Iran Warns Trump, Dares Him to Strike Country

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Wednesday in a post on X that his country does not fear President Donald Trump’s threats and “absurd rhetoric.” In a separate television address, he vowed that Iran “will not surrender” and said any U.S. military intervention in the conflict would bring “irreparable damage.”

Trump is weighing whether to strike Iran, and the Pentagon has built up U.S. military forces in the Middle East in recent days. On social media Tuesday, Trump demanded “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” from Tehran without detailing what that would mean, and he described the supreme leader as an “easy target.” Israel and Iran continued to trade fire on Wednesday, the sixth day of the direct conflict.

Explosions were heard in Tehran early Wednesday as Israeli warplanes continued to hammer Iran. The Israeli military issued evacuation warnings for another district as the exodus from the Iranian capital continued. Israel said it attacked a centrifuge production site and several weapons manufacturing sites overnight.

Iran launched two waves of missiles at Israel overnight and said it used its hypersonic Fattah-1 missile for the first time. There have been no reports of casualties in Israel Wednesday.

The number of missiles Israel has faced in each retaliation barrage appears to have decreased over the past two days. Iran has not explained the decline, but Israel said it has destroyed more than a third of Iran’s missile launchers.

“The battle begins,” Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, posted on social media early Wednesday, hours after President Donald Trump described him as an “easy target.”

As Trump mulls U.S. involvement, Esmail Baghaei, a spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said in an interview with Al Jazeera that “any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.”

The United States House of Representatives narrowly passed a sweeping Republican tax and spending package on Thursday, marking a significant legislative victory for President Donald Trump.

Dubbed his “one big, beautiful bill,” the legislation now heads to the Senate, where it is expected to undergo notable revisions.

The bill is both ambitious and controversial, containing measures that target several key sectors, including healthcare, taxation, immigration, education, and social welfare.

A centerpiece of the bill is the permanent extension of the individual income tax cuts originally introduced in the GOP’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

However, these cuts come at a steep price.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the proposed tax changes would add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Meanwhile, the legislation proposes deep spending cuts to vital safety net programs.

Medicaid funding would be slashed by nearly $700 billion, a number expected to rise once recent updates to the bill are assessed. Similarly, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps) would lose $267 billion in federal support.

The bill includes measures that align with longstanding Republican policy goals and campaign promises made by President Trump.

These include significant investments in border security, enhanced systems to curb immigration, and the development of a massive new missile defense shield.

It also proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the air traffic control system, new fees targeting electric vehicle users, and a shift away from federal student loans.

To offset the cost of the tax breaks and increased defense and immigration-related spending, the House GOP aimed for at least $1.5 trillion in spending reductions.

However, Senate Republicans are likely to revise the bill, potentially softening some of the more aggressive cuts.

Because the legislation is advancing through budget reconciliation, it requires only a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing the need for Democratic support.

Among the most contentious provisions is the introduction of work requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries.

For the first time in the program’s six-decade history, non-exempt adults between the ages of 19 and 64 would need to work at least 80 hours per month or engage in approved activities like schooling or community service to retain coverage.

The implementation date has been moved up to the end of 2026, raising concerns that more people could lose coverage sooner.

Exceptions would apply to groups such as parents, pregnant women, medically frail individuals, and those with substance abuse disorders.

The legislation also mandates more frequent eligibility checks for Medicaid expansion recipients and requires certain low-income adults to contribute financially to their care.

It includes penalties for states that use their own funds to cover undocumented immigrants, reducing their federal Medicaid matching funds by 10%.

States would face new limitations on the taxes they can levy on healthcare providers, a revenue stream used to enhance provider reimbursements and health services.

A notable incentive was added for the ten states that have not expanded Medicaid. These states would be allowed to send larger supplemental payments to healthcare providers, potentially deterring them from expanding coverage.

Additionally, the bill delays a Biden administration rule intended to streamline Medicaid enrollment until 2035, which could make it harder for individuals to obtain or renew coverage.

Another controversial aspect of the bill involves changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

It proposes codifying a Trump-era initiative that would shorten the ACA’s open enrollment period and eliminate year-round sign-up options for low-income individuals.

In a last-minute amendment, GOP lawmakers reinstated funding for cost-sharing reduction subsidies, which Trump had previously eliminated.

While this might lower out-of-pocket costs, it could reduce the generosity of premium subsidies, prompting some to drop their coverage.

According to early CBO estimates, these healthcare-related changes could lead to 8.6 million more people being uninsured by 2034—a figure expected to increase as the final provisions are analyzed.

The legislation also enhances the child tax credit, increasing it from $2,000 to $2,500 per child from 2025 through 2028.

However, eligibility is restricted to parents with Social Security numbers, eliminating access for those who file taxes using individual taxpayer identification numbers—typically undocumented immigrants—thereby affecting around two million children.

In a symbolic nod to Trump’s branding, the bill creates “Trump accounts,” officially named “money accounts for growth and advancement” (MAGA accounts).

These accounts would be established for U.S. citizen children born between 2025 and 2028, with an initial federal contribution of $1,000. Families could contribute up to $5,000 annually.

The funds, inaccessible until the child turns 18, could be used for higher education or first-time home purchases and would be taxed at capital gains rates. The account would expire when the beneficiary turns 31.

Fulfilling a major campaign pledge, the bill exempts income from tips and overtime from federal taxation for qualifying workers.

This applies specifically to traditionally tipped occupations and to hourly workers, excluding those earning more than $160,000 annually.

These tax breaks would be in effect from 2025 through 2028 and would also be available to non-itemizing taxpayers.

Senior citizens are not left out, as the bill increases their standard deduction by $4,000 from 2025 through 2028. However, this benefit phases out for individuals with incomes above $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000.

This measure is positioned as an indirect fulfillment of Trump’s promise to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, which cannot be addressed under budget reconciliation rules.

The package introduces a temporary car loan interest deduction, allowing taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 annually for interest on vehicles purchased after 2025, provided the cars are assembled in the U.S.

This benefit phases out for individuals earning more than $100,000 and couples earning above $200,000.

Other tax reliefs include a temporary boost to the standard deduction and permanent changes that favor wealthier Americans.

The estate tax exemption would be permanently set at $15 million per individual, adjusted for inflation.

The bill also enhances a deduction for owners of pass-through entities, such as partnerships and sole proprietorships, increasing it from 20% to 23%.

The legislation raises the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions to $40,000 for those earning up to $500,000, addressing long-standing concerns from lawmakers in high-tax states.

For single filers earning up to $250,000, the cap would be raised to $15,000. These adjustments would gradually phase back down and remain in effect until 2034.

Businesses also benefit from the bill, with the return of full, first-year deductions for equipment purchases and research and development costs, which had been curtailed in previous years. These provisions would expire after 2029.

Moreover, companies could temporarily write off expenses related to constructing or upgrading certain facilities, although deductions for purchases of professional sports teams would be limited.

Finally, the bill significantly increases taxes on universities and private foundations. The endowment tax rate for some universities would rise from 1.4% to as high as 21%, and private foundation taxes would jump to as much as 10%.

These measures aim to generate revenue but have sparked criticism from institutions that rely on endowment income for operational and scholarship support.

In summary, the House-passed bill is a comprehensive and controversial overhaul of the nation’s tax and spending priorities.

While it offers substantial tax relief and fulfills several of President Trump’s campaign promises, it does so at the expense of key social safety net programs and could result in millions of Americans losing healthcare coverage.

The Senate’s response to this bill will determine its final shape and its impact on the American people.

The tariff policies implemented by U.S. President Donald Trump have caused significant disruptions in global markets, leaving many businesses uncertain about how to plan for the future. Despite repeated announcements and adjustments, the overall effectiveness of these policies remains ambiguous.

From the outset of his second term, Trump aggressively pursued tariffs as a tool for trade and security leverage. Within days of taking office, he imposed 25% tariffs on most Mexican and Canadian imports, alongside a 10% tariff on Chinese goods.

The justification was twofold: curbing the flow of fentanyl and reducing undocumented immigration. However, these tariffs were soon suspended for Canada and Mexico—albeit temporarily—for 30 days in exchange for concessions related to border security and law enforcement. China, however, remained under the initial tariff burden.

In the months that followed, Trump escalated his trade war: he reinstated and raised tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, imposed 25% duties on steel, aluminum, and automotive imports, and doubled tariffs on Chinese goods linked to fentanyl concerns to 20%.

The administration’s approach remained erratic. Tariffs on car imports from North American neighbors were introduced, suspended, and then replaced with a sweeping 25% tariff on all global car imports.

In April, Trump introduced a “reciprocal” tariff regime, applying a 10% baseline tariff on all countries. This announcement triggered turmoil in financial markets, prompting a temporary 90-day pause—though the 10% tax remained. A more punitive 145% tariff on Chinese imports was enacted, prompting a retaliatory 125% tariff on American goods from Beijing.

Some relief followed, as the U.S. began rolling back tariffs in line with new trade agreements. A limited deal with the United Kingdom reduced the U.S. tariff on British auto imports from 27.5% to 10%, frustrating domestic automakers who now faced increased competition.

A more significant development came with the temporary truce between the U.S. and China. Both nations agreed to a 90-day pause and partial rollback, with U.S. tariffs lowered to 30% and China’s to 10%, while negotiations continued.

Even before this agreement, exceptions had been quietly made for high-demand technology products such as smartphones and computers—most of which are imported from China. The deal also reduced duties on low-value Chinese imports (valued under $800), cutting the tariff from 120% to 54%.

These low-value goods, previously exempt from import duties, were criticized for being channels for cheap goods and, allegedly, for drug trafficking—one of the original rationales for imposing tariffs.

Despite these tariff reductions, uncertainty continues to plague businesses, especially small enterprises. Such businesses, which employ nearly half of the U.S. workforce and contribute 43.5% of the country’s GDP, are especially vulnerable due to their limited resources to absorb rising costs and market instability.

This economic ambiguity is contributing to broader concerns. A Bloomberg poll cited a nearly 50% chance of a U.S. recession within the next year. Consumer confidence has plunged to a 13-year low, and inflation is projected to rise mid-year—despite a modest annual inflation rate of 2.3% in April.

Retailers are already feeling the pressure. Walmart, the largest importer of container goods into the U.S. (many from China), warned that it would need to raise prices by month’s end due to persistent tariff costs—even after recent reductions.

Trump himself acknowledged potential consumer impacts, remarking that American children might “have two dolls instead of 30,” with the remaining toys costing slightly more.

While some corporations, including Apple, have announced multi-billion-dollar investment plans in the U.S., analysts note that many of these figures include prior commitments. Thus, these announcements may reflect more about financial forecasting than actual job creation.

Overall, the Trump administration’s tariff policy has been marked by unpredictability, market volatility, and limited clarity on long-term strategy. Although some trade agreements have been reached and select investments announced, the broader economic and geopolitical gains remain uncertain.