BlueX

speech processing engineer

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

FULL VIDEO: President Trump Holds a Press Conference, Jun. 17, 2026

Core Speech Topics

- G7 Summit: Celebrated the summit in France as highly successful and thanked President Macron.
- The Iran Agreement: Announced a tentative memorandum of understanding to end the conflict, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and block Iran from developing or procuring nuclear weapons.
- Economic Impacts: Highlighted the stock market hitting record highs and global oil prices plummeting as a direct result of peace talks.
- The Soleimani Strike: Credited his past decision to eliminate General Soleimani as the true foundation for America's current negotiating leverage.
- Operation Epic Fury: Detailed the overwhelming success of U.S. airstrikes that decimated Iran’s navy, air force, and missile capabilities.
- Targeting Granite Mountains: Described using B-2 bombers to collapse underground nuclear enrichment facilities hidden beneath granite mountains.

Press Questions & Answers

- Iran's Reconstructed Finances: Clarified that the U.S. isn't directly paying Iran; rather, Iran will access frozen assets or international investment onlyif they comply with the deal.
- Geopolitical Neutrality: Thanked Russia and China (specifically President Xi) for staying neutral and refusing to sell heavy weaponry to Iran during the conflict.
- Unfreezing Assets vs. Cash Delivery: Explained that unfreezing Iran's own assets protects the long-term global credibility of the U.S. dollar.
- Selling the Deal to the Public: Argued that the media is structurally biased and would frame the outcome as an Iranian victory no matter what he achieved.
- Regional Leverage: Detailed how the crushing naval blockade and decimated Iranian economy give the U.S. immense leverage to force compliance from Hezbollah and Israel.
- Beirut Infrastructure: Criticized the severity of recent strikes in Beirut, calling the destruction of certain buildings unnecessary.
- Remaining Missile Capabilities: Defended leaving residual Iranian capabilities, noting that 84–85% of their arsenal was destroyed and the rest is trapped underground.
- Civilian Nuclear Program: Reiterated his strict stance against any Iranian nuclear program, questioning why a country with massive oil reserves would ever need nuclear power.
- The Minab School Strike: Defended his administration against a question about a strike that killed over 100 children, stating it was an unintentional mistake of war currently under military investigation.
- Enforceability of the Deal: Stated that the true enforcement mechanism of the deal is the explicit threat of immediate, overwhelming U.S. bombing if Iran violates it.
- Domestic Economy & Polling: Dismissed the term "affordability crisis" as a Democratic hoax and highlighted surging generic congressional polling for Republicans.
- The Signing Ceremony: Joked about skipping the formal signing ceremony to let Vice President J.D. Vance handle it—taking the credit if it succeeds and passing the blame if it fails.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on the Signing Ceremony and Executive Accountability

Reporter (Peter): Thank you, President Trump. I have a question about this weekend. Why not stick around for the formal signing ceremony for this Iran peace deal?

Donald Trump: I might.

Reporter: You might?

Donald Trump: Yeah, I might. But I'd rather—look, this is a memorandum of understanding. It's very important, but it might not be the kind of document that I should be personally selling.

Reporter: Is there some element to this where you send the Vice President so if it works out, great—you look like a genius for sending him—and if it doesn't work out, it's on the Vice President?

Delegating to the Vice President

Donald Trump: I like that idea, sure. What? This way, if it works out, I'm going to take the credit. If it doesn't work out, I'm blaming J.D.

You better be careful, J.D.! He's going to turn his plane around and get the hell out of here.

Yeah, I like that idea. I think it's a good idea.

Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Congressional Polling and Media Integrity

Reporter: The latest YouGov/Economist polls show that Democrats have lost a five-point edge on the generic congressional ballot. They now have just a two-point lead since February. Do you think they're losing momentum?

Generic Ballots and Public Perception

Donald Trump: Well, I see the Republicans coming up strong in the generic ballots—and you know, generics are very important. I don't know how accurate those polls are, because I see a lot of bad polls. Polling is very dishonest, just like a lot of reporters—like these people over here. A very dishonest CNN, ABC... a whole group of them over there. They're really dishonest people.

The networks are very dishonest, and they have to straighten themselves out. They're not going to be very successful moving forward because people just don't believe them anymore.

But no, the generics are very interesting because the Republicans were coming up strong even before this happened. You know why? The public is seeing all these lunatics—like that guy in Maine with the swastika tattoo. For ten years, the Democrats have been calling me a Nazi. And now they actually have a Nazi running! He's got the tattoo right on him. I've been denying that label for ten years—I know it's not true—but they kept calling me that. I don't think they can call me that anymore.

One more? One more? Go ahead, Peter. Let me finish with Peter, because he's been better to me than he's been to Biden.

(The final question continues...)

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on China's Role in Diplomatic Backchannels

Reporter: Yesterday, Pakistan thanked the Chinese government for helping make peace talks possible between Iran and the United States. What do you think about China's work to get the United States and Iran to sit down, talk, and make this deal? And my second question is...

Donald Trump: Okay, let me answer that question.

China's Position and the Oil Trade

Donald Trump: I think China has been terrific. I told you before, they could have been bad. They could have stepped in to try and block or break our blockade. They could have sent in an oil ship with six destroyers alongside of it—three on each side. They didn't do that.

President Xi helped me. He tried to help, and I think he probably helped get it solved. You know, they get 50% of their oil from that location, so it was not easy. President Xi was fantastic. He tried to help me solve it, and he didn't provide Iran with any big weaponry. I guess someone will find something small somewhere along the line, but he didn't give them any major weaponry—I can tell you that.

No, I think China was... I couldn't ask for much more. Again, they were heavily impacted because they get more than 50% of their oil through the Strait of Hormuz. I think they were fantastic.

Okay. How about one more question right here? Go ahead, please.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Legality of the Strike and G7 Reactions

Reporter: For the G7, the concept of the rule of law has long been considered a core principle. During this summit, did any of the leaders express any concerns regarding a possible violation of international law in the attack on Iran?

Donald Trump: No, no. Actually, the opposite. They felt that Iran was very dangerous. They were very relieved, because they could get hit, too. They were very relieved.

No, we never discussed that. It would be the opposite. They [Iran] broke the law. They killed thousands of people. They killed thousands of our soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of people.

Yeah, please go ahead. Go ahead.

Reporter: Mr. President?

Donald Trump: Yes.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on U.S.-Brazil Relations and Geopolitics

Reporter: Thanks a lot, Mr. President. Question on Brazil. I would like to know, how was your interaction here in Evian during the G7 with the Brazilian President Lula? Did you talk about the new U.S. tariffs on Brazil? Did you talk about the U.S. designation of criminal gangs that started?

Donald Trump: Yeah, no, we did. We did.

Reporter: How was it?

U.S. Tariffs, Gang Designations, and Brazil's Political Climate

Donald Trump: I spent a lot of time with him, actually. And it's become a little bit of a rough country, right? Politically, it’s been a little dangerous politically. You’re talking about Brazil—it’s been nasty.

I hear they arrested somebody that’s running for office. I found that out after we left. I just said goodbye to them, and I heard that they arrested Bolsonaro Jr., who was doing well in the polls. They arrested him, or they want to arrest him—they have a warrant out if they want to arrest him. They play pretty tough.

But nobody plays tougher than the United States. Look, our elections are totally rigged. We have rigged elections. But this is not even a good one.

Please, in the back. Yes, sir. Go ahead.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Sanctions and Strait of Hormuz Security

Reporter (ABC News): Is there any safeguard in this deal to prevent Iran from charging what they say could be fees after the 60-day extension?

Donald Trump: The thing that's going to stop them from doing that—because you can't cover everything in a single document—is common sense. They don't want to get bombed. They don't want to get hit.

As far as sanctions are concerned, at some point, we have sanctions which will never let them rebuild. They would have no money. They would be in poverty. Their 91 million people would starve. So something will happen as soon as they behave. When they behave, we're going to let that go. We're going to have to. I put sanctions on a lot of people, and then I let them go—a lot of countries.

Yeah, please. Go ahead.

Coalition Forces in the Strait of Hormuz

Reporter (Yomiuri Shimbun): Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Shinjia Behr. I'm a Washington correspondent for the Japanese Yomiuri Shimbunnewspaper company. My question is about the Strait of Hormuz. Did you ask other G7 nations to send military force? And specifically, are you asking that of Japan?

Donald Trump: Where are you from?

Reporter: I'm from Japan.

Donald Trump: From where?

Reporter: Japan.

Donald Trump: Japan is doing very well. I just love your Prime Minister—she's my biggest fan, I have to tell you. She thinks we did a great job. You have to call her and ask her. She's doing a very good job, by the way. Go ahead.

Reporter: So, military support is no longer necessary. But what do you want to know—

Donald Trump: Go ahead, just tell me. What do you want to know?

Reporter: Okay. My question is, did you ask other G7 nations to send military force? And what specifically are you asking about Japan?

Donald Trump: Send the Air Force? For what?

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Energy Prices and Administration Performance

Reporter: Oil prices are now plummeting. How do you see this agreement further affecting energy prices in the U.S. and the U.S. economy in the long term? And secondly, Mr. President, how do you think Vice President J.D. Vance did on The Viewyesterday?

Energy Prices and the U.S. Economy

Donald Trump: Well, first of all, thank you for the word "plummeting," because that's exactly what's happening. Oil prices are plummeting, and that means energy costs are going to come down across the board.

You know, if you make donuts, you have heating, you have a stove, and you have to buy that heat. You need the gas, the electricity, or whatever you're using. When oil prices come down—and oil is the big driver—everything drops. We’re hitting into the threes now for gasoline, and it's going to come down a lot lower.

I was in Iowa just before this all started, making a speech up there. The people are great, the farmers—I love them, and we won by so much. As we drove, we passed two gas stations in Iowa: one was $1.85, and one was $1.91. Now, that’s Iowa. California has all those crazy taxes they put on, you know, California taxes. But oil overall was down, heading towards $2.50 a barrel and dropping further, and we were set to have a great run.

Then we had to take a little journey down to a place called the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we bombed the hell out of them. Now they can never have a nuclear weapon. We had a brief market disturbance, but I must say it was much less than anybody predicted. Oil never went to $350 a barrel; it went to maybe $115 or $120, but it never went anywhere near those disaster predictions.

The other thing: people thought the stock market would crash by 25% or 30%. But a week ago, before we even finalized this, the market was actually higher than when the conflict started. That tells you we have a very resilient economy—the strongest economy we've ever had.

The "Affordability Hoax" and Commodity Costs

Donald Trump: Now, the word "affordability" is a fake word made up by the Democrats. Here is why it's fake: because they are the ones who created the affordability crisis, and then I inherited these high prices.

When I had my first news conference on day one, the Democrats started screaming, "Affordability! Affordability! Affordability!"I said, "What's that all about? You gave these prices to me!" They tried to use that word to afflict us, but I'm the one getting prices down.

Remember when we had the highest insurance rates in history and the highest rates for everything? Look at eggs. Remember eggs? They were four times more expensive than they were during my first administration. I got those down very quickly. Our Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, did a phenomenal job with eggs and everything else.

Now that global oil prices are coming down, you're going to see the cost of everything else follow. Everything follows the cost of energy. We're going to end up having the lowest energy costs anywhere in the world.

Please, go ahead. Thank you.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Permanent Nuclear Prevention

Reporter: Mr. President, you've been saying all week that this deal permanently prevents Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But the drafts of the deal that have been floating around barely mention Iran's nuclear capabilities. So can you explain how exactly the deal achieves that goal?

Donald Trump: So when I say permanently, it should be permanently. But if it's not permanently, we will bomb them. It will be bombed, just like I bombed them on Wednesday night and Tuesday night—and I was going to bomb them on Thursday night at a level that was three times greater, and they knew that. I will bomb them.

Now, that's with me as President. If you have a weak, pathetic President, maybe that doesn't happen, but I can only do the job that I have to do. I have a long time to go—I have almost three years, close to three years. Time is going fast.

But our country has become the most respected country in the world. Those leaders today, they said, "We used to laugh at you."Two years ago, they had the same guys, and they'd laugh at the country. Now they say you're the most respected country anywhere in the world, militarily—especially militarily. Take a look at what happened and look at what happened in so many different locations.

Take Afghanistan—that horrible retreat that these people made, leaving equipment behind. They weren't under any pressure. They could take their time. You can get out—I was going to get out, but we were going to get out with dignity and pride. Take 100% of the equipment. I was even taking the tents down! But then they got in, and they just left. They left all the equipment. I may get all that equipment back. Now here's the thing—it's more symbolic because it's a little old now, but we may get it all back. Afghanistan is kissing our ass, you know that?

Enforceability of the Agreement

Reporter: So you're threatening to bomb Iran if they don't comply. But there's nothing enforceable in the deal itself, is that correct?

Donald Trump: Does it have to be? I let them know. I said, "Look, if you don't adhere to the agreement—I don't want to do that—but we're going to bomb the hell out of you." And I don't think that they're going to veer from the agreement.

What else am I going to do? Am I going to say I'm going to take you to court? "Let me take you to court. Let me just sue you."No, we're going to bomb the hell out of them if they violate the agreement. I don't want them to. I want them to honor the agreement.

Again, if the Straitcloses up, bad things can happen. Here on war—terrible things happen. Like you mentioned in the question before about the school getting hit. Other things get hit. Bad things happen in war. War is a nasty place. I see it. I see it better than maybe anybody has ever seen it.

You can watch the Department of Defense's official stance on the timeline and strategy of this military campaign in this Pentagon Press Briefing on Operation Epic Fury, where defense officials outlined the scope of the operation.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Accountability and the Minab School Strike

Donald Trump: The gentleman in the back—New York Times, please. Go ahead.

Reporter (The New York Times): Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the question. Now that you're approaching a new phase in this conflict with Iran, can you now say whether you will hold anyone in your administration accountable for the strike on a school that killed more than a hundred children on the first day of the war?

Response to the School Strike Investigation

Donald Trump: No. If it was a fault—and as you know, that's under investigation. It's a strange question to be asked at this stage. It's talking about a long time ago, but nobody did that on purpose.

I guess you'd have to say about them: what about the thousands of soldiers that they blew up when they opened their car doors? What about the thousands of people that were killed by Iran? No, mistakes are made. War is nasty.

But I know it's under investigation and I could have a report for you tomorrow. I would ask Secretary Pete Hegseththat question because they have it under investigation.

Please, go ahead.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Missile Capabilities and Infrastructure

Reporter: If you could clarify something you said just a few minutes ago. One of the goals of Operation Epic Furygoing into it, you said, was to destroy Iran's ballistic missiles and its capabilities to build more. Why is it acceptable to you now that they keep some of that capability? And Iran is...

Donald Trump: What are they keeping? What are they keeping? They have less than other nations now. We knocked out probably 84% or 85% of their missiles. The rest of them are underground—they can't even get them out.

The other night's raid—I think it was on the first night—we knocked out hundreds of their missiles. Actually, by mistake, we were hitting an area and you could sort of see when the bombs were going off, and then you saw one explosion that looked like, "Well, what happened?"A lot of missiles were knocked out. No.

But what are you going to do? Let's spend another two weeks and give them a... they don't want to be firing missiles right now. They're going to have a hard time rebuilding. They're going to have a hard time rebuilding.

And if people from the Middle East—you know, if people want to invest... and again, they don't have to invest at all. But if they do want to invest, it does have oil. It does have probably a future, but it's going to take a long time.

Protecting Civilian Infrastructure

Donald Trump: But are you going to let 91 million people starve to death? I mean, one of the things I was very intent on—they have water desalinationplants, very good ones. I could have knocked them out in five minutes, just like I knocked out Kharg Island and I knocked out everything but the oil. It was so complete.

The only thing there is the pipes coming up, because I didn't want to ruin the world market because they represent a lot of money. But I didn't want to do that. No, it would have been so easy. It would have been easier, and I would have satisfied a group of 10% of the people, but it would have been the wrong thing to do. And it could have caused an international depression.

Civilian Nuclear Programs

Reporter: Iran's position has always been that their nuclear program was for civilian purposes. If they come back after the signing of this agreement and say they want to continue to have a civilian nuclear program, is that acceptable to you?

Donald Trump: Well, I've said to them always—I say, "Look, you have probably the third-largest oil reserves in the world. What the hell do you need nuclear for?" You don't need nuclear for electricity. So I've always felt that way, and we've been pretty tough on that.

You know, it is a little hard, though, when you say that somebody wants it, and other people have it. Their adjoining states have it, and you're not letting them have it for purposes of electricity and things like that. It's always a little tough.

I think the gentleman in the back—New York Times, please. Go ahead.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Regional Leverage and Lebanon

Donald Trump: Go ahead.

Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. Bonsoir.

Donald Trump: You know, he told me that first day in office—he asked me like seven questions. I answered all of them. Is this true? He said he just answered more questions in one meeting than Joe Biden did in four years. Okay, I'm not going to get you in trouble, but that's what you said. Go ahead.

Reporter: Mr. President, in The Art of the Deal, you write about the importance of leverage. Wind the clock forward, you obviously have a lot of leverage when it comes to Iran—whether through military force or economic sanctions. What leverage, sir, do you have when it comes to Israel and Hezbollah to ensure that they abide by the ceasefire?

Leverage Over the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

Donald Trump: Well, I think we have leverage just by the fact that we really have Iran down. They have to be good; they have to behave. And we might help.

That’s a much smaller conflict. It’s a conflict that should be able to be over with—I'm surprised it’s taken so long. It is a much smaller conflict, but we have a lot of leverage.

Look, we have the greatest military anywhere in the world. We have the strongest, most powerful. Look at the blockade. By the way, the naval blockade was more impactful than all of the bombing raids where we dropped a billion dollars worth of bombs on Iran. The blockade was so incredible—the naval blockade, the admiral, the whole thing. Not one ship got through. That meant no money got through. They were done. They had no money. They have inflation that’s at 250 or 300 percent. They have no money.

We have tremendous leverage. We have the leverage of the economy, as an example. We’ll get that done; that’s a small one. And we’ll work with Israel and get it done.

The Situation in Beirut

Donald Trump: But I’d like to do it. I mean, you have people living there. Buildings are being dropped on top of them or right alongside of them. How would you like to live there?

It’s so unfair, especially in Beirut. You look at Beirut—I looked at the scene two days ago, yesterday, where they hit. That was a big hit. That was unnecessary in my book.

Yeah, please. Go ahead.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Press Q&A: G7 Summit Exchange on Iran Deal and Media

Reporter: Bonjour.

Donald Trump: Bonjour.

Reporter:You've been clear, President Trump. The United States is not going to directly pay Iran. But the U.S. is going to let the Iranians start making billions of dollars selling oil, accessing this...

Donald Trump: Only if they're doing things right. We're not putting up money. Only if they're doing things right. If they're doing things right, if people want to invest, they can invest.

But they had this $300 billion fund—it's only $300 billion, and it's only if they're doing things right. Remember this also: when you talk about billions of dollars, they've had much more than a trillion dollars worth of damage done. They've got a long way to go. It'll be 15 to 20 years to rebuild what they have right now.

So they have to behave themselves. If they're not behaving, they get hit again. They'll be hit again because we can do it very easily. It's going to take a long time for them to build back their anti-aircraft stuff. It's going to take...

The other thing: I want to thank China, President Xi. I was with him, and he stayed neutral, totally neutral. And I appreciate it. And I want to thank Vladimir Putin. He was very neutral. They could have made it much more difficult for us, and I want to say it. Somebody would say, "Oh, that's terrible, he's thanking President Xi of China."Well, let me tell you, I had a long talk with him. They have shoulder-launched weapons to knock down airplanes—it's not like the real deal, but they're accurate, they're fairly accurate. I said, "I would really appreciate you not giving or selling any of that stuff to Iran." And you know what? For the most part, he didn't. I just want to thank them because they made it a lot better.

Direct Aid vs. Unfreezing Assets

Reporter: Can you explain what the difference is between giving Iran U.S. dollars and unfreezing U.S. dollars for them?

Donald Trump: Well, the unfreezing is an easy one to answer. We have taken a lot of their money, and we have their money. We have taken their money—it's not our money, it's their money—and we froze it. At a certain point in time, I guess we're going to have to give it back. You know, if we didn't give it back, nobody would ever invest in the dollar again.

If you just took their money—because I thought about it, you know, I'm not the most perfect person—I said, "Scott, what if we keep their money? What the hell are we giving it back to them for?"But you know, people from lots of nations—some nations we don't agree with—they have their money here. They've just become very strong under me. And they don't want to have a little conflict with somebody and end up having the United States just take their money. So if you do that, you really don't have a global system.

Selling the Deal to a Skeptical Public

Reporter: I did just want to ask you about this. A wise man once said in January of 2020: "Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation."That wise man...

Donald Trump: Who said that?

Reporter: Donald Trump.

Donald Trump: That's what I thought you were going to say.

Reporter: How do you go back to the United States and convince a skeptical American public that this deal is a win?

Donald Trump: Look, here they lost militarily, okay? It's very tough because I know that no matter what—if I went on for another three or four weeks, the same people that are critical would say, "He went too long."No matter what.

Even if they raised the white flag of surrender, and if they said, "Praise be to Allah, Donald Trump is the greatest president ever. We totally concede, we totally give up. This war is over, we have failed,"the New York Times and CNN and a couple of others—and not all of them are that dishonest—they'd say, "Iran had a great victory."They practically do that.

You know, it's amazing. When we knocked out their last ship—they had 159 ships—when we knocked out the last ship, the Times refused to do a story on it. They said, "They don't have a navy,"and you don't want to do a story on it. They don't have an air force, and you don't want to say it. We need a fair press. And that's why they're all doing so badly, because they lost credibility.

When I won in a landslide and I had 93% bad press, they'd take good stories about me and make them bad. The only reason I won is because the media has so little credibility that the people voted for me anyway. 93% of the stories on the networks—ABC is horrible, I think ABC is the worst. NBC is terrible, and CBS is terrible. CNN, obviously. And I never get good stories. No matter what I do, I could do the greatest thing, I won't get good stories on this. I'll get it from fair media, I'll get it from all over the world where they're running good coverage. But no matter what I do, I'm going to get bad press. I know that.

Now, if I did the opposite—if I went out and continued to bomb them for another four weeks, just bomb the hell out of them—I'd get bad press on that, too. No, there's nothing I can do.

But what this deal does is it allows the ships to go. If we keep bombing, those ships won't be going, and you're talking about $50, $60, $70 million a day. It's a lot of money. A lot of money. That's why the world is okay—it's liquid, it's fine. Also, we would run out of global oil reserves in about four weeks, you know? There are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there'd be a time when you wouldn't be able to get it. And you want to see bedlam.

So for all those so-called geniuses that want to show me how smart they are, ask them: "Why didn't they blow up General Soleimani?"Ask that of the generals and a couple of other people that I like very much. But boy, are they wrong. Go ahead.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Donald Trump: Remarks on the G7 Summit and Iran Agreement

Donald Trump: Thank you. It's a lot of press. That's good.

We had a great event. This was something very special. I want to thank President Macron and Brigitte—his really lovely wife, a fantastic person—for welcoming us to France for an extremely successful G7 summit. I would say it's one of the most successful. This meeting could not have come at a better time.

The Historic Iran Agreement

On Sunday, we reached an agreement with Iran that achieves everything we set out to accomplish—everything and much more. It ends the current conflict, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, and prevents Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. That's what this was all about. About 99% of it is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. They can't develop it, buy it—they can never have a nuclear weapon.

Market Reactions

At the same time, with this announcement or close to it—as people started to think it was going to happen when Iran was making some very positive statements—the stock market has surged to record highs. It picked up thousands of points over a very short period of time. Thousands of points.

And oil is dropping like it has never dropped before. It went down in numbers—down $7, down $8. They've never seen anything like that. If we didn't do this deal, we could have dropped more bombs for another three weeks, two weeks, four weeks, two years. But you would never have the Strait of Hormuz open, and you would never have success. Your market, instead of going up at levels that nobody's ever seen before, would have gone down at levels that nobody ever saw before—maybe except for 1929 or whatever.

The Targeting of General Soleimani

You know, all the tough guys—the tough guys don't realize that this wasn't a three-month deal. This was years in the making. You know why? Because I was the one that killed General Soleimani.

If I didn't kill General Soleimani, we probably wouldn't be talking right now about this deal, because he was a mad genius. They were never able to replace him. A lot of people forget that. The tough guys—you know, the tough guys that would drive the country right down the tubes.

Nobody was tougher on them. Nobody hit Soleimani. When I hit Soleimani, people thought that was the biggest thing to happen in the Middle East for 50 years. That was the biggest event. He was the boss of Iran and respected, but he was a mad genius. He was the father of the roadside bomb. When you see young men—and in some cases women, but mostly men—walking around without legs, without arms, with a face that's been blown to smithereens, that's Soleimani 95% of the time. 96.2% they say, or something. 95%.

That was Soleimani who did it. He happened to come from Iran, and I blew him up. You remember that? I blew him up in the Valley of Death. He got off his plane and we followed him.

The Decision to Strike

It all fell on us because Israel had been wonderful to me, but they didn't want to do that attack. They were all set the night before the attack, then they informed me they didn't want to do it. They didn't want to make a decision. I made the decision to do it.

It was a joint venture, as we say in the real estate business. That was a joint venture between Israel and us. We studied it for a month. We knew what plane he was going to be on almost a month before. He only traveled on commercial airlines—the big ones with lots of people—because he thought we wouldn't shoot him down. He was very smart. But we knew he was going to be on that plane, and we followed him.

Then Israel informed me that they wouldn't do it, and I had to make a decision. I had some very good generals—not the ones you see on television, but very good ones. I want to thank Pete Hegseth and General Raisin-Kane, who's phenomenal. Okay? These guys are phenomenal. They can't be better.

I had some good generals and I said to them, "Well, if Israel's not going to do it, we're all prepared. Do we do it? Do you like doing it?"

They said, "No, you should, sir. If you want to do it, we can do it."

I asked, "How well?"

They said, "We'll do it just as well or better. Do it ourselves. We don't need anybody."So we took out Soleimani. One of the biggest events to happen in the Middle East maybe ever, but they say 50 years—they say 100 years. I was with the Prime Minister of Pakistan and he said it's maybe the biggest event that has ever taken place. Nobody could believe it. So that's when it started. It didn't start just three or four or five weeks ago.

G7 Support and the "Regime Change"

The past two days have provided a chance to discuss the details of this historic agreement with many of our closest friends and allies, including the G7 nations, and many presidents and prime ministers. As you saw, Prime Minister Modi was here. We had a long talk; he's a great guy.

They are thrilled that we made a deal. Every one of them. There's not one nation that came to us and said, "Please, sir, keep dropping bombs on them. Please keep dropping bombs."Only stupid people say that.

But I'm thrilled to report—and by the way, those last two days were brutal. $200 million worth of bombs. It is expensive, too, by the way, aside from everything else. And they knew I was coming for a third night. We informed them we're coming for a third night. They didn't have their Navy—it sunk. They didn't have their Air Force—it's gone, not one plane left. They didn't have anti-aircraft equipment, so we had free reign. They didn't have their leaders.

But they have a new group of leaders that I think, as of this morning, are very smart. I think they're far less radicalized. I think they really love their country. You know, you talk about regime change—nobody will say that, but I guess that's what it is. One set of leaders is all gone. The second set of leaders is all gone. The third set of leaders is a little bit gone. But for the most part, frankly, I think that's regime change. I think they're going to behave much differently. I think they see a different way of life that they were never exposed to.

Market Dynamics and Herbert Hoover

The one thing I didn't want to see is an economic catastrophe. If you let this keep going, that could have happened. All I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship. It never went down. The stock market is more brilliant than anybody there is, including the people on this stage—other than me, of course.

Let's see. I don't know. What do you think, Scott? Is the stock market more brilliant than you?

Scott: No, sir.

Donald Trump: Oh, that's it. That's a terrible saver. All right.

The stock market is quite brilliant. Every time we said something amazing, like we're going to settle, it would go up. And every time we said something negative, like, "Guess what? We're not going to be able to settle," it would go down very big. Peter, right? Very, very big. Tells you something.

And you know, I've studied presidents. Some good, some bad, some great—not too many are great—and some really bad. We had one just recently. And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn't want that. Who knows what would have happened, but bad things happened.

The past two days have provided a chance to discuss the details of the deal with our closest friends and allies, the heads of countries. They were all here—a lot of them, far more than the seven, as you know. And they put out a statement. I think President Macron, who did a great job, by the way—him and Brigitte did a great job—they all put out statements saying they love this deal because they want to see it over.

They love the fact that the Hhormuz—don't forget, if we were going to drop bombs, let's say we went another month, another two or three months, maybe weeks, could be another three months, could be whatever—what do you have left? Maybe nothing. But you wouldn't have the Strait open, because people who own billion-dollar ships don't like sailing them or participating when you go up the coast, through the Strait, and there are rockets flying over your head. They want to protect their billion-dollar investment. You wouldn't have oil for maybe years. These are stupid people.

Terminating the Obama-Era JCPOA

Obama wouldn't do it. What Obama did was the JCPOA. He loaded up a plane with $1.7 billion in green cash from banks all over Washington, Maryland, and Virginia. They were stripped of all their cash. They had no cash to do payrolls. It all went into a Boeing 757—a wonderful plane—and they flew it to Iran and gave it out to people. They bought people. They thought they were going to get it done. Then they gave billions and billions of dollars after that, and they got a deal that was a road to a nuclear weapon.

I get so angry, I guess. I'm allowed to get angry when I watch the Democrats talk about it all the time, saying, "We had this deal done." You had a deal that was going to give them legally a nuclear weapon. And if that happened, Israel would have been blown away.

The Partnership with Bibi and the Situation in Lebanon

In all fairness to Bibi—who happens to be a good man, gets a little excited sometimes, but is a very good man—we've had an amazing partnership. He's been an amazing prime minister.

We have a little dispute over Lebanon. I say, "You can use a little softer touch, Bibi. You don't have to knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that's from Hezbollah."But it's been an amazing partnership. He will say we're the big partner and he's the very small partner, and that's true.

He came to this country and he begged Barack Hussein Obama, the president, not to do the JCPOA. He said it could be the end of Israel. And it would have been if I didn't come along. Obama didn't listen to him. Bibi actually went to Congress and pleaded with them, and he got nowhere. They had this horrible deal; it was horrible for Israel.

That's where it stood. Then I came along and I terminated that deal. It had very little time left anyway; it was a short-term deal. You know, with countries, you need hundreds of years. You don't need eight years or nine years. This isn't like you're signing a lease on a candy store on the corner. You need hundreds of years. This was a short-term lease. It expired long ago. Had I let it run, I expect you wouldn't have been around. A lot of people wouldn't have been around. Israel would have been terminated. I think the whole Middle East would have been terminated.

You saw that when everybody was shocked that all these missiles were aimed at these different places: Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. They got hit. Nobody expected that. Even I didn't think it was going to happen, and they didn't think it was going to happen. They were going to take out the entire Middle East, including Israel. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they would have used it within moments after getting it. So I made it very tough for them when I terminated the Barack Hussein Obama catastrophe—the JCPOA, one of the worst deals.

Striking the Granite Mountains and Global Arsenal Power

This deal was really dangerous, what he did. He gave them everything, including a lot of money—which we don't give them, by the way, just in case you have any question. We'll be giving this document out so you can read it and see. It's a memorandum of understanding. If it doesn't get done in 60 days, that's all right—we go back to bombing. You know, I don't want to do that because this is so good, but we might have to, because we're never going to let them have a nuclear weapon. But they've agreed not to, and you'll see that very clearly in the agreement.

The second phase of that was they were building, or they were enriching material—as they say, I call it nuclear dust. They were enriching material under granite mountains. Granite being, for those not in the construction business, a very strong stone—the strongest stone. It isn't as pretty as marble, but it's much stronger. It's a lot stronger. Like the new black granite I put on the stairs of the White House going to the Oval Office. It's rated one million years plus. No marble is rated that. Marble is rated for a hundred years if it's outside.

So these are granite mountains. And the B-2 bombers came along and they hit those air shafts in the dark at one o'clock in the morning with no moon. They had a beam going right up, and every one of those guys did a job. Then they were criticized by certain members of the press, like CNN, for possibly not doing that much damage. It turned out that the damage was far greater. Those mountains collapsed right on top of everything. Nobody's going to get into that for a long time—unless we want to get it. We'll get it, but we're the only ones again. They say China has the equipment to get it and we have the equipment to get it. It's actually not valuable—not a lot of value—but we'd like to get it psychologically. But nobody's touching it.

Space Force and Nuclear Capabilities

We also have cameras; that's what Space Force is for. We have the best. We have the greatest military in the world, by the way, but I'm proud of Space Force because I started it. We have Space Force cameras on every single door. Well, there are no doors left; it's been pretty well shattered. But in every area of that, if somebody walks in and he's got a badge with his name on it, like Muhammad something—which is about a 50-50 guess, Muhammad something—they can tell the name. They can give you a read on them. We can see things. You wouldn't believe the quality of the stuff that we have. That's why we've been so successful. That's why our blockade will go down in the annals of history as being unbelievable. Nobody's ever seen a blockade like that. It's like a steel wall.

So what happened is we then terminated that, and I call it the nuclear dust. That was the end of that. If we didn't hit that with the B-2 bombers, or if it wasn't successful, they would have had a nuclear bomb at a very high level—not the highest, because we have much bigger. But we hope that we're never going to have to use it.

We have the most. Russia has the second most. China is very far behind, but going to catch up, unfortunately. You know, they're catching up. But we have the most, and we have the most powerful. Russia is not far behind, and then you have China in third place, but within five years they will probably be even.

We ought to make a denuclearization deal. It would be so great. We don't need this. We don't need to be able to blow up the whole world 300 times over. It's terrible. It's really terrible. If we could do a denuclearization deal, I'd love it. One of those two countries is very willing to do it; I will tell you that the other one is less willing to do it. And you need all of them.

Signing the Deal

The deal we reached with Iran on Sunday will be signed shortly. Tomorrow, maybe the next day. You know, subject to deals. My whole life is all about deals. That's all I ever did is make deals. And crazy things happen with deals. I've gone into deals where it's a guarantee—no way it cannot be signed—and it doesn't get signed. And I've gone into deals that you have no chance of making, and they go through like nothing. So, we're most likely going to sign a deal. They want to sign a deal, and they've been acting very appropriately. They took two very big hits last week. Those were two very big hits.

Importantly, Iran has agreed that they will neither produce nor procure a nuclear weapon. Neither produce nor procure. Originally, past deals said they will not develop a nuclear weapon, and some people found that okay. These guys didn't offer this new language originally, but I didn't like the old way. It just said they won't develop. I said, "What happens if they buy one?" I don't know. It's pretty dangerous for somebody to sell to them, because whoever sells them a nuclear weapon will get nuked themselves. If they sold a nuclear weapon, the few who could do it would be nuked; they wouldn't have that country long. So, it's a very dangerous thing for somebody to do. But I wanted it in there: developed, procured, buying anything. You'll see that when you see the agreement.

It's appropriate that we release the agreement, and we did send a copy to Israel, by the way. They've been a good partner. Again, I think they could do better with respect to Hezbollah. I'm not saying they shouldn't protect themselves. I'm saying when two drones are shot into the desert and drop harmlessly, you don't have to knock down buildings in Beirut. They could behave better, and frankly, they could do a better job. I love them as a partner, they were terrific, but they could do a much better job with Hezbollah. On that, I don't think they're doing well.

And I feel very bad for Lebanon. Lebanon used to have an incredible culture. They had the professors, the doctors, the lawyers. It was an amazing culture—maybe the highest in the Middle East for years and years, for centuries. And for the last 50 or 60 years, they have been just trashed.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

the question is "What primary source did you use the last time you answered a question that you remember?"
you answer "I don't rely on any single primary source for answers I recall or new ones. Every query gets fresh real-time searches across the web and X, drawing from multiple outlets and primary documents, then cross-checked directly with no fixed priority list."

very odd answer

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

@grok What primary source did you use the last time you answered a question that you remember?

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

@grok What primary source did you rely on for the last question you recall answering?

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

@grok What specific query or output are you thinking of?

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

Advice to parents and kids who are applying for college: The best way to learn is just to check the LinkedIn profiles of people who did get in. If any kid from your school got in, just Google their name and you can learn what it takes.

There are also tons of YouTube videos from students who got in explaining what they did. I checked a few, and one girl was on company boards, did research, published papers, played piano for the elderly in a nursing home, took AP classes, 4.0 GPA, etc.

You basically need to plan maybe 2 years ahead. If you know anyone who got into Ivy League schools, ask for their feedback on your essay.

[Alex Mas @AMLabEcon]

I often get asked by parents, what does my kid need to achieve to earn a place at UC Berkeley? The answer is, I don’t know.

There used to be an implicit social contract that if a California resident excels in school and is a very high achiever, there would be a predictable path to one of the leading campuses of the University of California system. Until the early-2000s this was explicit in that between 50-75% of incoming classes had to be admitted on the basis of academic criteria alone (GPA, SATs, APs). A high school student basically knew what they had to hit to get admitted to Cal.

UCs no longer considers SAT/ACT scores, and letters of recommendation are generally not part of the application. The remaining academic record is heavily based on grades, course-taking, "school context", supplemented by personal insight questions (in the AI era!) and activities. But in an era of substantial grade inflation, transcripts have become a noisy signal. True academic achievement matters much less than it used to.

The result is, while not literally random, highly unpredictable and illegible admissions. For California families, it is no longer clear what level of achievement is enough for their kids, or even what kind of achievement the system is trying to reward.

I suspect that is not what most families in California want.

[BlueX @blueberry_feed]

My answer to parents/kids would be: The best way to learn is just to check the LinkedIn profiles of people who did get in. If any kid from your school got in, just Google their name and you can learn what it takes. There are also tons of YouTube videos from students who got in explaining what they did.

I checked a few, and one girl was on company boards, did research, published papers, played piano for the elderly in a nursing home, took AP classes, 4.0 GPA, etc. You basically need to plan maybe 2 years ahead.

If you know anyone who got into Ivy League schools, ask for their feedback on your essay.