President Donald Trump intensified pressure on Iran this week ahead of high-stakes diplomatic talks, warning that Tehran’s leadership is operating from a position of weakness while continuing to threaten global shipping lanes and energy markets.

In a fiery post on Truth Social, Trump argued that Iran’s remaining leverage depends almost entirely on its ability to disrupt international waterways, particularly the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz.

“The Iranians don’t seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short-term extortion of the World by using International Waterways,” Trump wrote.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints, carrying a substantial percentage of global oil exports. Any disruption to traffic through the narrow passage has the potential to trigger immediate shocks to global energy prices and international markets.

Trump made clear that he believes Iran’s military capabilities have been severely weakened following recent U.S. and allied operations in the region.

“The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate!” Trump added.

The president also claimed that Iran’s military infrastructure has been devastated.

“Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft apparatus is nonexistent, Radar is dead,” Trump wrote.

He further asserted that Iran’s missile systems and drone networks had been “largely obliterated,” along with many of the weapons themselves, and suggested that several longtime regime figures “are no longer with us.”

The comments come as a senior U.S. delegation prepares for direct negotiations with Iranian officials aimed at ending escalating hostilities in the region. According to reports, Vice President JD Vance will lead the American delegation alongside Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and senior adviser Jared Kushner. Talks are reportedly scheduled to take place in Pakistan this weekend.

Trump also claimed the United States is actively securing the Strait of Hormuz following recent threats involving sea mines and attacks on shipping routes.

“The only thing they have going is the threat that a ship may ‘bunk’ into one of their sea mines,” Trump wrote, adding that “all 28 of their mine dropper boats are also lying at the bottom of the sea.”

“We’re now starting the process of clearing out the Strait of Hormuz as a favor to Countries all over the World,” Trump continued, specifically naming China, Japan, South Korea, France, and Germany.

Trump also stated that multiple major oil tankers were currently headed toward the United States “to LOAD UP with Oil,” underscoring the broader economic stakes tied to the conflict.

Meanwhile, John Fetterman delivered unusually strong criticism of portions of the American media during an appearance on Fox News Thursday night. Speaking with host Jesse Watters, Fetterman argued that some media organizations appeared more interested in undermining Trump than accurately portraying Iran’s actions and history.

Watters asked, “Senator, do some members of your party think Trump is more dangerous than the Iranians?”

“I can’t speak for my other Democrats, but the American media has, essentially, become — carrying water for Iran,” Fetterman responded. “And they’re describing the kinds of circumstances, then they forget the way Iran has behaved.”

“And why can’t we just call what Iran has been — and what it continues to do, those things? America is the force of good in the world, and holding Iran accountable, what they’ve done, is important,” he added.

Fetterman has increasingly broken with parts of his own party regarding Iran and Middle East policy, frequently supporting strong military responses and criticizing what he sees as overly sympathetic portrayals of the Iranian regime.

Last month, Fetterman also engaged in a tense exchange with Kaitlan Collins on CNN while defending recent U.S. military operations tied to Iran. At one point during the heated discussion, Fetterman bluntly told Collins, “You don’t have to cut me off here.”

The appearance came after international fallout surrounding a February 28 Tomahawk missile strike in southeastern Iran reportedly hit the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab. Iranian officials claimed at least 175 people, including many children, were killed.

A preliminary U.S. military review later reportedly found the strike stemmed from faulty targeting intelligence based on outdated information supplied by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Officials stated the intended target had been a nearby Iranian military facility.

As negotiations approach, tensions remain extremely high, with the outcome likely to shape not only the future of U.S.-Iran relations but also the stability of global energy markets and the broader balance of power in the Middle East.

Senate Republicans are preparing to bring the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act — better known as the SAVE Act — to the Senate floor in the coming weeks, signaling a major escalation in the GOP’s effort to require proof of citizenship for participation in federal elections.

John Thune, the Senate Majority Leader, confirmed Monday that the legislation is moving forward after additional technical revisions are completed. The bill has become one of the top election-security priorities for Republicans and President Donald Trump ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The legislation would require anyone registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof that they are a U.S. citizen. Acceptable forms of verification would include documents such as passports, birth certificates, naturalization papers, or other government-issued records confirming citizenship status.

In addition, the SAVE Act would direct states to coordinate with federal agencies including the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security to verify voter eligibility and identify non-citizens who may appear on voter rolls. States would also be required to remove non-citizens from registration databases if discovered, while election officials who knowingly process registrations without proper documentation could face penalties.

Thune said the Senate would move the legislation to the floor “at some point soon,” though he stopped short of providing a specific date. Republican leadership is reportedly finalizing updated language clarifying which forms of identification will qualify under the bill.

The SAVE Act already cleared the United States House of Representatives on April 10 by a narrow 220-208 margin. Four Democrats — Jared Golden, Ed Case, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, and Henry Cuellar — joined Republicans in backing the measure.

Despite Republican enthusiasm, the legislation faces a difficult path in the Senate. Under current rules, most legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning Republicans would likely need Democratic support unless Senate rules change.

Even so, GOP leaders appear eager to force a public vote, putting Senate Democrats on record on an issue Republicans believe resonates strongly with voters concerned about election integrity and border security.

The bill has also triggered tension within Republican ranks. Earlier this year, Anna Paulina Luna led a group of House conservatives threatening to block unrelated legislation until the Senate agreed to hold a vote on the SAVE Act. Luna described the legislation as a defining test of Congress’s commitment to election security.

Currently, federal law requires individuals registering to vote to attest under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens, but documentation proving citizenship is not required nationwide. Supporters of the SAVE Act argue that the current system leaves room for administrative mistakes and weakens public trust in elections.

Republicans have increasingly framed the legislation as a commonsense safeguard aimed at ensuring that only American citizens participate in federal elections. They point to polling showing broad support for voter identification requirements and stronger verification measures.

A recent survey conducted by Quantus Insights found that 74 percent of respondents supported requiring proof of citizenship to vote, while only 16 percent opposed the idea.

Democrats and civil rights groups, however, have criticized the legislation as unnecessary and potentially burdensome for some eligible voters. Opponents argue that many Americans — particularly elderly citizens, low-income individuals, rural residents, or people born outside hospital systems — may struggle to quickly obtain required documentation such as birth certificates or passports.

Groups including the Brennan Center for Justice argue that documented cases of non-citizen voting remain extremely rare. The organization has stated that such cases account for only “a fraction of a fraction of a percent” of ballots cast nationwide.

Still, Republicans contend the issue is larger than raw numbers alone, arguing that public confidence in elections depends on strong safeguards and transparent verification systems. Trump has repeatedly endorsed the SAVE Act, describing it as a critical step toward restoring trust in American elections and ensuring that only citizens participate in the democratic process.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats including Chuck Schumer and Raphael Warnock have vowed to oppose the measure. Schumer has argued that lawmakers should prioritize expanding access to voting rather than imposing additional federal requirements.

Even if the legislation stalls in Washington, Republicans say the effort is far from over. GOP-led states including Texas, Florida, and Arizona are already advancing their own citizenship-verification and voter identification laws at the state level, signaling that election integrity will remain a central political battle heading into 2026.

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued a major unanimous ruling that could significantly reshape the trucking, freight, and logistics industries nationwide, holding that freight brokers can be sued under state negligence laws for hiring unsafe trucking companies.

The 9-0 decision in *Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC* is being viewed as one of the most consequential transportation rulings in years and is expected to have far-reaching effects on freight operations, insurance costs, litigation exposure, and safety oversight across the trucking industry.

The case stemmed from a devastating 2017 crash on Interstate 70 in Illinois involving a semi-truck arranged by C.H. Robinson, one of the largest freight brokers in the country.

Plaintiff Shawn Montgomery suffered catastrophic injuries, including the loss of part of his leg, after a truck driver crashed into his parked tractor-trailer. Montgomery argued that C.H. Robinson should bear responsibility because the broker allegedly hired a carrier with a known history of safety issues and failed to properly vet the company before putting the truck on the road.

At the center of the legal battle was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, commonly referred to as the FAAAA. Freight brokers argued the law broadly preempts state-level lawsuits involving broker “prices, routes, or services,” effectively shielding brokers from negligence claims tied to trucking accidents.

Lower courts in the Seventh Circuit agreed with C.H. Robinson and ruled that Montgomery’s claims were barred under federal law.

But the Supreme Court unanimously reversed that decision in an opinion authored by Amy Coney Barrett.

The Court concluded that the FAAAA contains what is known as a “safety exception,” allowing states to continue enforcing laws connected to motor vehicle safety. Barrett wrote that negligent hiring claims against freight brokers directly “concern” motor vehicles because brokers play a critical role in choosing the trucking companies operating on public roads.

In practical terms, the decision means freight brokers can no longer automatically invoke federal preemption to avoid lawsuits involving crashes caused by carriers they selected. Plaintiffs may now pursue claims arguing brokers negligently hired trucking companies with unsafe drivers, poor inspection histories, or repeated safety violations.

The trucking and logistics industries are already warning that the ruling could dramatically increase legal exposure and operational costs. Industry groups argued during the case that opening brokers to negligence lawsuits could trigger a surge in litigation, raise insurance premiums, and force brokers to spend far more time and resources investigating carriers before assigning loads.

Some industry leaders fear the ruling could ultimately slow freight movement nationwide and increase shipping costs that may eventually be passed along to consumers through higher prices on goods and services.

Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged those concerns in a concurring opinion, describing the case as “close” and recognizing that the ruling could create substantial economic ripple effects throughout the freight sector. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh agreed that public safety considerations outweighed the transportation industry’s arguments for broad immunity.

The ruling is expected to force many freight brokers to overhaul their internal vetting and compliance systems. Transportation attorneys say brokers will likely begin conducting more aggressive background reviews on carriers, closely monitoring Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration safety scores, and keeping extensive documentation explaining why certain carriers were selected for shipments.

The Supreme Court’s decision also resolves a longstanding split among federal appeals courts. Prior to the ruling, the Ninth and Sixth Circuits allowed these negligence claims to proceed, while the Seventh Circuit blocked them under federal preemption rules. The Court’s unanimous ruling now creates a nationwide legal standard.

Legal analysts say the decision could trigger a major increase in lawsuits following catastrophic trucking accidents. Instead of targeting only truck drivers and trucking companies, plaintiffs’ attorneys are now expected to aggressively pursue freight brokers as additional defendants, particularly when accidents involve carriers with troubling safety records or repeated regulatory violations.

For the freight industry, the ruling marks a major shift in legal liability — one that could permanently alter how brokers select carriers, manage risk, and conduct business moving forward.