WorldNetDaily
Deal with Iran ‘largely negotiated,’ but still awaiting finalization
President Trump confirms he's aiming for 'PEACE' in talks with leaders in multiple countries
Far Right
Bloomberg Politics
Trump Says He’ll Announce Negotiated Deal With Iran Shortly
Center
President Donald Trump said that a peace deal with Iran has been “largely negotiated” and he plans to announce an agreement shortly that would reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
Compare Perspectives
Found 8 stories
The Gateway Pundit
BREAKING: Trump Says Peace Deal Has Been “Largely Negotiated” – Agreement Includes Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz
President Trump announced that he's "largely negotiated" a deal to end the war in Iran, with the final details to be announced shortly. Following discussions with Arab leaders, "concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran, and all things related to a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to PEACE," Trump signaled that the deal is imminent. The post BREAKING: Trump Says Peace Deal Has Been “Largely Negotiated” – Agreement Includes Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Far Right
BBC News
Trump says deal with Iran 'largely negotiated' and would include opening Strait of Hormuz
Tehran also signals progress on talks but says the key issue of nuclear weapons is not part of an initial framework it is working on.
Center
The Hill News
Trump says Iran deal ‘largely negotiated,’ Strait of Hormuz will be opened
President Trump said on Saturday that a deal with Iran was “largely negotiated” and would include the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz following a phone call with Arab allies in the region. “Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “In…
Center
Latest Political News on Fox News
US Army hits 2026 recruiting goals four months early, Pete Hegseth announces at West Point commencement
The U.S. Army hit its 2026 recruiting goals four months early, marking a second record year in a row, Pete Hegseth revealed at West Point graduation.
Right
Cubans Rally in Havana Against the Trump Administration’s Threats to Attack
“Cuba is a people of peace and reaffirms its legitimate right to self-defense," Cuba’s CDR national coordinator said
Far Left
Washington Examiner
GOP senators push back on potential Iran deal as Trump’s decision looms
Some Republican lawmakers are pushing back on a potential peace deal with Iran as President Donald Trump mulls renewed airstrikes. The United States and Iran are reportedly close to securing an agreement that extends the ceasefire for 60 days. If finalized, the deal would include the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and lay […]
Center Right
Alternet.org
Legal scholar warned for years that Trump would exploit this fund —and he was right
The creation of an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” at the Department of Justice may have shocked a lot of people, but not Paul Figley, a legal scholar and former DOJ staffer who has spent years warning that taxpayer money could be used by an administration for political ends in just this way.The fund, the result of a settlement of legal claims by Donald Trump and his family against the IRS, aims to compensate those who “suffered weaponization and lawfare” at the hands of the federal government. It has already been called a “slush fund” by the New York Times editorial board, which noted – as many have – that it’s likely to pay much of its US$1.8 billion funding to Trump allies who rioted at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.The money comes from what’s called the Judgment Fund, set up in the Department of Treasury by Congress in the 1950s to pay legal judgments and settlements involving the federal government. In doing so, Congress gave away a portion of its foundational, constitutional role: The power to control government spending. Figley, who worked at the Department of Justice and is also an emeritus professor of legal rhetoric at American University Washington College of Law, has warned Congress and others that by putting decisions about such huge payouts in the hands of the executive branch, the fund would inevitably be hijacked for political purposes. Naomi Schalit, The Conversation’s politics and legal affairs editor, spoke with Figley. What is the Judgment Fund, and why was it created?The Judgment Fund is a permanent, indefinite appropriation that Congress established to pay most judgments and settlements against the federal government. Prior to 1956, whenever a judgment or settlement was agreed upon or finalized, Congress would have to appropriate money to pay it. That meant the administration and Congress would have to go through kind of a karaoke: “Here’s a new settlement, here’s why it should be approved.” “OK, we approve it.” And it took up a lot of time and didn’t produce much good effect. So the old General Accounting Office recommended that Congress set up a system that would pay some claims automatically, and in 1956, Congress established the Judgment Fund. It allows payment of settlements and judgments if those payments were final and not authorized or provided for by some other legally available appropriation. Former Department of Justice lawyer Paul Figley spent years warning that presidents could use the little-known Judgment Fund as a political piggy bank. Congress essentially handed over responsibility for paying for settlements and judgments, which was taking up a lot of time, to the executive branch?Yes, the Department of Justice would do the paperwork and say this is final, or this is an appropriate settlement, send that to Treasury, Treasury then certifies that it was properly documented, and then orders the payment.From the constitutional perspective, it appears that Congress was getting rid of an annoying thing that it had to do, but wasn’t it also giving away its power of the purse?Yes, but only in a limited way to begin with. When the Judgment Fund was first established, any settlement or judgment that could go through the process had to be less than US$100,000. That worked so well that Congress increased the amount a couple of times, and then ultimately in 1977 said there’s no cap. It’s a permanent indefinite appropriation, and once it was established, nobody ever has to go back to Congress to ask that it be updated or refilled. It works automatically. You’ve written and given testimony about concerns you have with the Judgment Fund, over quite a few years and spanning several administrations. What are those concerns?The concern is that under our system, Congress should be responsible for – and is responsible for – appropriating money.Are you worried that this fund can be abused?It has been. For many, many years, it wasn’t abused very often. Occasionally, it was used for political purposes in the foreign policy context. President George H. W. Bush used it in 1991 to settle a claim with Iran for arms that had not been delivered. The Clinton administration used it to settle a similar claim with Pakistan in 1998. The Obama administration secretly paid Iran $1.7 billion for arms that the U.S. had not delivered, and $1.3 billion of that came from the Judgment Fund. Those all had a political context, and while they were arguably good decisions, they were decisions that, absent the Judgment Fund, would have had to go through Congress and have money appropriated after, perhaps, debate and discussion. The Obama administration also went much further in litigation involving claims of civil rights violations by the Department of Agriculture. The Obama administration’s use of the Judgment Fund in class action suits for discrimination in Department of Agriculture civil loan programs struck me as really bad policy.
Left