The Iran US ceasefire deal update news today is contradictory and fast-moving: the New York Times reported that Iran halted ceasefire negotiations entirely after Trump’s “civilization will die” post, while Iran’s own Tehran Times simultaneously insisted that “diplomatic and indirect channels of talks with the US are not closed.”

The Iran US ceasefire deal update news today reflects a conflict between what different governments are saying publicly and what is happening through back channels. According to CNBC, citing the New York Times directly: “The New York Times, citing three senior Iranian officials, reported that Iran has stopped negotiation efforts with the U.S. and told Pakistan, which has acted as a mediator, that it would end ceasefire talks.” The Wall Street Journal added that Iran cut off “direct communications with the US.” But Iran’s Tehran Times posted on X that “diplomatic and indirect channels of talks with the US are not CLOSED” — and Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan said the peace efforts had reached a “critical, sensitive stage.”

The immediate trigger was Trump’s Truth Social post just after 8 AM ET on April 7, in which he wrote that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Iranian officials cited the post as incompatible with negotiation. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei had already stated the day before that talks were “entirely incompatible with ultimatums, crimes and threats of war crimes.”

Before the breakdown, Iran submitted a formal 10-point proposal through Pakistani mediators. The proposal rejected any temporary 45-day ceasefire and instead demanded a permanent end to the conflict, a protocol governing safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of all US sanctions, and Iranian reconstruction funding. Trump publicly acknowledged the proposal on Monday, calling it “a significant step” but “not good enough.”

Why the 45-Day Ceasefire Was a Non-Starter for Iran

Iran’s refusal to accept a temporary ceasefire is rooted in its experience during Israel’s 12-day war in June 2025, which Iran argues showed it that ceasefire agreements do not prevent future attacks. As crypto.news reported, Iran has consistently demanded that any deal include guarantees against future attacks — not just a pause — and that the Strait of Hormuz’s full reopening would happen only under a final, comprehensive agreement, not as a confidence-building measure in a preliminary phase.

What Markets Are Doing With the Conflicting Signals

The contradiction between the official walkout and the back-channel communication is exactly what has made this conflict so difficult for markets to price. As crypto.news noted, Bitcoin pulled back below $69,000 when Trump confirmed Iran’s earlier proposal was insufficient, as traders returned to bearish positioning. The pattern throughout this conflict has been the same: ceasefire signals produce brief relief rallies, and their collapse reverses those gains within hours.

With 8 PM ET rapidly approaching, the credibility of any remaining indirect channel depends almost entirely on whether Iran uses the next few hours to signal something concrete to Pakistani mediators — or whether tonight sees the military escalation Trump has threatened.

“All elements need to be agreed today,” a source aware of the proposals told Reuters early Tuesday. “The initial understanding would be structured as a memorandum of understanding finalized electronically through Pakistan, the sole communication channel in the talks.”

In a high-stakes move that sharpens the focus on developer responsibility in crypto tooling, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York have asked a federal court to reject Tornado Cash co-founder Roman Storm’s bid for acquittal. The filing centers on the contention that Storm’s alleged actions go beyond a civil copyright dispute and implicate conspiracies to commit money laundering and sanctions violations.

Jay Clayton, the SDNY attorney who previously led the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, argued in court papers that Storm’s use of Tornado Cash was “window dressing at best and outright misdirection at worst.” The filing criticized Storm’s attempt to frame his defense around a civil copyright case, insisting there is no evidentiary basis for equating his conduct with civil liability and that such a line of defense is irrelevant to the criminal charges at hand. The motion responded to Storm’s plan to cite a 2026 Supreme Court case, Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, as part of an argument about Storm’s intent to participate in the criminal activity prosecutors allege.

According to the SDNY, Storm’s alleged conduct bears little resemblance to the facts in the Cox case, which dealt with copyright infringement in a civil context. The government contends there is no evidence that Storm or Tornado Cash’s developers implemented any effective anti-money-laundering controls, a point Clayton stressed in the filing.

“The defendant’s conduct simply is not comparable to the conduct at issue in Cox,” Clayton said. “In any event, a civil copyright case has no relevance here in the first place.”

Last August, a jury convicted Storm of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, but the panel deadlocked on two other charges — conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate sanctions — leaving the possibility of a retrial on those counts. The case has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over whether developers of open-source crypto tools can be held legally liable for how their code is used in illicit finance schemes.

Prosecutors and Storm’s defense team were slated to meet on the following Thursday to discuss the path ahead, including the possibility of a retrial date. In the meantime, the government has signaled continued pursuit of the remaining charges, while the defense has pressed for a dismissal or a narrow resolution based on civil-law considerations.

In a contemporaneous political thread surrounding the case, the conversation extended beyond the courtroom doors. Last week, reports circulated that U.S. lawmakers were advancing proposals intended to shield blockchain developers from broad prosecution, signaling a regulatory ambition to distinguish between personal risk and platform-level liability.

Key takeaways

• The SDNY explicitly rejects Roman Storm’s attempt to leverage Cox Communications as a defense, asserting the criminal nature of the alleged activity is not comparable to civil copyright disputes.
• Storm was convicted on conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, while two related charges ended in a mistrial, keeping the door open for a retrial on those counts.
• The case amplifies the ongoing debate about whether developers behind open-source crypto projects can be held criminally liable for how others use their code.
• News of a potential October retrial underscores the government’s intent to pursue the remaining charges, even as questions about evidentiary standards and defense strategy persist.
• In parallel, U.S. policymakers continue to explore protections for blockchain developers, highlighting tensions between enforcement goals and innovation incentives.
• The evolving DOJ posture, including commentary associated with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, could influence how aggressively prosecutors pursue similar cases and how they frame regulatory boundaries around crypto platforms.

Courts, cases and a shifting DOJ posture

Clayton’s filing frames the Storm case within a larger legal question: when, if ever, does enabling code cross the line into criminal participation? The defense’s tactic of invoking a civil copyright precedent appears designed to downplay Storm’s alleged role in facilitating illicit activity, but prosecutors argue that the underlying conduct extends far beyond such civil concerns. The government’s stance rests on an assertion that there was no adequate safeguard against abuse by Tornado Cash’s tools, a factor central to charges of money laundering conspiracies and sanctions violations.

The legal strategy in play here matters beyond one defendant. It tests the boundaries of developer liability for open-source projects and raises critical questions about how prosecutors evaluate intent and control in decentralized tooling. If civil analogies or civil-law defenses fail to translate to criminal contexts, the door may remain open for tougher scrutiny of developers whose code can be used for illicit ends—even when they claim no direct involvement in wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, the timing of the potential retrial adds a layer of strategic calculus for both sides. The SDNY has requested October as a possible window for re-presenting the evidence on the two previously deadlocked counts, but no date has been officially set as of now. The outcome could influence how similar cases are positioned in the future and how aggressively prosecutors pursue open-source projects that enable or facilitate illicit activity, including cross-border sanctions evasion.

DOJ policy signals and the broader regulatory backdrop

The Storm case sits at the intersection of criminal enforcement and policy signaling within a changing regulatory landscape. Last week, headlines centered on how a reshuffled Justice Department might recalibrate its approach to crypto. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has previously commented on the need to end what he termed “regulation by prosecution,” laid out a vision that could affect enforcement priorities in the crypto space. While Blanche did not name Storm specifically, he argued that the department should avoid pursuing actions against platforms that criminals leverage to conduct illegal activity and called for alignment between enforcement actions and overarching policy goals. The implications for Tornado Cash and similar tooling are indirect but notable, as prosecutors weigh how to apply anti-money-laundering and sanctions laws to decentralized technologies.

Storm himself has publicly framed the stakes in stark terms. In March, after prosecutors indicated a path toward retrying the two deadlocked counts, he argued that the charges could carry substantial maximum penalties — up to 40 years in federal prison — for actions tied to writing open-source code for a protocol he says he didn’t control and transactions he didn’t touch. The rhetoric underscores the tension between a developer-centric view of code as a public good and a prosecutorial view that code can be weaponized for financial crime when used in unintended or illicit ways.

Beyond the courtroom, the case feeds into a broader policy dialogue about how to balance innovation with enforcement. Lawmakers have floated measures designed to protect blockchain developers from punitive prosecution while maintaining guardrails against illicit finance. The tension between protecting innovation and deterring abuse remains a central theme in crypto regulation discussions, a dynamic that could shape how the industry negotiates risk, compliance, and governance in the years ahead.

As the legal process unfolds, observers will be watching the interaction between civil-law arguments, criminal liability standards, and the practical realities of open-source development. The Storm case is not just about a single set of charges; it is a bellwether for how courts interpret developer intent, how anti-money-laundering controls are evaluated in decentralized systems, and how policymakers balance the dual aims of fostering innovation and safeguarding financial integrity.

Readers should keep an eye on timing updates from the SDNY as it relates to potential retrial dates and any new motions from either side. The outcome could influence not only this case but the broader approach to crypto tooling and developer accountability as enforcement bodies navigate a rapidly evolving technical landscape.

For policymakers and market participants alike, the central question remains: where should the line be drawn between legitimate open-source development and actions that trigger criminal liability in an environment built on privacy, pseudonymity, and permissionless participation?

As the courtroom drama continues, the crypto community will be watching closely to assess how the balance between innovation and enforcement is negotiated in this era of rapid technological change.

The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. formally proposed its approach to stablecoin issuers as one of the federal financial regulators required to write and oversee rules under last year’s Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act.

The FDIC’s proposal —meant to align closely with what its sister banking agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, proposed in February — will be open for a 60-day public comment period on the lengthy list of 144 questions posed Tuesday by the agency.

The FDIC’s job is to police U.S. depository institutions, and under the GENIUS Act, its role is to regulate such institutions issuing stablecoins from their subsidiaries. To that end, it posed capital, liquidity and custody standards for those firms, though the details won’t be set in stone until the rule is finalized — not likely to occur until the agency spends further months reviewing input and writing the final language. This is the second GENIUS Act proposal from the banking agency after its December pitch on the issuer application process.

As expected under the law, stablecoins won’t enjoy the deposit insurance that the banks maintain on traditional banking accounts, according to the proposal.

The OCC’s earlier proposal had a section that caused some initial concern among crypto policy experts wondering how the agency would allow for rewards programs managed by third-party stablecoin relationships, such as exchanges. In the same vein, the FDIC said that issuers wouldn’t be able to represent that their tokens pay interest or yield “simply for holding or using a payment stablecoin,” according to the staff presentation, including via arrangements with third parties. But crypto insiders have grown comfortable that properly tailored rewards programs shouldn’t run afoul of the rules.

The FDIC’s Tuesday proposal also suggested the capital that issuers will need to maintain to manage the risk of the business, plus “an operational backstop, separate from the capital requirement,” based on the previous year’s operating expenses.  

The agency also addressed “the applicability of pass-through insurance to deposits held as reserves backing payment stablecoins,” proposing that “tokenized deposits that satisfy the statutory definition of ‘deposit’ would be treated no differently” than other deposits.

While the regulators work to implement GENIUS, some of its details are potentially already being overhauled by the work on the Senate’s Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. A clash between the banking and crypto industries over yield-bearing stablecoin holdings turned into a months-long debate that lawmakers have said they’re close to resolving, though the bill hasn’t yet advanced to a needed hearing. Congress comes back from a break later this week.

The OCC, FDIC and other agencies involved in implementing the rule, including the Treasury Department and the markets regulators, have few impediments in crafting regulations the way the Republican appointees want it. President Donald Trump’s White House has broken with past practice and declined to name any Democrat appointees to the many vacancies across the agencies, so there are no Democrats to raise objections to regulatory language.

But the GENIUS Act itself had drawn significant bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress when it was passed into law.

Read More: U.S. FDIC proposes first U.S. stablecoin rule to emerge from GENIUS Act

The US Iran war latest news oil prices today tells a sharply escalating story: American forces struck more than 50 military targets on Kharg Island, the hub through which Iran exports 90% of its crude, sending oil surging more than 3% to nearly $116 per barrel within minutes of the first reports.

The US Iran war latest news oil prices today sent a fresh shock through global energy markets on Tuesday as US forces struck more than 50 military targets on Kharg Island, Iran’s largest oil export hub, hours before President Trump’s 8 PM ET deadline expired. Iran’s semi-official Mehr News Agency reported multiple explosions on the island as early as 1:30 PM local Tehran time, and oil surged immediately, with US crude jumping over 3% to nearly $116 per barrel and Brent crossing $110.

VP JD Vance confirmed the strikes during a press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Budapest, characterizing them as “re-strikes” on previously targeted sites. “I don’t think the news about Kharg Island changes anything,” Vance said, insisting the attacks did not touch oil infrastructure and did not alter the president’s strategy ahead of the evening deadline.

Kharg Island handles roughly 90% of Iran’s crude oil exports and carries a loading capacity of about 7 million barrels per day, making it the primary financial lifeline of Tehran’s war-era economy. Iran earns an estimated $53 billion in net oil export revenues annually, about 11% of its GDP, almost entirely flowing through the island’s pipelines and terminals.

The US has now struck the island twice since the war began February 28. The first attack in mid-March destroyed naval mine storage facilities, missile bunkers, and air defense systems while preserving oil infrastructure. Tuesday’s strikes hit some of the same sites, according to a US official, again stopping short of targeting the oil terminal itself. Whether that restraint holds after 8 PM is the question driving markets.

What an Oil Infrastructure Strike Would Mean

Analysts have warned that striking Kharg’s oil terminal would have immediate and lasting consequences. “A direct hit on Iran’s export terminal would instantly shut down most of its 1.5 million barrels per day crude exports,” JPMorgan data cited by CNBC showed. “Destruction of its oil infrastructure would take years to rebuild, leaving the country deprived of its most critical source of revenue,” Vandana Hari of Vanda Insights told CNBC.

Iran has already telegraphed its response. The IRGC warned Tuesday that it would “deprive the US and its allies of the region’s oil and gas for years” if the civilian infrastructure strikes go forward. It also signaled that restraint toward Gulf Arab states hosting US military assets is now over, saying “all such considerations have been lifted” — a direct threat to regional energy facilities in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE.

Bitcoin and Crypto Markets Under Fresh Pressure

As crypto.news reported, each round of escalation in this conflict has pushed oil higher and Bitcoin lower, with the Strait of Hormuz closure already keeping crude above $100 for weeks and compressing Federal Reserve flexibility on rate cuts. Crypto.news also noted that major cryptocurrencies have dropped 3 to 5% during prior escalation phases, as higher oil prices feed directly into inflation expectations and reduce appetite for risk assets.

Tonight’s 8 PM deadline, and what follows it, will determine the next major move for both energy and crypto markets.