UN Nuclear Watchdog Humiliates Trump With Brutal Iran Assessment
The head of the United Nations' nuclear watchdog has obliterated President Donald Trump's claims about the efficacy of the United States' strikes on Iran.
Rafael Grossi said American B-2 bombers did not cause total damage—or 'completely and totally obliterate,' as Trump said—to the Iranian nuclear program. Instead, he estimates Tehran can restart enriching uranium again 'in a matter of months.'
Grossi's remarks are a blow to Trump and his administration, which has dismissed a leaked attack assessment from U.S. intelligence—which reached a similar conclusion as Rossi—as incomplete and untrue since CNN first reported on it Wednesday.
'The capacities they have are there,' Grossi told CBS News' Face The Nation about Iran's nuclear program. 'They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there.'
Grossi, 64, is the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency—the agency that conducts inspections at nuclear sites around the world. He noted that the U.S. military had 'severely damaged' a trio of Iranian nuclear sites. Still, he said there is no indication that the program has been set back years, as the White House and Pentagon claim.
'It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage,' he said.
The Argentine added of Iran, 'If they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.'
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Beast.
A hotly contested debate has erupted over whether Iran was able to remove enriched uranium from its facilities ahead of the U.S. dropping bunker buster bombs. Trump says Iran was not able to, while Tehran insists that it did.
Grossi said it is not clear. He noted that Iran said it was taking protective measures ahead of the strike, which would logically include moving uranium—its most crucial material—from nuclear sites, assuming they were able to.
The director made clear his goal was not to undercut Trump. He pushed for a diplomatic solution with Iran, pointing out that the country has not always been truthful with U.N. inspectors over its potential progress toward a nuclear weapon. He said his watchdog group has found traces of uranium in Iran outside its three known nuclear enrichment sites.
'We were asking for years, 'Why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y, or z?'' he said. 'And we were simply not getting credible answers.'
Inspectors have been shut out of Iran entirely since Israel attacked it on June 13, Grossi said. He pushed the country to let the U.N. in again.
Grossi also noted that prior checks in Iran did not reveal proof that it was nearing the completion of a nuclear weapon—a conclusion also reached by United States Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard earlier this year. Gabbard has since changed her tune to say that Iran was indeed months away from producing a nuclear bomb after Trump called her assessment 'wrong.'
Grossi said Iran's secrecy made it hard to be certain.
'We didn't see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending,' he said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Senate Budget Bill Is Growing More Regressive
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) speaks to reporters after leaving ... More the Senate Chambers. (Photo by) The tax provisions of the budget bill being debated on the Senate floor would be even more regressive than the version drafted by the Senate Finance Committee, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis. On average, the Senate measure released on June 28 would cut 2026 taxes by about $2,900, up about $250 from the Finance Committee's version. But the current Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA ) would distribute most of those additional tax cuts to the highest-income households. The main reason: the way it treats the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Comparing The Plans The Senate bill would cut taxes by an average of $12,500, or 3.4 percent of after-tax income, for those making $217,000 or more, the highest-income 20 percent of households. That's about $1,500, or 0.4 percent of after-tax income, more than they'd get under the Finance panel's plan. Those making between $460,000 and $1.1 million (the 95th-99th income percentile) would get an average tax cut of $21,000, raising their after-tax incomes by 4.4 percent. That would be roughly identical to the House version but nearly $3,000, or 0.6 percent of after-tax income, more generous than the Finance measure. Similarly, the bill on the Senate floor would cut taxes by an additional $8,000 on average for those who make $1.1 million or more, the top 1 percent of households—and an extra $40,000 for those who make $5 million or more, the top 0.1 percent—compared to the Finance bill. Even with those added tax cuts, the current Senate bill remains slightly less generous than the House measure for the highest-income households. While those high-earners get much more than in the Finance panel's measure, the same can't be said for low- and middle-income households. For example, the lowest-income households, those making about $35,000 or less, would get an average tax cut of $150 under either the Finance Committee's or the Senate's bill and $160 under the House bill, less than 1 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would get an average tax cut of roughly $1,800 under all three measures: a bit more in the House bill and slightly less in the two Senate three versions of the big budget bill Differing Details The House and Senate bills are broadly similar. Both would extend the individual provisions of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA); continue and enhance some corporate tax provisions; and adopt scaled-back versions of President Trump's tax-related campaign promises, such as tax-free tips and overtime. But they differ in scores of details, some minor and some significant. And the tax cuts in the Senate bill are substantially more expensive. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the pending Senate bill would slash federal revenues by more than $4.4 trillion over the next decade. The House-passed OBBBA would reduce federal revenue by $3.9 trillion, according to JCT. Both bills would allow costly provisions to expire on paper within the 10-year budget window. But because future Congresses are likely to extend those provisions once again, the true cost is likely to be substantially more. To satisfy many factions of Republicans, Senate GOP leaders made several revisions to the Finance draft. They made even deeper cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and, at the same time, proposed even more generous tax cuts for high-income households. Including spending reductions and other offsets, the Senate bill would increase the federal debt by $3.3 trillion over the next decade, according to CBO. Additional interest would boost the debt by an additional $700 billion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. All About SALT Why are the tax cuts in the latest Senate bill so much more generous than the Finance panel's plan? The primary reason is the state and local tax deduction, including the way it treats owners of pass-through businesses such as partnerships and sole proprietorships. The Finance panel did not address the controversial SALT issue. The Senate bill adopts the House plan to boost the maximum SALT deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, though only through 2029. Crucially, it also allows owners of pass-through businesses to avoid the SALT deduction cap entirely by continuing to take advantage of state-enacted loopholes. That workaround allows these business owners to fully deduct their state and local taxes by paying the levies through their firms. About 36 states allow this. The House and Finance panel bills would have somewhat limited that exemption. But the pending Senate bill keeps the door wide open, effectively freeing very wealthy business owners from any cap on their SALT deductions. Both the House and Senate bills would phase out the more generous deduction for many households starting at $500,000. But since wealthy business owners could continue to fully deduct their state and local taxes if the state workarounds are allowed, the income limit on the cap is meaningless to them. The Finance panel plan faced substantial criticism for its regressivity and cost. But GOP leaders have nonetheless doubled down and written a Senate bill that benefits top earners even more.
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Republicans introduce last-minute industry ‘killer' tax on solar and wind in spending bill
Source: CNN Business groups and clean-energy developers are apoplectic over a last-minute provision tucked into President Donald Trump's spending bill that will tax the solar and wind industry, making it much harder to get new, cheap electricity onto the grid. Senate Republicans revealed an entirely new tax for renewable energy this weekend, in the latest version of a bill that could be passed as early as Monday afternoon. The bill already stripped tax incentives for renewables by 2027 and gave developers stringent requirements to claim them. The new tax would come at the worst possible time for the American power grid, experts and trade groups say, as demand for more electricity spikes due to new data centers for artificial intelligence coming online. 'This new tax is just a killer to the wind and solar industry,' said Ed Mills, a Washington policy analyst at Raymond James. 'You went from taking away a positive for the industry to implementing a negative.' The tax could change, as the Senate embarks on a marathon day of amendment votes on Monday. As it's currently written, the Senate bill will threaten to upend a huge amount of power that was set to come online in the next decade. Wind, solar and long-term storage batteries make up the vast majority of new electricity added to the grid over the past three years. It also encompasses about 85% of what's currently in the development pipeline, according to Ben King, an analyst at the non-partisan think tank Rhodium Group. Keeping Biden-era tax credits for wind and solar would have led to between 400 and 1,100 gigawatts of new, clean power being added to the grid by 2035, Rhodium modeling shows. In comparison, the capacity of the largest fossil fuel power plant in the country is close to 4 gigawatts. 'Increasing the price of this stuff that's actually getting built right now — and just making it harder to build — results in higher prices,' King told CNN. 'And (there's) a greater amount of concern whether the grid can respond.' That hole in energy capacity these taxes will create will be filled by new natural gas power plants and leaving aging coal plants online longer, and both solutions are more expensive than building wind and solar. Those costs will all but assuredly be passed on to the people who pay electric bills. The new obstacles for clean energy come as the AI boom is already consuming vast amounts of energy. By 2030, data centers that power AI are projected to consume a whopping 612 terawatt-hours of energy per year – equivalent to what Canada consumes annually, according to research from Accenture. The new tax, along with killing the tax credits, could raise taxes on utility-scale solar projects by 18%, according to Princeton University professor Jesse Jenkins. Jenkins wrote on X that raising taxes on America's 'most important new sources of electricity supply' is 'utter insanity.' Responding to a post about the new taxes on wind and solar, billionaire Elon Musk warned over the weekend the 'latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Pointing to the cost of the legislation, Musk added in a separate post that polls suggest the legislation will be 'political suicide for the Republican Party.' Even the US Chamber of Commerce, which is broadly supportive of the legislation, came out against the new renewable energy levies. 'Taxing energy production is never good policy, whether oil & gas or, in this case, renewables,' US Chamber of Commerce executive vice president Neil Bradley said in a post on X. 'Electricity demand is set to see enormous growth & this tax will increase prices. It should be removed.' The weekend changes to the bill were blasted by renewables trade groups, who had been pushing lawmakers for a more generous tax credit phaseout timeline for wind and solar projects. 'It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households,' American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet said in a statement. Solar Energy Industries Association president Abigail Ross Hopper called the tax an 'unprecedented and punitive measure that would raise costs for American consumers' and a 'blanket penalty on solar,' in a statement. The renewable energy tax is part of a broader effort to wean critical US industry off components from China. 'The Trump administration and Congressional Republicans really dislike wind and solar, but apparently they hate China even more,' said Mills, the Raymond James analyst. 'We're trying to get China out of our supply chains.' However, the tax and restrictions will make the US far less competitive with China on AI and clean energy manufacturing, said Robbie Orvis, Energy Innovation's senior director of modeling and analysis Energy Innovation. 'This is just a gift to China; they must just be salivating over what's in this bill,' Orvis said. 'They would be very happy to have US energy costs go up so they can take on more of those data centers that might otherwise be located here.' While being tough on China has bipartisan appeal, many clean energy projects are major employers in purple and red districts. For instance, Texas is not just the leading state for oil and natural gas production, it's also No. 1 for wind-powered electricity generation. 'Republicans have long supported an all-of-the-above energy policy. With this tax provision, the all-of-the-above policy has an asterisk where wind and solar are no longer included,' Mills said. Still, Mills added it's not entirely clear the wind and solar taxes will survive the political sausage-making process. 'Does this ever get implemented? Does it get softened? Does it get repealed? All of those are in the realm of possibility,' he said. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House's National Economic Council, told CNBC on Monday that the Trump administration remains focused using 'all-of-the-above approaches to get energy production to go through the roof.' 'That means using coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and, to the extent it passes a market test; these other solar and wind type things can be part of the picture too,' Hassett said. For context, solar, wind and batteries are far cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear power, because they have no fuel costs and currently cost less to build. Hassett disagreed with the characterization that lawmakers are not just taking away tax breaks for clean energy, they are also penalizing the industry with new taxes. 'I don't think that's the way to think about it. In the end, solar is going to be in people's grids,' Hassett said. Even without the new tax, the Republican spending bill will cause household energy bills to rise over the next decade, CNN previously reported. When combined with the electric vehicle consumer tax credit likely being cut, annual electricity and transportation costs in every state in the continental United States will be higher than they would have if the tax credits stayed intact, analysis from think tank Energy Innovation found. Red states including Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas could see up to 18% higher energy costs by 2035 if Trump's bill passes, compared with a scenario where the bill didn't pass. See Full Web Article
Miami Herald
14 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Would Byron Donalds differ from DeSantis as governor? Here's what he told us
President Donald Trump endorsed U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor about a week before Donalds even announced that he would be campaigning for the state's top office. 'RUN, BYRON, RUN!' Trump posted on social media in February. Thus Donalds' campaign began over a year before Election Day. Donalds, a Republican, is polling at about a five-point lead over David Jolly, the most notable Democratic candidate, with about a third of voters still undecided, according to the polling firm Victory Insights. And the possibility of Casey DeSantis challenging him in a Republican primary is beginning to fade, according to lobbyists and consultants. A Brooklyn native who came to the Sunshine State more than 20 years ago to study at Florida A&M University and Florida State University, Donalds has been involved in Florida politics for about a decade. The first race he won was a state House seat in 2016, representing a coastal district near Fort Myers, and he was reelected there in 2018. During that time, Donalds was known as a firm Trump supporter. He was elected to Congress in 2020 and has since been reelected twice. While in D.C., he has aligned himself with the ultraconservative Tea Party caucus, voting hardline MAGA — though Gov. Ron DeSantis accused Donalds in 2023 of siding with then-Vice President Kamala Harris after Donalds criticized statewide education standards that had Florida students being taught that American slaves learned useful skills. Donalds, who is Black, called them 'wrong' on social media and said they needed adjustment. Donalds later endorsed Trump over DeSantis during the 2024 presidential election cycle. Only about half of Floridians recognize Donalds' name — up from a third in February, before he announced his campaign. Who would he be as Florida's governor? The Miami Herald sat down with him to find out. What follows are exchanges from Donalds' interview with the Herald, edited for brevity and clarity. Q: You launched your campaign fairly early. How do you keep people interested in your candidacy over the next 14 months prior to the primary? A: It's really about continuing to add people to your coalition. [Our campaign's] been fortunate to really be in just about every part of our state. We're going to continue to travel the state. And wherever we go to, whether it's CPAC Latino, business owners throughout our state, nonprofits, religious groups — people have been excited. I think that it's just one day at a time. You keep working hard, and it all comes together. Q: Did you time the launch of your campaign and Trump's endorsement to get ahead of potential competitors, like Casey DeSantis? A: No, that was not what happened. The president endorsed and then I was like, oh, all right, I guess we're running for governor. I had been thinking about running, and you have a bunch of different timelines of when you announce. The president's endorsement pretty much changed all that. Q: Is the Democratic Party in Florida dead? Is your only concern during this campaign a Republican primary? A: Yeah, they're pretty much dead. But that doesn't mean you ignore them and take your foot off the gas. Q: What do Floridians want from their next governor? What is the issue or issues they most care about? A: Right now, obviously, people are concerned about insurance. A lot of sticker shock around there. People want to talk about transportation — how am I getting around the state? How might we get some of the traffic off the roads? But overall, as I travel the state, people are happy with Florida. They want it to continue, so their biggest thing is, are we going to keep moving on the same path? Florida is going to remain the free state of Florida. We're going to keep people safe. We're going to make sure kids are getting a quality education. One of the things I focus on is helping children in our state become proficient in core subject matter. About 30% of our kids are proficient in math and reading. We need to raise that bar [to] 50%. If you're proficient in core subjects, now you're even more ready to take on the challenges of the world. We're preparing the future of Florida. Q: Are there any ways that your administration would be different than a DeSantis administration? A: Look, when it comes to policy, the governor and I don't really have disagreements. … I think it's more about careers. The governor was an attorney. I'm a man of finance. So I think it's just a different way of going about your business, but in terms of policy outcomes and political stances, there's not going to be much change. Q: As a former state lawmaker, what are your thoughts on the struggle between DeSantis and the Legislature this past session? A: Every session's different. What most people don't understand is that there are usually conflicts between the governor and the Legislature. It happens a lot more than people realize. It's really just maintaining open lines of communication with House and Senate leadership and really trying to do the early work of trying to get on the same page, really understanding what everybody's priorities and positions are. And just being professional and working through that on a step-by-step basis. Q: If you were to be elected, you would be the first Black Republican governor in the modern history of the party. What do you think that signals for the party? A: Our party is growing. People are far more diverse, but not just diversity for diversity's sake. We are still a party built on ideals. Strong ideas of individual liberty, human freedom, economic growth, sound policy, safe streets and children being educated. Those are principles that whether you're Black, whether you're Cuban, whether you're Puerto Rican or Dominican — you can agree with that. These are the philosophies that build families and maintain strong cultures. That's why I think you see more Black people coming to the Republican Party. They're sick of the dogma and the terrible policies. And the broken promises … [Democrats] never have real solutions. I think people are tired of it. What they're looking at in Republicans is people who are no nonsense. You may agree with us, you may disagree with us, but you're going to get a straight answer. … At the end of the day, people respect that. That's why you're seeing more minorities choose the Republican Party. Q: GOP members of Congress in Miami have called on the Trump administration to be more discerning as it seeks to deport immigrants in the country illegally. Do you agree with that position? A: No, I think the way the president is moving, it's going to continue. Let's be very clear: We have to be consistent when it comes to dealing with immigration law. What we want is more legal immigration, people who come in the right way. What Joe Biden allowed was anarchy, and that anarchy is going to create chaos. It's unfortunate this is what happens when you have terrible policy from the Democratic Party. The first thing: You've got to secure the border. [Trump] has done that. When it comes to deportations, obviously starting with criminal and illegal aliens, and then other people in the country illegally — yes, a lot of people are going to have to go home because we took on more than 10 million people. Our budgets are overwhelmed in every city in America. … We have to do the right thing, which is reset the table. And then we can work on letting people come into the country legally, to be able to come and work in America, if that's what they choose to do, or assimilate in America and become citizens. Q: Any thoughts on Alligator Alcatraz? A: I think the concept is good. Where we are right now, a lot of the county jails are overwhelmed. You have to have a release valve. That's what the governor and the attorney general are doing about that. But I think it's a temporary matter because … when we pass the 'Big Beautiful Bill' in Washington, it's going to give [Trump border czar] Tom Homan and [Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem the resources they need. So it will alleviate the backfill that's happening currently with our sheriffs in Florida.
