Two key U.S. allies, citing the importance of free navigation and economic risk, insist that Iran should not be permitted to charge vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

The issue is urgent, as U.S.–Iran peace talks are scheduled to begin Saturday. Iran is expected to present tolls as a negotiating point.

The implications for the global rules governing free navigation in waters traditionally considered international are huge.

Some 80% of world commerce moves by sea. If a precedent is set for Iranian taxation of transits through the Strait of Hormuz and other nations follow suit by dominating key oceanic chokepoints, then prices will be passed down to consumers and the global economy will face additional inflation.

One complicating factor in the peace talks is that the U.S. is not a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, the key global agreement that sets out guidelines for free navigation.

Moreover, President Trump has repeatedly derided America’s allies and dismissed the importance of the Strait of Hormuz to the U.S., given national energy self-sufficiency.

Reports say Mr. Trump is not only considering the Iranian demand but also may support installing a joint toll booth operation with Tehran.

“We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people,” Mr. Trump told ABC News. “It’s a beautiful thing.”

Whether Oman, across the strait from Iran, would benefit is unclear.

U.S. allies Singapore and Britain have vocally opposed strait tolls, but they stand to benefit if a precedent is set and other nations overlooking key waterways follow suit.

The island nations overlook the world’s two busiest straits for maritime commerce, even busier than the Strait of Hormuz or the Panama Canal.

“Freedom of navigation means navigation must be free,” British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told the BBC on Thursday. “That applies right across the globe. … It’s crucial for the global economy,” she said.

Defense Secretary John Healey told a press conference that the introduction of “pay-for-passage tolls” would create a “potential principle that could be used and abused by others elsewhere.”

Singapore earlier adopted a similar posture.

“International law and [the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea] is the constitution of the oceans, and this is a right — freedom of navigation is a right and not a privilege — for ships and planes,” Vivian Balakrishnan, foreign affairs minister of the trade-dependent island state, told Singapore’s parliament this week.

Asked whether Singapore would negotiate tolls with Tehran, Mr. Balakrishnan answered in the negative.

“As a matter of principle … I cannot engage in negotiations for safe passage of ships, or toll rates for safe passage of ships, or negotiate on toll rates because to do so would be implicitly eroding this legal principle,” he said on social media.

He also hinted at Singapore’s leverage.

“If you think about global trade, container trade, there is far more flowing through this place,” he said. “And the most important geographical fact which most people are not aware of, the narrowest point in the Strait of Hormuz is 21 nautical miles. The narrowest point in the Strait of Singapore is less than 2 nautical miles.”

Free movement of shipping is critical for global trade.

“Over 80% of the volume of international trade in goods is carried by sea,” notes the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development.

Per the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, “all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage.” Article 41 states: “States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage. … There shall be no suspension of transit passage.”

An estimated 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas moves through the Strait of Hormuz. It is one of the world’s five most important maritime chokepoints.

According to the World Economic Forum, the primary strait is the English Channel, between Britain and France. It is the world’s busiest shipping lane, with more than 182,500 annual transits.

The Malacca Strait, between Indonesia on one side and Singapore and Malaysia on the other, links the Indian and Pacific oceans. It is a critical gateway for east-west commerce, with 94,000 vessels annually carrying 30% of the world’s traded goods.

Singapore dominates its tightest point.

In the No. 3 position is the Strait of Hormuz. Energy ships from the Persian Gulf transit through the Strait of Hormuz between Oman and Iran and then into global sea lanes.

Fourth is the trans-Egyptian Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. An estimated 20,000 vessels use it annually to connect more directly than if they had to cruise around the African continent.

The trans-Panamanian Panama Canal rounds out the top five. It connects the Atlantic and the Pacific. About 14,000 ships transit yearly.

Tolls are charged at the Suez and Panama canals, which are man-made waterways rather than natural geographic features like the other straits.

What next?

Amid a shaky 10-day ceasefire, Vice President J.D. Vance is reportedly en route to Pakistan to negotiate with Iranian officials on ending the 6-week-old war.

As one of the points of its publicly released prenegotiation statement, Iran has demanded continued control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Details are scarce on how that might transpire, but it is widely believed to be charging vessels for transit.

Before the conflict, transit was free. The toll system has been in operation for weeks. Ships from China, Greece, India, Iran, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia and Thailand have reportedly passed through the strait, though payment conditions are unconfirmed.

Under intense U.S. and Israeli aerial bombardment, Tehran declared the strait closed. That transferred the core battleground of the struggle from the military to the economic domain — to Mr. Trump’s clear frustration.

Closure put upward pressure on global energy prices. Though the U.S. is self-sufficient, it trades with the world, subjecting Americans to rising price pressures from imported goods because of heightened logistical costs.

Neither the U.S. Navy nor any other fleet chose to challenge the multiple perils — sea mines, aerial, underwater and surface drones and missiles — that Iran is believed to have trained on the waterway.

Warships in the narrow strait are tightly constricted and would have minimal early warning of incoming strikes.

White House officials have framed the moment as a narrow opening for diplomacy after days of military tension and a shaky pause in fighting. The administration has tied any lasting agreement to security demands that include keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and addressing concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.

The ceasefire has eased fears of immediate escalation, but major questions remain. Iran has pushed back on several U.S. demands, and uncertainty around regional fighting has added pressure to the talks. That leaves both sides in a familiar position: public warnings, private negotiations, and a deadline that now appears to carry real weight as the next round of decisions gets closer.

Cash-starved states run by Democrats are moving to squeeze more revenue out of their wealthiest residents with a “millionaires tax,” which they say would make the tax code more equitable.

The strategy has growing appeal among House and Senate Democrats, who are pitching populist federal wealth taxes on the richest Americans as they try to win November elections and take control of Congress.

Washington has become the latest state to impose a tax on its wealthiest residents under legislation signed last month by Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat. The law imposes a 9.9% tax on annual income exceeding $1 million. The revenue is intended to fund free school lunches, child care and other initiatives, such as expanded tax credits for low- and middle-income individuals and families.

Most of all, Mr. Ferguson said, the tax “makes our system more fair.”

Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota have increased taxes on their wealthiest residents. California, Rhode Island and Connecticut are weighing plans to tax the rich. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani ran and won on a promise to increase the city’s income tax on its wealthiest residents from 3.9% to 5.9%, which would be paid on top of the state’s 10.9% tax on top earnings.

On Capitol Hill, the concept of a national wealth tax is rapidly gaining support among House and Senate Democrats. They say it is high time for the richest Americans to pay “their fair share” to help fund universal day care, free community college, expanded Medicare and more.

House and Senate Democrats have introduced several wealth tax bills. In March, more than 45 Democrats introduced legislation to tax “fortunes above $50 million.” The bill would tax “net worth” and raise $6.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade to pay for expanding social welfare programs.

“While multimillionaires and billionaires are getting richer and richer, families are getting squeezed by a rigged economy. My bill is about basic fairness and making the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share. It’s time for the government to stop listening to the richest of the rich and start working for working people,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat.

Advocates say taxing wealthier Americans raises much-needed revenue for government programs and creates a fairer tax system that shifts the burden further away from low- and middle-income earners.

The left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy rated Washington state’s tax system as one of the most regressive in the country based on “share of family income.”

Until the wealth tax was enacted, the state had no personal income tax and relied heavily on property taxes and state and local sales taxes as high as 10.4%.

“It is inspiring to see Washington listening to the demands of the people to create a less regressive state tax system,” ITEP Executive Director Amy Hanauer said.

Democrats have seized on a popular fiscal policy that has become more appealing to low- and middle-income Americans facing stagnant paychecks and higher costs for food, housing and health care.

A Pew Research Center poll taken last year found that 6 in 10 Americans say taxes should be raised on households earning more than $400,000 annually. The results differed significantly by party. Nearly 75% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said taxes should be raised on incomes above $400,000, compared with 43% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

A second poll released Monday found that roughly 60% of adults reported: “the feeling that some wealthy people and corporations don’t pay their fair share bothers them a lot.”

Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent, has pounced on public discontent with billionaires, who he once said “should not exist.” Mr. Sanders introduced a wealth tax in March.

The Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act would turn the federal government into a modern-day Robin Hood by zinging the nation’s 938 billionaires with a 5% annual wealth tax.

The money would be spent, in part, on direct payments of $3,000 “to every man, woman and child” in households making $150,000 or less. It would amount to a $12,000 payment for a family of four, the democratic socialist said.

“In a democratic society, we cannot tolerate 60% of our people living paycheck to paycheck — struggling to pay for housing, food and health care — while 938 billionaires have become $1.5 trillion richer,” Mr. Sanders said.

Even Republicans briefly considered a millionaires tax to help offset the cost of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut taxes across the board for individuals and businesses.

Top Republican leaders and President Trump quickly rejected the idea. They said a tax hike on the rich would be “very disruptive, because a lot of millionaires would leave the country.”

An exodus of wealthy residents is among the reasons a dozen countries that once had wealth taxes have largely abandoned them.

According to the Tax Policy Center, studies of other countries that imposed a millionaires tax “showed a decline in the amount of wealth reported to government authorities” because of avoidance and evasion.

High-income residents of states that have imposed wealth taxes are fleeing to avoid paying more.

Massachusetts sustained a net income loss of $4.2 billion in 2024, a year after implementing its millionaire surtax. The Fair Share Amendment slaps an additional 4% levy on income over $1 million.

Voters approved the tax in a 2022 referendum. The revenue is used to fund schools and public transportation.

Analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities advised against drawing sweeping conclusions about the flight from the Bay State’s wealth tax, as IRS data does not track the exodus of millionaires specifically.

The tax has raised billions more dollars in revenue, the center said, and is funding “transformative investments like universal free school meals, fare-free buses, and affordable child care.”

California lawmakers are debating a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of the state’s 200 or so billionaires, which has triggered a rush for the exits by its richest and most prominent residents.

Some of them, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google co-founder Larry Page, are scoping out or have purchased properties in Florida, which has no income tax.

If voters approve the wealth tax in a November referendum, it will snag billionaires who resided in California anytime after Jan. 1, which explains the stampede.

The Service Employees International Union and the United Healthcare Workers are among the groups collecting signatures to put the billionaires tax on the ballot. The groups said the revenue would help prop up California’s financially strained health care system, fund public schools and pump money into the food stamp program.

The ballot initiative is currently gathering signatures, but even Gov. Gavin Newsom, a left-leaning Democrat and a prospective 2028 presidential candidate, is wary of it.

“You would have a windfall one time,” he told Bloomberg, “and then over the years you would see a significant reduction in taxes because taxpayers will move.”

The statement came as diplomacy faced new setbacks. Officials tied to the talks said major disagreements still remain, especially over Iran’s nuclear program and the terms of a lasting settlement. At the same time, Israeli strikes in Lebanon raised new doubts about how broad the ceasefire really is and whether regional fighting can be contained.

Markets reacted quickly. Oil prices moved higher as traders focused on the risk of further disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for global energy supplies. Shipping access through the waterway also remained a major point of tension, with Western leaders pushing back against any attempt to impose tolls or tighter control over passage.

The development comes as negotiators, with support from regional intermediaries, worked to secure a last-minute breakthrough. As part of the arrangement, Iran has begun a limited reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital corridor for global energy shipments, allowing some vessels to pass under controlled conditions.

The pause has also halted plans for a potential US strike on Iranian targets, easing immediate fears of a broader confrontation. Still, the agreement leaves several core disputes unresolved, including disagreements tied to Iran’s nuclear activities and differing interpretations of the ceasefire terms.

While the move signals a step toward de-escalation, it remains fragile. Other conflicts in the region continue independently, and longer-term negotiations have yet to produce a lasting framework for stability.

A federal judge has directed ICE to let priests, ministers and other faith leaders into the migrant processing center in Chicago’s suburbs, saying the total ban the agency had been enforcing is a violation of religious rights.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman, a Clinton appointee, said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must allow daily visits for the clergy who sued.

The Broadview ICE Detention Center drew the nation’s focus last year when it was the site of protests during ICE’s enforcement surge in Chicago. Those protests prompted ICE to limit access — including to religious leaders who said they have a duty to minister to those passing through the facility.

The federal government said it allows visits by clergy who are invited by detainees but doesn’t allow the clergy to initiate visits.

Judge Gettleman said Tuesday in his ruling that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires the government to avoid burdening someone’s religious practice if there is a way it can be accommodated.

In this case, the clergy say ministering is part of their practice. The judge cited Pope Leo’s call for the detainees to receive Holy Communion as evidence of that religious duty.

ICE, he said, is hindering that with its ban on clergy-initiated visits.

“This policy renders plaintiffs’ religious exercise of providing ministry to detainees and migrants effectively impracticable,” the judge wrote.

Judge Gettleman had previously ordered ICE to allow access for Ash Wednesday and for Holy Week.

His new order requires access every day while the lawsuit is pending.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the release of American journalist Shelly Kittleson, who was recently kidnapped by members of the foreign terrorist organization Kata’ib Hizballah near Baghdad, Iraq.

Mr. Rubio, in a Tuesday evening statement, said the State Department extended its appreciation to the FBI, Pentagon, U.S. personnel across multiple agencies, the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council and U.S.-Iraqi partners for securing Ms. Kittleson’s release.

“This resolution reflects the Trump Administration’s steadfast commitment to the safety and security of American citizens, no matter where they are in the world,” Mr. Rubio said.

“Under President Trump, the wrongful detention or kidnapping of U.S. nationals will not be tolerated. We will continue to use every tool to bring Americans home and to hold accountable those responsible.”

Mr. Rubio added that the State Department is relieved that Ms. Kittleson is now free and is working to support her safe departure from Iraq.

The release of Ms. Kittleson happened as Mr. Trump negotiated a two-week ceasefire with a new Iranian regime.

President Trump on Tuesday intensified his threats against the Islamic regime in Iran as his evening deadline approached for it to either cooperate with U.S. demands or have the airstrikes rain down hellfire on the country’s infrastructure.

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” he said on Truth Social.

Over the weekend, the president said “all Hell will reign down” if Iran does not open the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil shipping passage closed amid the war, or make a ceasefire deal within 48 hours, which would have been Monday. But on Tuesday, he also acknowledged a scenario in which the country would be spared.

“However, now that we have Complete and Total Regime Change, where different, smarter, and less radicalized minds prevail, maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen, WHO KNOWS? We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World. 47 years of extortion, corruption, and death, will finally end. God Bless the Great People of Iran!” Mr. Trump said.

His weekend warning reiterated his March 26 threat, in which he said he would delay attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure by 10 more days in hopes of making a deal. His original deadline was March 23.

“They’ll have no bridges. They’ll have no power plants. They’ll have no anything,” he told reporters Monday.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cautioned against attacks on civilian infrastructure, warning that doing so is barred under international law.

“Even if specific civilian infrastructure were to qualify as a military objective,” an attack would still be forbidden if it risks “excessive incidental civilian harm,” his spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, told The Associated Press Monday.

But Mr. Trump said that he is “not at all” concerned about the possibility of committing war crimes, adding that he hopes “I don’t have to do it.”

Iran rejected the latest ceasefire proposal on Monday.

• Mary McCue Bell can be reached at mbell@washingtontimes.com.

President Trump fumed Monday over the leak of information that revealed one U.S. military aviator was missing behind enemy lines in Iran, even as the military had recovered the plane’s pilot.

Mr. Trump said the leak nearly imperiled the operation to retrieve the second serviceman, who was rescued on Sunday. He said the administration could go to great lengths to root out the leaker.

“We are going to go to the media company that released it, and we are going to say, ‘National security, give it up or go to jail,’” Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Trump did not identify the media outlet.

National Press Club President Mark Schoeff Jr. scolded the president over his remarks, calling them a “direct threat” to the First Amendment.

“No president should call for jailing journalists who refuse to betray their sources,” he said. “The ability to protect confidential sources is essential to news-gathering and to informing the public on matters of urgent national interest. Those protections are at risk when the president tries to bully news organizations to disclose confidential sources.”

The president talked about the leak during a press conference in which he boasted about the operation to retrieve both servicemen, who were shot down in their F-15 Strike Eagle on Friday.

Mr. Trump and top officials said the U.S. side worked hard to confuse the Iranians so the rescuers could swoop in and retrieve the military members.

“Iran’s military is embarrassed and humiliated, and they should be,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said.

Iran rejected a temporary ceasefire proposal and instead called for a permanent end to the war with broader guarantees. At the same time, Trump said military action against Iranian infrastructure remained on the table if the Strait was not reopened by Tuesday evening. That combination of a firmer US deadline and Iran’s refusal to accept a short truce left little sign of an immediate breakthrough.

The new statement stands out because it moved the situation from broad pressure to a direct final warning. Governments and markets are now watching closely, with attention fixed on shipping routes, oil supplies, and the possibility of a wider regional escalation if diplomacy fails.