Confusion as US military undercuts Trump’s claim the Strait of Hormuz is open with chilling warning: ‘Prepare to be boarded’

The US military has warned ships in the Strait of Hormuz to ‘prepare to be boarded’ as it enforces Donald Trump‘s blockade.

US Central Command (CENTCOM) released audio of the ominous radio message on Wednesday, even as the President stated that he is ‘permanently opening’ the Strait.

‘The US has announced a formal blockade of Iranian ports in coastal areas,’ a military officer says.

‘This is a legal action. All vessels are advised to immediately return to port if leaving, and discontinue transit to Iran if that is your next port of call, do not attempt to breach the blockade.’ 

The officer warns that any vessels breaching the blockade ‘will be boarded for interdiction and seizure’ and that ‘we will use force.’

The military’s statement directly contradicts Trump’s earlier claim on Truth Social that the strait is ‘permanently open’ after secret talks with Xi Jinping, claiming the Chinese leader had agreed to stop arming Iran.

‘China is very happy that I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz,’ Trump wrote on Truth Social. ‘I am doing it for them, also – And the World. This situation will never happen again.’

A senior White House official told the Daily Mail that, despite Donald Trump’s promise to reopen it, ‘the blockade is fully in effect and working.’ It remains unclear whether Trump was declaring the strait open to shipping traffic immediately or signaling an intent to reach a permanent resolution as peace talks with Iran continue.

Keep reading

Will Americans Keep Paying a ‘Tariff Tax’?

When Eileen Nusselt and Gio Cox got married earlier this year, they skipped the traditional registry and asked their guests to donate to a home renovation fund. Yet as tariffs have pushed up the price of materials like lumber and paint, that money isn’t going as far as they expected. 

“We’re having to cut off projects that we really want to do,” said Cox, who lives with his wife in Charleston, South Carolina.

Many of the Trump administration’s signature tariffs were struck down earlier this year, but the couple doesn’t expect prices to fall anytime soon. “What incentive do any of these big companies have to lower their prices?” Nusselt asked. Especially, she added, “if they’re getting money back” from the government in the form of tariff refunds.

After the Supreme Court ruled in February that the Trump administration lacked the authority under emergency economic powers to levy many of its tariffs, the Court of International Trade ordered the federal government to process refunds — plus interest — to the more than 330,000 companies that have paid roughly $166 billion in tariffs now considered illegal. Since then, more than 2,000 companies have filed suit against the federal government to demand their refunds.

American consumers, however, will likely not be compensated for the tariff costs they bore, passed on through higher prices. Indeed, as taxpayers, they may be responsible for the interest that accrues each day the government does not process refunds.

But the cost of tariffs largely fell on shoppers, not companies.

Transferring Tariff Costs

According to analysis from the Budget Lab at Yale, prices of consumer goods (excluding more volatile food and energy) rose more than 2% throughout 2025 and into January 2026, reversing recent declines and adding to evidence that the costs of tariffs are being passed on to consumers. 

Tariffs accounted for an estimated 86% of the rise in prices for imported household goods through January, with the passthrough even more pronounced for long-lasting durable goods like cars, appliances and furniture, the Yale researchers found.

Some company leaders have spoken publicly about incorporating tariffs into their pricing. In a call with investors last May, Walmart CEO Doug McMillion said the retail behemoth would “do our best to keep our prices as low as possible,” but also that “higher tariffs will result in higher prices.” In an August 2025 earnings call, Home Depot Executive Vice President of Merchandising Billy Bastek spoke of “some modest price movement” due to tariffs.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy told CNBC in January that the company stocked up on items  before the tariffs were instituted to keep prices low, but that supply ran out last fall. “You start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices,” he said.

An analysis by congressional Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee found that American consumers paid more than $231 billion in total tariff costs between February 2025 and January 2026, amounting to roughly $1,745 per household.

“Tariffs are regressive in nature, and they impact low- and middle-income families more than wealthy individuals,” said Ryan Mulholland, a senior fellow focused on international economic policy at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress. Lower-income people not only spend a greater share of their income, they’re also more likely to buy cheaper, imported items — the kind likely subject to tariffs. At the same time, tariffs may contribute to inflation more broadly, which also disproportionately affects households with less financial flexibility.

“As budgets get tighter, tariff pressures bite more,” said Mulholland. Indeed, researchers at the Budget Lab at Yale found that, as a share of income, tariffs may burden the poorest households more than three times as much as the wealthiest.

Currently, only “importers of record” are entitled to refunds per U.S. trade law, and companies don’t have a legal obligation to pass any of that money on to the consumers who paid higher prices.

Keep reading

Trump Reverses Himself, Joins Obama and Biden in Demanding “Clean” Renewal of NSA Domestic Spying Powers

In August 2013 — in the wake of our Snowden reporting, which revealed the NSA’s mass warrantless domestic spying on Americans — an extraordinary bipartisan bill emerged. Jointly sponsored by one of the most liberal House members (Michigan Democrat John Conyers) and one of his most libertarian-conservative counterparts (Michigan Republican Justin Amash), the bill would have reined in the NSA’s domestic spying powers by imposing serious limits on how such powers can be exercised when aimed at American citizens.

When the Conyers-Amash bill was first introduced, “Official Washington” did not take it seriously. But the Snowden revelations were causing serious public anger about NSA spying, and many members of Congress shared that anger because they were not told that the NSA had implemented a system of mass warrantless surveillance aimed, in part, at Americans. As a result, support for the bill quickly picked up bipartisan steam, seemingly heading toward certain passage — until Barack Obama called Nancy Pelosi.

Despite running for President as a constitutional law professor who vowed to end the civil liberties abuses of the War on Terror, Obama had become an enthusiastic supporter — and user — of the NSA’s domestic spying system. He thus instructed then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to whip enough Democratic House votes to kill the bill. She did as she was told, and the bill — which initially appeared on its way to approval — was defeated 205-217 (94 Republicans and 111 Democrats voted for the reform bill; 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats voted against it). Official Washington heralded Pelosi as the heroine who saved NSA warrantless spying on Americans.

It is hard to overstate how significant the passage of this bill would have been. It would have been the first time in two decades that the U.S. Congress limited rather than increased the domestic powers of the U.S. security state. The era of the Patriot Act would finally have been confronted, or at least diluted. But Obama and Pelosi joined hands with the likes of GOP pro-spying members such as Peter King, Michelle Bachmann, and Kristi Noem to block any limits on the NSA’s power to spy on Americans without warrants.

Now, Donald Trump is on the verge of doing what Obama and Pelosi did back then. Despite running in 2024 by vowing to “KILL FISA,” based on his (quite valid) claim that spying powers had been abused against him for political ends in the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump on Monday demanded that FISA be fully renewed: yet again, with no reforms, safeguards, or limits of any kind.

Congress this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday, will vote on a renewal of Section 702 of FISA, which grants the NSA the power to spy on certain communications of American citizens without a warrant. Although it appeared that there was bipartisan support for finally imposing some limits and safeguards in the wake of years of documented abuses, Trump’s demand on Tuesday — that all House Republicans unite to renew the spying powers with no limits — raises serious doubts about whether any reform is now possible.

Keep reading

Treasury Secretary Says Order on Citizenship Proof for Banking Is ‘in Process’

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday confirmed that an executive order mandating banks to collect citizenship information on customers is underway.

“It’s in process. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable, because, why don’t we have information on who’s in our banking system?” he told Semafor in an April 13 interview, responding to whether the Trump administration was working on the banking order.

“I have a place in the UK; they want to know who lives in every apartment—and how do we know that it’s not part of a foreign terrorist organization?” he added.

At least one Republican lawmaker has asked the Trump administration to implement such an order, and The Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous sources, that banks could be tasked with requiring people to submit passports under the policy.

In a post issued on X in October 2025, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) included a letter he sent to Bessent urging the secretary to carry out a “comprehensive review of current rules that allow illegal aliens to obtain financial services and access to the U.S. banking system.”

“Access to the American banking system is a privilege that should be reserved for those who respect our laws and sovereignty,” Cotton wrote in the letter. “When individuals are allowed to open accounts without verifying legal status, we are permitting illegal aliens to establish financial roots and integrate economically, all while bypassing the legal channels that millions use properly.”

Keep reading

Trump’s Iran claims clash with reality on the ground 

There is rarely a day when US President Donald Trump does not command attention on social media, with posts ranging from attacks on public figures to sweeping claims about his own achievements. The same tone has carried into his handling of the war on Iran, where he has repeatedly insisted that US actions have weakened Tehran and decisively shifted the conflict in Washington’s favor.

Those assertions have come under closer scrutiny after Trump announced a US naval blockade of Iranian ports following the collapse of talks on Sunday, warning that any vessel attempting to challenge it would be destroyed.

Yet the reality on the ground appears far less clear: Iran has threatened retaliation, the practicality of enforcing such a blockade remains uncertain, and key allies have shown limited willingness to take part. The contrast underscores a widening gap between Trump’s narrative of progress and a conflict that continues to escalate without a clear resolution.

Keep reading

House Democrats Seek to Launch ‘25th Amendment Commission’ to Remove Trump From Office

House Democrats have introduced new legislation to create a commission to evaluate whether President Trump should be removed from office under the 25th Amendment.

The proposal, led by New York Congressman Jamie Raskin, would establish a 17-member panel to assess whether the president is fit to carry out his duties.

The effort comes despite Republicans controlling Congress and the president retaining veto power, making the measure almost certain to fail.

More than 85 Democrats in Congress recently called for Trump to be impeached or removed through the 25th Amendment following comments he made about bombing Iran.

Keep reading

Trump Pushes Skeptical House Republicans to Pass FISA Extension: ‘It Is Extremely Important to Our Military’

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and President Donald Trump do not have a happy history, but Trump is urging congressional Republicans to extend one part of the law Trump says was not the one misused during the Russiagate hoax.

Trump made a public plea on Truth Social to extend Section 702 of FISA.

As noted by Politico, Trump followed that up by calling Republicans opposed to extending the law that allows warrantless wiretaps of non-U.S. citizens for the next 18 months to the White House.

“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor. We need to stick together when this Bill comes before the House Rules Committee today to keep it CLEAN!” Trump wrote earlier in his Truth Social post.

“I was a victim of the worst and most illegal abuse of FISA in our Nation’s History, by Radical Left Lunatics, who lied to the FISA Court to spy on my 2016 Presidential Campaign in their attempt to RIG the Election in favor of Crooked Hillary Clinton. Their use of this instrument in the 2020 Presidential Election was even worse! When the Dirty Cop, James Comey, the failed Head of the FBI, went after me, he was using FISA Title I, the Domestic Collection, not FISA 702, the Foreign Collection, which needs to be extended today,” Trump continued.

“While parts of FISA were illegally and unfortunately used against me in the Democrats’ disgraceful Witch Hunt and Attack in the RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA Hoax, and perhaps would be used against me in the future, I am willing to risk that as a Citizen in order to do what is right for our Country,” he wrote.

Trump said that Section 702 is a tool the military needs.

Keep reading

As US Initiates Blockade Of Hormuz, Trump Warns Any Iranian Ships Coming Near Will Be ‘Eliminated’

Mediators Still Press For Iran Deal After US Demanded 20-Year Halt To Nuclear Program

On Monday a US official has been cited in Axios as saying Iran must halt its nuclear enrichment program for 20 years to end the war, scaling back from an earlier White House demand for a permanent end to enrichment. And that’s when sources say the Iranians countered with a shorter “single digit” period, or less than ten years.

Multiple Middle Eastern countries are still working to mediate a resolution, as both Washington and Tehran moved away from maximalist positions on enrichment. Before the talks, Trump demanded a permanent halt, while Iran pushed for a deal allowing a civilian nuclear program without additional restrictions. Axios has further said the “door is not closed” on a deal, but certainly the two sides’ are still far apart, with Tehran accusing Washington of inexplicably reverting to intolerable “maximalist demands.”

At Least 15 US Navy Ships Enforce Blockade

The Wall Street Journal has newly detailed that more 15 American warships are now in place to support the operation, in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. The report further specified that “An advisory to mariners from U.K. Maritime Trade Operations, which is affiliated with Britain’s Royal Navy, said maritime-access restrictions were being enforced for Iranian ports and coastal areas along the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Arabian Sea.

“Any vessel entering or departing the blockaded area without authorization is subject to interception, ​diversion, and capture,” a notification from US Central Command (CENTCOM) has said. And UKMTO has warned maritime traffic, “These access restrictions apply without distinction to vessels of any flag engaging with Iranian ports, oil terminals, or coastal facilities.”.

Keep reading

America Needs a Regime Change

The American people need the Iran war like a fish needs a bicycle. For our politicians and permanent bureaucrats, it’s a different story.

The political class, adrift after the Soviet Union fell, needed a new animating mythos. Neoconservatives taught them to experience preemptive war against tinpot tyrants as a civilizational crusade. The Middle East – where America’s “greatest ally” faced existential threats – offered the ideal stage for the clash between order and barbarism.

Here was the role of a lifetime: to call the shots on a world-historical mission that cast unilateral hard power as virtue. No wonder they cling to it, even after every failed​ regime-change war.

President Donald Trump’s vow that he would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon was one of the few moments to draw bipartisan applause during his recent State of the Union address. So what if the geopolitical center of gravity now lies in the Indo-Pacific? On February 28, our leaders reached for another bloody encore in the desert, another stab at playing Wyatt Earp.

Like every functioning addict, America’s ruling class has enablers. Defense contractors monetize its messiah complex, the media industry mythologizes it, and a pro-Israel advocacy network leverages it by converting Israeli geopolitical ambitions into U.S. military imperatives.

When Israel decided to attack Iran, it should have been a time for choosing. Instead, the Trump administration treated U.S. participation as inevitable. The only choice we had was the timing. We could either join Israel’s opening blow or wait until Iran retaliated against U.S. forces before initiating hostilities. America’s terms of entry into the Iran war demonstrate “alliance entrapment,” regardless of whether Secretary of State Marco Rubio conceded it or not.

The first rule of a war of choice is to sell it as a necessity. In the absence of a direct attack on the homeland, the White House has cycled through several rationales. These include preventing an “imminent” nuclear threat (of which no public evidence has been produced), destroying Iran’s missile arsenal, liberating Iranians from tyranny, protecting Israel, and demanding the Islamic regime’s “unconditional surrender.” Ultimately, it settled on an official justification that is nearly verbatim from a memo by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – a leading Iran-hawk think tank created to “enhance Israel’s image in North America.”

Since the war began, thirteen U.S. troops have been killed and 381 wounded, while the reported death toll across the Middle East is now in the thousands. If Trump opposed the 2003 Iraq War, why is he sacrificing blood and treasure in a strategically unwinnable regime-change operation? It appears that he objected to the outcome of that war and not the ideology that led to its failure. The “axis of evil” morality play always seduces those desperate to feel consequential.

The loudest case for Trump’s pursuit of glory in Iran was made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. After all, dismantling the Shia theocracy and its proxy network would shift the regional balance of power in Israel’s favor. Media mogul Rupert Murdoch and “some conservative commentators” also reportedly pushed the President toward war. Given who the White House is now lionizing, it would be safe to infer that the latter includes big-name neocons Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro.

Contrary to what the Murdoch media entities and neocon cheerleaders claim, American tactical victories have not translated into functional success. Iranian missiles and drones still regularly strike U.S. bases, energy facilities, and civilian areas in our allied Gulf states. The Islamic regime remains intact and it has effectively closed off the Strait of Hormuz. Many of our Asian partners are reeling from the consequent oil and gas supply disruption.

Corroding Pax Americana is a small price for the ruling class to feel like history’s heroes. As the hostilities grind into a war of attrition, Taiwan and our other allies fear that the ongoing diversion of U.S. military forces from the Indo-Pacific will create an opening for Chinese adventurism.

But at home, defense industry-funded think tanks are marketing the conflict as if it closes that opening. Analysts from the Hudson Institute, for example, claim that the Iran war is the first act of a grand strategy to weaken China. They exaggerate China’s ties with Iran and overlook the U.S. military’s inability to conduct protracted wars in multiple theaters. This enabling narrative flips what is a strategic self-own into a 4D chess move.

Keep reading

Trump’s World Liberty Financial uses five billion WLFI to borrow $75 million from a platform its adviser co-founded

World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture co-founded by the Trump family, has executed a series of transactions through decentralized finance (DeFi) lending protocol Dolomite that raises questions about insider access, circular token economics, and concentrated risk to other depositors.

Onchain records analyzed by CoinDesk, sourced from Etherscan, Arkham and publicly accessible wallet data, show the sequence began on Feb. 8, when WLFI’s treasury deposited 14 million USD1, its own dollar-pegged stablecoin, into Dolomite as collateral and borrowed 11.4 million USDC against it.

Minutes later, 11.45 million USDC moved to a Coinbase Prime deposit address, per Arkham. Two days later, 12.5 million USD1 was sent from the treasury to a separate Coinbase Prime deposit address. Coinbase Prime is typically used for converting crypto to fiat or for institutional OTC trading.

That 12.5 million USD1 was not borrowed from Dolomite. It moved directly from WLFI’s treasury wallet to the exchange, meaning the venture sent its own stablecoin straight to a fiat off-ramp.

But the WLFI token entered the picture twelve days later. On Feb. 20, the treasury deposited 890 million WLFI into Dolomite and borrowed 20 million USD1 against it.

On March 24, another 1.1 billion WLFI followed. In total, 1.99 billion WLFI tokens now sit as collateral inside Dolomite, and the treasury has received roughly 31.4 million in stablecoins from the protocol across both episodes.

The choice of protocol is not incidental, however.

Keep reading