OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump reinstates Hormuz blockade and 20% shipping fee

19 sources · updated 2026-07-16
Left 53% Center 16% Right 32%
10 left · 3 center · 6 right

What happened

On Monday, July 13, 2026, after renewed U.S.-Iran fighting followed a June 17 memorandum of understanding that lifted a U.S. naval blockade and aimed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commercial shipping, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would reinstate a blockade of maritime traffic entering and leaving Iranian ports starting Tuesday at 4 p.m. ET and impose a 20% charge on cargo shipped through the strait. U.S. Central Command carried out consecutive nights of strikes on Iranian military and coastal targets, saying the strikes were meant to degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping; Iran struck targets in Kuwait, Bahrain and Jordan, and the UAE said Iranian cruise missiles hit two UAE-linked tankers, killing one Indian crew member and wounding eight others. The International Maritime Organization said there was “no legal basis” for mandatory tolls simply to transit an international strait, and Gulf leaders contacted Trump about the fee. On Tuesday, Trump said he would replace the 20% fee with trade and investment deals from Gulf states while keeping the blockade in place; oil prices rose and vessel traffic through the strait fell sharply amid competing U.S. and Iranian claims over whether the waterway was open.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage had a large follow-up hole: Trump’s reversal of the 20% Hormuz fee appears in Axios (“backtracks”), BBC (“scraps threat”), NPR (“reversed his decision”) and the New York Times headline (“Flip-Flops”), but not in the right-leaning items as of publication. The same is true of the legal challenge: BBC quotes the International Maritime Organization saying there is “no legal basis” for mandatory tolls through a strait, Axios says the UN maritime agency deemed the fee illegal, and NPR says the post caused “confusion and concern internationally.” Newsmax’s fee story instead carries Sebastian Gorka’s defense that the charge is “common sense” and that the U.S. “will not be treated as the piggy bank for the rest of the world.” The left-leaning outlets, in turn, largely omit the administration’s strongest pro-fee and pro-control framing from Newsmax. Gorka’s claim that the U.S. is “completely energy independent,” “the biggest exporter of energy,” and “don’t need any of the oil” from Hormuz does not appear in the left-side stories. Nor do Trump’s Newsmax claims that Iran had “159 ships” now “under the sea,” “200 airplanes” that are “all gone,” and had been brought “back to the Stone Ages.” The language split is blunt. Axios calls the toll move a “demand” Trump “walked back”; BBC calls it a “threat” he “reversed”; the New York Times uses “Flip-Flops.” Newsmax calls Trump’s control claim a “blunt assessment,” and Gorka labels the fee “reality-based national security” and “common sense.” On strikes, BBC says the U.S. “launches fresh strikes,” while Daily Wire says U.S. forces “Hammer Iran.” One basic question remains unanswered across the coverage: how the 20% fee would actually have been assessed and enforced — who would collect it, how cargo value would be calculated, and what would happen to ships that refused. After the reversal, another unanswered detail remains: which Gulf states agreed to which “Trade and Investment Deals,” and how much, if any, is new money.
Bottom line

The biggest gap is temporal and tonal: Axios, BBC, NPR and the New York Times all register the 20% fee as reversed or “flip-flopped,” while Newsmax’s main Hormuz pieces still present the fee as “common sense” and the strait as something “We control.”

The Left View
Left-leaning sources framed the announcement as legally dubious, economically risky and emblematic of erratic decision-making. BBC, NPR, Axios and CBS foregrounded the IMO’s “no legal basis” statement, the likely objections from Gulf allies and shipping companies, and the fact that Trump quickly reversed the toll demand after regional pushback. Axios and the New York Times emphasized the “backtracks” and “flip-flops” angle, arguing that even a short-lived toll threat creates uncertainty for global trade and may encourage other countries to monetize strategic waterways. Slate went further, arguing that the toll idea “blows to bits” the U.S. claim to be defending free passage and reveals a transactional view of the war; BBC and CBS also highlighted legal and humanitarian concerns as Trump threatened broader strikes on Iranian infrastructure, noting expert warnings that attacks on civilian infrastructure “could constitute a war crime.”
The Right View
Right-leaning sources framed the move as a necessary assertion of U.S. power against Iranian aggression and a demand that wealthy beneficiaries of U.S. security contribute to its cost. Newsmax highlighted Trump’s claim that “We do” control the strait and his argument that Iran has been “neutered” by U.S. military action, while Sebastian Gorka defended the proposed fee as “common sense” because the U.S. is energy independent and “doesn’t need any of the oil” moving through Hormuz. The Daily Wire emphasized the fresh U.S. strikes as an effort to degrade Iranian capabilities used to threaten shipping, using forceful language such as “hammer Iran.” National Review’s framing of the ceasefire as a “phony peace” supported the idea that the earlier diplomatic arrangement had failed and that renewed pressure was justified.
Our Take (balanced)
The strongest left-side argument is that the toll plan undercut the legal and diplomatic basis for U.S. claims to defend free navigation: the IMO’s “no legal basis” statement, the immediate Gulf backlash, the rapid reversal, and the market disruption all support the view that the announcement created avoidable uncertainty. The strongest right-side argument is that Iran’s conduct made passive reliance on the prior arrangement untenable: attacks on shipping, regional retaliation, and Tehran’s assertion of a permit system gave the U.S. a concrete security rationale for renewed military pressure and a blockade focused on Iranian-linked traffic. The central unresolved tension is whether unilateral U.S. control claims and compensation demands are an effective way to restore freedom of navigation, or whether they erode the very international-law principle the U.S. says it is defending.

19 sources

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

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