President Donald Trump has hailed the newly signed Iran memorandum of understanding (MOU) as a breakthrough that normalizes relations between the two countries after months of fighting. 

But by the White House’s own account, the agreement settles few of the issues that dominated months of negotiations, leaving sanctions relief, frozen assets and Iran’s nuclear program for a new round of talks.

“This is really just the first MOU and then we’re going to launch into the real technical discussions later this week,” a senior administration official told reporters Monday. 

The memorandum, signed digitally by Trump and Vice President JD Vance Sunday, kicks off a 60-day period for technical talks aimed at a final agreement. A formal signing ceremony with U.S. and Iranian officials, along with Pakistani and Qatari mediators, is planned for Friday. Yet even administration officials acknowledge that the memorandum leaves many of the most contentious issues unresolved. 

“We’ll know over the next two to three weeks whether those understandings will turn into an actual agreement,” a senior administration official said. 

TRUMP MAY HAVE WON A STRATEGIC PAUSE IN IRAN. NOW COMES THE HARD PART

Nate Swanson, a former senior advisor on Iran policy to successive administrations and now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said the memorandum appears to postpone rather than resolve disputes over sanctions relief, Iran’s nuclear program and the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

“It does not appear to resolve the core issues surrounding the mechanics of the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian nuclear concessions, or Iranian financial incentives and sanctions relief,” Swanson wrote in an analysis published by the Atlantic Council.

The remark was striking given that U.S. and Iranian officials have been negotiating since the April ceasefire and already had announced a signed memorandum and upcoming signing ceremony.

The president expressed optimism for a final deal.

“I think it’s going to happen, fairly on time, but we’ve been both involved. I think they’re going to want to get it done. Iran wants to get it done. They have to get back to business. And the relationship is now normalized,” Trump said during the G7 Summit in Évian-les-Bains, France.

JD VANCE REVEALS DETAILS OF US-IRAN DEAL, ADDRESSES WHETHER TAXPAYER MONEY WILL GO TO TEHRAN

The administration has yet to publicly release the text of the memorandum, but officials indicated that many of the issues that have dominated months of negotiations remain subject to future talks, including sanctions relief, frozen Iranian assets and the disposition of Iran’s remaining enriched uranium stockpiles.

“Here’s what it says: Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. That’s what it says. It won’t have one to buy, to develop. They will not have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters Tuesday. 

Administration officials said Monday the text of the deal would be released Tuesday or Wednesday.

On perhaps the most disputed issue, White House officials insisted Monday that no frozen Iranian assets have been released, despite reports in Iranian state-linked media that Iran could gain access to roughly $24 billion in blocked funds during the negotiation period.

“The very simple fact is, $0 of unfrozen assets have been released by the United States or any other country.”

The administration also said it will maintain its current military posture in the region during the negotiations, despite Iranian accounts suggesting the framework contemplates a future reduction in U.S. forces around Iran.

“The plan is to keep the current force posture during the 60-day negotiations.”

Officials repeatedly stressed that any concessions would be tied to verification rather than promises.

“We’re still at the early phases where we’re building trust.”

“This memorandum does not mean trusting the enemy; it has been written with active distrust,” Iranian deputy foreign minister Kazem Gharibabadi said, according to Iranian state-linked Mehr News. “We will monitor the implementation of US commitments.”

The clearest immediate effect appears to be the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments normally pass, and a commitment by both sides to preserve the ceasefire while negotiations continue. Oil prices fell to their lowest levels in three months on the agreement to lift the blockade and open the strait. 

Administration officials repeatedly described the memorandum as a framework that could eventually lead to sanctions relief, economic normalization and a broader settlement of Iran’s nuclear program — if negotiators can reach a final agreement in the coming weeks.

“Nothing is on the table if it doesn’t come along with real performance.”

Iranian state-linked media have described the framework as already containing commitments on sanctions relief, access to roughly $24 billion in frozen assets, future reductions in U.S. military forces in the region and a $300 billion reconstruction program. The White House has disputed key elements of that characterization.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We don’t pay them — there was some statement. We’re going to spend $300 billion. No, we’re allowed to go and invest if we wanted to. Someday, in the future. We have no obligation whatsoever,” Trump said during the G7 Summit.

The competing descriptions underscore how much remains unsettled.  

“There will likely be a significant delta between the aspirations outlined in the MOU and what emerges in a final deal,” Swanson said. 

Some congressional Republicans already are questioning whether Washington and Iran are describing the same agreement.

“I think we’d all like to see the terms of the memorandum and hopefully end up with a real deal,” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday. 

“I don’t think there’s anybody in Congress that’s ever gonna support giving money to them,” he went on. 

“They ought pay for what it cost us to do this to bring them to their senses to stop killing us … I want to get reimbursed for the money we’ve had to spend to bring them to their senses. They’ve got plenty of oil, they can rebuild their own country.”

“I am pleased to hear the memorandum of understanding with Iran to allow the Strait of Hormuz to open has been agreed to. I will be watching closely the ensuing negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program and other matters. I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming.”

WASHINGTON — As Spencer Pratt fell behind in the Los Angeles mayoral primary, an unexpected group began claiming election fraud: people tracking the Republican’s success on prediction markets, the increasingly popular online exchanges on which people can make bets on almost anything.

“Crazy how much voter fraud can be done with mail in ballots,” one user following bets on the mayoral race wrote last week on Kalshi, one of the top trading platforms.

“Same old California fraud,” said another who had bet that Pratt would win.

Election fraud claims extended to social media, where a handful of influencers who post content for prediction market platforms questioned the ballot count. “It’s a dead heat on Kalshi,” one user wrote on social media. “Is CA cheating to get Spencer Pratt out?”

Kalshi told the influencers to delete the posts, which violated company guidelines. Polymarket, the other leading platform, directed them to remove the paid partnership label from those posts.

The amplification of election misinformation by users who had money staked on the mayoral race adds a new twist to evolving scrutiny of prediction markets, and scholars say the ability to bet on elections broadly raises questions about whether the exchanges could alter how Americans engage in democracy.

“Elections are not a game,” said Davina Hurt, director of government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. “[If market] probabilities begin influencing donor decisions, media attention, the energy around [campaign] volunteers — at that point, markets aren’t just observing the election. They’re a part of it.”

Fans of the exchanges say they are powerful tools that can help decision makers, and company leaders have touted them as highly accurate predictors that can act as an antidote to misinformation and provide election insights.

“By shifting focus from ‘what people say’ to ‘where they put their money,’ and filtering out social media noise and pundit bias, we are providing a level of clarity and predictive power that cannot be matched,” said Kalshi spokesperson Dani Lever .

But these markets’ rapid rise has also raised a host of questions among members of Congress, state lawmakers and others — about betting on elections, wars and other political events, about potential insider trading, and about whether the platforms should be left to self-regulate. Some states are also in legal battles with the federal government over whether the activity amounts to gambling, which they seek to regulate.

“It’s like we’re in the 1930s with financial markets — we have some things that we want to regulate and restrict [as a country], and we’re sort of in the early stages of trying to lay out what the rules are,” said Koleman Strumpf, an economist at Wake Forest University.

Concerns about insider trading

The discourse around the Los Angeles mayoral race was the latest to raise questions at the intersection of prediction markets and politics. Earlier this year, an Army soldier was indicted after allegedly using his knowledge of the planned U.S. operation to capture former Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to make bets on it, winning more than $400,000. He has pleaded not guilty.

Around the same time, several anonymous users reportedly earned $2.4 million combined by making remarkably prescient bets on the Iran war, prompting concern in Congress about insider trading. And during the primary elections, Kalshi fined a few politicians for betting on themselves, while the Justice Department began investigating a former congressman on similar charges.

The episodes set off a debate in Washington. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee opened an investigation into potential insider trading, and a bipartisan group in Congress has introduced a flurry of bills seeking to put up guardrails. It remains unclear whether any will pass this session.

The chatter in Congress appeared to lead the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which regulates prediction markets, to propose a new framework last week to govern issues raised by lawmakers, such as potential betting on wars. Commission Chair Mike Selig said the proposal would allow for scrutiny of suspicious activity “while letting legitimate markets move forward pursuant to the public interest.”

The markets commission under former President Biden was viewed as somewhat skeptical of prediction markets; the agency under President Trump — whose eldest son holds advisory positions at both Polymarket and Kalshi — has been seen as more favorable to the industry. The federal government has sued several states over their attempts to regulate the markets under state laws banning sports gambling and other measures.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who has introduced legislation on the topic, said the agency’s framework would benefit the industry at the expense of the public interest.

The agency lacks “the leadership, will and investigative staff needed to confront the dangers of election misinformation, insider trading, and more,” Schiff said, “and seems content to allow the industry to police itself.”

Making bets

As California’s primary neared, people staked their dollars on the state’s races in droves. On Kalshi, trading volume on one contract about who will win the L.A. mayoral race in November had reached more than $117 million as of Tuesday.

Prediction market users trade on the outcome of future events, making money if they’re correct and losing money if they’re wrong. Someone can purchase a contract on the prediction that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass will win in November, a yes contract, or on the prediction that she will lose, a no contract.

On Tuesday, Bass contracts on Kalshi were selling at 63 cents each for yes and 38 cents for no, meaning the market was forecasting a 63% chance of her winning. Users receive $1 per contract if their prediction is correct, creating a profit on their initial investment.

Prediction markets generally create more accurate forecasts than political polls, according to Strumpf, whose research has examined 30 years of prediction markets in various forms.

Many of the issues critics raise are theoretical and have not been seen in practice, Strumpf said. By his analysis, there is no evidence that the markets have ever influenced an election outcome. He said serious traders tend to do extensive research in order to make money, meaning their bets are educated.

Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano), who has introduced legislation to prohibit event contracts involving terrorism, war, assassination and deaths, said the platforms may be useful in some cases but shouldn’t be left to police themselves. He said he’s concerned that the markets create “all the wrong incentives” for people, including political candidates and officials, to abuse inside knowledge.

“I don’t trust them to self-regulate at all,” Levin said of the companies. “The federal role should be guardrails that are reasonable and pragmatic.”

‘The sanctity of our elections’

Skeptics’ concerns regarding elections largely center around the markets’ introduction of a new way for money to potentially influence politics.

They say the desire to elevate a candidate’s market odds could create an incentive for market manipulation, and they worry that the votes of Americans using the market could be influenced by their desire to profit.

“This has real impacts for the sanctity of our elections,” said Assemblymember Maggy Krell (D-Sacramento), who raised concerns about how prediction markets could impact the democratic process in a March letter to the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. (California lawmakers are looking at the issue, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said, though none of the bills introduced this year have yet moved forward.)

The platforms create a potential new channel “for dark money to flow into our elections,” Krell said. “Specifically, someone who’s opposing or supporting a candidate could potentially use sites like Kalshi to elevate that candidate and impact the entire pool.”

The industry has endeavored to “get out in front” of concerns by creating their own policies aimed at preventing insider trading, market manipulation and other issues, said attorney Ronak D. Desai, partner and head of the congressional practice at the Washington law firm Paul Hastings.

Kalshi has a ban on those practices and has banned markets tied directly to death and war, Lever said. It also screens all new users and, in the first quarter of this year, blocked more than 100 potential insider trades and referred more than 20 cases to law enforcement.

In the case of the military member who bet on the United States’ operation in Venezuela, for instance, Polymarket caught the activity and referred the case to the Justice Department, a spokesperson said. The company has referred nearly 100 cases of suspicious activity to law enforcement, he said.

Election markets are not offered on Polymarket’s U.S. exchange — though users in the U.S. and other countries that ban the company’s international exchange are widely reported to access it using online tools.

“Polymarket prohibits trading based on stolen information, illegal tips, or information obtained in breach of a duty of trust, confidentiality, or other legal obligation,” the Polymarket spokesperson said in a statement.

Aaron Klein, senior fellow in the Center on Regulation and Markets at the Brookings Institution, predicted that pressure for further regulation would continue to mount.

“The top goal of a society is to have free and fair elections,” Klein said. “At a time in our nation’s history where people are doubting the integrity of elections and foreign governments are stoking those flames, we ought to be pretty careful.”