作者： root

黎巴嫩媒体：伊朗代表团暂停前往日内瓦与美谈判行程

2026年6月19日 07:24 / 联合早报

从以色列北部拍摄的这张照片显示，6月18日，四辆以色列军车行驶在以黎边境的黎巴嫩道路上。 （路透社）

有消息指，由于以色列持续对黎巴嫩南部发动袭击，伊朗代表团已暂停前往瑞士日内瓦与美国方面谈判的行程。

新华社报道，黎巴嫩“广场”电视台星期四（6月18日）引述一名消息人士说，伊朗代表团原本已准备启程，参加与美方为期60天谈判的首轮会谈，但随后决定暂缓出行。

这名消息人士说，伊方此前已向美方及斡旋方表明，黎巴嫩局势是决定谈判能否举行的核心议题之一。伊方警告，以色列持续在黎巴嫩境内纵深10公里范围内开展军事行动和发动袭击，明显违反了伊美签署的谅解备忘录第一条款内容。

报道说，按照原计划，伊美将在日内瓦举行会晤，在巴基斯坦方面斡旋下启动为期60天的谈判，以期达成最终协议。根据伊美谅解备忘录，确保相关条款的持续执行是双方开展最终协议谈判的前提。

当天早些时候，以色列总理内坦亚胡说，以军不会从黎巴嫩南部撤出，并将根据以色列的安全需要继续维持在黎南部“安全区”的军事存在。据报道，以色列仍持续通过炮击和空袭打击黎南部。

New poll reveals where Americans stand after Trump agreement with Iran

2026-06-18T18:00:01-04:00 / Fox News

Some 39% favor a negotiated settlement while 36% prefer replacing Iran’s government with one more favorable to the US

By Morgan Phillips Fox News

Published June 18, 2026 6:00pm EDT | Updated June 18, 2026 6:53pm EDT

Trump administration weathers criticism from both Republicans, Dems over Iran MoU

Fox News correspondent Lucas Tomlinson has the latest on the reaction to the United States-Iran memorandum of understanding in peace deal on ‘Special Report.’

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/f4f25808-64e7-45a5-a13d-cf6f4e524011

Listen to this article

4 min

FIRST ON FOX:Americans are nearly evenly split between favoring Iranian regime change and a negotiated U.S. settlement with Iran, according to a new survey.

Some 39% of respondents favor a negotiated settlement where Iran’s current government remains in place, with verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs, according to the findings of the Reagan Institute Summer Survey, while 36% favor replacing Iran’s current government with one more favorable to the U.S.

Another 16% favor a weakened regime where the current government stays in place but is significantly diminished militarily and economically, and 8% responded that they don’t know.

The findings underscore the political challenge facing President Donald Trump as his administration pursues a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran. While the agreement seeks to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions through negotiations, Americans remain divided over the ultimate objective of U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic.

Americans are nearly evenly split between favoring Iranian regime change and a negotiated U.S. settlement with Iran, according to a new survey.(Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images)

AMERICANS AGREE WITH TRUMP THAT IRAN POSES THREAT TO UNITED STATES: POLL

Republicans who responded to the survey favored replacing Iran’s government by a 2-to-1 margin over a diplomatic deal.

Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to favor a more aggressive outcome in Iran. Half of Republican respondents said they would prefer to see Iran’s current government replaced with one more favorable to the United States, compared to 25% who said they would favor a negotiated settlement that leaves the regime in place in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear and missile programs.

The findings were nearly identical among self-identified MAGA Republicans, 51% of whom favored regime change while 25% backed a negotiated settlement.

SHARP PARTISAN DIVIDE EMERGES OVER IRAN STRIKE, TRUMP’S STRATEGY: POLLS

Democrats, meanwhile, largely favored diplomacy. A majority, 52%, said they would prefer a negotiated settlement with Iran’s current government, while 25% favored regime change. Another 14% favored leaving the regime in place but significantly weakened militarily and economically.

The Reagan Institute Summer Survey was conducted May 26 through June 3 among 1,555 respondents nationwide and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The survey used a mixed-mode methodology that included live telephone interviews, an online panel and text-to-web responses.

Smoke rises over Tehran following an explosion amid ongoing U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iranian targets on March 2, 2026.(Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

The findings underscore the political challenge facing President Donald Trump as his administration pursues a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran.(Hamid FOROUTAN / ISNA / AFP via Getty Images)

Republicans were far more likely than Democrats to favor a more aggressive outcome in Iran.(Pool via WANA/Reuters)

To better reflect the U.S. population, the results were weighted using demographic benchmarks from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2023 American Community Survey, including age, gender, race, region and education levels. The poll also included an oversample of 331 MAGA Republicans under age 30, a group with a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The Reagan Institute is a Washington-based policy organization that advocates the Reagan foreign-policy tradition of “peace through strength” and sustained American leadership abroad.

The findings come as Trump has defended a newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran as a way to reduce tensions and create a pathway toward a broader agreement addressing Tehran’s nuclear program.

The memorandum establishes a 60-day negotiating period during which the United States and Iran will attempt to reach a more comprehensive deal. The agreement also includes provisions aimed at restoring commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and provides limited sanctions waivers tied to continued negotiations. Several of the most contentious issues, including the long-term future of Iran’s nuclear program, are expected to be addressed in subsequent talks.

Trump has described the arrangement as a means of avoiding a wider conflict while pursuing what he called a “great settlement” with Tehran. He has also argued that the agreement could help stabilize energy markets by reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route, while creating an opportunity to negotiate additional restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The president added that he agreed to a settlement to avoid “economic catastrophe.”

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened,” he told reporters at the G7 Summit in France.

Trump’s Iran agreement draws rare reproach from powerful Republicans

2026-06-18T20:19:11.296Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/18/politics/republicans-trump-iran-agreement-congress

• President Donald Trump’s Iran agreement is drawing rare public criticism from powerful Republican senators, including from some who typically support his policies.
• Key GOP figures like Roger Wicker and Ted Cruz are criticizing the proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund and sanctions relief.
• Vice President JD Vance defended the agreement and urged critics to have faith in Trump’s dealmaking.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

As key Republicans on Capitol Hill first learned the details of President Donald Trump’s agreement with Iran, some were so stunned that they simply wouldn’t speak about it.

But within 24 hours, a significant bloc of GOP senators has begun openly doubting the terms of Trump’s Iran negotiations — with many urging him to pivot his strategy entirely.

Some, mostly those unburdened by reelection campaigns, are full-on hammering Trump’s agreement, with outgoing Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy on Thursday summing it up as: “Iran’s left stronger, we are left weaker.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who’s also leaving Congress, said: “Everything I’ve heard about, it causes me concern.”

“It’s tough to say that the agreement is one that leaves Iran in a worse place and the United States in a better place,” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, adding later: “A lot of money has been spent, some lives have been lost and yet you have Iran in a place where it almost looks like this is where they were before.”

But the more significant Republican voices are those who have rarely, if ever, veered from the Trump party line.

The growing chorus of Republican angst offers a flashing red warning sign to Trump: Without major changes, any final deal with Iran may not survive an eventual vote – even in a GOP-controlled Congress. Some doubt a final agreement will be reached at all, leaving Trump and the GOP in a messy limbo that could last for years and cost their party greatly in November.

There is “a high level of dismay” in the Senate GOP, according to one Republican senator, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about party dynamics. The senator was also pessimistic about the prospects of a final agreement, saying they thought it unlikely that Iran would actually agree to a final deal.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune initially said little on the president’s agreement, telling reporters he was still “digesting” the details and later adding that he wanted “to make sure that the financial incentives are conditioned upon Iran’s performance,” particularly on its nuclear weapons. Later in the day, he called it “a step in the right direction” but noted that he saw it as a first step.

It all signals eroding support across the party, even among the president’s loyalists, at one of the most difficult stretches of Trump’s presidency, with growing GOP angst at his ballroom project, his retribution campaign, and, more recently, the battle over his intelligence chief. And it could complicate the White House’s push to accomplish much else before the midterms — including the looming battle over an expensive bill to pay for Iran war operations that GOP leaders hope to pass this summer.

One of those emerging voices of dissent is Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the top Republican on the Senate’s powerful Armed Services Committee. Wicker declined to comment for a full day after the White House revealed key details of the agreement. By Thursday, Wicker, who’s served three decades in Congress, issued a blistering statement blasting much of the agreement, particularly the $300 billion in rebuilding fund and the decision to lift sanctions.

“I am concerned that the memorandum of understanding negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President’s goals,” Wicker wrote in the statement. He said Trump’s plan for a $300 billion fund would make the perks for Iran in a prior deal with then-President Barack Obama “look like a pittance by comparison” — referring to the 2015 deal that he once said was so bad that it was reminiscent of the failed 1938 Munich Accords intended to stop Adolf Hitler.

Speaking to reporters about Trump’s emerging deal, Wicker was so careful with his public messaging that he declined to answer further questions, instead passing out copies of his statement to reporters. But Wicker was not alone in his sharp criticism of Trump’s negotiations.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a staunch Iran hawk, lit into Trump’s push for that $300 billion reconstruction fund, releasing frozen assets and allowing Iran to potentially profit from reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

“History demonstrates that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is an exceptionally bad idea, and I think unfortunately the president is receiving some really bad advice on this deal,” Cruz said. “If we give billions of dollars to Iran, that money will be used to murder Americans, and so I don’t believe we should do that.”

Another Iran hawk, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa, who is retiring at the end of her term, was uncharacteristically critical in her assessment.

“I think there are many of us that just really want to fully understand what the administration is thinking, where they’re going to go with this,” she told reporters. Asked about the $300 billion fund, she said, “I have to know where that money is coming from, because I don’t think my constituents are going to be really happy about it if that’s all US taxpayer dollars.”

As the White House struggled to sell the agreement, many senators said they awaited a detailed briefing from the administration. On Thursday afternoon, the White House held its first call with members to walk through the specifics, briefing congressional leadership and top lawmakers on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, a person familiar with the matter said.

Also Thursday, Vice President JD Vance downplayed the significance of the blowback coming from Capitol Hill.

“I guess I would say to anybody, any of the critics is: Number one, have a little bit of faith in the president United States. The idea that he is going to strike a deal that’s been bad for the American people, it’s preposterous,” Vance said during a White House press briefing, adding later: “I don’t think our public messaging has been chaotic.”

Some senior Republicans, like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, have personally been in touch with some of Trump’s negotiators.

But skeptical allies noted in particular the absence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio in publicly touting the agreement — an Iran hawk widely trusted by Republicans in Washington.

“To make JD Vance the face of it rather than Marco Rubio, it’s not going to increase confidence among Republicans that this is a good deal,” said a former senior Trump official, echoing lawmakers’ private worries that the administration was easing off Iran just as it should be maximizing its pressure. “The Iranians aren’t going to do jack sh*t, we’re going to give them a bunch of cash, they’re not giving up anything after that and you’re going to be accused of having done a bad deal.”

Inside the White House, officials lamented that the US’ commitment to Iran and other mediating countries to not publish the text of the agreement until Friday was now hampering their ability to manage its rollout. Trump and several other senior officials, including Rubio, were also overseas at the G7 summit, limiting their ability to message the merits of the pact to lawmakers and allies back home.

Vance, who was already slated to talk with several media outlets about his new book, assumed the role of chief messenger, touting the agreement as a “win-win” that could transform the US’ relationship with Iran — or failing that, at least ensure that the nation’s nuclear capabilities had been decimated.

But he could only provide the broad strokes of the deal. And without a hard copy to share, Trump allies and GOP lawmakers largely declined to immediately endorse it — creating a vacuum that was quickly filled by vocal skeptics and a glut of conflicting information.

“We’re all pretending we know what’s in it,” one Trump adviser said this week, as frustrations spread across the Republican Party. “I don’t know what’s in it.”

Amid the intensifying scrutiny, Trump officials on Wednesday resorted to a creative way around the deal they’d made not to release the text: Reading it aloud to reporters on a conference call, enabling media outlets to effectively publish the agreement in full.

White House officials in the meantime sought throughout the week to tamp down GOP lawmakers’ anxieties, hoping to convince them to hold their fire in public.

Graham’s endorsement of the pact following a discussion with Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — which came after the Iran hawk’s initial tepid reaction — was viewed by Trump officials as a particularly big victory. (Days earlier, Graham told reporters he was “skeptical” that Iran will drop its nuclear ambitions by the end of negotiations.)

But even Graham acknowledged Thursday that “some of the criticism of the memo of understanding is valid.”

Few Republican lawmakers have been willing to offer their full-throated support for the agreement — a reluctance that fed Trump’s anger over the days of unflattering coverage.

“These fools, who think I haven’t been tough enough on Iran, when the Stock Market Just Hit a RECORD HIGH, and Oil prices are ‘tumbling’ down, are either jealous, bad people, or stupid,” Trump posted on Truth Social at 4:32 a.m. ET on Thursday.

Some five hours later, he followed up: “OUR COUNTRY IS STRONG, SAFE, AND RESPECTED LIKE NEVER BEFORE. ‘YOU’RE WELCOME!’”

CNN’s Annie Grayer contributed to this report.

Trump’s goals for the Iran war and what he’s saying now

June 18, 2026 / 6:47 PM EDT / CBS News
By Zak Hudak, Natalie McCormick, Maria Sullivan, Gabriella Biello

Washington — Hours after the U.S. launched its war against Iran in late February, President Trump laid out an aggressive list of war aims. He pledged to “destroy their missiles,” prevent the regime from rebuilding its nuclear program and set the stage for Iranians to “take over” the country’s government.

Now, as the Trump administration touts a newly signed memorandum of understanding to extend the U.S.-Iran ceasefire and jumpstart nuclear talks, the president has backed off some of those ambitions.

Mr. Trump told reporters this week it’s “OK” for Iran to keep some of its ballistic missiles. He said he isn’t in a hurry to recover Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and isn’t vying for “regime change” in Iran. The memorandum of understanding also leaves most specifics on the fate of Iran’s nuclear program to be determined in additional negotiations over the next 60 days.

The president also shared some praise for Iran’s current leadership.

“We’re dealing with people that I think are very rational people, and they were nice to deal with,” Mr. Trump said of Iran’s current leadership during an event at the G7 summit in France on Tuesday, noting that some prior Iranian leaders were killed during the war. “They were strong people, smart people. … They’re not radicalized and they’re looking to help their country.”

Here’s what the president and top administration officials have said about key issues related to Iran, then and now:

Eliminating ballistic missiles

Trump, Feb. 28: “We’re going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, March 2: “I’m telling you what the objectives of this operation are. The objectives of this operation are to destroy their ballistic missile capability and make sure they can’t rebuild it, and make sure that they can’t hide behind that to have a nuclear program. That’s the objective of the mission.”

Trump, June 17: “If other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for [Iran] not to have some. A ballistic missile is not the same thing as what we’re talking about, when we talk nuclear. But if Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some — in relative proportion, I think it’s OK.”

Context: While Mr. Trump has said preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is his primary goal, the administration and U.S. allies in the Middle East have long raised concerns about threats posed by Iran’s conventional military — especially its ballistic missiles, which can reach Israel and U.S. allies and military assets around the region. Throughout the war, U.S. forces heavily targeted Iran’s missile stockpile and missile factories.

The U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding does not make any references to ballistic missiles, though Mr. Trump said Wednesday his administration will work on a “parallel effort” with Persian Gulf countries to address Iran’s conventional missiles and other “non-nuclear issues.”

Mr. Trump argued Wednesday that most of Iran’s missile stockpile was either destroyed or buried under rubble during the war. But he suggested he isn’t looking to fully eliminate Iran’s ballistic missiles.

He also appeared to mock some hawkish Trump supporters who want the country’s missile program to be more thoroughly decimated. “I have guys — I like some of these guys, but I don’t think they’re smart — ‘Sir, you shouldn’t let them have any missiles.’ I said: ‘Well, what am I going to do? Am I going to let Saudi Arabia have missiles, but they can’t have them?’ … It doesn’t work that way.”

“Nuclear dust”

Trump, April 17: “The USA will get all nuclear dust — you know what the nuclear dust is? That was that white, powdery substance created by our B2 bombers, those great B2 bombers, late one evening 7 months ago.”

Trump, April 26: “We have to take that nuclear dust. We’re going to take it, and that’s part of our negotiation with Iran. We don’t want them to have it.”

Trump, June 16: “What’s happening is that at an appropriate time — there’s no rush at all. We have cameras from space on it. We know everybody that goes there, which is, like, nobody. The B2 bombers hit it. The entire mountain collapsed inside it. It’s a very tough excavation. Nobody else can do it, but us, and probably China. They have the equipment, we have the equipment. We’re in no rush, but we get it. And when we get it, we’ll destroy it.”

Context: In the years leading up to the war, Iran amassed a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, which is just a short step away from weapons-grade material. Much of that material was held in a handful of subterranean facilities that were bombed by the U.S. last year, making it difficult to access.

During this year’s war, the Trump administration strategized on ways to recover the uranium, which the president calls “nuclear dust.” An operation to dig through the rubble and take the material would have been among the most challenging and risky special operations missions in U.S. history, experts say.

In the memorandum of understanding, the U.S. and Iran “agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material” in their talks over the next 60 days. The “minimum methodology” is “down-blending” the uranium to a lower level of purity onsite, under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s supervision.

But Mr. Trump suggested this week taking the material is not an urgent task, expressing doubt that Iran can recover it. He said Wednesday “we’d like to get it psychologically, but nobody’s touching it.”

Uranium enrichment

Trump, Feb. 27: “They want to enrich a little bit. You don’t have to enrich when you have that much oil. … I say, no enrichment. Not 20%, 30%. They always want 20%, 30%. … They want it for civil. I think it’s uncivil.”

Trump, June 14: The final deal must permanently ensure that Iran “can only enrich for nonmilitary purposes” and “can never go beyond a certain amount,” the president said in an interview with The New York Times in which he said he wants a suspension on uranium enrichment for 15 or 20 years.

Trump, June 17: “I’ve said to them always: ‘You have probably the third-largest oil reserves in the world. What the hell do you need nuclear for?’ … It is a little hard, though, when you say that somebody wants it, other people have it, other adjoining states have it, and you’re not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that. It’s always a little tough. You have to use a little common sense.”

Vice President JD Vance, June 18: “The Obama nuclear deal allowed enrichment. Ours will not.”

Context: Iran has long refused to fully give up its uranium enrichment program. Iranian officials insist the program is intended for peaceful purposes, and as recently as last year, U.S. intelligence agencies found Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, though Iran has enriched uranium in recent years to levels well beyond what’s necessary for most non-military purposes.

The 2015 nuclear deal inked by the Obama administration allowed Iran to keep enriching uranium to 3.67%, significantly below the 90% used for bombs, with limits on the size of Iran’s stockpile and the number and types of centrifuges Iran could operate. That structure drew criticism at the time, and Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal during his first term in office.

Prior to the outbreak of war, Mr. Trump said he wanted Iran to agree to “no enrichment.”

The U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding leaves specifics on uranium enrichment for later, saying only that the two countries “agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs.” It’s unclear what a final deal could look like. Mr. Trump suggested this week it could be “hard” to get Iran to fully give up its nuclear program, but Vance suggested the president’s red line of no enrichment is still in place.

Regime change

Trump, addressing the Iranian people in a video on Truth Social on Feb. 28: “Take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations.”

Trump, March 29: “We’ve had regime change, if you look already, because the one regime was decimated, destroyed, they’re all dead. The next regime is mostly dead, and the third regime, we’re dealing with different people than anybody’s dealt with before. It’s a whole different group of people. So I would consider that regime change.”

Trump, June 16: “You talk about regime change. I never cared about regime change.”

Context: In the war’s opening hours, Mr. Trump explicitly framed it as an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow the Islamic Republic, which has governed Iran since 1979. After Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in strikes, Mr. Trump said he wanted a role in picking Iran’s next leader, and was “disappointed” by the decision to elevate Khamenei’s son to the post of supreme leader.

More recently, as the Iranian regime has remained in place, Mr. Trump offered a slightly different view, arguing the killing of prior Iranian leaders was effectively a form of “regime change.”

Frozen assets and sanctions relief

Trump, May 27: “No, we’re not talking about any easing of sanctions or giving money. No sanctions, no money, no nothing.”

Trump, June 17: “It’s not our money, it’s their money. And we froze it at a certain point in time, I guess we’re going to have to give it back.”

Context: A key issue for Iran is the removal — or suspension — of intense U.S. sanctions that have hobbled Iran’s economy and frozen its assets, many of which date back to the “maximum pressure” campaign in Mr. Trump’s first term or even earlier. The Obama-era nuclear deal lifted sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program, an arrangement Mr. Trump argued in 2018 gave Iran “many billions of dollars.”

This week’s memorandum of understanding says the U.S. will lift “all types of sanctions” against Iran on an “agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal.” The Trump administration has said no sanctions will be removed or assets unfrozen unless Iran demonstrates compliance.

特朗普：美国期待中东“所有战线全面停火”

2026年6月19日 07:25 / 联合早报

6月17日，特朗普在巴黎奥利机场的停机坪上向媒体发表讲话。 （法新社）

美国总统特朗普在签署美伊谅解备忘录后说，美国期待“所有战线全面停火”，包括黎巴嫩、真主党和以色列。

特朗普星期四（6月18日）下午在社媒平台Truth Social发文说：“美国致力于和平。我们鼓励中东各方继续履行承诺，使我们的谈判得以顺利并美好地展开。”

他还说：“金融市场对当前的局势反应积极，油价大幅下跌，股市一路飙升。我们期待各条战线实现全面停火，包括黎巴嫩、真主党和以色列。”

17日，七国集团（G7）峰会结束后，法国总统马克龙及夫人邀请特朗普到凡尔赛宫共进晚餐，特朗普在凡尔赛宫的餐桌上签署了美伊谅解备忘录。

US judge narrows lawsuits challenging Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting

2026-06-18 17:36:18 UTC / Reuters

A mail-in ballot, during the Pennsylvania primary election, is displayed in this illustration picture taken in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S., May 19, 2026. REUTERS/Hannah Beier/Illustration

BOSTON, June 18 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Boston on Thursday limited lawsuits challenging U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order on ​mail-in voting, ruling that Democratic-led states and voting rights groups can only ‌seek to block the order’s effect on November’s elections.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani

wrote that the potential impact of Trump’s order on the midterm elections and primaries scheduled before then meant parts of the plaintiffs’ case ​could not wait to be heard.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

“Postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict ​significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she said.

But she said many uncertainties exist as ⁠to how agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Postal Service, will ​implement Trump’s order and what, if any, final rules and policies they adopt.

She said those ​uncertainties justified dismissing for now the plaintiffs’ challenge to Trump’s order as it affects elections after the November 3 midterms.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump, a Republican, signed the ​order on March 31 after calling for years for tighter rules on voting by ​mail and pushing the false claim that his 2020 election defeat was the result of widespread voter fraud. ‌Under ⁠the U.S. Constitution, states are assigned the role of administering federal elections.

His order directs the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state, derived from citizenship and naturalization records ​and other federal databases.

Trump’s ​order also requires the ⁠U.S. Postal Service to only deliver ballots to voters on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list. USPS recently moved to implement Trump’s directive ​by issuing proposed rules requiring states to provide the names and ​barcodes tied to ⁠their mail-in ballots.

The order also directs the U.S. Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed “not eligible” ⁠to vote.

Voting ​rights groups sued the administration along with 23 states ​and the District of Columbia, arguing Trump’s order is unconstitutional and that he lacks any legal authority to assert ​presidential power over election administration.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Nia Williams, Rod Nickel

Trump says ‘we should stop’ Utah mail-in voting

2026-06-18 19:38:09 UTC / Reuters

By Jasper Ward

June 18, 2026 7:38 PM UTC Updated 4 mins ago

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media upon arrival at Paris Orly airport, following the G7 Summit, in Orly, France, June 17, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein Purchase Licensing Rights

WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday that something should be done to stop mail-in voting in ​Utah ahead of the state’s primaries next week.

“It seems ‌as though the Great State of Utah, which I won each time, and handily, is going to the All Mail In Ballot format ​of Colorado, and the rest, that always head LEFT, ​as soon as the move is made,” Trump ⁠wrote on Truth Social.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

He added, “We should stop Utah from doing ​this.”

Utah and Colorado are among fewer than a dozen U.S. states ​that allow all elections to be conducted entirely by mail, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Republican president said, without evidence, that ​mail-in ballots would provide Democrats an opportunity to cheat.

Utah’s ​lieutenant governor, who oversees elections in the state, and the Republican Party in ‌Utah ⁠did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The state’s Democratic Party said it opposes any federal effort to roll back vote-by-mail in Utah, calling Trump’s comments “insulting” to residents of the ​state.

Trump, who himself voted ​by mail earlier ⁠this year, has repeatedly raised issue with mail-in ballots.

In March, he signed an executive order tightening ​rules on mail-in voting nationwide, including directing his ​administration ⁠to compile a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state.

Trump directed the U.S. Justice Department last month to ⁠investigate ​what he alleged was an “illegal” move ​by Maryland to send out 500,000 mail-in ballots, a claim that was rejected by ​state officials.

Reporting by Jasper Ward in Washington; editing by Michelle Nichols

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Trump Iran framework gambles on diplomacy despite warning Tehran will ‘lie and cheat’

June 18, 2026 1:41pm EDT / Fox News

Administration acknowledges the gamble, with one official saying ‘we come in with the full expectation that they will lie’

By Morgan Phillips, Fox News

Details revealed about the US-Iran memorandum of understanding

The U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding, outlining a 60-day period for Iran to comply with nuclear program disposal in exchange for sanctions relief and access to frozen funds. President Donald Trump warned of military action if Iran misbehaves, while Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst and Middle East Forum strategist Jim Hanson analyze the deal’s performance-based conditions and the regime’s economic and military future.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

blob:https://www.foxnews.com/34d0f478-4447-4b9d-baf5-e9f63b9f89b0

Listen to this article

7 min

The Trump administration’s new framework with Iran grants Tehran immediate oil sanctions waivers while postponing the most consequential nuclear questions for future negotiations, a gamble officials acknowledge carries risks because they expect Iran may not comply.

“We come in with the full expectation that they will lie and they will cheat,” one senior U.S. official said on a call with reporters Wednesday, arguing that any final agreement would require a verification and enforcement mechanism capable of detecting violations.

The agreement, which establishes a 60-day negotiating period, rests on a bet that Iran can be deterred from violating its commitments through monitoring and enforcement. Administration officials say any sanctions waivers can be clawed back if Iran fails to comply, while critics argue the U.S. is giving up leverage before the toughest nuclear issues have been resolved.

The Trump administration’s new framework with Iran grants Tehran immediate oil sanctions waivers .(Ali Mohammadi/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION UNVEILS SWEEPING TERMS OF PROPOSED IRAN AGREEMENT

The memorandum of understanding, unveiled by administration officials on a call with reporters Wednesday, says the Treasury Department will immediately issue waivers allowing Iran to export crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, as well as access associated banking, insurance and transportation services.

But the agreement does not immediately require Iran to dismantle its nuclear program, surrender its enriched uranium stockpile or end enrichment. Instead, the deal says the U.S. and Iran will negotiate the “disposition” of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, with down-blending on site under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision identified as the minimum methodology.

Administration officials defended that language as an early nuclear concession, saying the U.S. continues to push for more.

“Of course that’s a flaw and we will push for more than that. But the fact that they’re conceding to that is a major, major win for the United States of America,” one senior U.S. official said on the call. “They’re saying we will destroy the enriched stockpile, and this is how we’re going to do it at a minimum.”

Down-blending would reduce the enrichment level of the material, but would not remove it from Iran.

Trump has defended the framework as necessary to avoid a prolonged conflict, closed shipping lanes and a market shock.

“If we didn’t do this deal, we could have dropped more bombs for another three weeks, two weeks, four weeks, two years,” Trump said Wednesday at the G7 summit in Évian, France. “You would never have the Hormuz Strait open … Your market would have, instead of going up, would go down at levels that nobody ever saw before, maybe except for 1929.”

Trump has defended the framework as necessary to avoid a prolonged conflict, closed shipping lanes and a market shock.(Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

TRUMP DEFENDS WAR DEAL IN MARATHON PRESSER, USING SEMANTICS ON WHY IRAN IS GETTING $300 BILLION

“I did not want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump added.

The framework drew support from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a prominent Iran hawk who said after speaking with special envoy Steve Witkoff that he thought the 60-day agreement would be “beneficial.”

“Whether or not the United States can reach an acceptable, verifiable deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program and other issues is yet to be determined, but I see little downside to trying,” Graham said.

Others criticized the deal for offering sanctions relief before Iran had agreed to anything concrete on the nuclear front.

“How do you expect Iran to agree to anything in the future, let alone within 60 days, when you’ve given up all your leverage?” Blaise Misztal, vice president for policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, told Fox News Digital.

Broader sanctions relief, a withdrawal of U.S. forces and a $300 billion reconstruction fund are also contemplated as part of a final deal if both sides can reach one within 60 days.

Others criticized the deal for offering sanctions relief before Iran had agreed to anything concrete on the nuclear front.(Photo by IIPA via Getty Images)

Those who opposed the war now argue that the memorandum is the best deal the U.S. can get after the conflict and blockade.

“The U.S. bargaining position was hurt by the war, not helped by it,” Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, told Fox News Digital.

Kelanic said Trump is now “buying off Iran to return to something approaching the pre-war status quo” by offering immediate sanctions waivers and unfreezing assets tied to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

She argued that the immediate waivers are the price Trump has to pay to convince Iran he is serious about diplomacy after launching strikes during negotiations.

“This is like earnest money, right?” Kelanic said. “It’s like upfront cash that shows that he really means it. It’s a costly signal that Trump essentially forced himself to have to make by breaking off negotiations and bombing Iran in the middle of them.”

Iran has framed the memorandum as a test of whether Washington is prepared to act first, rather than simply offer assurances.

“Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that Iran’s deep mistrust of the United States stems from a long history of wrongdoing by American leaders,” Iran foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said Monday in a press briefing. “The United States still has a long way to go before it can earn the trust of the Iranian people.”

The memorandum leaves the key nuclear mechanics to be worked out during the 60-day period, as well as key issues like ballistic missile production and proxy funding.

“What we have in this deal already suggests that if there is a deal in 60 days on the nuclear issue, that deal is going to be weaker than the JCPOA,” Misztal said, referring to the Obama-era nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Under the JCPOA, Iran was required to sharply reduce its uranium stockpile, including by removing excess material from the country. Misztal said the new agreement’s minimum standard of down-blending on site suggests Iranian uranium may remain inside Iran.

“That means first of all, no uranium is leaving Iran, which happened under the JCPOA,” he said.

The agreement also guarantees toll-free commercial transit through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days while Iran, Oman and Gulf states discuss a longer-term framework for administration and maritime services in the waterway.

Behnam Taleblu, senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned that the provision raises concerns that Iran could gain a role in regulating a critical international waterway after demonstrating its ability to disrupt global shipping.

“I mean, not just charge a toll, but regulate the crucial international waterway,” Taleblu said. “There can be no doubt over the fact that the Strait of Hormuz needs to be open and open to all, not just whomever Iran and Iran plus its friends can pressure others into.”

“If there is no guarantee of freedom of navigation, the Islamic Republic is going to salami slice the resolve of the Gulf countries and basically try to throw its weight around in this strait again,” he added.

The agreement also calls for the U.S. and regional partners to develop a reconstruction and economic development plan for Iran worth at least $300 billion. U.S. officials have stressed that the provision does not require American taxpayer money, but critics said any funding stream could free up regime resources for other priorities.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“It doesn’t matter if it’s Chinese money or American money or United Arab Emirates money,” Taleblu said. “The more they have access, the less they have to compete over resources and more they can fund what they want to fund.”

If negotiations collapse during the 60 days, Trump has left resuming military pressure back on the table. “If we think that they’re just dragging us along and kind of bulls**ting us, then we’ll be very quick to pull the plug,” a senior administration official said.

Top US energy regulator pushes grids to overhaul data center power rules

2026-06-18T16:16:41.324Z / reuters.com

Electrical transmission poles and lines are shown in the early morning of a hot summer day in Commerce, California, U.S, August 7, 2025. REUTERS/Mike Blake Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary

• Grid operators and transmission owners have 60 days to justify current rules or propose changes
• Orders cover six regional grids under FERC jurisdiction and exclude Texas

NEW YORK, June 18 (Reuters) – The top U.S. energy regulator ordered the country’s electric grid operators on Thursday to consider new ‌protocols to quickly connect very large energy users, such as data centers, without driving up costs and the risk of blackouts.

Data centers are pushing U.S. electricity use to record highs and requiring more electricity in large swaths of the country than grids can supply, sending regulators scrambling to develop ways ​to manage that explosive demand.

The Reuters Power Up newsletter provides everything you need to know about the global energy industry. Sign up here.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission draft “show cause” orders direct the six regional grids under its ​jurisdiction, which excludes Texas, to justify or overhaul their process for powering large energy users. The aim, FERC ⁠said, is largely to speed up the connection of data centers while minimizing the impact on grid stability and power bills ​for Americans.

“This is the biggest priority our country is facing at the moment,” FERC Chairman Laura Swett said.

FERC’s order follows a ​directive by U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright last year to expedite the connection of data centers as part of the country’s objective of winning a global race to develop and roll out AI technologies.

“This is a race against time, and we are going to win,” Swett said at a press ​conference.

‘STANDING STILL NO LONGER AN OPTION’

Grid operators and transmission owners have 60 days to respond to FERC and explain why their ​current rules are justified or whether they will make changes in five main categories. Those categories include having clear processes for connecting very large ‌energy ⁠users, such as data centers, and allocating costs to the large energy customers for the infrastructure needed to serve them.

FERC, in its orders, also encouraged new frameworks for very large energy users to bring their own power supplies, such as by building their own plants. The regulator implored grid operators to integrate advanced technologies to make existing infrastructure more efficient.

Advocates for data center and power ​plant developers generally supported FERC’s directive ​to grid operators.

“The grid and ⁠prior policy were not built for the pace and scale of demand we’re seeing from AI infrastructure, and FERC is signaling that standing still is no longer an option,” Robert Montejo, a ​partner at Duane Morris, who represents clients including data center developers and power companies.

Some clean ​energy advocates also ⁠said FERC’s directives were a step in the right direction.

“We are energized that there is a clear path forward to adopt responsible large load interconnection policies that safeguard reliability, improve transparency, and embed affordability and ratepayer protections for American households,” the Sierra Club said in a ⁠statement.

In its ​series of orders, FERC also said it would no longer automatically consider ​cumulative environmental impacts in its rulemaking under the National Environmental Policy Act.

“We are no longer going to waste valuable staff and applicant time and money doing an ​analysis that is not necessary under the law,” Swett said.

Reporting by Laila Kearney in New York; Editing by Mark Porter, Rod Nickel

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Socialist Surge: Mamdani flexes growing political muscle as he takes on Dem establishment

2026-06-18T12:54:00-04:00 / Fox News

The rally comes less than one week before crucial primaries where Mamdani-backed candidates face party establishment figures

By Paul Steinhauser Fox News

Published June 18, 2026 12:54pm EDT | Updated June 18, 2026 12:55pm EDT

Dems divided over progressive push as Mamdani defends far-left House candidate

Political strategists Meghan Hays and Luke Ball debate the Democratic Party’s perceived shift toward the progressive left. They analyze Sen. Bernie Sanders’ significant influence on the party’s direction, including his endorsements of socialist candidates like Darializa Avila Chevalier, whose controversial social media posts spark debate. The discussion highlights potential impacts on the upcoming midterm elections.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

One year after sending political shock waves across the country with his New York City Democratic primary victory en route to winning election as mayor of the nation’s most populous city, Zohran Mamdani is testing the limits of political power as he takes on the party establishment.

The 34-year-old democratic socialist mayor is teaming up with longtime progressive champion and two-time Democratic presidential nominee runner-up Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a get-out-the-vote rally in the New York City borough of Brooklyn on Thursday, less than one week before crucial primary elections.

Mamdani and Sanders are aiming to boost a slate of candidates backed by the mayor, including two who are running against Democratic congressional incumbents, as part of their bid to mold a more progressive party.

DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani hugs Rep. Bernie Sanders during an address marking Mamdani’s first 100 days in office at the Knockdown Center in New York on April 12, 2026.(Andres Kudacki/AP)

The left-wing candidates endorsed by Mamdani include political organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is primary challenging Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair, in New York’s 13th U.S. House District, which covers the northern third of Manhattan and a sliver of the Bronx. Espaillat is supported by a slew of party leaders, including New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.

The mayor is also backing former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who ran against Mamdani last year in the crowded primary field but became one of his biggest backers. Lander is challenging incumbent Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman in the 10th Congressional District, which includes lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn. Goldman’s supporters include former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And in New York’s 7th, which covers parts of Brooklyn and Queens, Mamdani’s endorsed socialist state Assembly Member Claire Valdez, who is battling Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, who is backed by retiring Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D.N.Y.

The outcomes of the races Mamdani weighed-in on will put to test whether his popularity among New York Democrats translates to coattails in elections.

HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS COVERAGE, ANALYSIS, AND OPINION ON MAMDANI

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani attends the Puerto Rican Day Parade on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan on June 14, 2026.(Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images)

“This is the team. This is our year. It’s up to all of us to get them over the finish line,” Mamdani emphasized in a social media post spotlighting Thursday’s rally.

The socialist has been a darling of the far-left for a year and a half. But six months into his tenure as New York City mayor, he can also count former critics within the Democratic Party, including Hochul, as allies. And he’s even earned praise from President Donald Trump.

Trump last year repeatedly claimed Mamdani was a “communist lunatic,” but during an Oval Office meeting in November that grabbed tons of national attention, the president lauded the then-mayor-elect as a “very rational person” who would do a “really good job.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani meets with President Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 26, 2026.(Zohran Kwame Mamdani/X)

“It’s crystal clear that Mamdani understands power and how to leverage it,” longtime Democratic strategist Joe Caiazzo told Fox News Digital.

“He remains incredibly popular and it appears he also understands that may not always be the case. That’s why I think you see him flexing his political muscle now. It’s smart politics,” added Caiazzo, a veteran of the 2016 and 2020 Sanders presidential campaigns.

The candidates Mamdani’s backing, including some running for state legislative offices, are mostly showcasing the mayor’s platform of focusing on affordability in a city with one of the nation’s highest costs of living.

Sanders, a New York City native who last year appeared at rallies on Mamdani’s behalf and swore in the mayor at his January inauguration, highlighted on social media, “Now more than ever, we need leaders in Congress who understand firsthand the struggles working people face.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., administers the oath of office to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani as Rama Duwaji holds the Quran during the inauguration ceremony in New York on Jan. 1, 2026.(Andres Kudacki/AP Photo)

Mamdani’s support for the trio of congressional candidates, along with Thursday’s rally with Sanders, gives Republicans, who have long cast the mayor as a radical, more ammunition to use him as a cudgel as they work to hold their razor-thin House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Zohran Mamdani’s socialist brand is as toxic as it comes,” National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) National Press Secretary Mike Marinella told Fox News Digital.

“And during a time when Democrats don’t have a leader or a message, he’s exactly the kind of bogeyman we can use against Democrats to truly show who is leading their party and the crazy policies they all support.”

Fox News’ Jessica Sonkin contributed to this report

Paul Steinhauser is a politics reporter based in the swing state of New Hampshire. He covers the campaign trail from coast to coast.