The US has launched an operation to “guide” ships trapped in the Gulf by the Iran war through a southern route of the strait of Hormuz, even as Tehran insists that any such transits will have to be coordinated with its armed forces.

The scheme was announced as “Project Freedom” on Sunday night by Donald Trump on his social media page, where he portrayed it as a humanitarian gesture to help crews on hundreds of ships which have been unable to leave the Gulf since the war began.

Shipping executives have responded cautiously to the move, amid uncertainty over how or if it would work.

US officials were quoted in press reports as saying the operation would not involve naval escorts. US Central Command said it would “support” the project with its considerable military resources in the region, including guided-missile destroyers, more than 100 land- and sea-based aircraft, drones and 15,000 troops. But it said the emphasis of the mission was to “combine diplomatic action with military coordination”.

On Monday morning, a US-led military organisation, the Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC), said the US had established an “enhanced security area” south of the established prewar shipping lanes through the strait. The route would take ships through Omani territorial waters, the JMIC said, and due to high anticipated traffic, ship operators were told to coordinate with Omani authorities by radio.

Ships were advised to avoid navigating in or close to the usual shipping lanes which “should be considered extremely hazardous due the presence of mines that have not been fully surveyed and mitigated”.

Iran’s military command insisted that ships passing must coordinate with them.

“We will manage the security of the strait of Hormuz with all might, and inform all commercial ships and tankers to refrain from any attempt to transit without the coordination of the Iranian armed forces stationed in the strait of Hormuz in order not to jeopardise their security,” Maj Gen Ali Abdollahi said, according to Mehr news agency.

Earlier, Abdollahi had said Iran would attack “any foreign armed force” which tried to approach or enter the strait, “especially, the aggressive US army”.

It was unclear on Monday morning how many ships had chosen to use the US-recommended route. Richard Hext, the chair of Vanmar Shipping and the Hong Kong Shipowners Association, pointed out that Iran had previously declared that unapproved transit of the strait would be considered a “violation of the ceasefire” agreed last month.

“Under these circumstances we should be cautious,” Hext told CNN.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, said on Monday that the only way to reopen the strait was “a coordinated reopening by the United States and Iran”.

Speaking at a meeting of European leaders in Armenia, Macron added: “We are not going to take part in any military operation in a framework that to me seems unclear.”

More than 850 ships are estimated to have been trapped in the Gulf since the US and Israel launched their attack on Iran on 28 February. Iran imposed a blockade on foreign shipping using the strait of Hormuz soon afterwards and Trump imposed a counter-blockade of ships using Iranian ports on 13 April. A Pakistani-brokered ceasefire, announced by Trump in early April, stopped hostilities but failed to open the strait.

An estimated 20,000 sailors are stuck on the tankers, bulk carriers, container ships and other vessels, and there are growing concerns for their welfare. Trump said the US had been approached by countries for help.

Announcing the project on Truth Social, Trump said the US would use its “best efforts to get their Ships and Crews safely out of the Strait”. Giving no details on how this would be achieved, the president presented it as a humanitarian gesture “on behalf of the United States, Middle Eastern Countries but, in particular, the Country of Iran”.

“I have told my Representatives to inform them that we will use best efforts to get their Ships and Crews safely out of the Strait. In all cases, they said they will not be returning until the area becomes safe for navigation, and everything else,” Trump said.

He added: “If, in any way, this humanitarian process is interfered with, that interference will, unfortunately, have to be dealt with forcefully.”

His post was also notable for its claim that there were “very positive discussions between US representatives and Iran … and that these discussions could lead to something very positive for all”, in a dramatic change of tone.

Trump has a record of delivering surprisingly upbeat messages in the hours before global markets open. He had initially reacted negatively over the weekend to Iran’s latest 14-point peace proposal, saying Iran had not yet “paid a big enough price” for its past wrongs. The Israeli state broadcaster, Kan News, reported on Sunday night it had interviewed Trump and quoted him as saying he had “studied the new Iranian proposal and it is unacceptable to me”.

Trump’s rhetoric over the weekend, prior to his announcement on Sunday, had been particularly bellicose. After telling Congress in a formal letter that the US was not at war, he told a meeting of supporters at a retirement community in Florida: “You know we’re in a war, because I think you would agree we cannot let lunatics have a nuclear weapon.”

The war talk boosted speculation over the possibility of another round of US strikes against Iran aimed at forcing concessions, including a halt to the country’s nuclear programme.

Israeli press reports quoted senior military officials as saying they were preparing for possible US strikes on Iran, and the likelihood that Tehran would hit back at Israel.

A senior Israeli officer who briefed reporters on Friday said any peace agreement without a cessation of Iran’s uranium enrichment programme and the surrender of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium would be considered a failure.

Iran’s military-backed Fars news agency had quoted a senior official as saying a return to all-out conflict was “likely”, weeks after the ceasefire was brokered. Pakistani efforts to rekindle peace talks in Islamabad, after a first round ended without agreement, have so far failed as each side set preconditions that the other refused to fulfil.

Tree nurseries could be built at prisons and military ranges could be turned into heathland or peat bogs as part of an ambitious plan to make government land more nature-friendly, the environment secretary has said.

Speaking ahead of elections this week in which Labour is under pressure from the Green party, Emma Reynolds said such projects showed the government’s intent in restoring natural habitats.

Under a scheme due to be confirmed in the coming weeks, land owned by the Department for Transport around roads and rail lines would have more “green bridges” to help wildlife move safely. Another possibility would be a greater use of solar panels on government buildings.

The projects would aim to bring wider improvements, with the tree nurseries on Ministry of Justice land intended to also help with prisoners’ welfare. Peatland restoration on military sites, as well as new stone dams, would restore natural habitats but also limit flooding and so allow more consistent training.

The plan was, Reynolds said, “just one example of how the government is delivering better outcomes for nature and the environment for future generations”.

An MP from 2010, Reynolds lost her seat in 2019 before returning to parliament in 2024 and she replaced Steve Reed as environment secretary in last September’s cabinet reshuffle.

Keir Starmer’s government has faced criticism from some opponents, especially the Greens, for supposedly prioritising economic growth over the environment. Reynolds rejected this, saying policies such as the plans for the government estate, plus the reintroduction of species such as beavers and the golden eagle, showed a huge commitment to restoring nature.

“These are decisions that we are making, that I am making now, that will have an impact for generations and generations to come. So that’s really important,” she said.

Reynolds contrasted this with what she said was a less wholehearted embrace of environmental issues by the Greens since Zack Polanski became leader, with an increased policy focus on areas such as economic inequality.

“I would dispute the kind of priority they seem to be giving at a national level to environmental issues,” she said. “I also think they’ve got a terrible record in local government on these things.”

Reynolds pointed to objections from some local Green parties to solar farms, and pylons intended to carry electricity from offshore wind generation. “They are not prepared to take any of the sometimes difficult decisions that we need to take as a country to put in place green infrastructure,” she said. “I will not take lessons from a Green party that rarely talks about nature; that, frankly, is a party of protest.”

Reynolds was even more scathing about the plans of Reform UK, saying she would be “very worried” about what a Nigel Farage-led government would do to the environment. Some of Reform’s plans would be deeply unpopular with the public, she said, citing its proposals to frack for onshore gas around the country.

The former Conservative minister Steve Baker was a keen advocate of fracking, saying he would welcome it in his Buckinghamshire constituency of Wycombe – which he lost to Reynolds in 2024. “Fracking is never very popular, as my predecessor in Wycombe found out,” she said.

The government is likely to drop plans to stop imports of foie gras or furs, the former of which was a pre-election promise. While saying she could not comment on any specifics, Reynolds defended such compromises, saying the benefits of a revamped deal with the EU to remove much red tape on agriculture and food were very significant.

“The prize is big,” she said. “We can talk about the detail, but the overall prize here is to bring down the barriers at the border, and the friction and the cost and the administrative burden that the previous Tory government’s botched Brexit deal, has left us with.

“We know that there are many small businesses that gave up exporting altogether to the European Union, and many big businesses just face terrible delays, or just uncertainty.”

The Trump administration’s attack on the 87-year-old food aid program that supports tens of millions of low-income Americans escalated last week as the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, claimed that 14,000 Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (Snap) recipients included owners of luxury vehicles such as Ferraris, Bentleys and Teslas.

Critics charge that the broadside is part of a disinformation campaign aimed at undermining a benefit relied on by some of the most vulnerable people in the US.

Rollins did not cite the unnamed state or where this data and its claims came from, but it went viral among conservatives on social media with Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Tim Burchett, and actor James Woods quoting the post. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers the $57bn program, would not comment on the record and would not verify Rollins’ claims, which stem from an analysis by the Foundation for Government Accountability, an organization that has long advocated for cutting and reducing Snap and other federal government benefits.

The report cites its conclusions stem from 2023 data obtained by an unnamed contractor from an anonymous state. It does not provide any information on the alleged Snap recipients or how their identities were matched to car registrations.

The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) would not provide its data or methodology and did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Congresswoman Jahana Hayes, ranking member of the nutrition, foreign agriculture and horticulture subcommittee, said she was highly skeptical of the data.

“First of all, if it were true, it would have been cited with the state and what happened,” said Hayes. “I just don’t buy the Secretary saying that they have all this information as a gotcha moment, while not also simultaneously saying we plan to hold these people accountable for defrauding the system and taking food away from the people who really need it.”

Hayes said claims of fraud and abuse have often been made without evidence and that cases of provable fraud should be prosecuted, not be used to cut and attack Snap at the expense of people who need and rely on it.

“I never thought it was about abuse. I never thought it was about fraud. It’s about taking food away from hungry people,” Hayes added. “If there are people who are misusing this program, then we deal with those individuals as individuals. But it doesn’t mean that we distract our attention from the millions of families and children and veterans and seniors who rely so heavily on this program to put food on the table and make it through the end of the month.”

Researchers who spoke with the Guardian also criticized the report.

“There is no methodology, nor is there any data, and so it’s very reasonable to assume that the data could be made up and then it could be thrown out there to us,” said Eric Pachman, founder of the data analysis non-profit Data 4 the People. “She [Rollins] can’t hide behind the statement that she’s trying to protect vulnerable people because the analysis out there shows that we have no interest, and we are failing more often than we are succeeding on a county level, in actually even covering all the vulnerable people.”

Pachman noted 67% of counties in the US were not providing Snap to all residents living under the federal poverty level in 2024. He noted, according to the USDA, in most cases an individual or family must meet income thresholds of below 130% of the federal poverty level to be eligible for Snap, which is $32,150 a year for a family of four in 2025.

In 2023, about 36.8 million Americans were living below the federal poverty line, while the monthly average of Snap recipients in the US in 2023 was 42.1 million Americans, 73% of whom lived at or below the federal poverty level. The 27% of Snap recipients living above the poverty level received a much smaller proportion of total Snap benefits, 14%.

According to the latest USDA household food insecurity report, 13.7% of US households were food insecure in 2024, the highest level in a decade as the Trump administration ended the household food security report.

“They’re not sharing what this is or where it comes from exactly, or what their methodology is so I would take it with a grain of salt for that reason,” said Stephen Nuñez, director of Stratification economics at the Roosevelt Institute.

Secretary Rollins said 4.3 million Americans have been removed from Snap benefits in the wake of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill”, Trump’s agenda-setting 2025 statute that expanded work requirements and shifted administrative costs to states. Rollins claimed many of those removed were committing fraud.

“It’s possible they believe that all these people are fraud, but I think they just really want to dismantle these programs, and I think they’re using fraud as an excuse, to be quite honest,” said Nuñez. “This is a program that somewhere, depending on the year, between 16% to 19% of all households in the United States rely on in some way. And they’re basically claiming that it’s rife with fraud and corruption and so forth and there’s just really no evidence to suggest that.”

According to the USDA, Snap recipient fraud “occurs relatively infrequently”.

FGA has faced previous accusations of using questionable research as it has lobbied aggressively for cuts to Snap.

In a 2019 interview with Public Integrity, Peter Germanis, a conservative welfare reform expert who worked for the Reagan and George HW Bush administrations, called the Foundation for Government Accountability’s work “dangerous”.

Germanis declined to comment on the recent claims from the group as he currently works for the federal government under the Trump administration.

“Nobody who’s serious about public policy really takes them seriously,” Germanis told Public Integrity in a phone interview in 2019. “But politicians seem to love them because [the FGA] tells them what they want to hear.”

A spokesperson for the USDA cited the report by the Foundation for Government Accountability, but did not respond to questions on the veracity of the research, its data and methodology, or its conclusions.

They also did not comment on data showing the lack of Snap coverage for eligible Americans living under the poverty line throughout the US.

The spokesperson cited a proposed rule by the Trump administration to limit categorical eligibility for Snap from welfare benefits (TANF), claiming the broad based categorical eligibility, meant to lower administrative costs and burdens, has bloated Snap rolls.