OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump reinstates Strait of Hormuz blockade and 20% shipping fee

9 sources · updated 2026-07-17
Left 11% Center 22% Right 67%
1 left · 2 center · 6 right

What happened

In the latest U.S.-Iran escalation around the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States was now the “guardian” of the waterway and would impose a 20% charge on all cargo shipments, while reimposing a naval blockade on Iranian ports; the United States had first imposed a port blockade in April and lifted it in June under a memorandum of understanding meant to end the conflict and open talks. In a later Truth Social post, Trump said he had decided to replace the 20% fee with Gulf-state trade and investment deals, but he kept the blockade and said the strait was open to all ship traffic except Iran. U.S. Central Command said U.S. forces struck Iranian missile, drone, naval and coastal-defense targets near the strait on Tuesday and struck coastal-defense systems and cruise-missile storage and launch sites on Greater Tunb Island on Wednesday, after CENTCOM said Iran had attacked seven commercial ships and launched missiles and drones toward Gulf countries. Iran said it fired missiles and drones at U.S. targets in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, and Trump told Fox News that unless Iran returned to negotiations, “next week comes the power plants” and “bridges”; shipping data showed traffic through the strait slowed and Brent crude rose sharply.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

BBC is much more complete on the fee-and-blockade piece of the story. It reports that Trump first vowed a 20% charge on all cargo through the Strait of Hormuz, then wrote that he had “decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals” from Gulf states, while keeping the strait “open to ALL Ship traffic except for Iran.” Breitbart does not mention the 20% fee, the replacement investment deals, or that quoted exception for Iranian shipping. Fox News’s piece is about Nancy Mace’s travel-ban bill, and Daily Wire’s is about Pickaxe Mountain, so Breitbart carries the direct right-side account of the Hormuz fighting. Breitbart is more detailed on the military-strike side. It names Greater Tunb Island, says the Wednesday strike began at “7:30 a.m. Eastern,” lasted “90-minute[s],” and hit “coastal defense systems and cruise missile storage and launch sites.” BBC mentions the prior “seven-hour wave of strikes” and “dozens” of targets near the strait, but not Greater Tunb Island or the 90-minute Wednesday strike. The language split is stark. BBC leads with Trump threatening to “bomb bridges and power plants” and says the threatened targets include “civilian infrastructure,” immediately adding Volker Türk’s warning that deliberately attacking it is “a war crime.” Breitbart leads with CENTCOM trying to “erode Iran’s ability to bomb its neighbors and attack random civilian ships,” calls Iran a “terrorist state,” and describes U.S. operations as “defanging the IRGC.” Both quote Trump saying, “We’re going to knock out all of their power plants” and “all of their bridges,” but BBC foregrounds the legal/civilian-infrastructure issue while Breitbart places that quote well below Iran’s ship attacks and CENTCOM’s rationale. The unanswered question is basic: what legal authority lets the U.S. declare itself “guardian” of the strait, exclude Iranian ship traffic, impose or replace a 20% cargo fee, and blockade Iranian ports? BBC says Trump gave “no further details”; Breitbart does not address the fee or blockade mechanism at all.
Bottom line

The biggest gap is that BBC makes the 20% Hormuz fee and its replacement with Gulf “Trade and Investment Deals” central, while Breitbart’s direct Hormuz story skips the fee entirely and centers CENTCOM’s strikes on Iranian launch sites.

The Left View
Left-leaning coverage, represented here by the BBC, frames the story around escalation, legal exposure, and coercive pressure. It gives central weight to Trump’s power-plants-and-bridges threat, linking it to UN human rights chief Volker Türk’s earlier statement that “deliberately attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime” and to the Geneva Conventions’ protections for sites essential to civilians. The BBC also stresses the instability of the administration’s economic approach: the threatened Strait fee was rolled back into undefined “MASSIVE” Gulf investment deals, while the blockade remained. Its account highlights Iran’s argument that the renewed blockade “has, in a way, dismantled” the earlier truce arrangement and quotes Tehran saying that if Washington thinks tighter military and economic pressure will force negotiations, “it is making a mistake.”
The Right View
Right-leaning coverage, especially Breitbart, frames the U.S. action primarily as a defensive military response to Iranian aggression against civilians and commerce. It emphasizes CENTCOM’s stated purpose: to degrade the IRGC’s ability to attack commercial shipping, and it quotes Adm. Brad Cooper saying U.S. forces are “holding Iran accountable for unwarranted aggression that continues to endanger innocent lives.” Breitbart describes the IRGC as a “terrorist” force and treats the strikes as targeted attacks on launch sites, storage facilities, coastal defenses, and naval capabilities rather than as a blockade-first policy story. The Daily Wire’s related Iran coverage reinforces the broader right-side frame that Tehran remains defiant and dangerous, focusing on Pickaxe Mountain as a possible hardened fallback site for Iran’s nuclear program.
Our Take (balanced)
The strongest left-side argument is that Trump’s own language creates a serious legal and humanitarian issue: threatening power plants and bridges moves the debate beyond maritime protection and toward targets that international law treats as highly sensitive because of civilian dependence. Its best support is the direct presidential quote, paired with Türk’s explicit “war crime” warning about deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure. The strongest right-side argument is that the U.S. can point to an immediate security rationale in the strait: CENTCOM’s account of attacks on commercial ships, casualties among civilian crews, and Iranian missile and drone launches gives the strikes a concrete defensive predicate. The central unresolved tension is whether the blockade and strikes are best understood as necessary protection of global shipping from Iranian attacks, or as an expanding coercive campaign whose threatened targets and economic controls risk crossing legal and strategic lines.

9 sources

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.