The US says Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a ceasefire if Hezbollah also stops fighting, in the latest attempt by the Trump administration to keep peace talks with Iran on track as political opposition to the war intensifies. Bloomberg's Abeer Abu Omar reports. (Source: Bloomberg)
Hezbollah on Thursday rejected the latest U.S.-brokered ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, which will create “pilot zones” in which Beirut will work to drive out the militant group. Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Kassem, described the ceasefire as “absurd, humiliating, and insulting” while urging Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon entirely, according to The Associated Press. …
"I don't think he's looking at this in grand strategy terms with respect to the Middle East," John Bolton said.
Trump’s former national security adviser, who later publicly criticized the president, is set to plead guilty and pay a fine under the agreement.
The 1970s oil-shock playbook needs an update: The inflation costs remain, but the employment risks appear far smaller than they did 50 years ago.Why it matters: As the Iran war continues, there are early signs of renewed strength in the labor market.If energy disruptions pose less of a risk to jobs, the challenge for central banks shifts from managing stagflation risks to guarding against renewed price pressures.That's the takeaway from new Federal Reserve Bank of Boston research that finds an oil shock the size of what the Iran war has produced would push inflation materially higher while having essentially no effect on national employment.What they're saying: "The U.S. economy's vulnerability to oil shocks has not been eliminated, but rather reconfigured," economists wrote in the report. "Oil shocks may now pose less of a challenge for monetary policy, allowing policymakers to focus more on the greater risk to inflation."Driving the news: The researchers estimate that the U.S.-Iran conflict generated a 33% oil price shock — a magnitude that is historically significant, though not unprecedented.The U.S. economy is now structured differently than past energy crises, allowing it to absorb a shock of that magnitude with far less damage to national employment.But with a smaller hit to growth and employment, there is less downward pressure on prices to counteract rising energy costs.The Boston Fed estimates that if an oil disruption like today's hit during the mid-1970s, it would lift the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index by 2.2 percentage points and reduce national employment by 1.8 percentage point.What to watch: The oil shock is estimated to create relative winners and losers across the country, with oil-producing states faring better than oil-importing regions — differences that can leave an economic mark for as long as two years after the initial hit.The Boston Fed estimates that employment growth in Texas would be roughly 1.7 percentage point higher than in the average state 12 months after the shock. Massachusetts, meanwhile, would see employment growth run about 0.4 percentage point below average.Those effects extend beyond jobs: Home price growth in Texas would outpace the average state by roughly 1.8 percentage point, while Massachusetts would trail by about 0.4 percentage point.The intrigue: The inflation effects of the shock are already evident in economic data, as well as in anecdotes gathered across Fed districts.The Beige Book, a collection of anecdotes from the 12 Fed regional banks, described energy costs tied to the Middle East conflict as the "primary driver of inflationary pressures," with spillovers into shipping, groceries and fertilizer.Yet employment showed little change across 11 of the Fed's 12 districts, and most described a "low-hire, low-fire" labor market.The bottom line: Energy producers don't appear to view the price spike as durable, potentially limiting one of the channels through which oil-producing states benefit from higher energy prices.Dallas Fed contacts reported "limited appetite to increase activity even amid sharply higher oil prices," reflecting a view that the impact of the conflict is "likely to be too short-lived to spur new capital investment," according to the Beige Book. Emily Peck contributed reporting.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins was repeatedly ordered to stop talking and struggled to answer basic questions about the farm economy Thursday during a tense House Agriculture Committee hearing that devolved into a shouting match.Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN), the committee's ranking member, came loaded with data — and used every second of her question time to expose what she called the administration's ignorance of its own record."Reclaiming my time means you stop talking," Craig snapped after Rollins repeatedly interrupted her. "That's what it means in this building."Craig opened by asking Rollins how many farms the U.S. lost last year. Rollins cited bankruptcy figures. Craig cut her off: the country lost 15,000 farms in 2025 — fourth- and fifth-generation operations wiped out, she said, "because of bad policy on the part of this administration."When Craig asked about total farmer losses, Rollins pushed back on the math. Craig was unimpressed."If this administration didn't have terrible policies, we would not need all that support for family farmers," she said, "because we would have export markets still left in China." Craig cited $28 billion in farmer losses — a figure the American Farm Bureau Federation has used to describe net crop returns after support payments for the 2025/26 crop year.Craig then demanded to know the current national average price of farm diesel. Rollins deflected to the Biden administration. Craig fired back."Joe Biden is no longer the president of the United States. Mr. Trump is. Your party controls Congress. You own these numbers." Farm diesel hit $5.41 a gallon in May — up 95% year over year, she noted, across "the entire year in which this administration was in power in the White House, the House, and the Senate."On fertilizer, Craig asked what share of farmers can't afford it this planting season. Rollins began breaking down fertilizer categories by region. "Oh, my God!" Craig cut in. "70% is the answer." A Farm Bureau survey of more than 5,700 farmers confirmed that figure.Rollins shot back: "Those are not the numbers. That's not correct."The hearing grew most heated over SNAP. Rollins disputed the program's official fraud rate, claiming states were self-reporting numbers the administration couldn't verify. Craig read the USDA's own data back to her."USDA's own data found 1.6%," Craig said. "I honestly don't think you understand the difference between error rates and fraud rates."Rollins accused Craig of grandstanding. "You're not asking questions for an answer. You're asking questions to make a political statement."Craig dismissed the charge and closed with a warning: "When you describe the farm economy as the 'golden age,' this administration needs to wake up and start understanding that family farmers are in need."
The former Trump national security adviser plans to plead guilty to a count of illegal retention of classified information, which could result in a fine and possibly prison time of up to five years.
A Western European initiative to bring Russia into peace talks with Ukraine risks increasing the pressure on Kyiv for concessions, according to Ukraine’s former top diplomat.
The State Department bypasses Iran's leadership in a new video telling ordinary Iranians their government chooses confrontation over opportunity.