Trump says Iran has not agreed to inspections, give up enrichment
He told reporters aboard Air Force One that he believed Tehran's nuclear program had been set back permanently although Iran could restart it at a different location.
Trump said he would discuss Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the White House on Monday.
Advertisement
'I would say it's set back permanently,' Trump said as he traveled to New Jersey after an Independence Day celebration at the White House. 'I would think they'd have to start at a different location. And if they did start, it would be a problem.'
5 President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One during a fight to New Jersey on July 4, 2025.
REUTERS
Trump said he would not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear program, adding that Iran did want to meet with him.
Advertisement
The UN nuclear watchdog said on Friday it had pulled its last remaining inspectors from Iran as a standoff deepens over their return to the country's nuclear facilities bombed by the United States and Israel.
The US and Israel say Iran was enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago.
5 A satellite image of the Fordow Facility in Iran after the US bombardment on June 27, 2025.
AP
Advertisement
5 The US sent B-2 Stealth Bombers to the Fordow site while nuclear-powered submarines fired ballistic missiles at Isfahan and Natanz sites, south of Tehran.
Rob Jejenich / NY Post Design
The International Atomic Energy Agency's inspectors have not been able to inspect Iran's facilities since then, even though IAEA chief Rafael Grossi has said that is his top priority.
Iran's parliament has passed a law suspending cooperation with the IAEA until the safety of its nuclear facilities can be guaranteed.
While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran.
Advertisement
Iran has accused the agency of effectively paving the way for the bombings by issuing a damning report on May 31 that led to a resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation Board of Governors declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations.
5 Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran on June 15, 2025.
ZUMAPRESS.com
5 President Trump salutes B-2 Bombers during a flyover at the White House alongside first lady Melania Trump on July 4, 2025.
via REUTERS
The US and Israeli military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites.
But it was less clear what has happened to much of Iran's nine tons of enriched uranium, especially the more than 880 pounds enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
US court clears deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan despite legal fight
Eight migrants are now set to be deported to South Sudan after a US court denied their final legal bid to remain in the United States, following a series of emergency court proceedings held during the Independence Day holiday. A US judge has denied the final legal attempt to stop the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan The migrants' attorneys argued that deporting them to volatile South Sudan constitutes unconstitutional punishment given the country's ongoing instability. The deportations align with a broader immigration policy expansion initiated during the Trump administration targeting repatriations to conflict zones. South Sudan is currently plagued by political unrest and violent conflict, prompting international warnings against travel to the region. The decision came on Friday, July 4, after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that he was bound by a recent Supreme Court order, which had earlier clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could no longer be barred from deporting the men. The ruling effectively ended the migrants' last-ditch effort to stop the deportation, allowing the U.S. government to proceed with its scheduled transfer of the individuals to South Sudan at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time the same day. Lawyers representing the migrants had argued that deporting them to South Sudan, a country long plagued by violent conflict and political instability amounted to unconstitutional punishment, especially since some had already served criminal sentences in the U.S. However, Judge Murphy ruled that their claims were 'substantially similar' to previous ones he had already rejected. Before the ruling in Boston, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington briefly paused the deportation effort earlier that afternoon. But he ultimately returned the matter to Murphy, who affirmed that the Supreme Court's guidance left him no legal ground to intervene. Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the Seattle Clemency Project who represented the men, expressed disappointment with the outcome. ' Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives,' she said. ' That is what is so tragic about where we came out. ' Trump's third‑country deportations Trump's third-country deportation policy began in his first term with deals to send asylum seekers to Central American nations like Guatemala, even if they weren't from there. In his second term, the policy expanded to include deportations to conflict zones like South Sudan and Libya. These moves targeted migrants whose home countries refused repatriation. Critics argue the policy violates due process and international law, while the Supreme Court has allowed it to proceed, marking a sharp turn toward harsher immigration enforcement. South Sudan, the destination for the deportation, remains volatile. The U.S. State Department currently warns against travel to the country due to armed conflict and high levels of violent crime. The United Nations has also cautioned that the region's unresolved political tensions risk reigniting a devastating civil war that formally ended in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that the migrants who come from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan, and Vietnam include individuals previously convicted of serious crimes, with four convicted of murder. A Department of Justice lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, warned during Friday's hearing that halting such deportations could harm diplomatic relations and discourage other countries from accepting U.S. deportees in the future. This case marks another chapter in the broader legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies, particularly those targeting individuals for deportation to unstable or dangerous regions.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
These 26 Rich Private Colleges Just Got A Tax Cut From Republicans
S trange things happen when details of a massive tax and budget bill, like the one President Donald Trump signed yesterday, are tweaked behind closed doors. Among them: A couple dozen of the nation's wealthiest small private colleges will be getting a tax cut next year, even as bigger rich universities, including Princeton, MIT, Yale and Harvard, will be slammed with higher taxes. It all began as an effort by House Republicans to dramatically raise the excise tax imposed on the earnings of college endowments, and particularly the endowments of wealthy 'woke' schools like Harvard University that they (and President Donald Trump) have targeted. But as it turns out, while Harvard's tax bill will likely more than double, some smaller schools with famously left-leaning student bodies (e.g. Swarthmore College and Amherst College) are getting tax relief. That's because schools with fewer than 3,000 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students will be exempt from the revamped endowment tax beginning next year. It currently applies to private schools with more than 500 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students and endowments worth more than $500,000 per student. Using the latest available federal data from fiscal year 2023, Forbes identified at least 26 wealthy colleges that are likely subject to the endowment tax now, but will be exempt next year based on their size. Along with top liberal arts schools like Williams College, Wellesley College, Amherst and Swarthmore, the list includes the California Institute of Technology, a STEM powerhouse, and the Julliard School, the New York city institution known for its music, dance and drama training. Grinnell College in Iowa, which enrolled 1,790 students in 2023, will save around $2.4 million in tax each year as a result of the change, President Anne Harris said in an email to Forbes . Here's what happened. As passed by the House in late May, the One Big Beautiful Bill (its Trumpian name) increased the current 1.4% excise tax on college endowments' investment earnings to as high as 21% for the richest institutions—those with endowments worth more than $2 million a student. (While these schools are all non-profits and traditionally tax exempt, the 1.4% tax on investment earnings was introduced by Trump's big 2017 tax bill. According to Internal Revenue Service data, 56 schools paid a total of $381 million in endowment tax in calendar 2023.) Along with raising the rate, the House voted to exempt from the tax both religiously-affiliated schools (think the University of Notre Dame) and those that don't take federal student financial aid. (The religious exemption was structured in a way that Harvard, founded by the Puritans to train ministers, wouldn't qualify.) The House also sought to penalize schools like Columbia University, with heavy international student enrollments, by excluding students who aren't U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from the per capita calculations. Then the bill went to the Senate, where the Finance Committee settled on more modest–albeit still stiff–rate hikes. Schools with endowments of $500,000 to $750,000 per capita would still pay at a 1.4% rate, while those with endowments above $750,000 and up to $2 million would pay 4%. Those with endowments worth more than $2 million per student would pay an 8% tax on their earnings, not the 21% passed by the House. Enter Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who makes decisions on the Senate's Byrd rule, which requires parts of a budget reconciliation bill like this one to have a primary purpose related to the budget—not other types of policy. The Byrd rule was put in place because reconciliation isn't subject to filibuster. 'You can't get into a lot of prescriptive activity' in a budget reconciliation bill, explains Dean Zerbe, a national managing director for Alliantgroup, who worked on college endowment issues back when he was tax counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). 'Like, 'you've got to hop on one foot,' or 'you've got to make tuition affordable,' or 'you've got to do better in terms of admission.'' The Parliamentarian ruled that those three House provisions—exempting religious-affiliated schools, exempting schools that don't take federal aid, and excluding foreign students from the per capita calculation—didn't pass the Byrd test. At that point, Republican senators settled on the 3,000-student threshold in large part to specifically exempt one school from the tax: Hillsdale College, an ultra-conservative, Christian liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan and a GOP darling. It enrolled 1,794 students in 2023, had an endowment worth $584,000 per-student, and notably accepts no federal money, including student aid. (So both the religious exemption and the one for schools taking no federal student aid would have presumably shielded Hillsdale from the endowment tax—before the Parliamentarian gave them the thumbs down.) There was also a broader group of small schools pushing for the exemption, notes Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. 'They made an argument that I think got some positive reception among Republican senators of saying that essentially, while their endowments may be big relative to the fact that they have small student bodies … their endowments weren't big.' A school like Amherst, he adds, 'might have a big endowment for a small school, but they don't have a big endowment relative to the Ivies and the more heavily resourced [universities].' House Republicans, under intense pressure to meet Trump's July 4th deadline, ended up accepting the final Senate product in full. That meant exempting the smaller schools, including the 'woke' ones, while levying a rate of up to 8% on the endowments of bigger schools. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates colleges will now pay an extra $761 million in tax over 10 years, compared to the extra $6.7 billion they would have paid under the House version with its higher 21% rate and broader reach. Based on data from 2023, Forbes estimates that at least 11 universities will have their endowment earnings taxed at an 8% or 4% rate in 2026, while five will continue to pay the 1.4% rate. Three schools—Princeton University, Yale University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will likely be required to pay an 8% excise tax on their endowment earnings. Another eight, including Harvard, Stanford University, Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University, will likely pay a 4% tax. The remaining five schools—Emory University, Duke University, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown University—would pay the same 1.4% endowment tax rate they're paying now, based on fiscal 2023 numbers. One school that will likely pay 4% is the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic-affiliated school which would have been exempt from the tax were it not for the Byrd rule. 'We are deeply disappointed by the removal of language protecting religious institutions of higher education from the endowment tax before passage of the final bill,' Notre Dame wrote in a statement to Forbes . 'Any expansion of the endowment tax threatens to undermine the ability of a broad range of faith-based institutions to serve their religious purpose. We are proud to have stood with a coalition of these institutions against that threat, and we are encouraged by the strong support for a religious exemption received from both chambers.' Fansmith, for his part, won't call the exemption of the small schools a win. 'We think the tax is a bad idea and it's bad policy, and no schools should be paying it. But, by the standard that fewer schools are paying, it's better, but it's still not good,' he says. 'It's not really about revenue,' adds Fansmith. 'It's really about punishing these schools that right now a segment of the Republican party doesn't like.' The schools make the argument that it's students who are being punished, since around half of endowment spending pays for student scholarships. Meanwhile, Zerbe warns the now exempt schools shouldn't take that status for granted. 'Once revenue raisers are in play and out there, they come back again and again,' he says. 'It would be a disaster for [colleges] to think somehow this was a win for them. This was a billion dollar hit on them and there's more to come later.' More from Forbes Forbes Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Foreign Student Crackdown Puts These 16 Struggling Colleges At Risk By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Visa Ban Is Barring New Foreign Doctors From Entering U.S. By Emma Whitford Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
How save thousands stacking Trump's new tax credits for cars with Biden's
If you've been thinking about buying a new electric vehicle, you could have as little as three months to bundle tax credits from both Joe Biden's and Donald Trump's administrations. Consider how each president's signature piece of legislation could help you save on a new car: ◾ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act: The Biden-era incentive gives you up to a $7,500 tax credit for new, plug-in EVs or fuel-cell electric vehicles. Trump's massive tax and spending policy bill will end this credit as early as Sept. 30. ◾ 'Big Beautiful Bill': Trump's new law offers an annual tax credit of up to a $10,000 on the interest of loans for new vehicles as long as they're less than 14,000 pounds and assembled in the United States. It covers purchases made in 2025 through 2028. How long Biden's and Trump's tax credits for new cars last More: What new version of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' could mean for EV car buyers and automakers How to stack the auto tax credits Here's how combining Biden's and Trump's tax credits over the next four years could save you a hunk of money on an EV: A new EV might not be the best investment To be sure, this strategy might not be the best way to stretch your dollar. But perhaps you're set on purchasing a new EV with the latest gadgets and upgrades. The average price paid for a new EV this year has been $57,734, according to Kelley Blue Book. Even with the $7,500 tax credit, the EV premium over a gas-powered car is about $1,500. The math tips in favor of EVs when you look at the five-year fuel costs: $9,490 for gas-powered vs. $4,295, according to Kelley Blue Book. If you can live without the new-car smell, used EVs' average listing price this year is about $20,000 less than for new models, according to Kelley Blue Book. You can also get a $4,000 tax credit from Biden's legislation for a used EV, but that wouldn't qualify you for the Trump tax credit. Some additional fine print to consider if you use either of these tax credits ◾ Big Beautiful Bill: The tax credit for auto loans phases out for incomes between $100,000 and $150,000 for an individual and between $200,000 and $250,000 if you file jointly. It's not available for fleet purchases, commercial vehicles or leasing. ◾ Inflation Reduction Act: To take advantage of the EV credit, you also must buy the car − assembled in North America − for your own use. Your income must to fall below $150,000 for an individual and $300,000 for those filing jointly.
