The Brief

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, as of Thursday, has ended a new mortgage-rescue program that so far has helped about 20,000 veterans avoid foreclosure and keep their homes.

The move leaves millions of military veterans with far worse options than most other American homeowners if they run into trouble paying their home loans. And it comes at a time when nearly 90,000 VA loans are seriously past due, with 33,000 of those already in the foreclosure process, according to the data and analytics firm ICE.

At issue is the VA Servicing Purchase program, or VASP. It was put in place during the Biden administration after missteps by the VA left homeowners with no affordable way to catch up on their VA-backed home loans if they fell behind. VASP rolls the homeowners' missed payments into a new, low-interest rate loan that the VA then owns outright. With today's higher mortgage rates of around 7%, it is often the only affordable option for homeowners with VA loans.

But Republicans in Congress have been critical of the VA Servicing Purchase
program, saying it puts too much taxpayer money at risk. In a statement this week to NPR, the VA said, "[As of May 1,] the program, which was unilaterally created by the Biden Administration and lacks congressional authority, will stop accepting new enrollees."

Mortgage industry groups, housing advocates and veterans organizations have been warning the VA that shutting down VASP without replacing it with something else first would result in large numbers of veterans losing their homes, many of whom are in this financial peril because of the VA's own mistakes.

"With the expiration of VASP, tens of thousands of Veterans and their families are now at significant risk of losing their homes," said Mike Calhoun, president of the nonprofit Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for the financial rights of underserved communities, including veterans.

His group is urging Congress to quickly pass legislation to create a new program to fill the gap, and he said, "VA should extend VASP until this program is up and running."

Thousands of vets left stranded, again

Thousands of veterans were left facing foreclosure two years ago after the VA abruptly canceled a key part of a pandemic-era mortgage relief program that allowed veterans to skip mortgage payments if they had trouble paying. When an NPR investigation first uncovered the VA's move in late 2023, there were about 40,000 vets in danger of losing their homes.

Kevin Conlon is one of them.

Conlon and his wife, Jenny, live in upstate New York, not far from where he was stationed with the Army at Fort Drum. After his two combat tours in Iraq, about 12 years ago the couple had a young kid and were struggling to pay rent and save money. Getting a VA loan meant that they could buy a house with no down payment. And they've been there ever since.

"That's the longest I've been in one place," said Conlon.

"Without the VA loan, there was no way that we could have afforded to buy a house," his wife added.

Kevin Conlon and his wife, Jenny, at their home in upstate New York. The couple have owned the house for 12 years and don't know where they would go if they lose it.

(

Cindy Schultz for NPR

)

The VA home loan has long been a bedrock benefit of the GI Bill, giving vets a leg up into the middle class.

But all that came unraveled for tens of thousands of vets like Conlon who were on what's known as a mortgage forbearance. It was supposed to help them during a time of financial hardship by pausing their monthly payments and then giving them an affordable way to start paying again and get current. After NPR reported that the VA had shut down the only affordable option for veterans to do that, the VA responded by halting foreclosures for a full year while it rolled out its VASP rescue plan.

While they've been waiting to get into VASP, the Conlons have been told not to make payments, so they've been falling further and further behind, and they say their family has nowhere to go if they lose this house.

"I joined right after Sept. 11th," said Conlon, who grew up in Queens, N.Y., and was in Manhattan the day of the attacks.

Conlon's wounds from his time in Iraq aren't visible, but they've taken years to heal. During his two combat tours, roadside bombs hit his convoys repeatedly and left him with traumatic brain injuries. On the second tour, his best friend died when he hugged a suicide bomber to the ground, giving his life to protect his friends. The trauma and survivor's guilt wounded Conlon, he says, as bad as the blast injuries. He struggled with PTSD and thoughts of suicide for more than a decade before finally getting to a stable, healthy place.

"I was willing to die for what I believed in. And for someone [to] ... take away the home that my family lives in? Like we've paid enough, we've really paid enough," he said.

Referring to the VA winding down VASP, VA spokesman Pete Kasperowicz told NPR, "This change is necessary because VA is not set up or intended to be a mortgage loan restructuring service."

Republicans have their own plan, but it's not in place yet 

Republican critics in Congress don't like that VASP buys the rescued loans from the mortgage industry and then holds the loans on the VA's own books. They say the VA would lose too much money if the homeowners fall behind again.

"The Trump administration rightfully put an end to VA's VASP program," said a joint statement from Rep. Mike Bost, an Illinois Republican and chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a Wisconsin Republican, when VA announced its plan to end VASP.

Van Orden has sponsored a bill to replace VASP with what's known as a "partial claim" program that experts say would help vets struggling to keep their homes by moving their missed payments to the back of their loan term so they would pay them back down the road.

But between VASP ending and Van Orden's bill possibly becoming law is a chasm that could swallow thousands of VA home loans.

Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin arrives at the U.S. Capitol in 2023.

(

Chip Somodevilla

/

Getty Images

)

"Veteran borrowers will face otherwise preventable foreclosures, which harm the government through increased payouts as well as harm Veteran homeowners," warned the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center and the Center for Responsible lending in a letter to Congress last month.

"Without VASP or immediate access to alternative policy tools that provide relief … many of these homeowners will be forced to sell their homes and move or face foreclosure," the letter said.

In the wake of the move by the VA, Democrats and Republicans in Congress both say they want to pass legislation to give veterans with VA loans better options for avoiding foreclosure. But it's unclear how long that will take.

In the meantime, veterans behind on their mortgages have far worse options than most other Americans who have loans backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Federal Housing Administration. Those entities all have loss mitigation options that allow homeowners to catch up on missed payments without being forced into a new modified loan at today's high interest rates.

Vets left in limbo and disbelief

For their part, veterans interviewed by NPR feel like the VA has now repeatedly stranded them by first offering them a lifeline and then cutting the rope once they grabbed hold.

"I feel let down and deceived," said Samuel McCrary, a Marine Corps vet with three young kids in Loganville, Ga. The new VASP program looked like it was going to save his house, but now the VA has ended new enrollments in it and he says his mortgage company can only tell him his application for VASP is "pending."

"I believe that we are going to lose the house," McCrary said. "Losing my house and having to go rent — it makes me sick to my stomach to think about."

Even veterans who have made it into the VASP program aren't sure if they'll be OK. That's because many of those vets are in a VASP three-month trial payment period. The VA says vets who have entered that process can continue it through August, "subject to VA's determination that funds remain available for VASP."

The VA did not respond to NPR's request for information about how much funding is available or how many more veterans in these trial periods will in fact be placed into affordable VASP loans.

Veterans also tell NPR they feel like they're scapegoated and paying the price for the VA's mistakes.

At a recent House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee hearing, Rep. Van Orden criticized VASP this way:

"I understand the whole developmental process of this, and it was moronic," Van Orden said. "It gets rid of a bum loan, and it passes it off to the American taxpayers."

That comment did not sit well with fellow Iraq veteran Conlon and his wife, Jenny.

"That's a hell of a thing to say about his brothers and sisters," said Conlon.

Iraq war veteran Kevin Conlon is among tens of thousands of veterans left facing foreclosure because of a debacle in the VA home loan program.

(

Cindy Schultz for NPR

)

"That was so hurtful because these are not bum loans, and they're making the veterans and their families out to sound like irresponsible people," his wife added.

The couple says Kevin took the forbearance so he could get treatment for PTSD.  "That's why we needed it, so he could go inpatient at a veterans program," Jenny said.

The Conlons say they followed the VA's instructions and then got stuck when the VA shut off part of its forbearance program in 2022. Then they followed the VA's instructions again by applying for the new rescue program, VASP. And the VA now says it's shutting that off. Their mortgage company tells them they are enrolled in the VASP trial payment plan, but it's unclear whether the VA will determine it has funding to help all the veterans on those trial plans with permanent new VASP loans.

"The level of just mistrust I have — I mean, I get they're trying to cut spending and all that, but it's like, how do you justify cutting something that is to help the vets who were basically put in this position because of you?" Conlon said.

NPR asked the VA if it's concerned about veterans losing their homes after it shuts down VASP with no replacement ready yet. A VA spokesman has not answered that question but at one point referred our reporters to Congress.

NPR asked the Republican House VA committee leadership the same question; that office referred our reporters back to the VA.
Copyright 2025 NPR

For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.

Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops.

But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.

With the summer deadline rapidly approaching, cities across the state are starting to wiggle.

Like a statewide game of Choose Your Own Adventure, local elected officials for the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles to San Diego are exploring ways to either lean into the spirit of the law, come up with their own plan tailored to the city’s whims and needs, or slow the local roll out for as long as possible while considering their options. Those that do nothing will be forced to accept the transit-oriented rezoning prescribed by state legislators.

Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time.

The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period.

For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030.

Likewise, many lower income neighborhoods, those at risk of wildfire and sea-level rise or sites listed on a historic preservation registry also qualify for that temporary delay.

L.A.’s city council mashed every pause button it could.

Along with temporarily exempting zoning changes in poorer neighborhoods, known fire zones and historic districts, the council preemptively voted to allow modest multiplex buildings as tall as three or four stories in dozens of higher-income neighborhoods currently restricted to single family homes. That will bring those areas up above the cut-off needed for the four-year reprieve, according to the city’s planning staff.

By swallowing a little more allowable density in the short term, the city was able to ward off a whole lot more — for now. Backers of the measure said that will give the city more time to come up with a better alternative that still complies with the law.

The vote “adds meaningful housing capacity now and gives us time to decide where the rest of density should go within our own communities,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said before the vote.

When 2030 arrives, the city will either have to come up with its own plan that meets the overall density requirements of the state law — but with some allowable flexibility over where all the potential growth goes — or belatedly accept SB 79 whole cloth.

The L.A. vote came as a disappointment to many pro-development advocates, who have called upon city officials to speedily accept the state-imposed densification immediately, or barring that, to take more aggressive steps in the meantime.

“We’re pretty concerned that this is not actually going to produce housing,” said Scott Epstein, policy and research director with Abundant Housing Los Angeles, a “Yes In My Backyard” oriented advocacy group.

He noted that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to be financially feasible in areas where land costs are exceptionally high. The city’s ordinance achieves its increase in allowable density by permitting modest apartment buildings in relatively affluent neighborhoods.

But even some of the state law’s fiercest defenders see a silver lining in the city’s delay tactic.

“On the one hand, it’s disappointing because we're delaying the full potential of the law,” said Aaron Eckhouse, local policy programs director for California YIMBY, one of the sponsors of SB 79. But in Los Angeles, he noted, city officials have long been fiercely resistant to proposed zoning changes in neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.

Now Los Angeles council members are effectively saying, “‘okay, we will do this on our terms rather than on the state’s terms,’” said Eckhouse. “But it is still happening, because the state forced the issue.”

How can cities go their own way?

The Los Angeles approach mirrors one being pursued by officials in San Francisco. There officials are considering a policy of exempting industrial areas and many of the city’s low-resource neighborhoods, while preemptively pushing up the allowable density on certain low-rise locations to get them over the 50% threshold and qualify for a delay until 2032.

But unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco doesn’t plan to spend years coming up with a bespoke local alternative. Instead, the city is proposing to roll out its own version before July 1. That task was made a bit easier given that local officials just wrapped up a citywide densification effort last year as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning Plan.”

The current proposal is set to be heard by a Board of Supervisors subcommittee later this month.

For cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that decide to come up with their own local plans, they will still need to get the approval of state housing regulators. Officials from California’s Housing Department have yet to publicly weigh in on any individual city’s plans. But their boss has. In a handful of social media posts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has lambasted Los Angeles and San Diego for their proposed efforts to shield certain portions of their city from the requirements of the law. Newsom did not suggest that either city was violating the law itself.

Some cities may simply decide not to bother. Sacramento, for example, will soon consider an ordinance that would make modest tweaks to the way it accepts development applications subject to the state law, but otherwise leaves the state-set zoning rules intact.

Other municipalities, with smaller budgets and fewer professional planners on staff, may not have much choice but to accept the requirements of the state law, said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, which opposed the bill when it was working its way through the Legislature.

Rhine said that some cities are still scrambling to understand the basics of the statute, such as how it applies to future transit infrastructure or how the law defines distance from a transit stop.

“If you’re a planner trying to come up with an alternative plan authorized by (the law), you don't have the information needed to even get started,” said Rhine. He said he is urging state lawmakers to consider extending the July 1 deadline. No one has taken him up on the idea yet.

‘A matter of urgency’

In Oakland, the decision over whether to delay or accept the state upzoning has played out at the neighborhood level.

Last month, the city’s planning staff proposed an ordinance to take the full suite of possible delays in order to buy time and develop an alternative plan. This, city staff stressed, was not about opposition to the goals of state law, but about a preference among local planners to reconsider the city’s plan comprehensively and at all once, rather than in fits and starts.

“It’s no dispute over outcome,” Oakland Planning Director William Gilchrist told the council. “I think it really comes down to a question of when and how.”

Even so, three city council members objected, arguing, in effect, that they would like the state’s override in their districts now, thank you very much.

Zac Unger, who represents some of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods in North Oakland, argued that parcels that have already achieved the 50% density threshold should not be exempt in his district, especially because the bulk of them are located along busy commercial corridors.

Change is coming, one way or another, he argued at council. “I am arguing for, in a sense, coming to grips with that reality right now rather than spending a year providing people with the false idea that we can somehow exempt ourselves from state law.”

Two other members — Charlene Wang and Ken Houston — who represent some of the low-resource neighborhoods entitled to delay, also wanted to adopt the law in their districts now. “In an urban area like Oakland we should be far exceeding the density minimums in (state law),” said Wang.

In a follow-up interview, Unger noted that the debate in Oakland may be more symbolic than it is in other cities. By happenstance, city planners have been working for years toward an overhaul of the city’s zoning map, which they aim to wrap up next year. In other words, Oakland is likely to have an alternative plan that complies with the state law’s requirements by 2027 anyway.

“If we implement SB 79 on July 1 of this year instead of July 1 of next year, there won’t be buildings blowing up from the street,” he said. “It’s just a matter of urgency — and a statement of values.”

Aside from those cities that are racing to embrace the state law and those seeking delay or their own versions, there is another possible category: Those that resist the law entirely.

After California lawmakers passed a law in 2021 allowing homeowners to split up their properties into as many as four separate units, density-averse cities pushed back. Some took the state to court, others explored adopting municipal charters, one flirted with the idea of becoming a mountain lion refuge. None of the measures ultimately succeeded.

If SB 79 is met with a similar array of resistance, we aren’t likely to see that until after the July 1 deadline, said Eckhouse with California YIMBY.

“The reason to do something now is either to lean into it or to use the provisions of the law for flexibility and deferrals,” he said. “But if they just want to stand in the door and say ‘no,’ we might not find out about that until the zoning standards go into effect.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

MacArthur Park will briefly look different this summer.

City officials and community groups are planning a two-day event for a FIFA World Cup watch party in July. The events will close a part of Wilshire Boulevard that passes through the park and turn the street into a pedestrian space.

For some residents, that change can’t come soon enough.

“I support this idea because right now kids aren’t really able to play in this area,” said Palea Hernandez, a Westlake resident and mother of three young children. “It’s not safe and clean enough for them.”

The events, scheduled for July 10 and 11, will coincide with the playoff matches. The teams have not been determined yet. Organized by Council District 1, the events will include food vendors, a large screen to view the games, and family activities.

Organizers say the goal is not just to celebrate the tournament, but to give residents a preview of what MacArthur Park could become.

The concept mirrors the proposed Reconnecting MacArthur Park project, which would permanently close the stretch of Wilshire that cuts through the park and unify its north and south sides into one continuous green space.

“They do plan to close Wilshire Boulevard between the parks to be showing the World Cup,” said Diana Alfaro of Central City Neighborhood Partners. “So that is something that’s basically the same as reconnecting MacArthur Park.”

More than 60% of surveyed residents support removing the roadway, according to preliminary findings from that study.

The World Cup events will offer a temporary version of that idea.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation plans to release a report on their outreach into the community and an evaluation on alternatives to reconnecting Wilshire Boulevard. The open streets event in the summer will preview potential changes to the area.

Organizers plan to model the event after open-street initiatives like CicLAvia, using a road closure to create space for pedestrians. Chelsea Lucktenberg, a spokesperson for Council District 1, said there will also be community organizations tabling with resources, including on where to get grocery and rental assistance. 

“We’re also looking to have activities and fun. Maybe a soccer clinic and other pop-up workshops,” she said.

The office is still finalizing details, but outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May.

Lucktenberg said a similar event had been planned for last June but was canceled due to safety concerns during a period of heightened immigration enforcement activity in the area.

Not everyone is convinced the event alone will make a difference.

“If I’m being honest, I hate LA. I don’t like this place,” said Alex Valenzuela, who was born in Westlake and visits the area periodically when he has business at the Mexican consulate nearby. “The park is nice, but I just don’t like the fact that everywhere you see, there are homeless people, people smoking, people on drugs.”

Concerns about homelessness and drug activity came up repeatedly in interviews with residents and workers near the park.

Fernando Rodriguez, owner of Variedades A and K, where he does money transfers and sells vitamins and other household supplies, supports the idea as long as it does not disrupt access for workers. 

He believes kids could benefit from closing down Wilshire and opening it up for activities, but that the city needs to address homelessness in the area.

“Every day it’s packed with homeless people. The kids come to play in the park, but I’ve seen the homelessness and drugs,” he said. “Even if they close down to provide activities for kids, it’s not going to be safe for them if all the homeless are still here.”

Jonathan Santos, a leasing agent inside the MacArthur Park swap meet, said he would support the plan if it leads to visible improvements.

MacArthur Park will briefly look different this summer.

(

Steve Saldivar

/

The LA Local

)

“I would support this if it gets rid of the homelessness. I’m sick and tired of it,” Santos said. “I think closing down this street might be the beginning of something.”

Santos, who grew up in the neighborhood, said he no longer feels comfortable bringing his children to the park.

“My kids do not like it here … No way I would let them come here to play at MacArthur Park,” he said.

Others said more activity could help shift the feel of the park, even if temporarily.

“I feel like it will take a lot of homeless people away if they see a lot of people in the area with little kids,” said Erica Garcia, a local resident and mother. “I’ve been living here for two years now and I don’t bring my kid out here because it’s not safe.”

Garcia said she would be open to bringing her baby out to the park in July to experience the World Cup activation if there are extra security guards and police patrolling the area.

Outreach to local vendors and businesses is expected to begin in May as organizers finalize plans for the July event. Lucktenberg said residents can also expect to hear more about the events starting in May. The viewing parties at the park are just some of several that will be hosted across the city, including a block party at Liberty Park in Koreatown.

Neither of those parties are officially sanctioned by FIFA, who are planning to host their own events at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

The post FIFA World Cup events to close Wilshire through MacArthur Park for two days in July appeared first on LA Local.

Early spring means the return of warm weather and … taxes. On a recent weekend, Dan and Glynna Courter were enjoying the sun with friends over a picnic of blueberries and Cheez-Its at Birmingham's Railroad Park.

When the topic moved to how they're feeling about their tax refunds, nearly everyone at the gathering responded with a chorus of lukewarm just fines.

The lack of enthusiasm was surprising considering everyone on the picnic blanket received sizable refunds, including about $10,000 for the Courters combined. But Glynna thinks their refund wasn't that much different from last year. The couple withhold the maximum taxes from their paychecks, which helps them avoid the risk of owing taxes and leads to a bigger refund.

"We might go to a nice restaurant," Dan added, after Glynna said they'd use the refund for savings.

This is not the vibe Republican lawmakers were planning for this tax season. The White House had already declared this the "largest tax refund season in U.S. history," and so far it's on track to be, due to the Republicans' signature tax and spending law, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The White House projected the average refund "to rise by $1,000 or more this year."

But that extra refund bump has fallen short of that projection.

So far, the average refund has totaled about $350 more than last year. By early April, the average tax refund sat at $3,462, which is 11.1% higher than the same point last year, according to the IRS.

And Americans appear to be shrugging their shoulders at the tax changes. A recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank advising on federal policy, found 62% of respondents either thought the tax changes harmed them or made no difference. Even among Republicans, only 35% said the changes favored them.

"There's a bit of a disappointment in how much those refunds are," said Tom O'Saben, the director of tax content and government relations at the National Association of Tax Professionals. "People are quietly, perhaps, happy but not to the extent where I would call it significant."

Americans who owe taxes could be seeing a bigger slice of the savings

One possible explanation for the lower refunds is that the benefits from the tax law changes could be showing up more for Americans who don't receive refunds, but owe taxes. The IRS data on tax refunds this season does not factor in how much less Americans owed compared to last year.

"The evidence is stronger that more tax relief is relatively flowing to those who otherwise would owe when they file," said Don Schneider, deputy head of U.S. policy at the investment bank Piper Sandler.

But Schneider points out that owing less money is harder to notice than getting cash in hand.

"Getting it in a refund is probably more impactful, more easy to understand than having a reduction in what you otherwise would owe," Schneider said.

Higher-income procrastinators still have to file

Wealthier filers so far seem to have received larger benefits from the tax changes.

"Higher income taxpayers are much more likely than lower income taxpayers to report significantly higher refunds this year," said Andrew Lautz, director of tax policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

That's due in part to the increase in the SALT, or state and local tax, deduction cap raised by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Filers can now deduct up to $40,000 for property, sales and income taxes paid to state and local governments. The deduction primarily goes to wealthier Americans who own homes with big mortgage payments.

Since they traditionally are more likely to procrastinate sending in their returns, that could cause this year's average tax refund to grow later on, but likely still fall short of the additional $1,000 mark, Lautz said. "It is unlikely that we will see that kind of boost by the end of this."

Refunds are getting eaten up by higher gas prices

Part of the tepid response to refunds could be related to the extra cash Americans are spending at the pump.

The war with Iran has brought the average price for a gallon of regular in the U.S. well above $4. Data from the Bank of America Institute and PNC shows consumers have continued spending on gas, and depending on how long gas prices stay elevated, all of the benefits Americans received from the 2025 tax and spending bill could go solely to staying fueled up.

"The tax refund season might be very good, but it's also being offset by this price in gasoline," said Michael Pearce, chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics.

Bob Jones, a retiree in Birmingham, is satisfied with his refund. He benefited from an extra deduction of $6,000 for a lot of seniors 65 and up. But the war with Iran has him worried about what that means for the price of gas, so he's put it all in savings.

"You need the savings simply for gas," Jones said.

Copyright 2026 NPR

Updated April 15, 2026 at 11:21 AM ET

The U.S. military said it had "completely halted" all commercial trade moving in and out of Iran's ports, less than 36 hours after imposing a naval blockade.

The announcement comes after President Trump ordered the U.S. Navy to enforce a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz following U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad over the weekend that ended without any agreement.

But on Tuesday, Trump told the New York Post a second round of direct talks could resume in Islamabad within two days.

In a Wednesday morning interview with Fox Business, Trump said the war with Iran was "very close" to ending.

"I view it as very close to being over," Trump told anchor Maria Bartiromo.

Trump has repeatedly suggested the war is nearing an end without offering a clear timeline.

The latest developments came as the International Monetary Fund warned Tuesday that the global economy could be heading toward a recession triggered by the war.

A girl plays with a bubble blower at an unofficial camp for displaced people in Beirut's waterfront area on Tuesday.

(

Joseph Eid

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Here are more updates from the region:

U.S. blockade | Peace talks | Recession fears | Israel-Hezbollah fighting

U.S. military says it has blocked Iranian ports

A top U.S. military commander said U.S. forces have imposed a blockade of Iranian ports and have established "maritime superiority" in the Middle East.

"In less than 36 hours since the blockade was implemented, U.S. forces have completely halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea," Adm. Bradley Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command, which oversees Middle East operations, said in a statement shared online early Wednesday local time. He suggested the U.S. blockade brought to a halt Iran's economy, which relies on international trade by sea.

The U.S. blockade of Iranian ports entered into force on Monday following face-to-face negotiations between U.S. and Iranian officials in Islamabad to end the war. According to Trump, the meeting failed to achieve a breakthrough over Iran's insistence to continue its nuclear program.

A ship is seen off the coast of Ras al-Khaimah, the day after the failure of US-Iran peace talks on Monday.

(

AFP via Getty Images

)

The blockade is seen as a tactic to pressure Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 20% of the global supply of oil and gas normally moves. It's also a key passageway for other goods such as fertilizer, aluminum and helium.

Iran closed the waterway in retaliation to U.S. and Israeli strikes on Feb. 28. It has let a small fraction of ships through from countries it considers friendly or neutral in the conflict. An Iranian lawmaker told state media recently that Iran collects $2 million fees from some vessels passing through the strait. Trump called the move "extortion."

The U.S. military said Tuesday 10,000 U.S. service members, more than 100 aircraft and over 12 warships were enforcing the blockade of vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.

The shipping information firm Lloyd's List said at least one ship, the Rich Starry, a combined chemical and oil tanker, transited the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday morning local time and then made a U-turn in the Gulf of Oman.

The U.S. military said six merchant vessels "complied with direction from U.S. forces to turn around."

Trump says peace talks in Pakistan could resume this week

In an interview with The New York Post on Tuesday, Trump said additional peace talks between the U.S. and Iran "could be happening over the next two days" in Islamabad.

Peace talks in Pakistan's capital over the weekend ended after 21 hours without any agreement.

"You should stay there, really, because something could be happening over the next two days, and we're more inclined to go there," Trump said, referring to Islamabad.

He went on to praise Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, for doing a "great job" in mediating the talks.

"He's fantastic, and therefore it's more likely that we go back there," Trump said.

Pakistan, which holds strong diplomatic relations with both the U.S. and Iran, has emerged as a key mediator in negotiations between the two countries.

Vice President Vance, Washington's lead negotiator, said a major sticking point that led to the breakdown in Saturday's talks was Iran's refusal to commit to abandoning its nuclear ambitions.

"The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon," Vance said.

President Trump speaks to the press outside the Oval Office at the White House on Monday.

(

Brendan Smialowski

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

However, he left open the possibility an agreement could still be reached, saying: "We leave here with a very simple proposal: a method of understanding that is our final and best offer," adding, "We'll see if the Iranians accept it."

Iran said the two sides had "reached an understanding on a number of issues, but ultimately the talks did not lead to an agreement." Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a member of the Iranian negotiating team, accused the U.S. delegation of "maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade."

Iran, under its 10-point negotiation plan, demanded an end to Israel's attacks against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah as part of any permanent agreement. Other demands from the Iranian delegation included the release of $6 billion in frozen assets, guarantees around its nuclear program and the right to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

IMF warns global economy at risk of recession

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned Tuesday that the war with Iran could trigger a global recession that would hit the U.K. more than any other G7 country.

In its biannual update, the IMF cut its estimate for U.K. growth this year to 0.8%, down from the 1.3% prediction made in January.

The U.K. imports the majority of its oil and gas from abroad.

The Resolution Foundation, a British think tank, says U.K. households will already be about $500 (£480) worse off this year due to the war.

Britain's finance minister, Rachel Reeves, issued a sharp critique of the U.S.-Iran war on Tuesday, which she called a "folly" with no clear exit plan.

"I feel very frustrated and angry that the U.S. went into this war without a clear exit plan, without a clear idea of what they're trying to achieve," Reeves told the British newspaper The Mirror.

A man fixes the United Arab Emirates' national flag to the roof of his house in Dubai on Tuesday, after a call by the Emirati leaders urging people across the country to hoist the flag as a symbol of unity and pride.

(

Fadel Senna

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, meanwhile, told the BBC that U.S. ally countries were going to suffer a "small bit of economic pain," but said it would be worth it to eliminate the threat of Iranian nuclear strikes on Western capitals.

"I wonder what the hit to global GDP would be if a nuclear weapon hit London…I am saying that I am less concerned about short-term forecasts, for long-term security," he said.

Across Europe and beyond, governments have begun implementing emergency fuel tax cuts in response to surging prices.

In Ireland, the government announced more than $589 million (€500 million) in tax cuts on motor fuel over the weekend following a week of protests over high fuel prices, which brought many parts of the country to a standstill.

In Germany, lawmakers unveiled a $1.9 billion (€1.6 billion) fuel price relief plan to help people with the rising costs.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Tuesday said he was suspending the country's federal gas tax until early September.

Fighting between Hezbollah and Israel resumes  after historic Israel-Lebanon talks

Hezbollah and Israel continued to exchange fire on Wednesday, a day after Israel and Lebanon met for direct talks in Washington, the first in more than 30 years, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Hezbollah said it targeted Israeli troops several times with rockets, artillery strikes and drones and it fired at communities in Israel's north. Israel expanded its military occupation of southern Lebanon, where it said its forces engaged in fierce battle with Hezbollah fighters.

A relative of Hassan Ali Badawi, a paramedic with the Lebanese Red Cross who was killed the previous day in an Israeli airstrike, mourns as the family receives condolences at their home in the Bchamoun area south of Beirut, on Monday.

(

Anwar Amro

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The talks came after nearly seven weeks of fighting between the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon. Hezbollah, which is also a major political party that holds seats in the Lebanese parliament, does not support the talks and has called on the Lebanese government to cancel them.

More than 2,100 people have been killed by Israeli strikes, according to Lebanese health officials. Hezbollah has also fired at Israel, killing at least 12 soldiers and two civilians, according to Israeli authorities. Lebanese officials said Israel has demolished more than 40,000 homes in the south, seizing land for what Israel calls a "buffer zone" to keep Hezbollah from firing rockets into northern Israel.

The Lebanese government wants a ceasefire, but Israel said it would not agree to it until Hezbollah disarms, a longstanding Israeli demand, which the Lebanese government has been unable to enforce in the past.

Following the talks on Tuesday, Rubio said the talks were about "bringing a permanent end to 20 or 30 years of Hezbollah's influence in this part of the world."

Daniel Estrin in Tel Aviv, Kat Lonsdorf in Beirut, Aya Batrawy in Dubai, Fatima Al-Kassab in London and Rebecca Rosman in Paris contributed to this report.

Copyright 2026 NPR