On Friday, 29 May 2026, US President Donald Trump took to his Truth Social platform to declare a major breakthrough in the three-month-long war with Iran. In a lengthy post penned just before a high-level meeting in the White House Situation Room, Trump announced that the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which has choked off approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supplies since late February would be lifted immediately. “Ships caught in the Strait due to our amazing and unprecedented Naval Blockade, which will now be lifted, may start the process of ‘heading home!’” Trump wrote, adding that “the Hormuz Strait must be immediately open, no tolls, for unrestricted shipping traffic, in both directions”. He further claimed that Iran would remove any remaining mines from the waterway, that the two countries would coordinate on destroying Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, and that “no money will be exchanged, until further notice”.
The announcement was met with a flurry of market activity. Oil prices, which had already been nursing deep losses over the past week amid hopes of a Hormuz reopening, tumbled further. West Texas Intermediate crude fell nearly 3 percent, retreating to the low $86 range, its lowest closing price since mid-April. Investors, it seemed, had taken Trump at his word. The problem, however, was that the ships were not heading home. The blockade was not lifted. And the waterway remained, for all practical purposes, as closed as it had been since the war began.
Within hours of Trump’s post, Iranian media began pushing back with a very different account. According to Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency, Iranian vessels attempting to cross the blockade line after Trump’s announcement were met with US CENTCOM warnings, ordering them to turn back or face gunfire. Seafarers reported that “no change in the blockade’s status” had been observed, and that US forces continued to issue stop warnings and deny passage. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, for its part, reaffirmed that it retained “full authority” over the strait, declaring that “all ships, commercial vessels, and oil tankers are exclusively required to transit through designated routes and obtain permission from the IRGC Navy”. The IRGC claimed that 20 commercial vessels had transited the strait over the past 24 hours, but only after obtaining explicit permission and coordinating with Iranian naval forces, and travelling along routes designated by Tehran. In other words, Iran was still calling the shots, and the United States was still enforcing its embargo.
The disconnect was not lost on Tehran’s leadership. Mohsen Rezaei, a military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, accused Trump of “betraying diplomacy for the third time,” noting that “by continuing the naval blockade and making excessive demands in negotiations, he has proven more than ever that he is not a negotiator and that he is pursuing other objectives”. The Iranian Foreign Ministry also weighed in, with spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei stating that while message exchanges with the United States continue, a final agreement has not been reached, and that regarding the lifting of the maritime blockade, “we need to see whether they will actually implement this or if it’s just propaganda claims”.
Perhaps the most authoritative confirmation that the blockade remained in place came from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a Royal Navy-linked agency responsible for maritime security advisories. On Friday, UKMTO issued a warning to merchant and neutral vessels transiting the strait, advising them to remain at least 30 nautical miles (56 kilometres) away from US military units and to respond promptly to any radio communications from American forces to avoid being misidentified as a threat. The notice warned that enforcement measures could include “disabling or destructive fire against vessels that fail to comply with blockade instructions”. The advisory also reiterated that “a military blockade on Iranian ports remains in force, restricting all inbound and outbound maritime traffic”. A separate UKMTO notice, cited by German-language media, stated bluntly that vessels subject to the blockade “should continue to follow the instructions of the blockade forces” and that non‑compliance could lead to a “rapid escalation”.
The UKMTO’s assessment is that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz remained “critical.” Mines, navigation interference, and the risk of direct attacks on vessels continued to pose a serious hazard. Unrestricted movement of vessels through the waterway was still not possible. For the hundreds of commercial vessels and the tens of thousands of seafarers still trapped in the Gulf, the blockade had not been lifted, and the risk of being caught in a crossfire remained as high as ever.
The glaring contradiction between Trump’s announcement and the reality on the water raises an obvious question: why would the president declare the blockade lifted when it so clearly was not? The answer, in part, may lie in the timing of his post. Trump’s Truth Social message was published on a Friday morning, ahead of a White House Situation Room meeting that was itself scheduled for late morning. The announcement sent oil prices tumbling, with West Texas Intermediate closing at 87.36 per barrel, a 1.73 percent drop. Brent crude, which had already been trading below 87.36 a barrel on hopes of a Hormuz reopening, fell further.
The market reaction was precisely what one might expect from a president who has long prided himself on his ability to manipulate public perception and financial outcomes. Lower oil prices are a political necessity for a White House facing midterm elections in November, with gasoline prices having soared to four‑year highs and voters expressing deep dissatisfaction with the war’s economic toll. By signalling that a deal was imminent, and that the blockade would be lifted, Trump could claim credit for a drop in fuel costs, even if the underlying reality had not changed. Moreover, the announcement allowed Trump to project an image of decisive leadership, framing himself as the architect of a diplomatic breakthrough while simultaneously maintaining the option of future military action.
This is not the first time the administration has employed such tactics. Throughout the conflict, Trump has repeatedly declared that a deal was “very close,” only to later extend the ceasefire without any concrete progress. Each announcement has been carefully timed to coincide with market movements or political events, suggesting a deliberate strategy of using optimistic statements to shape market expectations and political narratives. The 29 May announcement fit this pattern perfectly: it came on the final trading day of the week, allowing the White House to frame the narrative over the weekend while leaving the actual implementation to be sorted out later.
Another possibility is that Trump’s announcement was premature, a genuine, if ill-advised, expression of optimism about the status of the negotiations. According to reports, a draft memorandum of understanding was under discussion that would have extended the ceasefire for 60 days, fully reopened the Strait of Hormuz, and launched a new round of talks on Iran’s nuclear programme. Trump’s meeting in the Situation Room was meant to be the moment of final decision. But after two hours, the meeting ended without any announcement. No deal was signed. No agreement was finalised. And the blockade remained in place.
Iran, for its part, has consistently maintained that it will not accept any deal that does not include the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen assets, and a permanent end to the war on all fronts. It has also insisted that the nuclear file is a separate issue to be addressed in later stages of negotiation. The United States, by contrast, has demanded upfront commitments on uranium enrichment and has refused to release Iran’s assets without concrete nuclear concessions. The gap between the two positions has proven unbridgeable, and the prospects for a near-term deal remain slim.
The spectacle of a president announcing the end of a blockade that demonstrably continues has profound implications for the credibility of the United States and the stability of the Gulf. For Tehran, the incident serves as further confirmation of Washington’s unreliability. “As expected, the US President is betraying diplomacy for the third time,” Rezaei wrote on X. “By continuing the naval blockade and overstepping in negotiations, he has proven more than ever that he is not a negotiator and that he is pursuing other objectives”. The perception that the United States is negotiating in bad faith will only harden Iran’s position, making a genuine diplomatic breakthrough even more difficult to achieve.
For the shipping industry, the announcement, and its rapid disavowal has created a climate of profound uncertainty. Commercial operators are already reluctant to transit the strait, and the UKMTO’s warnings have only reinforced the perception that the waterway remains a war zone. Even if a deal is eventually reached, it will take weeks or months for shipping to return to pre‑war levels. The damage to global supply chains, already severe, will not be easily undone.
Ultimately, the question of whether Trump’s announcement was a deliberate market manipulation, a premature declaration, or a genuine miscommunication may never be definitively answered. What is clear is that the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed, that the US naval blockade remains in effect, and that the ceasefire, already fragile, is being stretched to its breaking point. The world continues to pay the price: oil prices are still elevated, global inflation remains stubbornly high, and the risk of a wider conflagration has not receded.