incorrectly identifying groups representing the oil and natural gas industry as the highest spenders in the midterms — ahead of AI and tech groups or crypto-backed organizations.

Just nine percent of Americans say they have heard of Leading the Future, the pro-AI super PAC, and only three percent have heard of Fairshake, the pro-crypto PAC. Meanwhile, 48 percent of Americans say they have heard of the National Rifle Association and 36 percent say they’ve heard of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

“Until people realize where the money’s coming in from, a lot of people don’t judge it,” Renacci said. “But I do think if they see somebody is backed by crypto, that’s always going to be a problem, because, let’s face it, the people that I talk to in Ohio, they don’t understand crypto, and most say they’re not comfortable with [it].”