By JON GAMBRELL, Associated Press

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Negotiations between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program will move Wednesday to what’s known as the “expert level” — a sign analysts say shows that the talks are moving forward rapidly.

However, experts not involved in the talks who spoke with The Associated Press warn that this doesn’t necessarily signal a deal is imminent. Instead, it means that the talks between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff haven’t broken down at what likely is the top-level trade — Tehran limiting its atomic program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

“Agreeing to technical talks suggests both sides are expressing pragmatic, realistic objectives for the negotiations and want to explore the details,” said Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association who long has studied Iran’s nuclear program.

“If Witkoff was making maximalist demands during his talks with Araghchi, such as dismantlement of the enrichment program, Iran would have no incentive to meet at the technical level.”

That technical level, however, remains filled with possible landmines. Just how much enrichment by Iran would be comfortable for the United States? What about Tehran’s ballistic missile program, which U.S. President Donald Trump first cited in pulling America unilaterally out of the accord in 2018? Which sanctions could be lifted and which would be remain in place on the Islamic Republic?

“The most important determinant of expert talks’ value lies in whether there is a political commitment to do something and experts just need to figure out what,” said Richard Nephew, an adjunct fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who worked on Iran sanctions while at the U.S. State Department during negotiations over what became the 2015 nuclear deal.

“If the experts also have to discuss big concepts, without political agreement, it can just result in spun wheels.”

Experts and the 2015 nuclear deal

The 2015 nuclear deal saw senior experts involved in both sides of the deal. For the U.S. under President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reached an understanding working with Ali Akbar Salehi, then the leader of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Both men’s technical background proved key to nailing down the specifics of the deal.

Under the 2015 agreement, Iran agreed to enrich uranium only to 3.67% purity and keep a stockpile of only 300 kilograms (661 pounds). Today, Iran enriches some uranium up to 60% purity — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. The last report by the International Atomic Energy Agency put Iran’s overall uranium stockpile in February at 8,294.4 kilograms (18,286 pounds).

The deal also limited the types of centrifuges Iran could spin, further slowing Tehran’s ability to rush for a bomb, if it chose to do so. It also set out the provisions of how and when sanctions would be lifted, as well as time limits for the accord itself.

Reaching limits, relief and timelines require the knowledge of experts, analysts say.

“A nonproliferation agreement is meaningless if it cannot be effectively implemented and verified,” Davenport said. “The United States needs a strong technical team to negotiate the detailed restrictions and intrusive monitoring that will be necessary to ensure any move by Iran toward nuclear weapons is quickly detected and there is sufficient time to respond.”

It remains unclear who the two sides will be sending for those negotiations.

Hiccups already heard in these negotiations

Both the Americans and the Iranians have been tightlipped over exactly what’s been discussed so far, though both sides have expressed optimism about the pace. However, there has been one noticeable dispute stemming from comments Witkoff made in a television interview, suggesting Tehran could be able to enrich up to 3.67% purity. However, analysts noted that was the level set by the 2015 deal under Obama.

Witkoff hours later issued a statement suggesting that comparison struck a nerve: “A deal with Iran will only be completed if it is a Trump deal.”

“Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program,” Witkoff added.

Araghchi responded by warning that Iran must be able to enrich.

“The core issue of enrichment itself is not negotiable,” he said.

Despite that, experts who spoke to the AP said they remained positive about the talks’ trajectory so far.

“Although still early stages, I’m encouraged so far,” said Alan Eyre, a former U.S. diplomat once involved in past nuclear negotiations with Tehran. “The pace of negotiations — to include starting expert level meetings this Wednesday — is good.”

He added that so far, there didn’t appear to be any “mutually exclusive red lines” for the talks as well — signaling there likely wasn’t immediately any roadblocks to reaching a deal.

Nephew similarly described reaching the expert level as a “positive sign.” However, he cautioned that the hard work potentially was just beginning for the negotiations.

“They imply the need to get into real details, to discuss concepts that senior (officials) might not understand and to answer questions. I also think too much can be read into them starting,” Nephew said. “Expert talks can sometimes be a fudge for seniors to avoid working on tough issues — ‘let’s have experts discuss it while we move on to other things’ — or to sidestep big political decisions.”

Corey Hinderstein, the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. government nuclear expert, described herself as feeling “cautious optimism” over the expert talks beginning.

“Heads of delegation are responsible for setting strategic goals and defining success,” she said. “But if there is a deal to be made, the technical experts are the ones who will get it done.”

The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

By TARA COPP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth pulled the airstrike information he posted into Signal chats with his wife, brother and dozens of others from a secure communications channel used by U.S. Central Command, raising new questions as to whether the embattled Pentagon head leaked classified information over an open, unsecured network.

NBC News first reported that the launch times and bomb drop times of U.S. warplanes that were about to strike Houthi targets in Yemen — details that multiple officials have said is highly classified — were taken from secure U.S. Central Command communications. A person familiar with the second chat confirmed that to The Associated Press.

The information posted in the second chat was identical to the sensitive operations details shared in the first chat, which included members of President Donald Trump’s National Security Council, the person said.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity of out fear of reprisal for speaking to the press.

It’s the second chat involving Hegseth to be called into question

This is the second chat group where Hegseth posted the Yemen airstrike information. The first leaked Signal chat accidentally included the editor of The Atlantic and has caused an inspector general investigation in the Defense Department.

Hegseth has not directly acknowledged that he set up the second chat, which had more than a dozen people on it, including his wife, his lawyer and his brother Phil Hegseth, who was hired as a senior liaison to the Pentagon for the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, the secretary blamed the disclosure of the second Signal chat on leaks from disgruntled former staff.

Hegseth has aggressively denied that the information he posted was classified. Regardless of that, Signal is a commercially available app that is encrypted but is not a government network and not authorized to carry classified information.

“I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,” Hegseth told Fox News on Tuesday. “I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations, for media coordinations and other things. That’s what I’ve said from the beginning.”

Former defense secretary calls it a ‘serious’ breach

Based on the specificity of the launch times, that information would have been classified, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the AP in a phone interview.

“It is unheard of to have a Secretary of Defense committing these kind of serious security breaches,” said Panetta, who served during the Obama administration, and who also was director of the Central Intelligence Agency during Obama’s term. ”Developing attack plans for defensive reasons is without question the most classified information you can have.”

The news comes as Hegseth has shaken up much of his inner circle. He is said to have become increasingly isolated and suspicious about whom he can trust, and is relying on an increasingly smaller and smaller circle of people.

Related Articles

What do ‘expert level’ talks signal for the progress of the Iran-US nuclear negotiations?

Colorado fights Trump administration bid to help imprisoned loyalist Tina Peters

Vance calls for greater ties with India, hails progress on trade talks

As controversies pile up, Trump allies increasingly turn on one another

Person found on ‘elevated surface’ inside Trump Tower in New York is arrested, police say

In the last week he has fired or transferred six of his inner support circle, including Hegseth aide Dan Caldwell; the chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, Colin Carroll; and Hegseth’s deputy chief of staff, Darin Selnick.

Those three were escorted out of the Pentagon as the department hunts down leaks of inside information, and in his “Fox and Friends” interview Tuesday, an agitated Hegseth accused those staff — whom he had worked with and known for years — of “attempting to leak and sabotage” the administration.

Hegseth confirmed Tuesday that chief of staff Joe Kasper would be transitioning to a new position. Former Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell is also temporarily shifting to a more direct support role for Hegseth, and former Pentagon spokesman John Ullyot announced he was resigning last week, unrelated to the leaks. The Pentagon said, however, that Ullyot was asked to resign.

NEW YORK (AP) — Federal immigration authorities denied Mahmoud Khalil’s request for a temporary release from detention to attend the birth of his first child, who was born Monday in New York, according to emails shared with The Associated Press.

Khalil, a Columbia University activist who has been held in a detention center in Jena, Louisiana for six weeks, requested a two-week furlough on Sunday morning, noting that his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, had gone into labor eight days earlier than expected.

Related Articles

Salvadoran President Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro for Venezuelan deportees

Other voices: Judge Boasberg is right to seek contempt against Trump officials

Deportation fears add to mental health problems confronting resort town workers

Tropical drinks by the pool? Not so fast, says senator who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador

Judge says detained Tufts student must be transferred from Louisiana to Vermont

His lawyers said he would be “open to any combination of conditions” to allow the release, including wearing an ankle monitor and attending regularly scheduled check-ins with immigration authorities.

Around 30 minutes later, Mellissa B. Harper, the New Orleans Field Office Director for U.S. Immigrations and Customs, wrote back: “After consideration of the submitted information and a review of your client’s case, your request for furlough is denied.”

Abdalla said she had to give birth to a baby boy on Monday in New York without her husband by her side, which she called “a purposeful decision by ICE to make me, Mahmoud, and our son suffer.”

“My son and I should not be navigating his first days on earth without Mahmoud,” she added. “ICE and the Trump administration have stolen these precious moments from our family in an attempt to silence Mahmoud’s support for Palestinian freedom.”

A message seeking comment was left with ICE officials.

Khalil is a legal permanent U.S. resident and graduate student who served as spokesperson for campus activists last year during large demonstrations at Columbia against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the war in Gaza.

He was detained by federal agents in the lobby of his Manhattan apartment on March 8, the first arrest in President Donald Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists.

The Trump administration has not accused Khalil of criminal conduct, but has argued he should be expelled from the country for his beliefs.

An immigration judge in Louisiana ruled earlier this month that the government’s assertion that Khalil’s presence in the U.S. posed “potentially serious foreign policy consequences” satisfied requirements for deportation.

A lawyer for Khalil said the ruling will be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

By DAVID A. LIEB, Associated Press

As drivers on U.S. highways cross from one state to another, they often are greeted by a large “Welcome to ….” sign.

But not all drivers are welcome in every state.

In Florida, motorists with special out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to those in the U.S. illegally are not welcome to drive. Wyoming’s governor enacted a comparable ban this year. And Tennessee’s governor said he will sign similar legislation sent to his desk recently.

The message, though not literally printed on metal, is clear: “The sign says, `Welcome to Tennessee, illegal immigrants are not welcome,’” Tennessee House Majority Leader William Lamberth declared during debate.

As President Donald Trump cracks down on illegal immigration, Republican lawmakers in many states are pushing new laws targeting people lacking legal status to live in the U.S. The measures contrast with policies in 19 other states and Washington, D.C., which issue driver’s licenses regardless of whether residents can prove their legal presence.

The Justice Department is seeking to strike down one such law in New York, which shields its driver’s license data from federal immigration authorities.

States take separate roads on driver’s licenses

States are taking drastically different approaches to licensing drivers even as the federal government attempts to standardize the process.

On May 7, the U.S. will start enforcing a law passed 20 years ago that sets national standards for state driver’s licenses to be accepted as proof of identity for adults entering certain federal facilities or traveling on domestic commercial flights. Licenses compliant with the REAL ID Act are marked with a star and require applicants to provide a Social Security number and proof of U.S. citizenship or legal residency.

But states remain free to issue driver’s licenses to residents who don’t provide documentation for a REAL ID, so long as they meet other state requirements such as passing a vision exam or a driving laws test. In most states that issue licenses to people illegally in the U.S., there is no way currently to know from looking at the license whether the person is unlawfully present or simply chose not to apply for a REAL ID.

But at least some states do make a distinction. Connecticut and Delaware place special markings on driver’s licenses issued to immigrants in the U.S. illegally.

Florida limits licenses from some states

In 2023, Florida became the first state to invalidate some other states’ licenses. A law signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis made it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and potential jail time to drive in Florida with a type of license “issued exclusively to undocumented immigrants” or with markings indicating the driver didn’t provide proof of lawful presence.

As applied, the law has a limited scope. Only specially marked licenses from Connecticut and Delaware are deemed invalid, according to the website of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

Connecticut has issued nearly 60,700 “drive-only” licenses to immigrants unable to prove lawful presence. Delaware has not responded to an Associated Press request for such data.

Bidding to avoid Florida’s ban, Democratic Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont last year proposed to end the special license designation for immigrants in the U.S. illegally and instead give them the same type of license as others not receiving a REAL ID. But the legislation never came to a vote.

Alabama proposes an unwelcome sign

In addition to Wyoming and Tennessee, at least a half-dozen other Republican-led states have considered legislation this year to invalidate certain types of out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to immigrants illegally in the U.S. Such legislation passed at least one chamber in Alabama, Montana and New Hampshire and was proposed in North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

FILE – Festive banners and bunting hang from and around the Alabama Capitol early Jan. 16, 2011. (AP Photo/Dave Martin, File)

“We want to discourage illegal immigrants from coming to or staying in Alabama,” said state Sen. Chris Elliott, sponsor of the Alabama bill that awaits House consideration. If someone illegally in the U.S. drives to Alabama, “they should turn around and go somewhere else.”

Frustrated about the legislation, Democratic Alabama state Sen. Linda Coleman-Madison added an amendment requiring highway welcome signs to contain a notice about the prohibited driver’s licenses.

“We have people that come here for a lot of events — tourists, vacation, what have you — that could be caught in this. So we need to let people know,” she told AP. “I think some of our laws are mean-spirited, and sometimes I think we just have to call it like it is.”

A balance of symbolism and substance

The legislation targeting driver’s licenses is part of a “trend of states getting involved in federal immigration enforcement issues,” said Kathleen Campbell Walker, an immigration attorney in El Paso, Texas.

It’s unclear if the laws carry much substance. Some Florida advocates for immigrants said they are unaware of specific instances where the driver’s license ban has been enforced.

But “it is a concern,” said Jeannie Economos, of the Farmworker Association of Florida, “because some people who are undocumented have specifically gone to other states where driver’s licenses are legal to get driver’s licenses to have them here.”

California is among the states where immigrants unlawfully in the U.S. can get driver’s licenses. Trump’s immigration policies have created “anxiety and fear,” said Robert Perkins, a Los Angeles area attorney who helps immigrants gain legal status.

“Even the ones that might have a California driver’s license, they’re terrified to go anywhere,” Perkins said.

Associated Press writers Susan Haigh and Kimberlee Kruesi contributed to this report.