Trump denies Iran deal will allow uranium enrichment
President Trump on Monday evening denied the U.S. was advancing a new deal with Iran that would allow some enrichment of uranium at nuclear facilities, apparently contradicting a report from Axios published earlier in the day.
In a statement on his social media site Truth Social, Trump said 'Under our potential Agreement — WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANY ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM!'
Axios reported that U.S. officials on Saturday gave Iran a proposal for a nuclear agreement that would allow low-level uranium enrichment on Iranian soil for a to-be-determined time.
Trump's top negotiator with Iran, special envoy Steve Witkoff, has sent mixed signals on the issue of enrichment, walking back his suggestion that Iran would be allowed to enrich to limits that were outlined in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump withdrew from in 2019.
In April, Witkoff said any deal with Iran must 'eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.'
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as National Security Advisor, has also said the position of the U.S. is that Iran can not have the ability to enrich uranium.
'They believe that it makes them a threshold nuclear power and as a result becomes untouchable and that is the crux of the situation we're facing right now,' Rubio told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month.
Both the U.S. and Iran have expressed public optimism about a path toward a new deal, however many questions remain about what that deal would look like.
A senior, unnamed Iranian official told CNN that the Trump administration's latest proposal is 'incoherent and disjointed,' raising doubt over Trump's optimistic pronouncements last week that a deal is within reach.
'The fact that the Americans constantly change their positions has so far been the main obstacle to the success of the talks and now makes the work more difficult than ever,' the official told CNN.
The official also alleged the latest text directly contradicts prior understandings.
'The text is clearly in conflict with the latest agreement reached during the fifth round of negotiations,' the official stated.
Reuters reported on Monday that Iran is poised to reject the U.S. proposal. The U.S. and Iran have held five meetings on negotiating the deal.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MedTech Europe calls for medtech tariff and export restriction exemptions
MedTech Europe has issued a statement calling on European policymakers to exempt medical technologies from any trade tariffs or export restrictions. In response to the European Commission's (EC) conclusion of a public consultation on proposed EU countermeasures impacting trade with the US, MedTech Europe expressed deep concern over a draft package that 'targets a broad range of finished medical devices, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices, and a variety of essential components used in their manufacture'. The trade body's overall request was that medical technologies be included and prioritised in a 'zero for zero' tariff agreement on industrial goods or as part of any negotiated settlement that seeks to eliminate tariffs on both sides of the Atlantic. The EC's consultation, which was announced on 8 May and closed on 10 June, was launched to gather input towards finalising proposals for the adoption of countermeasures against the Trump's administration's imposition of tariffs on the bloc. Upon launching the consultation, EC president Ursula von der Leyen said: 'Tariffs are already having a negative impact on the global economies. The EU remains fully committed to finding negotiated outcomes with the US. 'At the same time, we continue preparing for all possibilities, and the consultation launched today will help guide us in this necessary work.' President Trump's initial announcement of tariffs for many countries and regions worldwide on 2 April has been marked by continued flip-flopping. The EU was originally facing 20% blanket tariffs on all imported goods from 9 April; however, the White House walked back its plans on the date, instead choosing to enact a 90-day pause on the imposition of tariffs. Trump has since threatened to raise tariffs on the EU to 50% if no deal is reached by the end of the pause period on 9 July. According to reports by German newspaper Handelsblatt, the EU was willing to accept a flat fee of 10% tariffs. However, in a statement shared with Reuters, the EC dismissed the claims, stating: "Negotiations are ongoing, and no agreement has been reached at this stage. The EU has from the start objected to unjustified and illegal US tariffs.' In concluding remarks, MedTech Europe stated: 'Patients must not become collateral damage in a trade dispute. Safeguarding their access to the technologies they depend on must remain a shared priority.' On 11 June, leading players from the medtech industry convened on Capitol Hill alongside the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) to advocate for the elimination of tariffs on medical technologies. After the Trump administration's announcement of a 90-day pause on the imposition of tariffs for most countries, barring China, AdvaMed CEO Scott Whitaker voiced similar hopes as MedTech Europe, restating his previous request that a 'zero for zero' tariff deal on medtech with all of the US's key trading partners be struck. Navigate the shifting tariff landscape with real-time data and market-leading analysis. Request a free demo for GlobalData's Strategic Intelligence "MedTech Europe calls for medtech tariff and export restriction exemptions" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Associated Press
13 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court says Maryland parents can pull their kids from public school lessons using LGBTQ books
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that Maryland parents who have religious objections can pull their children from public school lessons using LGBTQ storybooks. The justices reversed lower-court rulings in favor of the Montgomery County school system in suburban Washington. The high court ruled that the schools likely could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The decision was not a final ruling in the case, but the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in the case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The school district introduced the storybooks, including 'Prince & Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. In 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a niece worries that her uncle won't have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years and the case is among several religious-rights cases at the court this term. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. Many of the removals were organized by Moms for Liberty and other conservative organizations that advocate for more parental input over what books are available to students. Soon after President Donald Trump, a Republican, took office in January, the Education Department called the book bans a 'hoax' and dismissed 11 complaints that had been filed under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, a Democrat. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing in the Maryland case that the objecting parents wanted 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. Parents initially had been allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. At arguments in April, a lawyer for the school district told the justices that the 'opt outs' had become disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though they didn't send their children to public schools. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at END PREP The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Tuesday signaled support for the religious rights of parents in Maryland who want to remove their children from elementary school classes using storybooks with LGBTQ characters. The court seemed likely to find that the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, could not require elementary school children to sit through lessons involving the books if parents expressed religious objections to the material. The case is one of three religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. Parents initially were allowed to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the school board reversed course a year later, prompting protests and eventually a lawsuit. The case hit unusually close to home, as three justices live in the county, though none sent their children to public schools. 'I guess I am a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said. Kavanaugh also expressed surprise that the school system was 'not respecting religious liberty,' especially because of the county's diverse population and Maryland's history as a haven for Catholics. Pressed repeatedly about why the school system couldn't reinstitute an opt-out policy, lawyer Alan Schoenfeld said, 'It tried that. It failed. It was not able to accommodate the number of opt-outs at issue.' Sex education is the only area of instruction in Montgomery schools that students can be excused from, Schoenfeld said. Justices referred to several of the books, but none as extensively as 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' in which a niece worries that her uncle will not have as much time for her after he gets married to another man. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who are on opposite sides of most culture-war clashes, offered competing interpretations. 'Is looking at two men getting married, is that the religious objection?' Sotomayor said, noting there's not even any kissing involved. Alito described the book as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. 'The book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with,' he said. In all, five books are at issue in the high court case, touching on the same themes found in classic stories that include Snow White, Cinderella and Peter Pan, the school system's lawyers wrote. In 'Prince and Knight,' two men fall in love after they rescue the kingdom, and each other. 'Love, Violet' deals with a girl's anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl. 'Born Ready' is the story of a transgender boy's decision to share his gender identity with his family and the world. 'Intersection Allies' describes nine characters of varying backgrounds, including one who is gender-fluid. Billy Moges, a board member of the Kids First parents' group that sued over the books, said the content is sexual, confusing and inappropriate for young schoolchildren. The writers' group Pen America said in a court filing what the parents want is 'a constitutionally suspect book ban by another name.' Pen America reported more than 10,000 books were banned in the last school year. A decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor is expected by early summer.
Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court upholds $8 billion fund for internet and phone service
The Supreme Court on Friday ruled an $8 billion fund that provides telephone and internet service in rural and low-income communities is constitutional, a break from a string of major rulings by the high court that have sharply curtailed the power of federal agencies. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices found Congress properly granted the Federal Communications Commission discretion to collect fees from telecommunications companies to pay for the Universal Service Fund, which helps ensure equal access to critical communication services. It was one of six decisions expected Friday, the final day of the Supreme Court term. The ruling is a blow to conservatives who had hoped the high court would — for the first time since 1935 — find that Congress had violated a constitutional provision that bars it from delegating too much of its legislative authority to other branches of the government, namely the executive and federal agencies. Conservatives have long sought to revive the 'nondelegation doctrine' as a means to check a federal bureaucracy they feel has grown too large and powerful. A decision striking down the fund could have opened the door to a host of legal challenges against other powers Congress has granted to agencies. The decision comes almost exactly a year after the high court dramatically reshaped the regulatory landscape, striking down a 40-year-old precedent that held judges must grant broad leeway to agency's interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as those interpretations are reasonable. The Chevron doctrine formed the basis of thousands of regulations dealing with drugs, workplace safety and the environment. The conservative supermajority on the court has steadily rolled back regulation in recent terms, curbing the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to limit greenhouse gases, runoff in wetlands and air pollution that drifts across state lines. The justices also struck down in-house tribunals at the Securities and Exchange Commission that target securities fraud. The Universal Service Fund was created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to provide phone and web connections to remote communities, rural hospitals, libraries and schools, and those who couldn't otherwise afford it. Telecom companies tack fees onto customers' bills to make payments to the fund. Critics contend the fund collects too much money and is inefficient and wasteful. Consumers Research, a conservative group, challenged the Universal Service Fund, along with consumers and a carrier. The petitioners argued Congress did not have the authority to give the FCC what is essentially the power to levy a tax. They said the nondelegation issue was compounded because the FCC had created a non-profit company to administer the fund. The company remains under the oversight and control of the FCC and has no independent regulatory authority. 'In essence, a private company is taxing Americans in amounts that total billions of dollars every year, under penalty of law, without true governmental accountability," the groups wrote in their filing with the high court. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled against the groups, before the full appeals court reversed that decision. The full court held the combination of Congress giving the FCC 'sweeping' powers and the FCC, in turn, granting some of that authority to a private company insulated the fund from accountability to voters. The Biden administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court last year, and the Trump administration has continued to defend the government's position. The courts have long given Congress broad leeway to delegate quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative tasks to federal agencies if Congress articulates an 'intelligible principle' to constrain the use of the delegation. In a filing last year on the United Fund case, then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that standard was more than satisfied, citing rules Congress had enacted that dictate the fund's operation. 'The Act, in short, provides comprehensive guidance to the FCC on how to implement Congress's universal service policy,' Prelogar wrote. This is a developing story. It will be updated.
