Foreign Affairs

Why Negotiations With Iran Are So Difficult

The U.S. has gotten a reputation for breaking agreements and brutalizing other nations.

American and other Western elites complain ad nauseam, decrying the Iranians’ intransigent, devious, aggressive, and unreliable behavior. They claim Iran will not make or keep an agreement. Never forget, however, that Iran is more than five millennia old with a long history of diplomacy. The Iranians may be difficult, but one of the barriers to an agreement could be the Iranians’ wariness of the United States’ long pattern of broken agreements.

In 1945 the U.S. signed the United Nations charter declaring the importance of protecting the sovereignty of states. Iran was also a signatory of that charter.

But eight years later, in 1953, the CIA and British Intelligence organized Operation Ajax, which overthrew the constitutionally elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and empowered Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the son of the first Pahlavi shah who was deposed in 1941 by the British and Soviets. The CIA’s actions were in complete violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter. U.S. agencies also armed and trained the Iranian secret police, the Savak, to suppress any opposition, often using the tired old excuse that dissenters were Soviet-inspired or -supported.

In 1979 the Iranian people, fed up with the oppression, overthrew the shah in favor of a theocracy. The aftermath was terrible, but it is hard to understand what happened because most of what we know about Iran is filtered through the anti-Iranian American press. Many of the horror stories reported were probably exaggerated or not true.

In 1980, a year after the Shah was ousted, Iraq started the Iran–Iraq War with the support of U.S. intelligence and other agencies. Millions were killed or wounded in a brutal conflict that lasted until 1988. American support for the Iraqis was not even diminished by their deployment of chemical weapons against the Iranians, despite later ostensibly righteous anger over chemical weapon use by Saddam and Assad.

An important note: The U.S. signed the Hague Convention of 1899 prohibiting use of poisonous gas, the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, and the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of poison weapons. The U.S. again signed the 1972 and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Conventions, which prohibited the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. U.S. elites unashamedly ignored those inconvenient treaties in their support of the Iran–Iraq War. Nor did Article 2 of the UN Charter matter.

After the overthrow of the Israel-friendly shah in 1979, the U.S. confiscated the foreign assets of the Iranian government, sanctioned their oil exports, sanctioned Western business investment in the country, and engaged in a long string of aggressive and destructive covert actions designed to topple the Iranian government. Again, all in flagrant disregard of the UN Charter. Neoconservatives and other Washington elites believed that for a good cause, such technicalities didn’t matter.

In 2003, the top cleric and supreme leader of Iran declared a fatwa against the building and possession of nuclear weapons. This fatwa is still in effect, but the Iran hawks claim that the regime might in the future renege on the fatwa, so it should be disregarded. This sounds like projection coming from a group that regularly ignores its own treaty and constitutional obligations.

That same year, after the U.S. military invaded Iraq and wrecked that country, the Bush administration made a deal with Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, to abandon many of his weapons with the promise of friendship. Nevertheless, after an appropriate pause, the neocons turned up a slander and defamation campaign against Gaddafi. At the same time, U.S. agencies were involved in the “revolution” that led to the 2011 bombing campaign against the Gaddafi military. This allegedly humanitarian “kinetic military action” led to the collapse of Gaddafi’s government and Gaddafi’s brutal murder in the street. So much for making a friendship deal with the U.S. The lesson to Iran and others is, Never make a deal with the U.S. leadership to disarm. If you do, you will become vulnerable to “kinetic military actions” in the name of peace. The former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bragged and laughed about Gaddafi’s murder: “We came, we saw, he died.” No wonder so many people around the world don’t like us.

In 2015, the Obama administration entered into a treaty to prohibit Iran from building nuclear weapons called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Iran agreed to open their nuclear sites to intrusive inspections and strict controls, and the U.S. and other Western countries agreed to lift sanctions and return illegally confiscated Iranian assets. The U.S. did not fully live up to the returning of the confiscated assets and reneged on other aspects of the agreement until 2018, when the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from the agreement because it was insufficiently strict. The sanctions were reimposed on Iran. (As they say in New York, “Such a deal!”)

By contrast, Israel has been developing a nuclear arsenal since the late 1950s, and has refused to join or comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty that took effect in 1970. The U.S. and Iran, along with 41 other countries, were signatories of the first round of that treaty. The U.S. and Israel have complained for years about suspected Iranian violations, but U.S. intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE), which participated in extensive inspections as enforcement of the JCPOA, have consistently reported that Iran is not making nuclear weapons. On the other hand, the U.S. has for decades enabled the Israeli nuclear arsenal, which both the U.S. and Israel have consistently refused to acknowledge. From an Iranian point of view, how is this honest or consistent? (It also demonstrates American unwillingness to comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty—yet another example of the U.S. disregarding a treaty.)

There is another, more sinister aspect to U.S. policy. The Bush II administration tore up his predecessor’s Agreed Framework deal and put other pressure on the North Koreans to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty so the U.S. could use that withdrawal as a casus belli to attack North Korea. But at the time, the U.S. was bogged down by the Iraq War, and the North Koreans took advantage of the distraction. Flipping the script, they built nukes and rendered the attack scenario unappealing. The interventionists have desperately looked for “violations” to justify an attack on Iran. If they keep up their aggression and threats long enough to avoid brokering an honest agreement, the Iranians might, out of fear, end their long-standing policy against nuclear weapons and flip the script, too. 

The cavalier attitude the U.S. takes toward treaties is of a piece with a broader pattern of blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of law, as illustrated by the American use of “Black Sites” to imprison and torture suspected terrorists outside of the U.S. The most notable were operated in Afghanistan, Poland, and Thailand. American leaders reasoned that torturing and jailing suspects without any due process was not illegal if the acts were performed overseas and by foreigners hired by the U.S. government rather than American citizens. The reasoning was no different than paying a hit man to torture or kill someone and claiming innocence; it doesn’t wash in the U.S. legal system. The rest of the world is aware of this hypocrisy by the chief proponent of the “rules-based order.” The Iranians are personally familiar with American support for torture from decades under the shah’s U.S.- and Israeli-trained and -supported Savak.

The disruptive behavior extends to the treatment of American clients. The U.S. provides apparently unlimited aid to Israel, which has for decades regularly threatened and pursued illegal military and intelligence missions to destabilize and topple governments in the region, Iran especially. Many high-level government officials have been assassinated in more acts that violate the UN Charter. The Iranians and much of the world no doubt see these illegal and hostile actions of the Israeli government as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. Many leading U.S. officials regularly threaten to destroy Iran while claiming solidarity with Israel, also in violation of Article 2 of the UN Charter.

It is important to note that, in the Iranian view, the campaign painting Iran as a cruel and repressive society is being perpetrated by a nation that has wrecked many of Iran’s neighbors and slaughtered their citizens in the Global War on Terror against Sunni terrorists who were supported and financed by the U.S. and their friends. (For an overview of the years of U.S. complicity in supporting jihadis, see Scott Horton’s book Enough Already.) The world watches with horror as the American-backed Israelis, with blatant disregard for international laws, have for decades brutalized the Palestinians by stealing their land, bulldozing their houses and farms, starving, killing, jailing, torturing, and chasing them into concentration camps. Supporting this behavior is strictly forbidden by the Leahy Law, so U.S. government leadership has to go through quite a dance to subvert that law in order to send the Israelis weapons and money.

The Iranian regime may be repressive, undemocratic, and cruel to some of their people; one can nevertheless understand why it might be hesitant about making an agreement to disarm to please American elites with a long history of ignoring their own laws, treaties, and agreements, and of abusing various nations and peoples around the world.

American citizens have been desensitized and propagandized into complacency, and most have no concept of the magnitude of terrible acts done in their name. Much of the rest of the world, especially the Iranians, see it clearly.

The post Why Negotiations With Iran Are So Difficult appeared first on The American Conservative.

Politics

Horrified Democrats Discover the Imperial Presidency

The meltdown over the Alien Enemies Act is undercut by the long history of presidential encroachments on Congressional war powers.

Credit: lazyllama/Shutterstock

President Donald Trump sharply increased claims of presidential power in the arena of national security on March 15, 2025, when he invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify new measures targeting the Venezuelan drug-trafficking gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), allegedly an ally of Nicolas Maduro’s government.  According to Trump’s proclamation, TdA “is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.” The organization “has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.”

Collusion between the Maduro regime and TdA, Trump charged, has produced a “hybrid criminal state” that is “perpetuating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States,” posing a substantial danger to the country. The president specifically emphasized the alleged “invasion” as the reason for invoking the Alien Enemies Act.  He then stated that all alien enemies described in section 1 of his proclamation “are subject to immediate apprehension, detention and removal” from the United States.

Opponents of the Trump administration immediately denounced the president’s move as unconstitutional and challenged it in court.  The rulings so far have been mixed, but the U.S. Supreme Court has at least slowed the administration’s use of AEA’s deportation proceedings on due process grounds, much to the anger of the White House.

Trump’s critics accuse him of trying to implement his hardline views on immigration policy under the false guise of a national security imperative.  If Trump’s strategy were allowed to stand, critics contend, undocumented immigrants from Venezuela and other countries could be deported with little or no due process.  They would be treated as members of an invading terrorist army.  Advocates of a liberal immigration policy consider the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as a mortal threat to their agenda. 

One of their most prominent arguments was that the AEA can be implemented only when the United States is at war.  Since no congressional declaration of war was in effect against either TdA or Venezuela, their rationale was that the president could not lawfully invoke and implement the Alien Enemies Act.  

Two factors weaken their argument.  First, Trump specifically cited an “invasion” as the justification for his action.  It has been long settled law that the president can respond to an invasion without waiting for a declaration of war from Congress.  At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison had the original phrase “to make War” changed, to afford the president the ability to respond to sudden attacks.  Even the constitutional scholars at the liberal Brennan Center implicitly concede that the administration’s insistence that the U.S. is responding to an invasion might complicate criticism of Trump’s actions: 

The president may invoke the Alien Enemies Act in times of “declared war” or when a foreign government threatens or undertakes an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” against U.S. territory. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war, so the president must wait for democratic debate and a congressional vote to invoke the Alien Enemies Act based on a declared war. But the president need not wait for Congress to invoke the law based on a threatened or ongoing invasion or predatory incursion. The president has inherent authority to repel these kinds of sudden attacks — an authority that necessarily implies the discretion to decide when an invasion or predatory incursion is underway.

 The position adopted by Trump’s opponents is weakened further because Congress has allowed previous presidents to run amok for decades waging undeclared wars in multiple countries.  Congress issued the last official declaration of war in June 1942, against Nazi Germany’s allies Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.  Yet Washington has attacked numerous countries and political movements since then, resulting in extensive deaths and destruction.  Indeed, U.S. administrations have waged lengthy, full-scale wars in such places as Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.  

Although Congress made a feeble attempt to reclaim some of its constitutional powers regarding war and peace with the passage of the War Powers Resolution in 1973, that change had a meager effect.  The authority of Congress to declare war has become little more than an archaic historical curiosity.  It is mighty late for Trump’s opponents to take a stand regarding the limits of the president’s war powers.  Their choice of the Alien Enemies Act as the proper vehicle for a constitutional challenge is also questionable, since the current administration can make at least a plausible case that it is responding to an invasion of U.S. territory.

Trump’s position that the United States is effectively at war with TdA, thereby warranting the use of the Alien Enemies Act, virtually begs for a landmark decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.  His rationale that the United States is being “invaded” by an organized hostile force seems a stretch, but it is decidedly more credible than the arguments that Trump’s predecessors have used to justify their wars and other “emergency actions.”  

One could certainly assert that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 qualified, and a reasonable case could be made that the Libyan government’s role in the bombing of Pan American flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 constituted an attack on the United States.  But any notion that Washington’s warfare against Muslim forces in Lebanon in 1983, bombing the Bosnian Serbs in 1995, bombing Serbia itself in 1999, or invading and occupying Iraq in 2003 (among Washington’s other undeclared wars) were exercises in national self-defense is preposterous on its face.  All of those episodes were wars of choice—indeed, gratuitous wars of aggression. 

The Trump administration’s current case, while probably insufficient, is at least more plausible than the justifications for most of the earlier presidential actions.  Yet, many of the most vocal critics of Trump’s behavior regarding his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act were silent about those earlier manifestations of the imperial presidency—and remain so. This episode provides an ideal opportunity for the judicial branch to weigh in about the nature and extent of the war powers of both Congress and the presidency.  Such a clarification is badly needed. 

The post Horrified Democrats Discover the Imperial Presidency appeared first on The American Conservative.

Foreign Affairs

America Can’t Afford to Protect Europe from Russia

President Donald Trump should act now to end European defense dependence.

Credit: Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock

Kaja Kallas, who is what passes as the European Union’s foreign minister, has chutzpah. Unfortunately, her other qualities, such as hypocrisy, are less endearing. 

Kallas has long criticized President Donald Trump’s direct approach to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. After their phone conversation on Monday, days after direct Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul, she complained, “We really haven’t seen, you know, the pressure on Russia from these talks.” Back in February, she accused Trump of “appeasement” for calling Putin. She explained: “It is clear that any deal behind our backs will not work. You need the Europeans, you need the Ukrainians.”

That is rich coming from Kallas, who until last year was prime minister of Estonia. Stuck between Germany and Russia/Soviet Union, the Baltic state has suffered greatly throughout history. Unfortunately, as a member of NATO Tallinn offers liabilities rather than assets for America, which Kallas, and most of her countrymen, expect to defend their nation. After all, Estonia spent only $1.4 billion on the military last year, a rounding error for the Pentagon. That was 3.4 percent of GDP, impressive compared to other NATO members, but still shockingly low for a country that claims to fear a Russian invasion. Estonia’s army deploys 3,750 people. The government possesses ten ships, four airplanes, and three helicopters. 

A country completely dependent on the largesse of others shouldn’t cast stones at those it expects to defend it from the nuclear-armed state next door. Especially since its immediate neighbors won’t save it if war comes. Nor will the wealthier, more distant European states. Tallinn would desperately await the American cavalry. 

Kallas is not the only European personage who expects the U.S. to save his or her country. In March, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni proposed handing out NATO security guarantees like some hotels distribute bedtime chocolates. When several European leaders discussed sending European troops to monitor a Ukrainian ceasefire, Meloni said no, arguing that “we need to think about more durable solutions,” meaning providing the alliance’s famed Article 5 guarantee to nonmembers: “Extending to Ukraine the same protection that NATO countries have would certainly be much more effective, although it would be something different from NATO membership.” She claimed that “this would be a stable, lasting, and effective security guarantee, much better than some of the proposals I have seen.”

It is a stupid, even dishonest idea. The alliance has a membership process because threatening war against a nuclear power is serious business and should be offered only to countries whose defense is vital, or at least incidental to protecting other member states. Ukraine fails both standards, which is why the U.S. and Europeans have spent the last 17 years evading their commitment to bring Kiev into NATO. If countries such as Ukraine don’t meet membership requirements, they shouldn’t be gifted the essential attributes of membership.

Proposing a security guarantee for non-members wasn’t the first attempt in March to make the U.S. foot the bill. A campaign to create a multi-national European peacekeeping force for Ukraine collapsed when Washington refused to provide Article 5 protection for the troops that Europeans proposed to deploy into danger. However, Meloni’s proposal isn’t just bad policy. Her suggested end run around the alliance’s membership standards is also a dishonest national copout. After rejecting the deployment of Italians to Ukraine, she hopes to appear tough without doing anything. Italy has one of the continent’s largest economies but competes with Spain as the worst major European laggard in military effort. With outlays at 1.49 percent of GDP, Italy is number 27 of 32 members. Among those doing better: Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Portugal, Bulgaria, and Denmark.

In fairness, of course, even the best performers aren’t that impressive, at least if they really believe what they are saying about the likelihood of Putin launching a Blitzkrieg against them. Observed The Economist:

The realization is sinking in. Europe needs to become able to defend itself without America’s help. … The problem is that, so far, neither politician has offered much in the way of ideas on where the money for it is supposed to come from. Currently, the EU’s member states spend some €325bn ($340bn) a year on defense, which comes to about 1.8% of the bloc’s GDP. That is still, three years into war in Ukraine, less than the 2% target that NATO set its members in 2014 after Russia had illegally annexed Crimea and occupied the eastern Donbas region… Europe’s spending to support Ukraine is equally underwhelming. Since January 2022 the EU and its member states have spent €113bn in financial, military and humanitarian help, the equivalent of just above 0.2% of their GDP during each of those three years.

Some European officials have requested “a roadmap” to any American withdrawal to enable them to adjust their defense plans. However, most member governments evidence little urgency in building up their forces, while analysts warn that the allies will need years to prepare for Washington’s exit or even drawdown. Reported Politico Europe: “A report from Germany’s Economic Institute (IW Cologne) warned this week that it could take 10 to 12 years for Europe to replace key U.S. military capabilities.” This has become an argument against the Trump administration forcing Europe to grow up militarily. Even American military officers don’t want any reduction. And Europeans don’t hide their strategy. Politico Europe explained that some “European governments still hope that the U.S. midterm elections in two years, and the next U.S. presidential election in 2028, will hobble Trump’s power and restore the old alliance with the U.S. They also fear that starting to prepare for the worst could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and only accelerate a movement they’re still hoping to avoid, the three European officials said.”

This even though Russia, supposedly hobbled by sanctions, has been outspending the Western bloc since it invaded Ukraine. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Over the last year, European defense spending jumped by 11.7% in real terms to reach USD 457 billion, with 2024 marking the tenth consecutive year of growth … Nonetheless, European growth remained outpaced by uplifts in Russia’s total military expenditure, which grew by 41.9% in real terms to reach an estimated RUB 13.1trn (USD 145.9 bn). In light of lower domestic input costs and the dominance of domestic production in Russia, it is useful to examine military spending in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. In purchasing power parity (PPP), Russian total military expenditure reached $462 bn in 2024, exceeding the total for Europe in USD at market exchange rates (MER).”

Of course, Moscow is using up much of its manpower and materiel to fight a brutal war against Ukraine. However, the Putin government has demonstrated that even a weaker economy under sanction can act quickly to produce significant quantities of weapons. Surely the Europeans could do more—if they believed that doing so was important. Instead, they continue to go easy both on aid to Ukraine and their own defense. While expecting the U.S. to continue to protect them during what promises to be, if they have their way, a very, very long transition to a truly European defense of Europe.

Although it is difficult to imagine an American case against a European defense of Europe, U.S. policymakers, in contrast to Americans more generally, have long benefited from a helplessly dependent Europe that typically lined up behind American initiatives while wielding American-made weapons. Edward Lucas of the Center for European Policy Analysis warned that, in the future, on issues of mutual interest there “will be far more a partnership of equals. On other issues—such as global financial management, conflict in the Middle East, and international law—Europeans will have their own ideas and their own priorities.” Indeed, Kishore Mahbubani, celebrated author with Singapore’s Asia Research Institute, has called on Europe to formally set a new course, indicating its willingness “to quit NATO,” reach a deal with Russia, “with each side accommodating the other’s core interests,” and “work out a new strategic compact with China.”

No doubt, such an approach would horrify Washington policymakers, including many around Trump. For instance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected suggestions that the U.S. might leave the transatlantic alliance: “The United States is as active in NATO as it has ever been.” However, Americans should imagine a better future, one in which Europe, with more than ten times Russia’s GDP and three times Russia’s population, not the U.S., stood up to Moscow while trying to engineer better relations with it. And in which Europe deployed its own forces to protect more distant interests, such as European commerce targeted by Yemen’s Houthis. Most Americans would applaud such a result. Burden shedding, not sharing, should be Washington’s strategy for the future.

This is especially the case since its traditional determination to dominate allies and adversaries alike is bankrupt. The U.S. is running unsustainable deficits, more than $2 trillion annually, nearing the post-World War II record of 106 percent debt to GDP, and drowning in rising interest payments, more than $1 trillion a year. All these at a time without a hot war, pandemic, or financial crisis. Passage of the GOP tax bill will fuel the debt rise, which could become a tsunami if the economy falls into a recession. Over the long term, spending, deficits, interest payments, and debt are headed ever upward, with no limit in sight. With draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid unlikely, the Pentagon will eventually become the prime budget target. Taxes will almost certainly be raised along the way, but which U.S. politician will propose making Americans pay even more so Europeans can pay even less? 

Kallas, Meloni, and many other Europeans still hope to play Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker. However, the American people elected Donald Trump to say no more. It is time for Washington to treat Europeans as friends, adults, and allies, rather than suffer them as clients, dependents, and deadbeats.

The post America Can’t Afford to Protect Europe from Russia appeared first on The American Conservative.

President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” could be headed for a House-wide vote as soon as Wednesday night after its approval by a key committee.

The House Rules Committee, the gatekeeper for most legislation before it gets to the full chamber, first met at 1 a.m. Wednesday to advance the massive bill in time for Speaker Mike Johnson’s Memorial Day deadline for sending it to the Senate.

Proceedings crept on for hours as Democrats on the committee repeatedly accursed Republicans of trying to move the bill “in the dead of night” and of trying to raise costs for working class families at the expense of the wealthy.

WHITE HOUSE URGES IMMEDIATE VOTE ON GOP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’

Democratic lawmakers also dragged out the process with dozens of amendments that stretched from early Tuesday well into Wednesday.

Republicans, meanwhile, contended the bill is aimed at boosting small businesses, farmers, and low- and middle-income families, while reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the government safety net.

In a sign of the meeting’s high stakes, Johnson, R-La., himself visited with committee Republicans shortly before 1 a.m. and then again just after sunrise.

HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS HEADING TO WHITE HOUSE AFTER DELAY PLAY ON TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’

But the committee kicked off its meeting to advance the bill with several key outstanding issues – blue state Republicans pushing for a raise in state and local tax (SALT) deduction caps, and conservatives demanding stricter work requirement rules for Medicaid as well as a full repeal of green energy subsidies granted in former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

Johnson told Fox News Digital during his earlier visit that he was “very close” to a deal with divided House GOP factions.

Returning from that meeting, Johnson signaled the House would press ahead with its vote either late Wednesday or early Thursday.

But the legislation’s passage through the House Rules Committee does not necessarily mean it will fare well in a House-wide vote.

A pair of House Rules Committee members, Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., and Chip Roy, R-Texas, were two of the conservative House Freedom Caucus members who had called for the House-wide vote to be delayed on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the White House bore down hard on those rebels, demanding a vote “immediately” in an official statement of policy that backed the House GOP bill.

Republicans are working to pass Trump’s policies on tax, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt all in one massive bill via the budget reconciliation process.

Budget reconciliation lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to 51, thereby allowing the party in power to skirt the minority — in this case, Democrats — to pass sweeping pieces of legislation, provided they deal with the federal budget, taxation or the national debt.

House Republicans are hoping to advance Trump’s bill through the House and Senate by the Fourth of July.

The Army on Wednesday said it is approaching its second phase of separation with service members experiencing gender dysphoria, an initiative that follows the Trump administration’s directive of prioritizing military excellence and readiness.

A new memo issued by Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll and obtained by Fox News Digital outlines two phases in the separation process, the first of which will be completed at the beginning of June.

The first phase, which ends June 6, allows service members who have been diagnosed with or have a history of gender dysphoria to identify themselves and volunteer to separate from the military branch, an Army spokesperson told Fox Digital.

PENTAGON CEASES GENDER TRANSITION TREATMENTS AS IT MOVES TO BOOT TRANS TROOPS

Once a service member notifies an immediate commander, that commander will then notify a superior, initiating the separation process.

Soldiers who reached a threshold for years of service qualify for voluntary separation pay or double the pay a service member would get by separating from the Army for various reasons, the spokesperson said.

HEGSETH BANS FUTURE TRANS SOLDIERS, MAKES SWEEPING CHANGES FOR CURRENT ONES

However, they will not qualify for separation pay if they have not reached the years of service, if there is pending administrative action against them or if they are facing Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) code infractions. 

In the case of pending administrative action against them, their discharge may also not be honorable.

The Army said those who volunteer for separation, but do not qualify, will still be separated and afforded benefits; they will only forfeit the additional separation pay, according to the spokesperson.

After the June 6 deadline for voluntary separation, the Army will enter the involuntary separation phase. 

In the second phase, “there will be means of identifying those who did not want to self-identify,” the spokesperson said.

HEGSETH ORDERS DEADLINE FOR TRANS SERVICE MEMBERS TO LEAVE MILITARY: ‘OUT AT THE DOD’

The spokesperson said soldiers’ records, prior to the new policy, reflected service members’ sex at birth.

Once they are identified, a separation process will begin.

TRANSGENDER SAILORS, MARINES OFFERED BENEFITS TO VOLUNTARILY LEAVE SERVICE OR FACE BEING KICKED OUT

“Regardless of potential outcome, every service member will be treated with dignity and respect, however this shakes out,” the spokesperson said.

Driscoll’s guidance comes after President Donald Trump issued an executive order Jan. 27, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth heeded Trump’s executive order with a memo outlining what the Department of Defense needed to do to comply.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Wednesday that the Trump Gold Card, which makes it possible for any foreigner to buy a visa for $5 million, will be available online within weeks.

Lutnick was a guest at Axios’ streamed event, Building the Future, Wednesday, where he was interviewed by company co-founder Mike Allen about several topics, including President Donald Trump’s offering of a Gold Card.

In March, Trump said the Gold Card would go on sale “very, very soon,” explaining it would be like a green card, “but better and more sophisticated.” He said the newest path to citizenship in the U.S. would allow the “most successful job-creating people from all over the world to buy a path to citizenship.”

Allen asked Lutnick when the $5 million Gold Card would be available, and Lutnick said he expected a website called trumpcard.gov to be up and running in about a week.

TRUMP VOWS TO REFUND, DEPORT ANY ‘UNSAVORY’ IMMIGRANTS WHO TRY FOR CITIZENSHIP UNDER POTENTIAL ‘GOLD CARD’

“The details of that will come soon after, but people can start to register. And all that will come over a matter of the next weeks — not month, weeks,” Lutnick said.

He also shared a story about a recent “great dinner” in the Middle East with about 400 people.

During the dinner, Lutnick said, he had his phone out when one of the senior leaders walked by and asked why his phone was out.

“I go, ‘I am selling him cards,’” Lutnick said. “So, basically everyone I meet who’s not an American is going to want to buy the card if they have the fiscal capacity.”

TRUMP CONTINUES TO PUSH ALTERNATIVE TO CONTROVERSIAL VISA AMID CONCERNS ABOUT CHINESE INFLUENCE

He acknowledged that not everyone will be able to afford a Gold Card, but it will be available to those who can afford to help America pay off its debt.

“Why wouldn’t they want a plan B that says God forbid something bad happens, you come to the airport in America and the person in immigration says, ‘Welcome home.’ Right? As opposed to, ‘Where the heck am I going if something bad’s happening in my country,’” Lutnick continued. 

He noted that everyone will be vetted for a card, adding those who come in with $5 million for a visa are going to be “great people who are going to come and bring businesses and opportunity to America. And they’re going to pay $5 million.”

Lutnick offered one more hypothetical scenario, saying if 200,000 people purchase the Gold Card for $5 million, that’s $1 trillion.

TRUMP TOUTS $5 MILLION ‘GOLD CARD’ AS NEW PATH TO CITIZENSHIP

“Remember, we get 280,000 visas per year now for free, not counting the 20 million people who broke into this country for nothing under Biden,” Lutnick said. “And, so, I want you to think about that. We give it away for free and said Donald Trump’s gonna bring in a trillion dollars for what purpose? To make America better. And it makes perfect sense to me.”

TRUMP’S ‘GOLD CARD’ VISA COULD INVITE FRAUD, NATIONAL SECURITY RISKS: EXPERT

Trump has previously touted his plan before to attract the world’s wealthiest to become U.S. citizens, though it comes at a time when he is both clamping down on illegal migration and as universities are increasingly in the spotlight amid soaring school costs and crippling student loans. 

After Trump’s announcement in March, Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, warned it could invite fraud.

“Any immigration benefit draws fraud. … People are willing to do anything and say just about anything to come to the U.S.,” Ries told Fox News Digital. 

In an interview in February with Fox News’ Chief Political Anchor Bret Baier on “Special Report,” Lutnick said all candidates will be “deeply vetted.”

“These are vetted people,” Lutnick told Baier. “These are going to be great global citizens who are going to bring entrepreneurial spirit, capacity and growth to America. If one of them comes in, think of the jobs they are going to bring with them, the businesses they are going to bring with them, and they are going to pay American taxes as well. So, this is huge money for America.”

Fox News Digital’s Caitlin McFall contributed to this report.

House Republicans believe they are close to passing Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill.

After the meeting at the White House, with the president and members of the Freedom Caucus, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) suggested that the House could vote in the overnight on the Big, Beautiful Bill. 

But it quickly became apparent that was a physical – and parliamentary – impossibility. 

GOP REBEL MUTINY THREATENS TO DERAIL TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ BEFORE KEY COMMITTEE HURDLE

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) later introduced a “manager’s amendment” to make final changes to the bill. Those alterations were designed to coax holdouts to vote yes. 

It’s now likely that the House debates the bill in the early hours of Thursday with a vote in perhaps the late morning. 

But Democratic dilatory tactics could further delay passage of the bill. 

It’s possible Democrats could engineer protest votes to “adjourn” the House. Calls to “adjourn” hold special privileges in the House and require immediate consideration.

A USER’S MANUAL TO WHERE WE STAND WITH THE ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) could also take advantage of a special debate time on the floor to “filibuster” the measure. Top House leaders from both parties are afforded what’s called the “Magic Minute.” That’s where they are allotted a “minute” to speak on an issue. But the House really allows them to speak as long as they wish out of deference to their position. Then-House Minority Leader and future Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) set the record for the longest speech in November, 2021, delaying considering of former President Biden’s “Build Back Better” Act. McCarthy spoke for eight hours and 32 minutes.

TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ FACES CRUCIAL HOURS AS JOHNSON COURTS FREEDOM CAUCUS

The House Freedom Caucus seems much more satisfied with the upcoming changes to the bill. Especially after the meeting with the president.

But here is the main reason the House wants to move this as quickly as possible:

Republicans don’t want the bill to fester. Problems develop the longer this sits out there. So when you think you have the votes, you put it on the floor and force the issue. There could also be attendance problems later on Thursday or beyond.

This subject has been jawboned to death for weeks. Johnson said weeks ago he wanted this passed by Memorial Day. So Johnson – and President Trump – want GOPers who are skeptical or holdouts to put up or shut up. You do that by putting the bill on the floor and requiring a vote.

That said, it’s possible the GOP leadership might not have the votes ahead of the actual roll call vote. So calling a vote applies pressure on those holdouts. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) used to “grow” the vote on the House floor. In other words, they would start the vote – not having all the ducks in order – and then “grow” the vote during the actual roll call and cajoling or twisting arms. The same may happen today.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Also, if the vote is a little shy of passage, Republican leaders could hold the vote open and then single out those Republicans who have either voted no or have not cast ballots. Then the leadership can really turn up the heat and accuse them of not supporting the president’s agenda. If push comes to shove, they can then have the President weigh in and use his powers to coax those holdouts to vote yes.

Here’s the long-term outlook: If the House passes the bill, this goes to the Senate. This will be a project which will consume most of June. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wants this done by July 4. But the question is what the Senate actually produces. The House and Senate must be on the same page. If the Senate crafts a different legislative product, then this must return to the House to sync up. Either the House eats what the Senate put together. Or the House and Senate must blend their differing versions together into a single, unified bill. That could take most of July. Remember that this bill includes an increase in the debt ceiling. The Treasury says Congress must lift the debt ceiling by early August.

Sparks flew on Capitol Hill Wednesday as Education Secretary Linda McMahon faced off with Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., in a fiery exchange during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing in the latest clash over the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.

The war of words began when Watson Coleman asked, “Do you believe that there is illegal discrimination against people who are Black or brown, and other types of discrimination in jobs and education in this country?”

“I think it still exists in some areas,” McMahon replied.

‘EDUCATORS WILL BE FIRED’: REPUBLICANS CHEER TRUMP ORDER DISMANTLING EDUCATION DEPARTMENT AS DEMS SEETHE

Watson Coleman pressed further: “Then can you tell me why the Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education is being decimated?”

McMahon responded, “Well, it isn’t being decimated. We have reduced the size of it. However, we are taking on a backlog of cases that were left over from the Biden administration.”

Watson Coleman grew visibly frustrated and accused the administration of racial bias in immigration and education policies, saying its actions amounted to “favoritism and prioritization of white over color.”

In a blistering rebuke, Watson Coleman said, “Your rhetoric means nothing to me. What means something to me is the actions of this administration. I’m telling you, the Department of Education is one of the most important departments in this country. And you should feel shameful to be engaged with an administration that doesn’t give a damn.”

STUDENT LOANS, PELL GRANTS WILL CONTINUE DESPITE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DOWNSIZING, EXPERT SAYS

McMahon, remaining composed, replied, “I am the secretary of Education who has been approved to run this agency by Congress. And I was appointed by the president. And I serve at his pleasure under his mandate. So, therefore, the direction of his administration is what I will follow.”

The exchange came as part of a larger hearing in which McMahon laid out President Donald Trump’s 2026 education budget proposal, which calls for a $12 billion cut to the Education Department, a 15% reduction.

McMahon described her work as the department’s “final mission”: to wind it down and restore education oversight to states, parents and local educators.

“Let’s focus on literacy. What we’re seeing in those scores is a failure of our students to learn to read,” McMahon said. “We’ve lost the fundamentals.”

Chairman Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., praised McMahon’s approach, noting, “Despite $3 trillion in federal education spending since 1980, student achievement has not improved. The answer is not more money. It’s more accountability and local control.”

The plan consolidates 18 federal programs into a single $2 billion block grant to states. Democrats labeled the proposal as a backdoor effort to gut federal support for public schools.

On student loans, McMahon said the department has begun recovering repayments after years of Biden-era pauses and confusion.

“Since we restarted collections in May, we have recovered nearly $100 million,” she said.

She also defended staffing cuts and administrative restructuring, stating, “We’re delivering on all of our statutory requirements with fewer people and lower overhead.”

Republicans on the subcommittee shared their support for charter schools and school choice. McMahon, in agreement, pointed to a proposed $60 million increase in charter school funding.

“We’ve got about a million students on charter school waiting lists,” she said. “Parents should be deciding where their children can go to school and get the best education.”

Democrats also criticized McMahon for not defending early childhood education, particularly Head Start, even though the program technically falls under the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Every Head Start program in the country has three days of funding. That’s not someone else’s problem. It’s America’s children,” said Rep. Josh Harder, D-Calif.

McMahon responded, “The earlier we can start education, the better, but I don’t believe the federal government is responsible for everything. That’s where states can lead.”

The Trump administration also defended its position forcefully outside the hearing room.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“On the topic of corruption, let’s not forget that the Department of Education was created by President Carter in an attempt to win voters,” Savannah Newhouse, Education Department press secretary, said in a statement to Fox News Digital following the exchange.

“Since then, we have spent over $3 trillion pretending the department is necessary as student learning outcomes have not improved,” she continued. “While the congresswoman from New Jersey basks in her five minutes of fame, the Trump administration is working to improve student outcomes and ensure American families have access to the quality education that they deserve.”

Singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen continued his criticism of President Donald Trump Wednesday by releasing a six-track digital extended play (EP) that included his political rants while performing in Manchester, United Kingdom, last week.

“The Boss” included four songs on the 31-minute EP, “Land of Hope & Dreams.” The songs included “Land of Hope and Dreams,” “Long Walk Home,” “My City of Ruins” and “Chimes of Freedom.”

All four songs were recorded live May 14, 2025, when Springsteen publicly lambasted Trump.

During his intro to “Land of Hope and Dreams,” Springsteen said it was great to be back in Manchester, calling on the “righteous power of art, of music, of rock and roll, in dangerous times.”

KID ROCK CALLS OUT BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN’S ANTI-TRUMP RANT ON EUROPEAN TOUR, SAYS IT WAS A ‘PUNK MOVE’

“In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration,” he said. “Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experience to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring.”

Springsteen went on another political rant against Trump and the U.S. government before the E Street Band kicked into the song “My City of Ruins.”

“There’s some very weird, strange and dangerous s— going on out there right now,” Springsteen told the British crowd. “In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now. In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction and abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. 

TRUMP CALLS SPRINGSTEEN ‘HIGHLY OVERRATED’ AFTER ROCKER LABELS HIM ‘TREASONOUS’ OVERSEAS

“This is happening now,” he added. “In my country, they’re taking sadistic pleasure in the pain that they inflict on loyal American workers. They’re rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just and plural society. They’re abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those struggling for their freedom.”

Springsteen also accused the government of defunding American universities that “won’t bow down to their ideological demands.”

“They’re removing residents off American streets and, without due process of law, are deporting them to foreign detention centers and prisons,” he said. “This is all happening now. A majority of our elected representatives have failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government. They have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American. 

FOX NEWS POLITICS NEWSLETTER: NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN TRUMP AND ‘THE BOSS’

“The America that I’ve sung to you about for 50 years is real and, regardless of its faults, is a great country with a great people,” Springsteen added. “So, we’ll survive this moment.”

The crowd responded with applause when Springsteen continued to pontificate his stance on the current administration.

The comments went viral last week, and Trump responded by slamming Springsteen and calling him “highly overrated” Friday.

BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN IGNORES QUESTION ABOUT TRUMP FEUD WHILE SIGNING AUTOGRAPHS: VIDEO

“I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about the President of the United States,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he’s not a talented guy — Just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country.

“Sleepy Joe didn’t have a clue as to what he was doing, but Springsteen is ‘dumb as a rock,’ and couldn’t see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just ‘standard fare.’ Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”

Springsteen declared last year that “I’ll be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz” in the presidential election. Harris lost the race to Trump.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Norman, Lindsay Kornick and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has been hard at work this week meeting with as many factions within the House GOP as possible to quell concerns ahead of a chamber-wide vote on President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Managing a razor-thin House majority isn’t easy in the best of times, but negotiating the vast tax-immigration-energy-defense-debt limit bill has revealed both old and new fractures within the Republican Conference.

Fox News Digital took a look at what the key factions have been looking for.

HOUSE FREEDOM CAUCUS HEADING TO WHITE HOUSE AFTER DELAY PLAY ON TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’

The House Freedom Caucus and their allies have been pushing the bill to go further on curbing Medicaid’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion, and implementing work requirements for able-bodied Americans on the government healthcare program sooner than the current bill’s 2029 deadline.

There’s broad consensus among Republicans on needing work requirements for able-bodied Americans on healthcare, but cutting too deeply into the Obamacare-era expanded population has some moderate GOP lawmakers worried.

The conservatives have consistently argued that they are only seeking to reshuffle the program to make it more available for vulnerable people who truly need it, including low-income women and children.

That same group has argued in favor of a total repeal of President Joe Biden’s green energy tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) – a push that has pitted them against Republicans whose districts have businesses that benefitted from those subsidies.

DEMS WARN HOUSE REPUBLICANS WILL PAY PRICE AT BALLOT BOX FOR PASSING TRUMP’S ‘BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL’

Moderate Republicans in California, New York, and New Jersey have been taking a stand on raising the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap.

SALT deduction caps primarily benefit people living in high-cost-of-living areas like New York City, Los Angeles, and their surrounding suburbs.

Republicans representing those areas have argued that raising the SALT deduction cap is an existential issue — and that a failure to address it could cost the GOP the House majority in the 2026 midterms.

Several of the Republicans vying for higher SALT deduction caps have pointed out that their victories are critical to the party retaining control of the House in 2024.

SALT deduction caps did not exist before Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which notably instilled a $10,000 ceiling for married and single tax filers.

That cap has been received positively by the majority of Republicans, however – and those in lower-tax, GOP-controlled states have dismissed the push for a higher SALT deduction cap as an unearned reward for Democratic states with high-tax policies.

Republicans in places like Tennessee and Missouri have argued it was their tax dollars subsidizing wealthier, blue-leaning areas’ tax breaks. Blue state Republicans, meanwhile, have contended that they send more tax dollars back to the federal government which in turn helps pay for lower-tax states.

There is some overlap between Republicans looking for more modest cuts to the IRA and those seeking a higher SALT deduction cap – but not completely.

Republicans in swing districts in Arizona and Pennsylvania have argued that upending those tax credits now would harm businesses in their districts that had begun changing their operations already to conform to those new tax breaks.

In March, 21 House Republicans signed a letter urging their colleagues to preserve the green energy tax credit.

“Countless American companies are utilizing sector-wide energy tax credits – many of which have enjoyed broad support in Congress – to make major investments in domestic energy production and infrastructure for traditional and renewable energy sources alike,” they wrote.

But conservative fiscal hawks pushing for a total repeal said in their own letter that the U.S.’ growing green energy sector was the product of government handouts rather than genuine sustainable growth.

“Leaving IRA subsidies intact will actively undermine America’s return to energy dominance and national security,” they said. “They are the result of government subsidies that distort the U.S. energy sector, displace reliable coal and natural gas and the domestic jobs they produce, and put the stability and independence of our electric grid in jeopardy.”