Connect with us

Politics

What to Know About Iran’s Response to Trump’s Letter Urging Talks

Published

on

What to Know About Iran’s Response to Trump’s Letter Urging Talks

Iran announced on Thursday it had responded to a letter from President Trump in which the American president had urged direct negotiations with the government in Tehran on a deal to curb the country’s advancing nuclear program.

Iran appeared to be taking the middle ground, neither rejecting negotiations with the United States nor accepting face-to-face talks with Mr. Trump.

But Kamal Kharazi, the top foreign policy adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said, according to local news reports, “The Islamic Republic has not closed all the doors and is willing to begin indirect negotiations with the United States.”

The countries have not had official diplomatic relations since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, but they have engaged directly and indirectly on issues like the nuclear program, detainee swaps and regional tensions.

Iran said it submitted its written reply to Mr. Trump through Oman on Wednesday. The foreign minister of Iran, Abbas Araghchi, said Tehran had presented a comprehensive view on the issues raised by Mr. Trump and on the overall situation in the Middle East, according to the official news agency IRNA.

Advertisement

“Our policy is to not negotiate directly while there is maximum pressure policy and threats of military strikes,” Mr. Araghchi said on Thursday. “But indirect negotiations can take place as they have in the past.”

Mr. Trump sent the letter this month to Mr. Khamenei, saying he preferred diplomacy to military action.

“I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate, because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing,’” Mr. Trump told Fox News. “You can’t let them have a nuclear weapon.”

On March 12, Anwar Gargash, a senior diplomat from the United Arab Emirates who traveled to Tehran to deliver Mr. Trump’s letter, told Iranian news media that it contained “threats” and also an opportunity.

Steve Witkoff, the Trump administration’s special envoy to the Middle East, revealed more details in an interview with Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News host who is now a popular podcaster. Mr. Witkoff said the letter roughly said: “We should talk, we should clear up the misconceptions, we should create a verification program so that nobody worries about weaponization of your nuclear material.”

Advertisement

An Iranian official who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly said that Mr. Trump had set a two-month deadline for Iran to negotiate, a detail initially reported by Axios.

Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, a research institute based in London, said the letter-writing between Tehran and Washington showed that both sides were “sizing each other up and finding different channels, some public and many private, to define what they can achieve.”

“This is an opportunity for both sides,” she added, “but it comes with a thousand risks and challenges.”

Since Mr. Trump’s election, officials and pundits in Iran have publicly debated the topic, with a conservative hard-line faction vehemently objecting to talks or concessions and a moderate and reformist faction arguing that negotiations are necessary to lift sanctions.

Mr. Khamenei, who has the last word on all key state matters, has said he does not believe that Iran would gain from talks.

Advertisement

President Masoud Pezeshkian, a moderate, has distanced himself from that view, telling Parliament this month that he favored negotiations but would follow Mr. Khamenei’s directive.

On Thursday, Mr. Khamenei’s office signaled a shift in tone, based on Mr. Kharazi’s remarks.

If talks on a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program fail, Israel and the United States have suggested the possibility of launching targeted strikes on the two main underground nuclear facilities in Iran, Natanz and Fordow.

But that risks setting off a wider regional war since Iran has warned it would respond to any strikes on its soil. And any attacks could destabilize the Middle East, with Tehran turning to its network of weakened but still active proxy militias, like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the West and Israel are concerned that Tehran has been secretly planning a faster, cruder approach to building a weapon.

Advertisement

In 2018, Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran and imposed tough economic sanctions. The moves prompted Iran to abandon its commitments to the deal and increase uranium enrichment from a cap of 3.5 percent to 60 percent now.

The United Nation’s nuclear watchdog says in its latest report that Iran has stockpiled enough enriched uranium to make several bombs. But the watchdog says it has found no evidence that Iran is weaponizing its program.

“Iran is at a crossroad, between having an off ramp or being militarily hit,” said Ms. Vakil, of Chatham House. “It’s a year of really consequential decisions, and how they play their hand could give them a lifeline or lead to further strikes and weakening of the government.”

Politics

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

Published

on

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

new video loaded: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

transcript

transcript

Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

Reporter: “She just posted on X, your press secretary, [Karoline Leavitt,] that the board members of the Kennedy Center voted unanimously to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center. What is your reaction to that?” “Well, I was honored by it. The board is a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country, and I was surprised by it. I was honored by it.” “Thank you very much, everybody. And I’ll tell you what: the Trump-Kennedy Center, I mean —” [laughs] “Kennedy Center — I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” [cheers] “Wow, this is terribly embarrassing.” “They don’t have the power to do it. Only Congress can rename the Kennedy Center. How does that actually help the American people, who’ve already been convinced that Donald Trump is not focused on making their life better? The whole thing is extraordinary.”

Advertisement
President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

By Axel Boada

December 19, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump legal group seeking access to a trove of federal judiciary documents, including from a body overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – putting an end to a protracted legal fight brought by Trump allies seeking to access key judicial documents. 

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee assigned to the case earlier this year, dismissed the long-shot lawsuit brought by the America First Legal Foundation, the pro-Trump group founded by White House policy adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first term; Miller, now back in the White House, is no longer affiliated with AFL.

McFadden ultimately dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying Thursday that two groups responsible for certain regulatory and administrative functions for the federal judiciary are an extension of the judicial branch, and therefore protected by the same exemptions to federal laws granted to the judiciary.

“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” McFadden said.

Advertisement

TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON VOTING BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES AMID FLURRY OF LEGAL SETBACKS

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen at the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The lawsuit by AFL was first reported by Fox News Digital earlier this year. It named both Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and sought access to a trove of judicial documents from both bodies under the Freedom of Information Act.

AFL accused both groups of performing regulatory actions that the lawsuit argued exceeded the scope of the “core functions” of the judiciary, and which it argued should subject the groups to the FOIA requests as a result.

AFL cited recent actions the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office had taken in 2023 to “accommodate” requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an “ethics code” for justices on the high court.

Advertisement

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL argued.

“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts, they said.

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

McFadden disagreed, rejecting the group’s argument that “courts” under FOIA refers only to judges. He concluded that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are components of the judicial branch and therefore exempt from FOIA.

Advertisement

“Indeed, if America First were right that only judges and ‘law clerks,’ who ‘directly report to the judge,’ count as part of ‘the courts,’ numerous questions arise, and senseless line drawing ensues,” he said in a memo opinion accompanying his order. “Rather, FOIA’s exclusion reflects that courts include a full range of ‘judicial adjuncts,’ from ‘clerks’ to ‘court reporters,’ who perform ‘tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.’” 

Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, had argued in their lawsuit earlier this year that the Judicial Conference’s duties are “executive functions” and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers “who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers.” 

Courts “definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the group had argued.

The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. Overseen by the chief justice, it issues policy recommendations and reports to Congress as needed.

TRUMP IS THREATENING TO ‘FEDERALIZE’ DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT 

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C. ((Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty))

The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things.

The news comes as President Donald Trump, in his first year back in the White House, has relied heavily on executive orders to advance his agenda — a strategy that has accelerated implementation of campaign promises but also prompted a surge of legal challenges.

 

Trump’s actions sparked hundreds of federal lawsuits this year alone, sending tensions skyrocketing between the executive branch and the courts, including federal judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s biggest priorities in his second term. 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

Published

on

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Advertisement

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Advertisement

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Advertisement

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Advertisement

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending