White House says no meeting with Iran currently scheduled
Washington — White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that the Trump administration doesn't have any meetings scheduled with Iran, one day after President Trump said that the U.S. and Iran would talk and meet "next week."
"We don't have anything scheduled as of now," Leavitt told reporters during Thursday's press briefing, adding that she spoke with Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday morning and the administration continues to be in "close communication" with the Iranians and intermediaries such as the Qataris.
"We are in touch, and if there is a meeting, we will let you know, as we always do," Leavitt said.
Witkoff said earlier this week that his interactions with the Iranians had been "promising" and that the U.S. was "hopeful that we can have a long-term peace agreement that resurrects Iran."
The president floated talks during a Wednesday news conference at the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, where he touted the success of a weekend Pentagon operation targeting Iranian nuclear sites.
"We're going to talk to them next week, with Iran," the president told reporters Wednesday. "We may sign an agreement, I don't know. ... If we got a document it wouldn't be bad. We're going to meet with them, actually. We're going to meet with them."
The president at the time didn't specify who would be involved in such a meeting or where it would take place, and the White House didn't offer further details. On Thursday, Leavitt explained the basic goal of any future meetings.
"We want to ensure we can get to a place where Iran agrees to a non-enrichment, civil nuclear program," Leavitt said. "And there are many other requests that the United States has."
The Pentagon held a news conference Thursday morning defending the success of the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend, and administration officials were set to brief lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Thursday afternoon.
The U.S. has been pushing for a direct meeting with Iran since the strikes, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio telling "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on Sunday that "we have bent over backwards to create a deal with these people."
"What happens next will now depend on what Iran chooses to do next," Rubio said. "If they choose the path of diplomacy, we're ready."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
Politico
33 minutes ago
- Politico
‘This Really Terrible Doom Loop': A Reality Check on the Iran Strikes
In the hours after U.S. warplanes struck three Iranian nuclear facilities, President Donald Trump was quick to announce that the country's key nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'totally obliterated.' Then came a leak to the media: A preliminary intelligence assessment had found important sites were not destroyed, calling into question the impact on Iran's nuclear program. The revelations fueled an uproar and put Trump on the defensive, as top U.S. officials rushed to release further details about the bombings. So, were the strikes a success, or should we still be worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities? Perhaps both, according to Beth Sanner, a longtime intelligence official who frequently delivered Trump's intelligence brief during his first term in office. 'We can have two things be true,' Sanner said in an interview with POLITICO Magazine. 'We can have it be true that the bombing campaign was successful in destroying particular facilities or capabilities at particular facilities, and we still have questions about the Iran nuclear program and what might be left.' Ordinarily, it would take weeks to put together a comprehensive picture about the impact of a strike like this, said Sanner, who previously served as deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration, overseeing the parts of the intelligence community that coordinate and lead collection and analysis across the U.S. spy agencies. But the political news cycle won't wait that long. And now there's another danger: If the intelligence community ultimately determines the strikes weren't effective or Iran was able to get its enriched uranium out of the way, the administration may now be far less likely to publicly admit it. 'This is where we are,' she said. 'It makes it really hard to do the right thing.' This interview has been edited for length and clarity. I want to start with the preliminary damage assessment produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency that was first reported by CNN. How are these initial assessments put together, and how much stock would you put in a preliminary assessment so soon after a strike like this? I'll answer the second part first. How I would take it is with a grain of salt. It will say upfront, very clearly, what the limitations are of this. And this is why having somebody leak something like this is not only illegal and should not be done — no offense to all the journalists out there — but it's also hugely unhelpful because it's confusing to people. No one even knows exactly what it said. They don't have a copy of it. I think there is a lot of confusion that's raised by something like this, and it's really not designed for public distribution, or even wide distribution among people who aren't making decisions. An initial bomb damage assessment is an initial look at these sorts of things. It is really designed for operators and for policymakers to decide what their next move is. It's for tactical decision making. It's not for strategic decision making. In other words, did we miss something? Do we need to go back? What kind of information streams will intelligence officials be looking at in the wake of a strike like this, and how long would it normally take to put a fulsome assessment together of its impact? On something like this, one should understand that each assessment, no matter when it's put out, it's not going to stop in time. There will be a continuation of a gathering of information. More information will be found, even after a very fulsome assessment is done, and nobody just shuts down and says, 'We're done.' I think it will take a couple weeks to do a really good job. This type of assessment is generally done by the National Intelligence Council to take a complete intelligence community view. You want to have the input from all the different expertise that's quite varied, and the sources of intelligence that are quite varied across the entire intelligence community. From instrumentation, measuring things, overhead collection, SIGINT [signals intelligence], intercepts of conversations, human intelligence. That human intelligence might be from liaison services. In other words, our friends and allies, partners, open source — somebody took pictures — all sorts of things. And it's also going to take in all of the disciplines, we call them in the intelligence community, meaning different kinds of expertise. So you'll have nuclear scientists, you'll have specialists in missiles, you'll have leadership analysts looking at the hierarchy of the scientific community that's been eliminated and who's left, what's their expertise? Trump has said repeatedly that Iran's nuclear facilities have been 'obliterated.' Is that too strong a word to use at this stage? From his comments at the NATO summit, somebody used that word with him, he says, and it was repeated by him, and I think now we're in this really terrible doom loop where we're having a conversation — this battle between obliterated and not obliterated — and in fact, we're obliterating the nuance in the way that this conversation is going. We should probably be focused less on that word and try to develop a broader vocabulary to capture the fact that we can have two things be true. We can have it be true that the bombing campaign was successful in destroying particular facilities or capabilities at particular facilities, and we still have questions about the Iran nuclear program and what might be left outside of these areas that were bombed, because the program is more than these three facilities. Staying on the point about vocabulary, both CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released statements Wednesday stating that Iran's nuclear facilities had been 'destroyed.' What did you make of their decision to issue those statements? I've been on the other end of editing these things myself, going over each word. These are carefully crafted and worded to be analytically true, but also to, in this case I believe, to reinforce the administration's narrative that this was successful. I think that it was successful, but I also have major concerns about what's left. So when I look at that statement, it says that the program has been severely damaged, and it says several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years. I think that these are true statements, but they're designed to check the box and support the narrative while also staying true to the facts, given the controversy. So it sounds like you're saying that it's likely true that these sites that were struck have been destroyed, but that there still is potentially a lot we don't know about Iran's nuclear program at this point and its status. I think when you look at the words very, very carefully, which I am trained to do, [it says] 'several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed.' It does not say that Fordo was destroyed completely. It does not say that Isfahan and Natanz were destroyed completely. It says 'several nuclear facilities,' and that is true. The Arak plutonium plant has been destroyed, the Isfahan metal conversion plant, the Natanz centrifuge facility, some production lines, etc. So I don't think that these statements say that Iran's nuclear program has been destroyed. It says facilities. What key questions remain unanswered for you at this point, based on what we know publicly? We need to know some practical things about what is left in Iran's knowledge and capacity to build a bomb. You can't bomb away knowledge. We need to know what Iran's intent is. What is their leadership's intent? Do they intend to now try harder than ever to put their nuclear weapons program underground to produce that weapon, even if it takes years? Because they have been taught a lesson that is as clear as day — that being a threshold state does not protect them, only a nuclear weapon would. Knowing where the details of where things are, what's their capacity and remaining capability, and then what is their intent. And then going into these negotiations that [Special Envoy] Steve Witkoff says will happen, we want to know some very specific things about what Iran's red lines are and the ability to work through those things so we can get to a peaceful solution. The administration has been quick to say that Iran's nuclear facilities have been destroyed, but they've said a lot less about the whereabouts of Iran's highly enriched uranium. Tehran was thought to have some 400 kilograms of enriched uranium before the strikes. Do you think that the administration or the intelligence community knows what happened to those stockpiles? What I'm worried about, in part, is the pressure on the administration to say more than they should say about this issue, because that could reveal sources and methods that make it harder for us to track these things. And the more they feel that they have to defend themselves, the more they're likely to spill the beans that will be a problem in the future for protecting our national security. That said, what you're seeing from the Israelis, and some statements by the Americans, is that the HEU [highly enriched uranium] has been buried. In other words, it's underneath these tunnels, under Isfahan and under Fordo and under Natanz. I don't know if we have fidelity on that. Probably once Israel was in the skies over Iran, the ability to track what was happening at those facilities was very high. The question for me is whether some of that material was moved before we had that kind of ability — the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that we had from Israel once they went in. To your point, there have been reports about trucks being seen outside of Fordo ahead of the U.S. strikes, which raised speculation that the regime may have spirited some of its uranium out of harm's way. I will also say here that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Thursday morning that he has seen no intelligence to suggest that the uranium was moved. I've also heard speculation that Iran may have other undeclared nuclear facilities. Meanwhile, Iran's parliament also voted to halt IAEA inspections. Is there a risk that U.S. officials will now have less visibility about Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions in the wake of these strikes, if Iran feels the need to move it further into the shadows? Yes and no. I would say that we know that Israeli penetration of Iranian intelligence services is just very, very heightened. I would say that the unhappiness with the regime and the inability to protect Iran is probably going to increase the ability to recruit officials and find more information. But they're also going to be a lot more careful. Maybe some of our disclosures are going to make our SIGINT [signals intelligence] collection more difficult. Those 16 trucks, that happened when we had a very close eye on Fordo. Maybe they didn't spirit away HEU, but that's not where most of it was stored anyway. Maybe they spirited away something else. Maybe, as some have suggested, they were trying to put cement over those entrance ways to protect it more, so lots can happen. We were following those trucks, I'm confident. Other things that happened before are more worrisome. Such as? We don't know what has happened before. In mid-May, the Iranians sent a letter to the UN, and they threatened to move their HEU and other special parts of their program. I don't think they said it specifically to another facility. Then they said, in another statement, in response to the IAEA censure against them, that they were going to open a third enrichment site and move their HEU. So I think that this idea that there might be a covert facility somewhere else is something that is a very reasonable question to be asked, because they've telegraphed that, and people have been talking about that for years. Tulsi Gabbard testified in March that the intelligence community assessed that Iran was not looking to build a nuclear weapon, but did have an unprecedented amount of enriched uranium for a non-nuclear power. I understand that there is debate about that assessment in intelligence circles, and I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about the main schools of thought on Iran's intentions with its nuclear enrichment and why this is such a hard question to answer. It's hard unless you have exquisite access to exactly what the Supreme Leader has said and ordered. The conventional interpretation of that statement is that, yes, there's been a lot of work done to prepare to make a weapon, but the final order to actually sprint to build a bomb had not been given. The problem with it is that can all be true today, but that Iran was getting so close to being able to weaponize, it didn't matter whether that order to go for it or not had been made. It was close enough that somebody had to do something to put a stop to that process. And so it can be an esoteric, semantic debate at some point, and that's certainly been the Israeli argument. What do you make of recent reports that Trump has grown frustrated with Tulsi Gabbard? Is she able to do her job as DNI if she lacks Trump's confidence? That's a very tricky question, and I try not to criticize anybody personally in government. I try to limit myself to policies rather than people. I don't want to be one of these pundits. But I would say that the healthy relationship between the head of intelligence and the president is very important to national security, because if the president cannot listen and hear the intelligence community, then we have a problem. When I was briefing President Trump, even in the days when, on the outside, it looked like things were very bad between the intelligence leadership and the president, I was always welcomed into the Oval Office and able to give my briefing. And if you get to a point where he cannot have that happen, where that's closed off, then I think things have to change. Maybe that's why Director [Dan] Coats decided to resign. This leak has kind of put the administration on the defensive, and they've been very quick to issue further assessments. How confident are you that if there was intelligence that the strikes hadn't been fully effective, or Iran was able to get its enriched uranium out of the way, or that their nuclear facilities weren't completely destroyed, that the administration would actually admit that publicly now, given that they have rushed out to say that it's been destroyed? Yep, this is where we are. It makes it really hard to do the right thing. Because any assessment that equates the bombing with the nuclear program is the problem. They are not the same thing, and they need to be separated out. We can have a win on the bombing, but still have issues that we need to deal with on Iran's threat. And that is what the next phase of negotiations will be, and the bombing, hopefully, has created conditions where that can happen. So that's where I would try to shift the narrative here. Well, Trump said yesterday he doesn't even feel the need to have a deal with Iran anymore. Yes, and that needs to change. I think that the fact that Witkoff is empowered, and he said yesterday that we are shooting for a comprehensive peace agreement, that gives me hope.
The Hill
33 minutes ago
- The Hill
SCOTUS delivers gut punch to Planned Parenthood
The Big Story In a ruling made along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Medicaid beneficiaries don't have the right to sue to obtain care from a provider of their choice, paving the way for South Carolina to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. © AP The law says 'any individual' insured through Medicaid 'may obtain' care from any qualified and willing provider. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue to enforce that provision. Medicaid is prohibited from paying for almost all abortions, but states want to cut government funding for other services Planned Parenthood provides. The suit, supported by the Trump administration, was brought by South Carolina. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) praised the ruling Thursday, saying, 'Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values — and today, we are finally victorious.' The ruling has implications for other states, at a time when red states across the country are looking for ways to deprive Planned Parenthood of funding. Nationally, the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning grants from nine Planned Parenthood affiliates. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri already block Planned Parenthood from seeing Medicaid patients, and the organization has said it expected many other Republican-led states to do the same if the Supreme Court sided with South Carolina. 'Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions,' Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. 'And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more.' Roughly 72 million low-income Americans receive health insurance through Medicaid, according to the most recent enrollment numbers. And more than 1.3 million South Carolinians — or 20 percent of the state — are enrolled in the program, according to the health policy nonprofit KFF. 'As extremists in every branch of our government are targeting Planned Parenthood and attempting to strip millions of Americans of the care their health centers provide, this is nothing more than a politically-motivated green light to anti-abortion politicians,' Reproductive Freedom Caucus co-chairs Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a statement. Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: How Medicaid ruling could blow up Senate GOP's plans on Trump 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Republicans were dealt a significant blow Thursday when Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advised that major pieces of the GOP megabill's Medicaid policy can't pass with a simple majority. Much of the savings in the bill come from Medicaid cuts, and the ruling impacts several of the largest and most controversial ones, including a plan to slash states' use of health care provider taxes as well as several … Reproductive rights groups fear SCOTUS ruling will inspire anti-abortion politicians Reproductive rights advocates are reeling from Thursday's Supreme Court ruling in favor of South Carolina in a legal case to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, which they fear will give other states the green light to do the same. 'Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crises,' said Paige Johnson, … Vaccine panel backs RFK Jr. in opposing thimerosal, a flu shot preservative The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), recently remade by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., voted Thursday in favor of only recommending flu shots that don't contain the mercury-based preservative thimerosal. The ACIP, which provides guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), voted on four draft recommendations, three of which had to do with recommending … In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senate referee rejects key Medicaid cuts in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has rejected key Medicaid provisions in the Senate GOP megabill, a ruling that appears to strike a major blow to Republicans' strategy for cutting federal spending. The Senate's referee rejected a plan to cap states' use of health care provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, a proposal that would have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in savings … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Hegseth slams Fox reporter at press conference: 'You've been about the worst' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Jennifer Griffin, his former colleague at Fox News and a longtime member of the Pentagon press corps, amid … Read more GOP senator calls for Senate parliamentarian to be fired after ruling against Medicaid cuts Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) on Thursday called for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to fire Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough 'ASAP,' … Read more What People Think Opinions related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
