Trump expects Hamas decision on ‘final' peace proposal in hours
Trump announced late Tuesday that Israel has agreed to the 'necessary conditions' to finalize a two-month ceasefire with Hamas, a U.S. government-designated terrorist group.
'My Representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza. Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War,' the president wrote late Tuesday in a Truth Social post.
Trump was asked by a reporter Thursday — after landing back in Washington, D.C., following his rally in Des Moines, Iowa — whether Hamas agreed to the latest proposal for a ceasefire, a framework that was delivered to the group by regional mediators Egypt and Qatar.
'We'll see what happens. We are going to know over the next 24 hours,' the president replied.
Trump warned Hamas late Tuesday that the militant group should take the deal, because 'it will not get better — IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.'
Hamas said in a statement Friday morning that it was deliberating the proposal with other Palestinian groups and that it would issue a 'final decision' once those discussions are wrapped up.
Hamas has sought assurances that part of the framework would entail a pullback of the Israeli military from some areas of the Gaza Strip and that Israel's military operation would not restart after the 60-day truce expires.
Trump is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday at the White House, where the two leaders will discuss a range of topics, including the conflict in Gaza.
The president and his administration have pushed to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, emphasizing the need for the Palestinian militant group to release the remaining hostages taken after the Oct. 7 attack in which Hamas killed some 1,200 Israelis and took about 250 others hostage.
Israel's military operation in response has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry.
The Trump administration tried to lock in a ceasefire in May after Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff sent a proposal, supported by Israel, but the effort failed. After receiving the framework, which included releasing Israeli living and dead hostages from the war-torn enclave, Hamas offered amendments. Shortly after, Witkoff slammed Hamas's response as 'totally unacceptable.'
The president also confirmed that he met with Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman at the White House on Thursday and that the Abraham Accords were one of the topics mentioned.
'I think a lot of people are going to be joining the Abraham Accords,' Trump told reporters.
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
Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Boston Globe
39 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Don't look away from what's happening in Iran
As an Iranian-American who has lived and worked as a journalist in Iran — and who spent 100 days imprisoned there — I feel both anguish and dread watching history repeat itself. The leaders of the United States, Israel, and the Islamic Republic are jockeying over claims of victory, while human rights abuses and the everyday suffering of ordinary Iranians have started to fade, once again, from the headlines. Advertisement During the 12 days of war, more than 700 people were accused of being 'Israeli operatives' and were arrested, according to the state-affiliated Fars News Agency. Human rights groups Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Meanwhile, Iran's parliament has Advertisement It's no surprise that a regime blindsided by a foreign enemy's highly coordinated attacks would now move swiftly to root out what it sees as security threats. But the regime is not just fighting foreign adversaries. It is using the war as a pretext to crack down on domestic dissent. Having experienced firsthand the lack of due process and transparency within the Islamic Republic's judicial system, I have no doubt that many innocent people will be punished for crimes they did not commit. In 2009, after six years of living and working in Iran as a journalist, I was arrested and accused of spying for the United States. My interrogators claimed that the CIA had paid me to use a book I was writing about Iran as a cover for espionage. 'It's not possible you could be conducting so many interviews,' one insisted, 'only for a book.' Like many Iranian political prisoners, I was held in solitary confinement and subjected to grueling interrogations, unable to inform anyone of my whereabouts. The authorities threatened my loved ones, fabricated evidence, and warned that espionage could result in many years in prison, and even the death penalty. For decades the regime has accused journalists, civil society leaders, women's rights activists, lawyers, academics, environmentalists, and humanitarian workers of committing crimes against the state — sometimes under a charge of espionage. During my time in Tehran's notorious Advertisement My own sentence was eight years, but I was lucky. After an Countless others — especially those without the support of a foreign government or the attention of the international media — have not been so fortunate. The regime expends enormous resources interrogating citizens, monitoring internet activity and phone calls, pressuring people to inform on one another, and tailing them in the streets, in cars, even on flights abroad. 'If the system worked well, they would have found the real spies and prevented Israel from doing so much damage,' an Iranian friend told me. 'But instead, the regime took people like you and claimed you were spies.' Today, many of those being swept up in the regime's dragnet appear to be suffering the same fate. Detainees are being fast-tracked through unfair trials in kangaroo courts without legal representation or due process, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran. The Iranian regime is responding with repression because 'it knows it won't collapse due to foreign intervention alone,' says Rebin Rahmani, a board member of the Paris-based Advertisement This crackdown, in other words, was predictable. Afsoon Najafi, whose youngest sister, Hadis, was shot and killed by security forces during nationwide protests in 2022, told me, 'A large percentage of Iranians will again be killed by the Islamic Republic because the regime's agents are full of resentment toward Iranians. And the regime's own agents also know that we know they're scared.' Regardless of whether US and Iranian officials resume negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, the Trump administration has an opportunity to show that human rights matter, too. That means, among other things, supporting Iranians' access to information — for example, by restoring full funding to Voice of America Persian, a crucial source of uncensored news for millions in Iran. American citizens can also play a role. By calling their members of Congress and expressing support for measures like the Steps like those from the American people, even if their message isn't taken up by Congress and the current administration, would still send a clear signal to Iran: Human rights abuses will not be ignored. When I asked an artist in Tehran what she hoped the world would understand about the Iranian people now that a fragile cease-fire is in place, she said on condition of anonymity, 'I don't know what the people of the world can do, but I want them not to be indifferent to the pain we're enduring.' 'At the very least,' she added, 'let us remain in the news. Let them keep an eye on us.' Advertisement If the world fails to keep an eye on the Iranian people, we risk silently sanctioning yet another chapter of repression in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
an hour ago
US completes deportation of 8 men to South Sudan after weeks of legal wrangling
WASHINGTON -- Eight men deported from the United States in May and held under guard for weeks at an American military base in the African nation of Djibouti while their legal challenges played out in court have now reached the Trump administration's intended destination, war-torn South Sudan, a country the State Department advises against travel to due to 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' The immigrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan arrived in South Sudan on Friday after a federal judge cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate them in a case that had gone to the Supreme Court, which had permitted their removal from the U.S. Administration officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the U.S. 'This was a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people,' said Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement Saturday announcing the men's arrival in South Sudan, a chaotic country in danger once more of collapsing into civil war. The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the transfer of the men who had been put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan. That meant that the South Sudan transfer could be completed after the flight was detoured to a base in Djibouti, where they men were held in a converted shipping container. The flight was detoured after a federal judge found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow the men a chance to challenge the removal. The court's conservative majority had ruled in June that immigration officials could quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. A flurry of court hearings on Independence Day resulted a temporary hold on the deportations while a judge evaluated a last-ditch appeal by the men's before the judge decided he was powerless to halt their removals and that the person best positioned to rule on the request was a Boston judge whose rulings led to the initial halt of the administration's effort to begin deportations to South Sudan. By Friday evening, that judge had issued a brief ruling concluding the Supreme Court had tied his hands. The men had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands.
