Trump says commercial shippers hit in Middle East attacks should be reimbursed using frozen Iranian assets, Iran warns against the plan

President Donald Trump said commercial shipping companies that sustain damage from attacks in the Middle East should be reimbursed using Iranian money that has been frozen by the United States, arguing that the financial cost of the assaults should be borne by Iran rather than by private firms and, indirectly, the wider global economy. The proposal, raised publicly in connection with attacks that have targeted or threatened commercial vessels in the region, would link compensation for private losses to the handling of Iranian assets already subject to U.S. restrictions.

In the statement reported by The Washington Times on July 24, Trump framed the reimbursement concept as a practical way to address business losses while sending a message that Iran is responsible for the risks created by attacks at sea. Under the proposal, the mechanism would rely on the existence of frozen Iranian assets, rather than requiring a separate U.S. appropriation or an ad hoc government program, according to the report.

The idea drew a fast response from Iranian authorities, who cautioned against the use of Iranian funds for payments to parties harmed by maritime attacks. The report says Tehran warned that reimbursing shippers through Iranian money would face resistance and would not be treated as a routine financial matter, suggesting the plan could heighten diplomatic and security tensions around U.S.-Iran financial measures.

The Trump proposal arrives in a broader context in which maritime traffic through the Middle East has remained a focus of U.S. national security concerns, particularly where attacks or threats can disrupt shipping schedules, insurance pricing, and the reliability of trade routes. When vessels are damaged, shippers and operators may face costs ranging from repairs to delays, crew impacts, and insurance exposure, with downstream effects for freight-dependent industries.

If implemented, the plan would raise questions about how frozen assets could be transferred, under what legal authorities, and what oversight mechanisms would apply to ensure payments track actual verified damages. It would also test the boundary between economic sanctions and compensation, because frozen funds are often tied up by legal frameworks that treat them as instruments of pressure rather than readily available sources for restitution.

The reported exchange also underscores the political sensitivity of U.S. financial pressure policies toward Iran, where Washington and Tehran have repeatedly indicated disagreement over the use and control of Iranian assets. While Trump’s proposal centers on compensation for private-sector harm, Iranian criticism indicates Tehran views the step as more than a humanitarian or commercial remedy.

For shipping firms, the practical effect of Trump’s comments depends on whether any U.S. agency translates the proposal into a concrete process for claims, verification, and payment. Until specific implementing steps are announced, the statement functions as a policy direction rather than a finalized reimbursement program, leaving companies to rely on existing insurance and dispute mechanisms while monitoring potential changes in U.S. handling of Iranian assets.

The next issue for authorities would be how any payments interact with ongoing sanctions and enforcement, and whether claimants must meet defined thresholds and documentation requirements. In the near term, the most immediate impact may be on negotiations and contingency planning for shipping operators operating in and near conflict-affected sea lanes, as public statements about reimbursement could affect expectations about who ultimately bears the costs of maritime risk.