Ebrahim Azizi, a member of parliament’s national security commission, said “any intervention by the Americans in the new maritime order of the Strait of Hormuz will be considered a breach of the ceasefire.”
“The Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are not a place for rhetoric,” he added in a post on X.
The officials described “Project Freedom”—earlier referred to as the Maritime Freedom Construct—as a coordination cell designed to guide US-flagged and other vessels through safe navigation lanes.
The initiative would identify routes free of threats such as mines, rather than involve direct military escort of ships through the waterway.
The clarification follows Trump’s earlier announcement, which had suggested a more active US role in securing passage through the strategic strait.
The mission, directed by Donald Trump, will support merchant vessels seeking to transit the strategic waterway, which carries roughly a quarter of global seaborne oil trade as well as significant volumes of fuel and fertilizer products.
“Our support for this defensive mission is essential to regional security and the global economy as we also maintain the naval blockade,” said Brad Cooper.
CENTCOM said the effort will include guided-missile destroyers, more than 100 land- and sea-based aircraft, multi-domain unmanned systems and around 15,000 service members.
BP PLC is mulling to exit part or all of its operations in the UK North Sea, Bloomberg reported Friday.
The London-based oil major is conducting an internal review of its upstream operations in the UK, which could fetch about GBP2 billion in a full divestment, people familiar with the matter said according to Bloomberg.
The company is currently working to strip assets and pay down debt and is targeting around USD20 billion in divestments by the end of 2027.
There is no certainty that BP will decide to pursue any divestment in the North Sea, as the review is ongoing.
A TRIAL beginning in New Mexico could prompt a judge to order sweeping changes to how Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp operate — a move Meta Platforms has warned could force it to withdraw from the state.
The case, which will be tried before a judge in Santa Fe, stems from a suit filed by New Mexico Attorney-General Raúl Torrez, a Democrat, accusing the social media giant of designing its products to addict young users and failing to protect children from sexual exploitation on its platforms.
At the heart of the trial is whether Meta's platforms have created a "public nuisance" under New Mexico law.
That finding would allow the judge to order wide-ranging remedies aimed at curbing alleged harms to young users.
The case is being closely watched as states, municipalities and school districts across the country pursue similar claims seeking to force changes at the industry level.
The trial marks the second phase of New Mexico's suit. A jury in March found Meta violated the state's consumer protection law by misrepresenting the safety of Facebook and Instagram for young users.
It ordered the company to pay US$375 million in damages. Criticism of children's safety on social media has been mounting for years.
Last Wednesday, Meta warned investors that legal and regulatory blowback in the European Union and the United States "could significantly impact our business and financial results".
Torrez's office is expected to seek billions of dollars more in damages and an order requiring Meta to make substantial changes to its platforms for New Mexico users, according to court filings.
Meta has said it has already addressed many of the state's concerns and taken extensive measures to ensure its young users are safe.
The company said in court filings last week many of the changes Torrez's office is seeking are impossible for it to comply with and may force it to withdraw from the state entirely.
"The New Mexico Attorney-General's focus on a single platform is a misguided strategy that ignores the hundreds of other apps teens use daily," said a Meta spokesman in a statement ahead of the trial.
The trial before Judge Bryan Biedscheid will examine whether Meta's conduct meets the standard for a public nuisance under New Mexico law.
A public nuisance claim targets activities that unreasonably interfere with the health and safety of a community. Classic examples include blocking a public road, polluting a waterway or emitting noxious fumes.
State governments have invoked public nuisance law in recent decades to pursue a broader range of industries, including litigation tied to tobacco, opioids, climate change and vaping, said Adam Zimmerman, a professor at USC's Gould School of Law.
New Mexico's case is among a growing number of suits accusing Meta and other social media companies of intentionally designing products to be addictive to young people.
While many cases have been filed by families over specific injuries to individuals, more than 40 other states and over 1,300 school districts have filed suits seeking court-ordered changes and damages under public nuisance law.
New Mexico said it plans to ask the judge to order Meta to make changes including verifying users' ages; redesigning its
algorithm to promote quality content for minors; and ending autoplay and infinite scrolling for minors.
"It will be an opportunity for us to explore more deeply the size and scale and effectively the monetary value of the public nuisance harm that was a product of this business's behaviour for the last, you know, 10 or 15 years," said Torrez recently.
The company has said in court filings that it could not have created a public nuisance because it has not interfered with a public right.
In a public nuisance case, the state can also seek monetary damages to abate the harm. That sum could be substantial when the impact is said to have affected large segments of the population.
Meta said in court filings New Mexico plans to ask for US$3.7 billion in damages to fund a 15-year mental health plan, including building new healthcare facilities and hiring providers, a request it said would require it to pay for mental health care for all teens in the state regardless of the cause of their needs.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said US financial and technology companies are “working on their resiliency” against artificial intelligence threats, including concerns that AI could be deployed to hack into bank accounts.
“We’re going to make sure that things stay safe,” Bessent said on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.
The response from Democrats to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down race-based gerrymandering has been predictable - running high in emotion and devoid of objectivity. The Democrat Party has understood for a long time that much of their power comes from inserting themselves as the spokespeople for the supposed "have-nots". Racial hysteria being a key weapon in their arsenal to push the ongoing socialization of America.
Its the reason why left-wing NGO's have been dumping millions of dollars into the very "hate groups" they claim to be fighting against. Leftists need racism as a bogeyman; they have no power without it.
It makes sense that Democrats are clinging to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which prohibits voting practices (including redistricting maps) that result in denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race. The assumption being that minorities (specifically black Americans) require rigged districts where they are the majority in order to maintain power in government.
This obviously benefits Democrats, with around 83% of blacks voting blue in recent elections. Predominantly black districts in states across the US have acted as assured seats in the House for Dems since 1965. In 1982, Congress strengthened Section 2 by amending it to clarify that plaintiffs only need to prove that a voting practice has a discriminatory result (effect), not just the intent.
Republicans sided with Democrats in a grand virtue signal, but the results of the strengthened VRA have harmed conservatives ever since. The Supreme Court's recent 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais ends this 45-year-long mistake, at least, for the most part.
The decision sets a precedent which largely eliminates the use of frivolous race-based challenges to redistricting maps and will lead to a loss of 12-19 House seats for Democrats over the next two years. States which are planning to adjust their maps in light of the Supreme Court ruling include Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama. A few other red states are looking into potential changes before 2028.
The Democrat reaction has been an absolute meltdown. Impending district map changes threaten a loss of around 12 seats in the near term.
The underlying narrative promoted by the political left is that the ruling will result in black Americans losing the right to vote. Chuck Schumer insinuates this in his frantic response, calling the decision a "return to Jim Crow".
This is, of course, a fallacy. No black citizen is losing their right to vote. In fact, the Supreme Court ruling confirms that black voters and white voters are equal and that rigged districts based on race are not necessary. Raging over the proposition of losing political power, Democrats are now calling for "packing the courts" as a means to dilute the Supreme Court and assert total control over districts and elections (a typical appeal to lawfare).
Hakeem Jeffries called the Supreme Court a disgrace and said "everything is on the table" to undermine their decision.
Other Dems echoed this strategy. Their plan? If they can't rig districts, they will rig the courts.
It should be noted that the political left only calls for these kinds of extreme measures when the court rules in favor of conservatives. Objective positions and nuances within court decisions are not tolerated. The threat is clear: "Rule with us, or we will get revenge..."
Other left-wing politicians argue that the Supreme Court "has no authority" to change the VRA because they are not "elected". When Democrats start to sound like activist libertarians, you know they're scared.
In the sprint to the Midterms the district changes will likely be minimal, but enough to potentially thwart a Democrat majority. In 2028, the game could change dramatically. Former President Barack Obama was lambasted for attacking the Supreme Court ruling, just days after cutting ads for a Virginia effort to transform that state's map into a 10-1 Democratic advantage.
Top Illinois Democrats called the precedent a ‘crushing blow to our democracy', despite the fact that Illinois is widely considered gerrymandered to benefit Democrats. It's only okay when they do it, not when conservatives do it.
The Democrat response is a reminder that, if the political left ever returns to substantial government power as they had under the Biden Administration, they will break every rule and violate every principle in order to keep control.
