Trump denies reports US looking at $30B nuclear deal with Iran: ‘These people are SICK'
President Trump denounced reports that his administration is weighing a $30 billion deal with Iran that would allow for the development of civilian nuclear facilities — days after Trump said a deal with the Islamic republic may not be necessary.
'Who in the Fake News Media is the SleazeBag saying that 'President Trump wants to give Iran $30 Billion to build non-military Nuclear facilities.' Never heard of this ridiculous idea,' the president wrote late Friday on Truth Social.
'It's just another HOAX put out by the Fake News in order to demean. These people are SICK!!!' he added.
The potential agreement was first reported by CNN citing multiple sources familiar with the matter. The outlet shared that details of the proposal were hashed out last week during a secret, hours-long meeting between Steve Witkoff, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, and partners in the Gulf.
That plan was presented a day before the U.S. carried out its attack on Tehran's Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities last week, per CNN.
The president earlier Friday suggested he could retract previously imposed sanctions on Iran as the White House has maintained the U.S. military's strikes 'obliterated' the nation's nuclear capabilities. Trump also took a swing at Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, after the ayatollah said his nation was 'victorious.'
'During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery — The sanctions are BITING!' he wrote on Truth Social. 'But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust.'
Trump, in the same post, said Khamenei should be grateful that the U.S. spared his life, citing Israel's 'regime change' goals.
'His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were OBLITERATED, and I knew EXACTLY where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life,' he wrote. 'I SAVED HIM FROM A VERY UGLY AND IGNOMINIOUS DEATH, and he does not have to say, 'THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP!''
Dueling reports on how influential the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities have emerged in recent days. Multiple outlets reported earlier this week that preliminary assessments from intelligence show the damage only delaying Tehran's program by a few months. Israel and the Trump administration have contended that the damage 'destroyed' it and have gone after news outlets for their coverage.
Still, Trump has touted the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran — which has largely held up and said talks would proceed. He voiced optimism that the strikes have deterred Iran from continuing their nuclear program.
'The way I look at it, they fought the war is done. I could get a statement that they're not going to go nuclear. We're probably going to ask for that,' he said Wednesday, following the NATO Summit in the Netherlands. 'But they're not going to be doing it.'
'We're going to talk to them next week with Iran, we may sign an agreement. To me, I don't think it's necessary,' he said at the time.
The president has also warned Tehran that he is not against more strikes should concerns rise again.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
42 minutes ago
- Fox News
Rubio condemns Iran's 'unacceptable' threats against IAEA director
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday said alleged calls in Iran for the arrest and execution of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi are "unacceptable and should be condemned." Rubio's warning came after Iranian parliament vice speaker Hamid Reza Haji Babaei banned Grossi and removed surveillance from its nuclear facilities, accusing Israel of acquiring "sensitive facility data," according to a report from Mehr news. "We support the lAEA's critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran and commend the Director General and the lAEA for their dedication and professionalism," Rubio wrote in an X post. "We call on Iran to provide for the safety and security of IAEA personnel." The lAEA this week commented on damage at Iranian nuclear facilities, following U.S. airstrikes on key nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. While speaking on Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum," Grossi said Isfahan and Natanz were damaged, with Natanz showing "very serious damage" in one of the centrifuge halls where enrichment was being performed. Though a ceasefire agreement was made between Israel and Iran, Grossi alleged 900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium had been taken to an ancient site near Isfahan. "I have to be very precise, Martha," Grossi said. "We are the IAEA, so we are not speculating here. We do not have information of the whereabouts of this material." He claimed Iranian officials had told him they were taking protective measures, which could include moving the material. "My job is to try to see where is this material, because Iran has an obligation to report and account for all the material that they have, and this is going to continue to be my work," Grossi said. President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal Tehran signed with the U.S., U.K., European Union, France, Germany and Russia in 2018, prompting Iranian threats to remove cameras and limit access to its facilities. Rubio did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
IDF kills key Hamas founder deemed an 'orchestrator' of Oct 7 terror attack in Israel
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on Saturday confirmed that they had "eliminated" one of the founders of Hamas in a joint operation with the Israel Security Agency (ISA). Hakham Muhammad Issa Al-Issa, a senior figure in Hamas' military wing, was killed in Gaza City in an airstrike in the Sabra on Friday, the IDF said. Issa's current role in the Hamas military wing was as head of combat support headquarters, and he led force-buildup efforts in the Gaza Strip, served as head of the training headquarters and was a member of Hamas' General Security Council. He played a "significant role in the planning and execution of the brutal October 7th massacre," the IDF said, and over the past few days he has helped plan attacks on Israeli civilians and IDF troops operating in the Gaza Strip. Issa was also attempting to rebuild Hamas' organizational systems that were damaged by Israel during the war. The news comes on the heels of Israel's conflict with Iran during which the IDF killed multiple military leaders, including Saeed Izadi, an Iranian commander who for years helped arm and fund Hamas on behalf of the regime. Izadi was also "one of the orchestrators" of the Oct. 7 attack, the IDF said.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
JOHN YOO: Trump scores historic win as Supreme Court reins in lower courts' overreach
In Trump v. Casa, the United States Supreme Court finally put an end to the universal injunctions that trial judges had invented to block presidents from pushing their agendas nationwide. These orders, which courts applied with special vigor against President Donald Trump, "exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts," the 6-3 majority declared. Even though Casa resolved a question of technical legal procedure, it struck a balance between the Executive and Judicial branches of government that bore greater constitutional importance. Casa represented an undeniable victory for the Trump administration. In ruling against many of Trump's executive orders, district courts had used nationwide injunctions to halt such major initiatives as Trump's suspension of foreign aid, removal of illegal aliens from Venezuela, layoffs of federal bureaucrats, a bar on transgender soldiers, ending racially discriminatory programs in higher education, and cuts and freezes in federal spending. Trump is now free to enforce those policies in states where the courts have not enjoined them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the conflict between the federal courts that have enjoined Trump's policies and those in other states that have not. But the legal, rather than the political, issue asks more narrowly how far a federal trial judge – of which there are almost 700 – may go in stopping government action he or she concludes violates the law. All agree that the trial court can grant relief to the parties in the courtroom. In Casa itself, federal judges in several cities ruled unconstitutional Trump's executive order denying citizenship to children born on American territory whose parents were in the U.S. illegally. But rather than simply order the recognition of the citizenship of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, the courts forbade the Trump administration from pursuing the new policy throughout the entire nation. These lower court judges claimed a sweeping power that had never existed before in American history. Nationwide injunctions were virtually unknown until the 21st Century. As Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion made clear, the Framers would not have understood the Constitution's grant of power to the federal courts to resolve "cases or controversies" under federal law to include nationwide injunctions. As late as President Barack Obama's administration, it appears the lower courts had only issued about 19 such injunctions. In 2019, Attorney General William Barr stated that the federal courts had issued only 27 in the twentieth century. But by April 2024, 127 nationwide injunctions had been issued since 1963, with 96 packed into 2001 to 2023. There were six nationwide injunctions under the second Bush administration, 12 under Obama, a staggering 64 under the first Trump administration, and 14 from the first three years of Biden. As of the end of March, just 10 weeks into Trump's second term, federal judges had issued 17 such injunctions. The very fact that nationwide injunctions were little known to the lower federal courts until the present century undercuts the notion that they were understood by the Framers to fall with the "judicial power" of Article III of the Constitution. Nationwide injunctions violated not just the text, but also the structure of the Constitution. As the majority in Casa concluded, district judges were claiming a supremacy that ignored the equal role of the other branches of government in interpreting the Constitution. They threatened to transform the power of the federal courts to decide "cases or controversies" into a supervisory power to manage the workings of the government nationwide. In its deepest constitutional failure, the use of nationwide injunctions prevented the president from advancing his own reading of the Constitution. The Constitution does not establish any branch of the federal government as supreme in its interpretation. Instead, each of the branches must give meaning to our nation's highest law when they carry out their unique constitutional responsibilities. Judicial review, for example, emerges from the court's sole authority to decide "cases or controversies" arising under federal law. Congress interprets the Constitution when it decides whether to enact bills into law. Presidents give meaning to the Constitution when they veto legislation or "take care that the laws are faithfully executed." In the very first year of the Constitution, for example, President George Washington decided that the national bank was constitutional when he signed the legislation creating it. He interpreted the Constitution to vest the power over foreign policy in the executive branch when he decided to issue the Neutrality Proclamation. Later, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a re-authorization of the very same bank, even though Congress believed the law constitutional by passing it, two past presidents had signed earlier versions of the law, and the Supreme Court had upheld the law in McCullough v. Maryland. Jackson correctly argued that the Supreme Court could not force him to sign the law. He declared that "The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution." In fulfilling its constitutional functions, Jackson believed, each branch has an equal and independent duty to decide upon the constitutionality of legislation. "The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges," Jackson declared. And, he emphasized, "on that point the President is independent of both." Abraham Lincoln went furthest in claiming that presidents had the right to pursue their own interpretation of the Constitution at odds with the view of the Judiciary. In his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued that the Dred Scott decision applied only to the parties in the case. The president had to obey the decision of the Court – which party won or lost the case. But the Court's logic and reasoning could not bind the president or Congress, which both had the right to interpret the Constitution too, or, ultimately, the people. "I do not deny that such decisions may be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit," Lincoln said in his first inaugural address. Decisions of the Court should receive "very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of government," he continued. But "if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court," Lincoln argued, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." Casa honors Lincoln's understanding of the balance of power between the president and the Court. Under Lincoln's view, the president has the right to advance his reading of the Constitution even if a court has enjoined it elsewhere. While Lincoln conceded that he would obey judicial decisions, he argued that he could continue to enforce his policies against individuals outside the parties in Dred Scott. And Lincoln believed he had no constitutional obligation to apply Dred Scott to new cases. Judges would have to issue orders in each future case ordering him to return free blacks to slavery under Dred Scott. Casa rejects the notion that a single district court could force a president to obey its reading of the Constitution throughout the nation, even in cases not yet brought. A president may accept the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, but in order to reach the Court, the president will test his reading of the Constitution in other courts. Armed with a nationwide injunction, a single judge who first decides an important constitutional issue effectively short-circuits the ability of other courts to examine the issue. But a president should have the right to go to the federal courts in other states; should the courts disagree, the Supreme Court can resolve the conflict. Nationwide injunctions prevented presidents from advancing their reading of the Constitution in other courts and ultimately bringing their policies to the Supreme Court quickly. Trump now has the opportunity to test the constitutionality of birthright citizenship (where I happen to think he is wrong) before the Justices, as is his right.
