US reduces the presence of people not deemed essential to work in the Middle East as tensions rise
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly confirmed the moves.
Advertisement
'The State Department regularly reviews American personnel abroad, and this decision was made as a result of a recent review,' Kelly said.
Tensions in the region have been rising in recent days as
The next round of talks — the sixth — had been tentatively scheduled for this weekend in Oman, according to two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic matters. However, those officials said Wednesday that it looked increasingly unlikely that the talks would happen.
Advertisement
President Donald Trump, who has previously threatened to use military force against Iran if negotiations failed, gave a less-than-optimistic view about reaching a deal with Iran, telling the New York Post's 'Pod Force One' podcast that he was 'getting more and more less confident about' a deal.
'They seem to be delaying, and I think that's a shame. I'm less confident now than I would have been a couple of months ago. Something happened to them,' he said in the interview, which was recorded on Monday.
Iran's mission to the U.N. posted on social media that 'threats of overwhelming force won't change the facts.'
'Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, and U.S. militarism only fuels instability,' the Iranian mission wrote.
Iranian Defense Minister Gen. Aziz Nasirzadeh separately told journalists Wednesday that he hoped talks with the U.S. would yield results, though Tehran stood ready to respond.
'If conflict is imposed on us, the opponent's casualties will certainly be more than ours, and in that case, America must leave the region, because all its bases are within our reach,' he said. 'We have access to them, and we will target all of them in the host countries without hesitation.'
Meanwhile, the Board of Governors at the International Atomic Energy Agency was potentially set to vote on a measure to censure Iran. That could set in motion an effort to snap back United Nations sanctions on Iran via a measure in Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers that's still active until October. Trump withdrew from that deal in his first term.
Advertisement
Earlier Wednesday, a statement from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center, a Mideast-based effort overseen by the British navy, issued a warning to ships in the region that it 'has been made aware of increased tensions within the region which could lead to an escalation of military activity having a direct impact on mariners.'
It urged caution in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz. It did not name Iran, though those waterways have seen Iranian ship seizures and attacks in the past.
Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. AP writers Farnoush Amiri at the United Nations and Aamer Madhani in Washington contributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
4 minutes ago
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to stop DOJ grant cancellations
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has allowed the Trump administration to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday denied a preliminary injunction sought by five organizations on behalf of all recipients of the more than 360 grant awards, and granted a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. Mehta called the Department of Justice's actions 'shameful,' but said the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection. 'Defendants' rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,' Mehta wrote in his ruling. 'But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.' The Justice Department's Office of Justice Programs cancelled the grants worth more than $800 million in April, saying it had changed its priorities to, among other things, more directly support certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault. A message left seeking comment from Democracy Forward officials was not immediately returned. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling. The lawsuit filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm argued that the grant terminations did not allow due process to the organizations and lacked sufficient clarity. The lawyers also said the move violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers. Many of the organizations that lost the federal money said the unexpected cancellations mid-stream had meant layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships. The five organizations named as plaintiffs sought class status to represent all affected grant recipients. Attorneys General from at least 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed amicus briefs in support of the action, as well as local governments and prosecuting attorneys- several of whom had lost grants for victims programs, alternatives to prosecution programs or others. The Justice Department asked Mehta to dismiss the suit, arguing in a court filing that there was 'no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.' Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a 'run-of-the mill contract dispute' and said it belonged in a different court.
Axios
6 minutes ago
- Axios
The paradox of Trump's tariff policy
U.S. trade policy has entered the great in-between, a liminal state in which high tariffs on major trading partners are ostensibly imminent, yet also forever just over the next horizon. Why it matters: The good news for American consumers and businesses is that potential price shocks and other disruptions from an all-out global trade war remain at bay — and Wall Street is taking this confusing landscape in stride. The bad news is it's hardly the kind of policy landscape conducive to companies making long-term investments. State of play: With a much-balleyhooed 90-day negotiation period set to expire Wednesday, President Trump issued a slew of letters announcing new tariffs on major trading partners that are close to those originally announced on the April 2 "Liberation Day." The most economically consequential are 25% tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea, major trading partners and traditional geopolitical allies. But they are not set to go into effect until Aug. 1, three weeks away. Driving the news: On Tuesday morning, Trump insisted that the onset of higher tariffs is real this time, suggesting it's not just a negotiating feint. "TARIFFS WILL START BEING PAID ON AUGUST 1, 2025. There has been no change to this date, and there will be no change," he wrote on Truth Social. "No extensions will be granted," he added. Zoom in: Markets have largely shrugged off those threats, betting that Trump envisions further deal-making — and, implicitly, further punting of tariffs — ahead. Stock, bond, and currency markets have seen only modest moves on the news, in contrast to their early April sell-off. Meanwhile, inflation data came in soft for April and May, contrary to warnings from business leaders and economists that tariff-fueled price spikes and shortages could loom. Between the lines: The combination of a booming stock market and lack of evident economic damage from the earlier rollout of tariffs seems to have empowered Trump to keep pushing tariff talk, rather than strike quick deals and move on. What they're saying: These are, as Bob Elliott of Unlimited Funds wrote, "Schrodinger's Tariffs," simultaneously alive and dead. The administration "has had room to swing back to a more aggressive policy stance on the trade war because so far the effects are not being felt significantly across the economy," he wrote in his newsletter, Nonconsensus. "But a big reason why there has been no impact here is simply because it's taking time to ramp up the prospective tariff collection, and that then is taking time to flow into the real economy given normal lags," Elliott argued. The fact that negotiations with countries like Japan and South Korea were at such a stalemate that Trump has reignited the trade war is a sign of a new normal. "At a very basic level, nothing actually happened based on Trump sending these letters, so there's no reason to panic over headlines," wrote Tobin Marcus at Wolfe Research in a note. "But we think these moves do contain some signal about where the trade war is heading, and that signal is mostly hawkish," he added. By the numbers: If the tariffs announced Monday go into effect and remain in place, it would translate to a 17.6% average effective tariff rate on U.S. imports, the Yale Budget Lab estimates, the highest since 1934. That's up from 15.8% previously and up from 2.4% as of January. If sustained, the currently announced tariff regime would translate to a 1.7% rise in consumer prices, costing the average household $2,300 per year, per the Yale Budget Lab. The bottom line: There is good reason to believe Trump's latest letters to trading partners are a negotiating strategy, but the fact that they exist is a warning sign about the new global trade landscape.
Fox News
9 minutes ago
- Fox News
How the Supreme Court's injunction ruling advances Trump's birthright citizenship fight
President Donald Trump is aiming to terminate birthright citizenship in the United States – and the Supreme Court's recent decision to curb universal injunctions has brought him one step closer to accomplishing that mission. While changing the way the government gives citizenship to babies born in the United States is still an uphill climb, the high court's ruling raised the possibility that Trump's new policy to end automatic citizenship could, at least temporarily, take effect in some parts of the country. Lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the conservative legal advocacy group JCN, said it was unclear at this stage of litigation how Trump's policy would work logistically or to whom it would apply. The Supreme Court's decision, issued June 27, barred Trump's executive order from becoming active for 30 days. "Normally, if you give birth at the hospital, they just automatically issue everyone a Social Security number," Severino told Fox News Digital. "Now the question isn't open and shut like that." The Supreme Court's decision arose from various Democratic-led states and immigration rights groups bringing several lawsuits across the country challenging Trump's executive order, which the president signed shortly after he took office. The order dramatically changed the scope of birthright citizenship, which is outlined under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and allows babies born to noncitizens in the United States to automatically receive U.S. citizenship in most cases. Courts uniformly rejected Trump's policy and blocked it by issuing universal injunctions that applied to the whole country and not just certain pregnant noncitizens being represented in court. Seattle-based federal Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, chastised government attorneys during a February hearing over the matter. "It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals," the judge said. "The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain." Coughenour later said that if Trump wanted to change the "exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship," then the president would need to work with Congress to amend the Constitution, rather than attempt to redefine the amendment through an executive order. In the wake of the Supreme Court's order, courts and plaintiffs are moving quickly to adapt and, in some cases, find workarounds before the 30-day deadline arrives. Within hours of the high court's decision, plaintiffs who brought a birthright citizenship lawsuit in Maryland asked a judge to change the lawsuit to a class action proceeding that covers all babies who will be born after Trump's executive order takes effect. The request was one of what is quickly becoming a manifold of court requests that are testing the Supreme Court's injunction decision and potentially undercutting it. The Supreme Court's decision left intact the ability for judges, if they see fit, to use class action lawsuits or statewide lawsuits to hand down sweeping orders blocking Trump's policies from applying to wide swaths of people. "The bottom line is that the Trump administration has the right to carry this order out nationwide, except where a court has stayed it as to parties actually involved in a lawsuit challenging it," Severino said. American Immigration Council's Michelle Lapointe wrote online there was a "real possibility" that if the judges overseeing the current lawsuits do not find a way in the next few weeks to issue broad injunctions blocking birthright citizenship, then some states might see the policy take effect. "That raises the risk of babies born in certain parts of the United States… being fully stripped of their rights as U.S. citizens, perhaps even rendering them stateless," Lapointe wrote. "The human cost of such an action is unconscionable." Regardless of what happens in the coming weeks and months, the underlying merits of Trump's birthright citizenship policy are on track to end up at the Supreme Court. The justices were able to avoid touching the substance of Trump's argument by merely considering the constitutionality of universal injunctions during this last go-round, but the next time a birthright citizenship lawsuit comes before them, they are likely to have to weigh in on whether Trump's policy is constitutional. Severino said she believed the six Republican-appointed justices would rely heavily on "history and tradition" and "what the words were understood to mean in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed." "It's a challenging issue, in part because our immigration system looks so dramatically different now than it did at the time of the 14th Amendment, because the sort of immigration we're looking at was not really on their radar, nor was the type of entitlement state that we are living in," Severino said. Michael Moreland, Villanova University law school professor, told Fox News Digital there has long been an academic debate about the language in the amendment. It states that babies born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. The dispute, Moreland said, has centered on "how broadly or narrowly" to interpret that clause. The Trump administration has said that as part of its immigration crackdown, it wants to curtail abuse of the 14th Amendment, which can include foreigners traveling to the United States strictly to give birth with no intention of legally settling in the country. The amendment also incentivizes migrants to enter the country illegally to give birth and rewards pregnant women already living illegally in the country by imparting citizenship to their children, the administration has said. Judges, thus far, have found that Trump's policy is at odds with more than 150 years of precedent. The government has long given citizenship to any child born in the United States with few exceptions, such as babies born to foreign diplomats or foreign military members. "The balance of opinion for a long time has been on the side of saying that the 14th Amendment does have a right of birthright citizenship," Moreland said.
