

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"There is no world in which the US preventing young Iranians from taking English proficiency tests leads to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and yet that appears to be the rationale for this cruel new policy.”
A leading grassroots advocacy group for the rights of Iranian Americans called on the Trump administration Monday to rescind the recent message it sent when it announced new sanctions against ordinary Iranians—"that the US is at war with the Iranian people"—and to ensure that "humanitarian, educational, and cultural" entities are exempt from the sanctions.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, warning of the "escalating harm caused by the imminent suspension of long-standing general licenses that had enabled American universities, educational testing and assessment organizations, and other entities to provide educational opportunities to Iranian nationals."
The group appealed to Bessent and Rubio following reports that the Education Testing Service, which administers the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), has suspended testing in Iran following the sanctions. The Duolingo English Test, developed by the language course platform Duolingo, has also been made unavailable in Iran and for students with Iranian IDs.
Despite the fact that President Donald Trump's new sanctions, called "Operation Economic Outcast," are purported to target the Iranian government as it restricts access to the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the US-Israeli war against Iran, the policy changes have "no conceivable impact on the Iranian government," wrote NIAC president Jamal Abdi.
"Instead, it is already being felt by American entities and Iranian students," Abdi wrote. "Iranian students have been barred from taking key exams required for academic studies by US organizations."
Abdi called on the administration to immediately reinstate 31 CFR § 560.544, which authorizes "certain educational activities by US persons in third countries," and Iran General License G, which authorizes educational exchanges.
“The Trump administration would be wise to bolster the limited educational, humanitarian, and cultural channels that exist between ordinary Iranians and the United States, rather than send a message that the US is at war with the Iranian people.”
"For years, Iran was among the nations with the highest demand for TOEFL examinations," he wrote. "Regrettably, the severing of these key global educational testing platforms will create major hurdles for Iranian nationals pursuing international education."
The administration's policy changes leave Iranian students facing "overlapping barriers to studying in the United States: a travel ban preventing Iranians from securing US visas, alongside sanctions restricting access to English proficiency exams, educational services, and enrollment in US universities," said NIAC.
“There is no world in which the US preventing young Iranians from taking English proficiency tests leads to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and yet that appears to be the rationale for this cruel new policy,” said Abdi in a statement. “The Trump administration would be wise to bolster the limited educational, humanitarian, and cultural channels that exist between ordinary Iranians and the United States, rather than send a message that the US is at war with the Iranian people.”
Abdi also urged Bessent and Rubio to reverse the suspension of licenses for Iranian Americans to send remittances to family members in Iran and those that allow sports matches between Iran and the US. The latter suspension, he wrote, "carries significant risk of complicating the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles and reflects poorly on the US as a host nation while yielding no discernible benefit."
The exemptions that have been suspended by the White House, said Abdi, "were first established over a decade ago to resolve harmful unintended consequences of US sanctions, such as cutting ordinary Iranians off from academic opportunities."
"Now, it appears that these have become very much intended consequences aimed at the Iranian people, which is a self-defeating message for the US to send to Iranians and the world,” Abdi continued. “There is absolutely no justification for this."
A video of a speech he gave on July 16 is an unintentionally revealing survey of the Trump team's violation of basic legal principles, endangering the rule of law, and its consistent record of falsehoods, endangering public trust in the national leadership.
The video is not long, just 16 minutes and 25 seconds. But in that short time it provides a remarkable capsule of the Trump administration's ongoing crusade against its critics. In one chilling moment after another, it captures the mentality of that campaign; its content, tone, and style; and its complete disregard for factual accuracy.
The video, taped on July 16, records the words of Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy and Homeland Security adviser, addressing a multinational audience assembled at the State Department for the opening session of meeting convened by Secretary of State Marco Rubio under the title "Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism." In his welcoming address, Rubio defined the meeting's focus: "far-left political terrorism" that he declared has been a "blind spot" in US counterterrorism doctrine, but would now be directly in the government's sights.
Following Rubio to the podium, Miller delivered various—and sometimes unsettling—amplifications on that theme. After an opening passage declaring that under President Trump's leadership, "We have taken the necessary and essential action of formally recognizing left-wing violence as a form of political terrorism that is a direct threat to our national security and the survival of our republican form of government," Miller went on to proclaim that "for the first time in American history," all US law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working together "to disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute these political terrorists that are operating in our country." Then, in one of many questionable passages, he went on with an implied suggestion that the authorities should reject suspected terrorists' claims of their legal rights. Miller put it this way:
One of the hallmarks of left-wing violence and terrorism is its completely pretextual and disingenuous appeal to civil liberties in an effort to shield its own violence. This is the tactic that the left always uses to try to protect itself from facing criminal punishment. It is essential that we are wise enough and strong enough to understand that these appeals must fall on deaf ears. When the leftist, who does not believe in freedom, who does not believe in civil rights, who does not believe in any ordered notion of justice, protests that we are violating his rights, understand that he is lying to try to persuade people who are not closely following the political scene that some injustice has been perpetrated against him.
That doesn't quite say explicitly that a person accused of left-wing terror does not have the same rights that other criminal defendants have in US courts—but it is hard to read Miller's words in any other way. (The following speaker, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent, sounded a very different tone, declaring that "in the fight against domestic terrorism, we must respect the constitutional rights, freedom of speech, association, and assembly of all Americans... the Treasury will act based on suspected unlawful conduct by these terror organizations, not because of their beliefs or ideologies." I have no way to know whether those words were in Bessent's prepared text or if he was directly responding to Miller's statement, but in either case they may have brought some relief to listeners who value the rule of law.)
At another point in his speech, Miller falsely told his listeners that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have experienced an "8,000% increase in violent assaults," adding that "these are not one-off episodes. This is repeat, systemic, organized, funded insurrection, an armed resistance against the federal government." Miller's figure is contradicted by the Homeland Security department's own public statements. In January, the department reported that threats to ICE personnel, not actual assaults, had risen by 8,000% in the previous year, while violent attacks had gone up by "more than 1,300%"—less than one-sixth of Miller's alleged increase. That lower figure may have been overstated too, as indicated by a Los Angeles Times investigation of court records in LA and four other cities (San Diego; Portland, Oregon; Chicago; and Washington, DC). More than a third of the cases they reviewed ended in dismissals or acquittals, the Times reporters found, and a majority of the alleged assaults had not caused any injury to the federal agents involved.
A few minutes later, Miller raised a quite different and somewhat peculiar issue: "When you look at these violent antifa demonstrations and you see any photograph of those who were assembled—to be blunt, not one of the people that is demonstrating looks like a normal person. Not one looks normal. They’re all deformed in some way—in their appearance, in their dress, in their mannerism... If you look at two photographs and you see a normal American in the street and you see an Antifa protest, why do the people that are violently demonstrating—why is there not one normal-looking person among them?" Miller did not explain exactly what he finds odd in the protesters' appearance—and unlike most of his talking points, that one seems to be uniquely his, not one commonly heard from others in the Trump orbit.
In another questionable passage, Miller claimed that the phenomenon of "jury nullification" has regularly enabled leftist terrorists to escape conviction for their crimes. He explained the term this way: "This is when a person is obviously guilty of a crime but the juror, because they’re ideologically sympathetic to the perpetrator, will not sentence them to the crime which was obviously committed," adding, "We’ve seen in the United States, again and again, individuals who are part of left-wing organizations who’ve committed assaults against ICE officers or federal law enforcement, who’ve been brought to court, where clear evidence has been presented against them, that the jury has refused to convict for purely political reasons."
Miller gave no examples and cited no facts to support the implication that persuading jurors to acquit guilty defendants has been a deliberate tactic employed by leftist organizations. In past statements, he has explicitly cited at least one specific case: the acquittal last December of a Los Angeles tow-truck driver who was arrested after moving an ICE vehicle while the officers were arresting a suspected illegal immigrant. The defendant, Bobby Nunez, was charged with stealing federal government property, an offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. At his trial, his lawyers argued that the ICE agents' SUV was blocking a driveway, that Nunez towed it only one block away, and that it was out of the agents' possession for just 13 minutes.
Without having heard their deliberations, we have no way to know how the jurors reasoned in reaching their not-guilty verdict, if that decision stemmed principally from opposition to ICE operations and Trump's immigration policies, or if they based their conclusion on other grounds, perhaps that the charged offense was disproportionately severe and the possible penalty unfairly harsh. Stephen Miller wasn't in the jury room either, but he showed no visible uncertainty when he denounced the verdict as "another example of blatant jury nullification in a blue city." From there he went off in another direction: "The justice system depends on a jury of peers with a shared system of interests and values. Mass migration tribalizes the entire legal system"—a comment that it's hard to see as anything but an argument that people with the wrong ethnic identity are not legitimate participants in America's justice system.
Incidentally, nothing in any of the news stories I read about that trial gave any indication that Nunez was connected with any "left-wing organization." Nor did photographs of him show anything obviously "not normal" or "deformed" in his appearance (unless those words apply to anyone who doesn't look like a non-Hispanic white man).
Miller said nothing in his State Department speech about a different issue that has undermined far more cases than any real or imagined political bias in juries—findings by numerous judges that law enforcement agents and government lawyers prosecuting supposed antifa activists and other protesters have crossed legal or ethical boundaries, misrepresenting facts and exaggerating or completely fabricating criminal charges.
That pattern is documented in a recent report by the investigative journalism organization ProPublica. Their reporters reviewed hundreds of case records and found numerous comments from federal judges criticizing "unlawful," "unethical," and "unseemly" government actions. Specific abuses cited by judges included findings that "the government filed statements generated by artificial intelligence that referenced nonexistent case law, wrote briefs that ignored facts, and filed declarations with inaccurate dates."
(One striking example is from a judge's decision granting a petition from a man seeking release from ICE detention. In her opinion memorandum, the judge noted that ICE and Homeland Security department officials had submitted a document "purporting to show" that the man had a record of "minor convictions for marijuana possession in 2009." The judge went on: "The Petitioner was four years old in 2009, and the Respondent indicated that the document was supplied by ICE and likely presumed to relate to the Petitioner because the individual in those records had the same name, despite the differences in birthdate, birthplace, parents’ names, and immigration status. This sloppiness further validates the Court’s concerns about the procedures utilized by the Respondents depriving people present in the United States of their liberty.")
It was no surprise that Miller did not mention prosecutors' failings in his speech, since that would have been inconsistent with the message he was delivering. Theoretically, it's not categorically impossible that he has been more candid in private conversations with Trump—after all, presidential advisers, particularly on national security issues, are expected to provide unwelcome truths and not just say things their boss wants to hear. If we don't know what was said or not said in meetings that were not disclosed to the public, we can't judge with absolute certainty how straightforwardly Miller might have spoken in those discussions. But numerous reports of his public statements over the years reveal a consistent pattern of misrepresented facts and policy ideas even more virulent than Trump's, making it virtually impossible to believe that his advice in private has been significantly more balanced or rational than what he has said in public over the years.
The "Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism" did not get much media attention, perhaps because it did not produce very much new information substantiating the premise that "left-wing terrorists" are linked in a far-reaching multinational conspiracy that is now the most urgent danger facing the United States and the international community. Stephen Miller's 16-minute speech did not present any facts or ideas that have not been heard many times before, so it didn't make many headlines either. But it is newsworthy for a different reason—an unintentionally revealing survey of the Trump team's violation of basic legal principles, endangering the rule of law, and its consistent record of falsehoods, endangering public trust in the national leadership. Those two trends represent a clear and present threat to human rights and democratic government in this country, and should be spotlighted at every opportunity while we can still report and resist them.
"It is senseless, punitive collective punishment."
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed it is targeting the Iranian government and coming to the aid of the nation's people by waging all-out war on the Middle East country, but an analysis of US policy changes announced this week indicates that ordinary Iranians will bear the brunt of the pain from the White House's new economic assault.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) noted that the first actions that the Trump administration has taken under its so-called Operation Economic Outcast "are aimed squarely at ordinary Iranians and at severing personal, familial, academic, and cultural relationships between Americans and Iranians." The group noted that the Trump administration has "suspended key humanitarian exemptions from existing sanctions on Iran designed to allow Iranian Americans to send personal remittances to family in Iran, to allow universities to enroll or offer scholarships to Iranian students, and to allow for sports exchanges involving American and Iranian athletes."
NIAC went on to cite specific examples:
"We have had decades of sanctions underscore that collective punishment is strategically and morally wrong," said NIAC president Jamal Abdi in a statement. "Iranian civilians have grown poorer while the government elite has been unscathed.”
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared earlier this week that the Trump administration is "launching an economic onslaught against Iran’s financial connections around the globe" with the stated goal of severing "every economic lifeline that sustains this tyrannical regime until Tehran stands alone." Bessent said the administration has given "every country" a "defined timeline to shut down activities we have identified."
NIAC said Tuesday that "rather than devote US resources to strengthening sanctions exemptions for ordinary people and making the sanctions 'smarter' by targeting them against decisionmakers and bad actors, the administration is making our sanctions dumber and even more blunt."
"This is a radical revision to the Iran sanctions architecture: ending the ability of Iranian Americans to send their family any remittances, blocking universities from enrolling Iranian students, ending sports exchanges," said Ryan Costello, NIAC's policy director. "It is senseless, punitive collective punishment."
The intensified economic warfare comes after months of an illegal, widely unpopular, deadly, and economically destructive war that Trump and his Israeli counterpart, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, launched in late February.
Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said Tuesday that the new US economic assault is "about annihilating the most foundational rules of international law and the UN Charter—namely, respect for the sovereign equality and self-determination of all states."
"When a bully declares that every bank, company, port, and government must choose between obeying Washington’s whims or facing American vengeance, this is no longer just about Iran," Baghaei wrote in a social media post. "No decent state that values its sovereignty and national interests will accept the normalization of such grand lawlessness and systemic bullying."
"Operation Economic Outcast will not only fail," warned one expert, "but the economic noose that actually tightens may end up being the one wrapped around our neck."
With the United States unable to militarily defeat Iran in President Donald Trump's illegal US-Israeli war of choice, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday escalated the administration's economic attacks on Tehran, warning countries and companies around the world that continuing to do business with the nation could expose them to punitive sanctions.
“Let there be no ambiguity as to the position of the United States,” Bessent said during a news conference unveiling what the Trump administration is calling Operation Economic Outcast. “An economic engagement of any kind with this murderous regime will expose those responsible to the full reach of American power.”
The "economic D-Day" campaign targets five sectors—technology, gold, aviation, shipping, and digital assets—and is intended to choke off virtually every remaining source of hard currency for Iran.
Bessent warned that it is “no longer acceptable to operate in the gray spaces” of US policy. The secretary said he anticipates the announcement of sanctions against a major financial institution as soon as next week.
Asked if Chinese banks that do business with Iran would be sanctioned, Bessent replied that "no one is above the reach of US sanctions."
While Bessent did not say which countries would likely be targeted, China, Türkiye, and the United Arab Emirates are Iran's biggest trading partners.
The secretary was also asked why sanctions aren't being imposed immediately.
"Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior," he replied. "Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?"
"We believe that it is important to level set and give people a cure period, but they should know that that will move very quickly and that we are serious," Bessent added. "So we believe that a warning shot and a level set of expectations is appropriate, and if people do not want to meet our expectations, then we expect—and they should expect—that they will leave the dollar system."
Iranian officials largely scoffed at Bessent's "economic D-Day" threat. Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi asked on social media, “Is this a victory or an admission of America’s failure!?”
“You say Iran’s military capability has been ‘dismantled,’ 100% of its military factories ‘destroyed,’ and its nuclear program ‘buried’; but for this very Iran, the ‘largest financial assault in history’ and the mobilization of ‘all US institutions and authorities’ have been necessary!” he mocked.
While Trump has said the war is “over” or nearly over dozens of times, Iran currently appears to have the upper hand, as shipping has overwhelmingly avoided the US-supported route through the Strait of Hormuz, with most vessels using a course set by Tehran or avoiding the waterway altogether.
Trump’s war on Iran is proving costly not only in Iranian lives and US taxpayer dollars, but in the increasingly strained budgets of American families. Disruptions to oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz have pushed gasoline prices above $4 a gallon nationally—roughly a dollar more than a year ago. Trump has dismissed Americans' concerns about high fuel prices, saying $4 is "not very high" and vowing to "never apologize" for the economic pain his actions are inflicting.
That pain doesn't stop at the pump. More expensive gasoline and diesel ripple through the economy, raising the cost of transporting food and other goods while keeping inflation elevated.
The pain is far worse for the people of Iran. Trump administration's escalation comes as Iran's currency, the rial, has plunged to record lows amid an economic crisis largely caused by the war and years of preceding US-led sanctions.
However, the administration's effort to force every country to choose between trading with Iran and maintaining access to the US-dominated financial system could have consequences far beyond Tehran.
At a Monday press conference in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said that sanctions “lead to escalation" that "serves no one’s interests.”
“China calls on parties to act rationally and with restraint and avoid taking any measures that may further escalate tensions or deal a blow to global economic growth and financial stability," he continued.
The Chinese government “will closely watch relevant developments and do what is necessary to protect our legitimate rights and interests,” Lin added.
Operation Economic Outcast drew worldwide derision.
“President Trump, the ultimate gambler in geopolitics, is poised to double down on a bad hand on Iran yet again," National Iranian American Council policy director Ryan Costello said in a statement.
“We’ve been down the maximum pressure road with Iran many times," he noted. "What we’ve learned is that President Trump can impose extensive economic pain on Iran, but ordinary Iranians overwhelmingly bear the cost. The ruling elite in Iran remains largely insulated, while Tehran has repeatedly refused to capitulate to Washington’s demands."
"Trump’s gamble is that this time, amid the destruction of war, and with the reinforcement of a blockade, time is on his side and ultimately Iran will be forced to concede defeat," Costello added. "President Trump has proven unable and unwilling to stop his gambling on Iran that risks further undermining US and regional security and the global economy.”
Sina Toossi, a senior nonresident fellow at the Center for International Policy, said on social media that Operation Economic Outcast "is as much psychological warfare as economic warfare: Project Iran’s isolation as inevitable, convince markets Hormuz is being overcome, and amplify economic anxiety inside Iran."
"But the bravado masks a basic problem," he asserted. "The military option failed to compel Tehran, Iran still possesses substantial escalation dominance over the Arab Persian Gulf states, and 'severing every economic lifeline' requires countries like China to enforce a US strategy they openly reject."
Washington "is effectively betting it can achieve through intensified economic strangulation what six months of war could not," Toossi added. "And it is demanding unprecedented international compliance at a moment when US relations with much of the world are becoming much more coercive and transactional. The capacity to hurt Iran is clear. The path from pain to capitulation or collapse is not."
Alan Eyre, a former State Department Iran specialist and current Middle East Institute distinguished fellow, argued that "the problem with Operation Economic Outcast is it continues the trend of making the US an economic outcast."
Stockbroker and financial commentator Peter Schiff said on X that "because Trump failed to achieve his objective in Iran using military force, he has pivoted to using economic sanctions instead."
"However, Operation Economic Outcast will not only fail," he added, "but the economic noose that actually tightens may end up being the one wrapped around our neck."
"Is this a victory or an admission of America's failure!?" asked Iran's deputy foreign minister.
Top Iranian officials on Monday ridiculed the Trump administration's threats of total economic warfare against the Middle East country, calling the US Treasury Department's proposed "financial offensive" an act of desperation as the costly conflict drags on with no end in sight.
"Is this a victory or an admission of America's failure!?" Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, wrote on social media after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent laid out the Trump administration's planned economic assault in a Sunday op-ed for the Financial Times titled, "An Economic D-Day Is Coming for Iran."
In a social media post promoting his op-ed, Bessent declared that US President Donald Trump has "dismantled Iran’s military capabilities, destroyed nearly 100% of its military factories, and buried its nuclear program."
"We are now entering the endgame," Bessent added. "At dawn begins an economic D-Day—the single greatest financial offensive ever marshaled against an adversary."
Gharibabadi responded that Bessent's "narrative doesn't add up."
"You say Iran's military capability has been 'dismantled,' 100% of its military factories 'destroyed,' and its nuclear program 'buried'; but for this very Iran, the 'largest financial assault in history' and the mobilization of 'all US institutions and authorities' have been necessary!" Gharibabadi wrote.
Iran's top diplomat, Abbas Araghchi, similarly dismissed the Trump administration's vow to intensify its economic warfare against Iran, saying it is "bound to fail."
"We have seen this movie before," said Araghchi. "Same bull. Different bullies."
Bessent is expected to unveil the details of the economic measures in a press conference on Monday, initiating a new phase of a war that the US and Israel launched in late February.
Analysts said the renewed threats of all-out economic warfare are reminiscent of the "maximum pressure" campaign that the first Trump administration launched against Iran after shredding the Obama-era nuclear accord, setting the stage for the current war.
"The United States can certainly inflict a significant amount of pain on the Iranians," Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told CNN over the weekend. "But to bring them to some sort of a breaking point that would cause them to surrender, I find extremely unlikely. I think we should remind ourselves: We've been here before. This is what the maximum pressure sanctions were supposed to do eight years ago."
"If this ends up becoming successful in terms of putting a lot of pressure on the Iranians," Parsi added, "then the most likely outcome is that they will counter-escalate, and their counter-escalation could be striking countries in the region."
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry, warned during a press conference on Monday that "any collusion with the United States in this plan will certainly have consequences."
A spokesperson for the foreign ministry of China, which receives 80% of Iran's oil exports, said that going along with Trump's "economic warfare" will "only lead to escalation that serves no one’s interests."
The Trump administration is once again threatening to carry out "regime change" in Iran, this time using what President Donald Trump described as "economic warfare" against the nation rather than military might.
But as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demands the world play along with efforts to isolate Iran, the second-largest economy, China, is refusing to join the US sanctions campaign.
The Trump administration has failed to use military means to force Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz after it began restricting travel in retaliation for US and Israeli attacks in late February.
On Thursday, Bessent told CNBC that the new approach is to impose the "toughest sanctions in history” on Iran, ramping up a strategy that has inflicted suffering on the Iranian people but failed to force its leaders out of power for nearly 50 years.
Bessent emphasized that it would only work with the help of "all of our allies" carrying out the "greatest coordinated economic isolation in the history of the world."
He made very explicit the goal of ratcheting up pressure on the regime by inflicting pain on the nation's 90 million people, by causing "substantial inflation, both food inflation and ordinary inflation in Iran." He compared the effort to the use of sanctions to strangle the economies of Venezuela and Cuba, which have fueled humanitarian crises in both countries.
Bessent gave an ultimatum that every nation is "either with us or against us," and warned those who refuse to help with the administration's effort to "squash the economy" of Iran that the US would "put its full might and force toward enforcing against you."
He promised that any country that provides a "lifeline" to Iran would itself be sent into "economic oblivion."
Iran responded to the threats by vowing a fearsome retaliation. "With preparedness across land, sea, air, air defense, and cyberspace, Iran's armed forces will respond to the enemy's new threats with crushing, punishing, and devastating responses," said the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, Maj. Gen. Ali Abdollahi.
Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, acknowledged that the impact of further sanctions could indeed be devastating.
"We must make plans to deal with the unjust sanctions so that we can overcome them," he said. "No matter how much military power we have, we won't survive if people are hungry and we don't have financial turnover, economic growth, and national production."
As the US imposes its own blockade on Iran's oil exports, Bessent called on China to "get with the program." China buys about 80% of the oil exported from Iran, and Bessent emphasized that half of China's energy comes from the Persian Gulf.
But Lin Jian, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said during a press conference on Friday that China would not cooperate with efforts to isolate Iran.
"China believes that military means, sanctions, and pressure tactics are not the solution. On the contrary, they will only lead to escalation that serves no one’s interests. We call for efforts to solve disputes through dialogue and negotiation," Lin told an Iranian government broadcaster.
Asked about the potential effects on China's energy imports from Iran, he reiterated, "China opposes illicit unilateral sanctions that lack basis in international law and UN Security Council mandate."
The question now is whether Trump will make good on his administration's threats and retaliate against China. It's likely easier said than done, as an economic war with the US's third-largest trading partner could further exacerbate the economic turmoil Trump is seeking to ameliorate before the midterm elections in November.
Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies, suggested that China would be unlikely to surrender easily in that fight.
"China has a strong interest in preserving Iran under the Islamic Republic and maintaining Tehran’s strategic relationship, and growing dependence, on Beijing," he wrote on social media. "Any economic strategy that assumes China will eventually fall in line with Washington risks being built on a fundamentally flawed premise."
Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is still far below prewar levels, with the daily number of ships passing through in the single digits, according to Reuters.
Crude oil prices are still 30% higher than at the start of the war, while US gas prices are still up by more than a dollar per gallon.
But Trump, seemingly unwilling to admit that his campaign there has been anything less than successful, is continuing to claim that the strait is wide open thanks to US military action.
As Gregory Brew, a senior analyst on Iran and oil policy at the Eurasia Group, explained, this has left the administration's messaging on why exactly it is now pivoting to ruthless economic warfare appear like disjointed doublespeak.
"Bessent and others cannot say what this policy is meant to achieve—reopening the strait—because in the admin's telling, the strait is already open," Brew said. "As a result, this return to maximum pressure feels oddly devoid of purpose. The US is inflicting economic pain, felt mostly by Iran's people, rather than its rulers, for no clear reason."
"No one expects Trump's treasury secretary to know anything about the economy," said one economist.
The American economy lost 23,000 jobs last month, according to federal data, but US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doesn't see much cause for concern.
During a Thursday interview on CNBC, Bessent was asked about whether the most recent jobs report was a sign of the US labor market "cracking," and he replied that the data at the moment are "quite noisy."
Bessent then asserted that, thanks to Trump's mass deportation policy, "the jobs that we're seeing are going to Americans."
"After the deportations we've seen during President Trump's administration, and the closing of the border... we don't need to produce as many jobs," he said. "And what's really important here is that we are seeing a manufacturing renaissance."
Bessent on the latest bad jobs report: "After the deportations that we've seen and the closing of the border, we don't need to produce as many jobs" pic.twitter.com/kStWCiXAz5
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 20, 2026
In fact, there is no manufacturing jobs boom under Trump, as federal data shows the economy has lost an estimated 75,000 manufacturing jobs since the start of his second term.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted in a social media post that Bessent's claim about the Trump economy providing bountiful jobs to native-born US workers is also false.
"The employment rate for native-born people is down a percentage point from when Biden was in the White House," Baker wrote, "but no one expects Trump's treasury secretary to know anything about the economy."
Economist Tony Yates observed that Bessent's spin on the jobs report undermined one of the Trump administration's rationales for carrying out mass deportations.
"I love how this contradicts with the argument for the deportations—that migrants were stealing jobs from everyone else," Yates wrote. "Now the claim is that the jobs were created by migrants just as they are now gone with them."
"We are deeply troubled by public commitments to deploy the full force of the State and Treasury departments against loosely defined 'far-left networks' and their alleged 'enablers.'"
Dozens of Democrats in the US House of Representatives this week announced a congressional inquiry into the use of a widely decried memo from President Donald Trump to persecute "political dissent" and target "left-leaning political groups."
Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern (Mass.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Delia Ramirez (Ill.) revealed Tuesday that they, along with over 20 others, wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this month to demand answers about the recent "Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism" and directives under National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7).
"Specifically, we are alarmed by the Department of State's new ideologically driven visa restriction policy and the Department of Treasury's pledged financial enforcement mechanisms directed against civil society," they wrote. "These policies dramatically escalate the administration's deliberate and targeted attempts to silence any person, organization, or institution critical of its policies and abuses of power on a global scale."
"We are deeply troubled by public commitments to deploy the full force of the State and Treasury departments against loosely defined 'far-left networks' and their alleged 'enablers' and urge you to immediately reverse course," the lawmakers continued. "Rather than relying on law enforcement data—which consistently identifies right-wing violent extremists and white supremacist organizations as the predominant domestic terrorism threat—this administration has instead taken actions that manufacture an ideological enemy."
The visa policy "bars foreign nationals from entry who 'finance, recruit, incite, or otherwise enable terrorist, violent, and criminal far-left terrorist networks' and defines 'far-left terrorist networks' as those with explicit aims to 'undermine the political foundations of free and self-governing societies,'" the letter details. "This rhetoric and policy embody the core characteristics of fascist statecraft—using the security apparatus of the state to repress and criminalize political opponents and dissenters rather than specific violent acts."
The letter notes the impacts of the administration's policies beyond the United States, warning that "seeking to export an ideological mandate to more than 65 countries creates a dangerous precedent that authoritarian governments will eagerly exploit to delegitimize and criminalize political dissent and justify their own crackdowns on peaceful opposition."
"Foreign nationals fleeing political persecution abroad—including persecution by governments that label peaceful dissidents 'leftist terrorists' to discredit them—may find themselves barred from the United States under the very same vague and subjective standard," the lawmakers wrote. "Expanding transnational intelligence-sharing under this ill-defined and hyper-politicized definition of violent extremism opens the door to transnational repression—including cross-border monitoring and harassment—of international activists, researchers, and political dissidents, as well as potentially any individual within their networks."
"We also risk fracturing critical alliances with governments whose own laws strictly protect political speech, civil liberties, and human rights—protections that these very policies are undermining here at home," the Democrats stressed.
The letter also calls out White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller's description of leftists as "the enemies of civilization" and a "cancer" that can "destroy a society," as well as Bessent's comparison of leftists to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda—when he said that "the unified front between international Marxism and the radical Islamic movement need not share the same ultimate vision to share the same immediate enemy of free and self-governing societies."
Rubio has similarly called leftists "the enemies of civilization" and recently faced criticism for a "McCarthyite" State Department report claiming that the Cuban government has, for decades, "infiltrated the highest reaches of the US government, recruited and cultivated generations of American activists, backed an unprecedented wave of left-wing terrorism on American soil, and carried out one of the most durable and damaging foreign intelligence penetrations in American history." The document is seen as a signal that Trump may deliver on his threat to try to take over the island nation by force.
"Trump is going to pump billions of dollars into the bond market to push down interest rates through the election, then let everything fall apart again," said one critic.
The Trump administration on Wednesday unveiled a plan to ease upward pressure on the cost of US debt by doubling its bond buybacks through November.
In announcing that it will buy back "at least" $4 billion worth of bonds over a two-month period, the US Department of Treasury said it was seeking "to provide greater liquidity support in longer-dated nominal sectors where there is consistent strong sponsorship from market participants."
While the announcement did result in interest rates for US treasuries dropping, economists and other political observers are warning that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's scheme to stop spiking yields will prove ineffective over the long term.
In a Wednesday interview with NOTUS, Joseph Brusuelas, principal and chief economist for RSM US LLP, said that Bessent was making decisions based solely on the political fortunes of the Republican Party.
"Bessent is a political actor," Brusuelas said. "His interest is purely short-term and is organized around the upcoming election and not a return to price stability. This is what fiscal dominance looks like as the fiscal authority leans on the central bank to subordinate its goal of price stability to the government’s borrowing and political needs."
The economist's analysis was echoed by Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim, who argued in a social media post that President Donald Trump's administration was scrambling to save its endangered GOP congressional majority.
"Trump is going to pump billions of dollars into the bond market to push down interest rates through the election, then let everything fall apart again," Grim wrote. "Not sure I’ve seen a more nakedly electoral use of this amount of money before, for such a targeted amount of time."
Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI, argued in a Wednesday research note flagged by CNBC that the bond buyback scheme "changes almost nothing in terms of the fundamentals in particular the unchanged need to finance the tidal wave of hyperscaler debt in addition to very large government deficits."
Adam Josephson, founder of Sakonnet Research, also expressed skepticism of the buyback plan's effectiveness in a Wednesday interview with Politico.
“They’re trying everything possible to limit upward pressure on long-term yields,” Josephson said. “Nothing has worked. And why would this work? It’s too small to matter.”
Experts say that bond yields have been spiking to highs not seen since the start of the Great Recession due to investor anxiety over a number of factors, including inflation, the size of the US government's debt, and Trump's illegal war with Iran.
An open letter to Trump's Treasury Secretary, whose economic analysis is, frankly... shite.
Dear Scott (if I may).
I’ve argued that the K-shaped economy — a term used to describe growing inequality between high- and low-income households — can be seen in sales of McDonald’s burgers, whose lower- and middle-income customers fell by double digits in the first quarter of 2025 as they struggled with affordability.
Last Monday, you criticized me, arguing that McDonald’s problems are instead due to competition from rivals like Burger King.
(By the way, Scott,Bill Clinton didn’t fire me and Berkeley won’t, either. But your boss has a well-recorded tendency to fire his Cabinet secretaries, so I’d be careful if I were you.)
In a recent interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” you even declared that the U.S. economy is no longer in a K shape: “I got sick of hearing about this K-shaped economy. I can say here definitively, the K-shaped economy is over.”
As a former Cabinet secretary, I hope you won’t mind if I’m candid with a current one. Scott, your analysis is full of shite. It’s still a K-shaped economy.
Lower-income workers continue to struggle with stagnant wages and inflation, while high-income workers are riding high on the wealth effects of the stock market. Real wages may be growing slightly more for low income than high income, but the booming stock market is mostly benefiting the high income.
Widening inequalities are partly due to policies you and your boss in the Oval Office have been pursuing — especially your tariffs and war in Iran, both of which have been pushing prices upward and imposing a far greater burden on lower-income than high-income Americans.
July’s jobs report showed wage growth falling sharply, with average hourly earnings increasing at the slowest pace in five years — 3.2% year-over-year. Inflation, meanwhile, is not slowing. As a result, consumers’ purchasing power is falling. Prices are now rising 3.5% year-over-year, as wage growth has slowed to just 3.2% — meaning that the real earnings of Americans have been dropping since April.
And I’m not just talking about McDonald’s, Scott. When major retailers reported quarterly results in May, many noted the growing divide between high- and low-income consumers. Wealthier households continue to drive spending, while lower- and middle-income households struggle to keep up. “We certainly see with our higher-income consumers, they’re benefiting probably from the wealth effect of a buoyant stock market,” said Walmart’s CFO John David Rainey. “But with low-income consumers, they don’t necessarily get that benefit, and then it’s a little bit more of paycheck to paycheck.”
Grocery chains like Kroger are considering rolling back prices to gain market share in this K-shaped consumer environment. Target is also trying to adjust to it. We’re “expanding both low, low price points, starting at $1, all the way up to some of the new premium brands,” says Cara Sylvester, who became Target’s chief merchandising officer in mid-February.
On recent quarterly earnings calls, CEOs in grocery, outdoor apparel, and kids’ apparel noted the same K-shape pattern. Kevin Depew, deputy chief economist and industry eminence program leader at RSM, attributes what’s happening to an economy in which lower- and middle-income households face real spending pressure while upper-income consumers remain cushioned by equity gains. Home improvement retailer Home Depot notes the impact of higher fuel costs in particular. “There’s no question that the average consumer is feeling pressure from rising fuel costs,” Home Depot CFO Richard McPhail said.
Other major firms report that premium travel and high-end goods (luxury airline seats and high-tier tech products) have seen double-digit growth, while discount retailers and dollar stores report high demand for basic necessities from budget-constrained consumers.
Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City confirm the same trend. After analyzing changes in consumer spending between 2021 and 2025, they found that households with high incomes (fourth and fifth quintiles) increased their spending substantially faster than did consumers with low incomes (first to third quintiles). Because inflation-adjusted wage growth for the bottom quartiles has lagged behind top earners, everyday expenses like groceries, rent, and insurance are consuming larger shares of lower-income budgets.
The Federal Reserve’s May Beige Book also reflects this K-shaped divide, noting that higher-income households have remained relatively resilient, while lower-income consumers are showing greater financial strain and increased reliance on credit.
According to Moody’s Analytics, the richest 10% of American earners — composed of households making about $250,000 a year or more — are driving a record 49.7% of total U.S. consumer spending, significantly boosting the economy through the wealth effect of higher stock and home prices. They own over 90% of the value of all shares of stock, so big gains in the stock market have encouraged them to splurge on everything from vacations to designer handbags. “The finances of the well-to-do have never been better, their spending never stronger and the economy never more dependent on that group,” says Mark Zandi, who oversaw the analysis, based on data from the Federal Reserve. Zandi says the K-shaped economy remains “firmly intact.”
All told, rich Americans have increased their spending far beyond inflation, but nobody else has. The bottom 80% of earners spent 25% more than they did four years earlier, barely outpacing price increases of 21% over that period. And they’re going into debt to do so (researchers find auto repossessions and credit card delinquencies rising among lower-to-middle-income borrowers). But the top 10% spent 58% more.
Research by U.S.Bank also shows the K-shaped economy’s divide across household balance sheets, labor market access, generational wealth-building, and sector performance. “Higher-income households are more likely to own homes, equities, and retirement assets,” says Matt Schoeppner, senior economist for U.S. Bank, “allowing them to participate more directly when financial markets and home values rise.”
Federal Reserve distributional data reveal that wealth is increasingly concentrated. As of the fourth quarter of 2025, the richest 1% of Americans held 29.2% of the nation’s aggregate wealth (up from around 20% in the early 1990s), compared with just 5.3% for the bottom half.

Meanwhile, lower- and middle-income households are struggling. “Wage gains for most have been moderating, while essential costs for rent, groceries and gasoline remain elevated,” notes Schoeppner. “At the same time, savings buffers have continued to narrow while reliance on credit — particularly credit cards — has increased.”

Scott, what more evidence do you need? If this isn’t a K-shaped economy, what is it?
The labor market further reveals the K-shape. Hiring rates have fallen to 15-year lows of around 3.2% while layoff rates remain near historically low levels of 1.1%. In this “low-hire, low-fire” environment, workers who are already employed have some stability, but job seekers and those looking to advance are in trouble.
This is significant because mobility is the major way for workers to improve earnings, move into higher-productivity roles, and build financial buffers. “When hiring slows and job-switching premiums narrow,” says Beth Ann Bovino, U.S. Bank’s chief economist, “pathways to higher pay and better job matches become more limited.”
As a result, the labor market can appear stable at the aggregate level while becoming less dynamic beneath the surface — particularly for workers in lower-wage or more cyclical industries.
I’ve got to emphasize how badly the war in Iran is aggravating this K-shaped divide. U.S. Bank’s Schoeppner notes that “the resulting higher gasoline prices … may be more of an inconvenience for higher-income households, but for those with thinner buffers, they can quickly crowd out discretionary spending.” The San Francisco Fed has similarly noted that elevated gasoline and grocery costs are consuming a larger share of household budgets among the bottom 80%.
Credit conditions reveal the same widening divide. Bovino notes that lower-income households “tend to rely more heavily on higher-cost borrowing and devote a larger share of income to debt service, leaving them more sensitive to higher rates and reduced credit availability.” Recent Beige Book commentary also points to increased reliance on credit among lower-income households. The April 2026 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey shows tighter lending standards across key segments, suggesting that access to financing is becoming more constrained.
Scott, it’s important that you and your colleagues at the treasury and elsewhere in the Trump administration know what’s going on. The K-shaped economy can make the macro environment appear more stable than it is actually experienced by average working Americans. The fact is, the overall health of the economy increasingly depends on a narrowing base of consumption coming from the wealthy — who are spending because their stock market assets have risen so high but will stop spending if and when the stock market comes back to earth.
Meanwhile, inflation and credit pressures continue to land especially hard on lower-income Americans. In that sense, the K-shaped economy is not just a feature of recent cycles. It’s become the defining characteristic of how today’s economy absorbs shocks and generates growth.
Go ahead, Scott — attack me with all the ad hominem arguments you want. But you need to know the reality I’m talking about. You’re the one with the power. I’m just a retired professor. Your failure to comprehend the struggles facing average working Americans makes me worry that you and your boss will continue to pursue policies that worsen them.
Best wishes, Scott.