Iranians have said they cannot charge a "toll" according to international law, but they can charge a "fee". Charging a fee for maintanance, environment or security is fine, so it will be just a different branding to the "toll". Personally I think they should charge an environmental fee with the amount of traffic going through there.

https://www.dawn.com/news/2007544/cannot-impose-tolls-on-str...

If I understand 'jeffbee correctly, I think they mean that Iran now has practical evidence that it can gum up the strait and therefore extract political concessions from it, even if they don't literally result in tolling.

(In other words, every barrel of oil that passes through the straight will now have an $X risk surcharge on it, whether or not that surcharge ends up in Iran's coffers.)

Trump also said he would refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "right to the top" in 6 weeks and, instead, emptied it to its lowest level ever. He also said foreign investment in the United States would rise to 22 trillion dollars, but instead total foreign investment weakened to below $300 billion in 2025. Oh, and he also said tariffs were cutting the deficit by 25%, while he instead managed the deficit to a slightly higher level, even before counting the Iran War.

If NYT's source is his tweet[1], he "authorize[s] the toll free opening of the strait", not claiming Iran agreed to it.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/trumptweets/comments/1u5xpoe/061426...

The persistent rumour about this deal process is that Iran will charge "environmental fees".