And the Interesting Thing is on June 21

Israel Targets Iranian Nuclear Facility as Conflict Enters 9th Day

Iran and Israel traded strikes overnight, with no signs of de-escalation as the conflict enters its 9^th Day. Israel said it launched airstrikes against Iran, including against the Isfahan nuclear site, as Iran said it launched a “large number” of drones and missiles toward central Israel.

Here’s what we know this morning:

· The Isreal Defense Forces (IDF) said it has “eliminated” Saeed Izadi, an Iranian commander in the elite Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and reported architect of the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attack that killed more than 1,200. In a statement on Saturday, the IDF said the air force targeted and killed Izadi “in a hideout in the heart of Iran, following a prolonged intelligence-gathering effort.” “Izadi was responsible for military coordination between the senior commanders of the IRGC and the Iranian regime with key figures in the Hamas terrorist organization. Izadi is sanctioned by the United States and, according to the UK government, is the head of the Palestine branch of the Quds Force.

· Iran’s Deputy Health Minister Iraj Harirchi announced Saturday that the death toll has risen to at least 430 with 3,500 injured, the country’s first update in almost a week. The death toll in Israel from Iran’s retaliatory strikes remains at 24.

· Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said it would be “very, very dangerous for everyone” if the United States becomes actively involved in the war with Israel. He spoke to reporters in Istanbul on his way home from talks in Geneva. Araghchi said American military involvement “would be very unfortunate.”

· Earlier in the day, he told NBC News that Iran is uncertain whether it can trust the United States in diplomatic talks. Asked by NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell whether a deal with the United States could be reached within the two-week time frame recently given by President Donald Trump, Araghchi said it was up to the Trump administration “to show their determination for going for a negotiated solution.” But he suggested Washington was perhaps not genuinely interested in diplomacy and had merely used talks as a “cover” for Israel’s air attack.

· There were few signs of progress after European foreign ministers met with Araghch yesterday in Geneva. The foreign ministers of Germany, Britain, France, plus the EU, urged Iran to engage with the U.S. over its contentious nuclear program even as Tehran has repeatedly insisted it will not open discussions with the Trump administration until Israeli strikes on Iran end. A person briefed on the negotiations told the Financial Times, “We sent them away to think very carefully about their red line. We told them that U.S. military intervention is something that is actually being planned right now.”

· The president offered clarity, telling reporters in a press gaggle that the conflict between Iran and Israel is "very hard to stop," after Iran said it would not negotiate over its nuclear program, adding that he "might," support a ceasefire during a potential negotiation phase between the two countries, "depending on the circumstances." "It's very hard to stop, I will say this, it's very hard to stop when you look at it. Israel is doing well in terms of conflict, and I think you would have to say that Iran is doing less well. It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop."

And the interesting thing is, during that same press gaggle, the president once again with his intelligence community and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard over Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Asked why he disagreed with the assessment of his own intelligence agencies, who said they had no evidence Iran was building a nuclear weapon, Trump responded, “Well, then my intelligence community is wrong.” Trump then asked, “Who in the intelligence community said that?” When told it was Gabbard, he said, “She’s wrong.”

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Gabbard and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been excluded from President Trump’s inner circle as the administration weighs U.S. involvement in the Israel–Iran conflict. Instead, the president has turned to a small group of lower-key but more experienced aides, including Vice President JD Vance, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

Gabbard was reportedly not invited to a high-level Camp David meeting earlier this month, following a bizarre video she posted criticizing “political elite and warmongers” for escalating tensions between nuclear powers—remarks that reportedly infuriated Trump, who viewed them as a veiled critique of Israel’s military actions.

Hegseth, of “Signalgate” fame who has a propensity for sharing sensitive information with family and friends, has been sidelined from operational planning, with officials saying, “nobody is talking to Hegseth” and that there is “no interface operationally between Hegseth and the White House at all.”

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Efforts to Ban Harvard from Enrolling Foreign Students

A federal judge on Friday granted Harvard a preliminary injunction that blocks Trump Administration efforts to bar the school from enrolling international students.

The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston, halts the Department of Homeland Security’s May 22 revocation of Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). That action would have stripped the university of its ability to sponsor visas for nearly 7,000 international students—roughly a quarter of its student body—and barred new foreign students from enrolling.

Judge Burroughs’ order preserves the status quo while Harvard’s lawsuit against the administration proceeds. She also directed federal agencies to issue guidance to consular and customs officers instructing them to disregard the SEVP revocation and document compliance within 72 hours.

Although the judge stopped short of embracing all of Harvard’s requests, the university said that the ruling “allows Harvard to continue enrolling international students and scholars while the case moves forward” and that the university would “continue to defend its rights — and the rights of its students and scholars.”

In a statement late Friday, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the injunction conflicted with presidential authority. ““This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.”

Harvard's lawsuit against the Trump administration, specifically regarding the freeze on federal research funding and the attempt to revoke the university's SEVP certification for international students, is scheduled to begin with oral arguments on July 21st.

And the interesting thing is, after the decision was announced, the president, who has cut about $3.2 billion of federal grants for Harvard, said that his administration has been negotiating with Harvard. “Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution,” Trump said in a post on Friday on Truth Social.

“We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,” he said. “If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”

Trump did not provide any details about the purported “deal.”

Supreme Court Declines to Fast Track Appeals of Trump Tariffs, Leaving them In Place as Lower Courts Consider Legal Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to fast-track a legal challenge to the president’s sweeping tariffs, effectively allowing them to remain in place for now. The decision came in response to an emergency petition filed by two small, family-owned educational toy companies—Learning Resources and hand2mind—who argued that Trump lacked the legal authority to impose the tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The companies had asked the Court to bypass the normal appellate process and take up the case immediately, citing the tariffs’ “massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the nation” and the “unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the president claims.” But in a brief, one sentence, order, the justices rejected the request for expedited review, meaning the case will now proceed through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit before the Supreme Court potentially considers it in the next term.

The manufacturers argued that the statute the president relied on as legal justification for his “Liberation Day” tariffs does not authorize tariffs. Until President Trump, their companies’ brief said, “no president had ever invoked I.E.E.P.A. to impose a single tariff or duty on goods in the statute’s nearly 50-year history.”

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, urged the Court to let the normal appellate process play out, arguing that the plaintiffs had not justified “such a stark departure from established practice”

The companies filed suit in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., challenging Trump’s authority under IEEPA to impose the tariffs. On May 29, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras found that the IEEPA tariffs were illegal and posed an “existential threat” to the businesses. He barred the Trump administration from enforcing the tariffs against the companies that brought the lawsuit. Contreras initially put his order on hold for 14 days to give the government time to appeal, but on June 3—after the government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—he extended that hold pending further appeals.

The companies' lawsuit is separate from another challenge to the president’s tariffs that was filed with the U.S. Court of International Trade. In that case, brought by five U.S.-based companies and a group of 12 states, the trade court permanently blocked Trump's 10% tariff on virtually every U.S. trading partner, as well as duties on imports from Mexico, Canada and China, which the president had imposed in response to what he said was the trafficking of drugs into the U.S. The Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review that decision. The Federal Circuit allowed Trump's tariffs to go back into effect while it considers the appeal and scheduled arguments for July 31.

Once the appeals courts have ruled, appeals to the Supreme Court are all but certain, and the justices are quite likely to take up one or both of them at that point. But for now, both lower court rulings have been paused, allowing the president to press forward with his tariffs.

And the interesting thing is, the Yale Budget Lab (YBL) this week published an update to its State of U.S. Tariffs, measuring policy changes through June 16, including the effects of the president’s June 3 announcement doubling his 25% steel & aluminum tariffs to 50%.

According to YBL’s analysis:

· The average effective U.S. tariff rate has surged to 15.8%, the highest since 1936. Even after accounting for consumer substitution, the rate remains historically elevated at 14.7%, the highest since 1938.

· The short-term impact? A 1.5% rise in the overall price level, translating to an average $2,000 loss in household income for 2025. Because tariffs are a regressive tax, especially in the short-run, lower-income households are hit hardest, with losses estimated at $1,100. Even after adjustments, the average household still loses $1,700 due to the current tariff levels.

· Tariffs are disproportionately impacting clothing and textiles, with consumers facing 33% higher shoe prices and 28% higher apparel prices in the short run. These increases are expected to persist, with long-run price hikes of 18% and 15%, respectively. Food prices rise 2.2% in the short run and stay 2.2% higher in the long run. Car prices rise 13.6% in the short run and 11.9% in the long run, the equivalent of an additional $6,500 and $5,700 respectively to the price of an average new car.

· The broader economic effects are equally stark. Real GDP growth for 2025 is projected to be 0.6 percentage points lower, and the long run economy is expected to shrink by 0.3% annually—roughly $100 billion in 2024 dollars. The labor market is also feeling the strain, with unemployment forecast to rise by 0.3 percentage points and payroll employment down by nearly 400,000 jobs.

· While tariffs are by design, “protectionist,” (making imports more expensive and protecting domestic industries from lower-cost foreign competitors), they often present trade-offs. While U.S. manufacturing output is projected to expand by 1.6%, this growth more than crowds out other sectors: construction output contracts by 3.1% and agriculture declines by 1.1%.

That’s all for today. See you back here again tomorrow!