The U.S. blamed Iran for attacks on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

One of two tankers in the Gulf of Oman that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said were attacked by Iran on Thursday. PHOTO: IRANIAN STUDENTS’ NEWS AGENCY/REUTERS

The U.S. said the assaults were the latest in a series of hostile actions meant to disrupt the flow of oil, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed the U.S. would defend itself and its partners. Last month, four tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman, incidents the U.S. also blamed on Iran. Mr. Pompeo said yesterday the assessment that Iran was behind the attacks was based on intelligence. Iran has denied responsibility for any of the attacks and suggested hostile actions might be the work of actors seeking to draw the region into chaos.

U.S. military officials said last night that U.S. personnel in the region had witnessed what was believed to be an Iranian patrol boat approaching one of the tankers and observed and recorded Iranian forces removing an unexploded mine from the damaged vessel.

Oil prices jumped after the tanker attacks, highlighting the risks associated with delivering oil from the region. The attacks are also jacking up insurance rates for ship operators in the region, forcing some captains to forgo setting sail and threatening one of the biggest disruptions to crude trading in the Strait of Hormuz in years.

The White House’s top economic adviser said President Trump could take further action against China if President Xi Jinping doesn’t agree to a meeting at the Group of 20 summit of leading economies in Japan later this month. Larry Kudlow said that no meeting had been formally arranged yet, and that the president has “indicated that if the meeting doesn't come to pass, there may be consequences.”

From reporter William Mauldin: It seems like only yesterday that U.S. and Chinese officials were debating substantive economic issues, like rules to deter currency manipulation. It’s a sign of just how far the level of engagement has fallen that officials are now discussing whether or not Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi will even meet at the G-20. If not, then President Trump is signaling he’ll impose tariffs on nearly all remaining imports from China. william.mauldin@wsj.com

The prospect of extraditions from Hong Kong to mainland China has thrown fresh doubt on the city’s status as a global financial hub. A bill that would allow alleged criminals to be extradited to China has sparked protests. Aside from the short-term disruption, some in Hong Kong say the proposed law poses legal risks for employees, who for now are protected by the autonomy the city enjoys under a “one country, two systems” legal framework.

Facebook has signed up more than a dozen companies including Visa, Mastercard, PayPal and Uber to back the new cryptocurrency that the social-media giant plans to unveil next week and launch next year. The companies will invest around $10 million each in a consortium that will govern the digital coin, called Libra. The money will be used to fund the creation of the coin, which will be pegged to a basket of government-issued currencies to avoid wild swings. The secretive project revolves around a digital coin that users could send to each other and use to make purchases.

A government watchdog recommended that top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway be removed from her post, citing repeated alleged violations of a rule that prohibits political activity by executive-branch staff. Separately, President Trump said White House press secretary Sarah Sanders will leave her job at the end of the month to return to Arkansas.

• Many 2020 presidential campaigns face challenges in rebuffing cyberattacks despite taking steps to beef up security, an issue brought into new focus by Mr. Trump’s comments that he might accept information from foreign governments that was damaging to his rivals. Those comments prompted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say that the president “does not know right from wrong.”
   
• Which Democrats are running in the 2020 election, and who qualified for the coming debates?

From reporter Vivian Salama: Kellyanne Conway found herself in hot water after the Office of Special Counsel called for her removal from public service for violations of the Hatch Act, which stip­u­lates that most ex­ec­u­tive-branch of­fi­cials must not en­gage in po­lit­i­cal ac­tiv­ity in an of­fi­cial ca­pac­ity at any time. The pres­i­dent is one of few ex­cep­tions to that rule. White House officials and Cabinet members are not. The OSC called Ms. Conway a “repeat offender” for disparaging Democratic candidates in her official White House capacity. Whether she stays or goes is ultimately up to the president. The White House re­jected the OSC’s rec­om­men­da­tion, call­ing the ac­tions against Ms. Con­way “deeply flawed.” The OSC isn’t affiliated with the Justice Department office headed by former special counsel Robert Mueller. vivian.salama@wsj.com

Political support for taming federal debt has melted away. The theories about debt and deficits and whether they matter—once widely shared in Washington, on Wall Street and in academia—have fundamentally changed. Republicans are accepting bigger deficits in exchange for tax cuts and Democrats are making big spending promises around 2020 election campaigns. Global demand for U.S. Treasury assets has displaced the “bond-market vigilante” mentality of the 1990s that scared Washington. Leading scholars are debating whether large federal debt and deficits might be tolerable. They aren’t a top concern for voters anymore, either. The U.S., despite a record-long economic expansion, is on course to test just how much it can borrow.

Tariffs still loom large over the auto industry despite last week’s deal that shelved the Trump administration’s plan to impose a 5% duty on imports from Mexico. The tariff would have raised costs for car companies and parts suppliers that have grown dependent on Mexico for lower-cost factory labor. The specter of new import duties continues to be a threat to the industry because of the U.S.-China trade dispute; the new free-trade deal to replace Nafta that must still be ratified by Congress; and President Trump’s assertion this week that “tariffs are a great negotiating tool.”

What We’re Following

Logs are stacked at a salvage logging operation in an area burned by the Camp Fire in Magalia, Calif. PHOTO: MAX WHITTAKER FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

California Wildfires: To prevent wildfires, the state is cutting down trees. But that has created a new problem: piles of logs everywhere.

Huawei Delay: The Chinese tech heavyweight is postponing the release of its highly touted foldable smartphone from June to September.

Flint Water Crisis: Michigan prosecutors upended a yearslong investigation into the scandal, dropping criminal charges against eight people and announcing a new probe.

KPMG Fine: The auditor is preparing to pay as much as $50 million to settle civil claims related to the conduct of former partners who learned which of their audits would be subject to surprise regulatory examinations.

Vale Dams: The iron-ore giant lacked required stability certificates and full engineering records for several of its mine dams in Brazil, and is investigating stability issues at a complex of dams in Canada.

Vaccine Exemptions: New York, which has been hit hard by a measles outbreak, became the fifth state to eliminate religious exemptions from school-vaccination rules.

NBA Champs: The Toronto Raptors beat the Golden State Warriors, 114-110, in Game 6 of the Finals last night to win the series.

Trending Stories at WSJ.com

When Saudi Arabia wanted to demonstrate it was open again for investors after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, officials turned to a longtime banker in the kingdom: HSBC. (Read)

Is an M.B.A. still valuable? WSJ readers say yes, but under the right circumstances. (Read)

A Russian billionaire’s $1.3 billion bet on a nearly 100-year-old tower on New York’s Fifth Avenue. (Read)

WSJ Crossword

Visit WSJ Puzzles for our online collection of elegant, adventurous and addictive word games, or try your hand at today’s crossword puzzle.

What Else We’re Reading

The U.S. is purging Chinese cancer researchers from top institutions, including American citizens. (Bloomberg)

One of India’s longest and most intense heat waves in decades, with temperatures reaching 123 degrees Fahrenheit, has claimed at least 36 lives since it began in May. (New York Times)

How almonds went from deadly to delicious. (NPR)

Today’s Question and Answer

We received a large number of responses to our question about whether the U.S. census should ask about citizenship status. Here are a few of them:

Joe Novitzki, Colombia
The purpose of a census is to obtain accurate information about the population. Asking a question about citizenship will almost certainly discourage participation when it is already difficult to obtain a sufficient level. When it comes to voting on elected officials and the future of our country, citizenship should absolutely be required, but in a census, let it be.

Eduard van Loenen, Maine
I am a legal immigrant who had to deal with constant uncertainty while waiting years for our lottery number to come up, and then be ready to move quickly. As part of the process, we had to show proof of immunization and good health, have the promise of a job, and have a sponsor in this country who agreed to take financial responsibility in case we fell on hard times. I simply cannot understand how we have now come to actually wanting to welcome people who illegally walk across our border, without knowing anything about them, while people in the rest of the world who want to come here are simply out of luck and must comply with the legal process. It is very unfair and unjust. We could apply for citizenship only after having lived blemish-free lives here for five years, and after having to study and then take a citizenship test. I can't believe that we are even debating this citizenship census question. Of course we should know this information!

Drew Kelley, Nevada
It is appropriate that the census knows how many citizens of which country are currently residing in the U.S. Then, at least, one agency of the U.S. government will have that information, because we know that State and Homeland Security haven't a clue.

Kimball R. Adams, Florida
Yes, we should ask people’s status for two reasons. First, to determine if they are eligible to participate in the census. Many people living here, either legally or illegally, are ineligible to take the census. How will they/we know if they are eligible unless we ask? Second, so we can actually know who is here rather than guessing, which is important for many reasons... Noncitizens have unique needs and we need to know how many are here to plan for providing for those needs. For example, illegal immigrants aren’t building Social Security and Medicare credits. Who will pay their expenses when they can no longer work? Illegal immigrants are more susceptible to exploitation. How can we mitigate this if we don’t know where the exploited are? It is ludicrous not to know—and/or not to want to know—who is living in this country, let alone who is living on your block or in your apartment building.

Wally Stummy, New York
The census asks all sorts of irrelevant questions, including questions at odds with a colorblind society that seem relevant only to promoting tribalism in politics. Finding out who is or isn't a citizen, by contrast, is actually relevant to the administration of government. As a naturalized citizen, it is clear to me the impact of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration—the real policy preference of activist groups objecting to gathering citizenship information—falls first of all on legal immigrants and genuine refugees. When politicians refuse to fund the enforcement of border and immigration laws on the books, they repeat the mistakes of the 1920s, when lax enforcement led to more strict laws. Who paid the price? Refugees ahead of World War II who were turned away. The open-borders fans are foolishly pushing us into the same type of backlash.

Todd Frank, California
The real question is, why would one of our political parties want you remain unaware of how many people are in the country illegally? How does that help them politically? Why else would they be fighting this attempt so strongly?

Richard Spaulding, New Jersey
No, this question shouldn’t be allowed. The heart of the issue is that despite the Census Bureau being compelled legally to protect the identities of those responding, the White House insists that the question be added. This raises the question: Why? And now Trump moves to block disclosure of documents that speak to the question of why. Big red flags here. It is reasonable to be concerned that after the census, the GOP will try to leverage the results to declare some sort of national emergency and move to have access to individual responses, changing the law and eliminating the elements of anonymity and privacy. All Americans should be concerned about that potential beyond questions of citizenship status. The Constitution simply requires that everyone is counted. Let’s leave that be.

Question for the next 10-Point:
Would you use Facebook’s new cryptocurrency? Why or why not? Email us your comments, which we may edit before publication, to 10point@wsj.com, and make sure to include your first and last name and location.