“Greatest Show On Earth”: White House Hosts UFC Freedom 250 Fights
America’s semiquincentennial birthday celebration kicks into gear today with the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s (UFC) Freedom 250 fights, with seven matches scheduled for the South Lawn of the White House.
“This will be the greatest show on earth,” President Donald Trump said while previewing the stage in May.
“I think it’s going to be the biggest event we’ve ever had at the White House.”
Organizers constructed a 60-foot-tall structure known as the “claw,” with matches occurring in the sport’s familiar, octagon-shaped arena on the front yard of the Executive Mansion.
The main event, a lightweight title unification bout, features undefeated UFC lightweight title holder Ilia “El Matador” Topuria, 29, facing off against 37-year-old interim lightweight champion Justin “The Highlight” Gaethje, both weighing in at 155 pounds. Topuria, known for elite techniques and knockout strength, is heavily favored, though the U.S.-born Gaethje is a mainstay in the sport, with high-level fighting intelligence and durability.
Second on the card, listed as a co-main event, is an interim heavyweight bout between 251-pound Alex Pereira, 38, and 248-pound Ciryl Gane, 36.
Known as “Poatan,” Pereira is looking to become the sport’s first three-division champion, having previously captured the middleweight and light heavyweight titles.
Media preview of the UFC setup of the upcoming UFC Freedom Fight on June 14, on the South Lawn of the White House on June 11, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
France’s Gane, nicknamed “Bon Gamin,” a former interim champion, is quick on his feet and known for his range. The match is evenly stacked, according to oddsmakers.
Winners of the title bouts will receive red, white, and blue patriotic-themed belts, adorned with “1776–2026,” 250 stars, approximately 60 carats of diamonds, and an engraving of the scene at the White House.
Fan favorite “Suga” Sean O’Malley is expected to bring his trademark personality to the ring when he takes on Aiemann Zahabi for the bantamweight match, with both fighters coming within a half-pound of each other at weigh-in. O’Malley’s quick striking gives him the edge, while Zahabi comes into the match with a seven-fight win streak.
An undefeated new prospect weighing 231 pounds, Josh Hokit, with nine straight victories, will challenge 265-pound Derrick “The Black Beast” Lewis in the night’s heavyweight fight. Hokit brings youthful energy to the ring, while Lewis is known as an elite, lights-out puncher.
Brazilian lightweight Mauricio Ruffy takes on veteran Michael Chandler in a bout where Ruffy is favored, but Chandler’s wrestling skills and bursts of energy will be on display.
Bo Nickal is expected to prevail over Kyle Daukaus in a middleweight battle between the two 186-pounders, while a featherweight match between Diego Lopes and Steve Garcia is set to open the night.
UFC organizers hosted a ceremonial weigh-in Saturday in Washington in preparation for the mixed martial arts fights.
Dana White, UFC president and CEO, oversaw the programming, while podcaster and long-time UFC commentator Joe Rogan emceed the event.
White hoisted one of the red, white, and blue patriotic themed belts created for the two title fights, adorned with “1776–2026,” 250 stars, approximately 60 carats of diamonds, and an engraving of the scene at the White House.
Thousands of fans crowded the Ellipse near the Executive Mansion to witness the festivities.
Military skydivers performed aerial stunts to kick iff the evening, flying a huge American flag down to the crowd before a bald eagle soared over the audience.
The 14 fighters were officially weighed in earlier in the morning, and all the competitors made their respective weight to qualify for the seven-match card.
UFC lightweight champion Ilia Topuria and interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje both came in at 155 pounds ahead of their fight in the main event on Sunday, a lightweight title unification match.
The co-main event, an interim heavyweight title bout, will feature 251-pound Alex Pereira against 248-pound Ciryl Gane.
Sean O’Malley weighed in at 135.5 pounds, and Aiemann Zahabi came in at 135 pounds ahead of their bantamweight match.
Heavyweights Josh Hokit and Derrick Lewis will fight at 231 pounds and 265 pounds, respectively.
Mauricio Ruffy weighed 155 pounds, and Michael Chandler totaled 156 pounds, before the two go head-to-head in a lightweight match.
Middleweights Bo Nickal and Kyle Daukaus will fight at 186 pounds apiece, while featherweights Diego Lopes and Steve Garcia both weighed in at 146 pounds.
Tensions ran high as the athletes faced off in front of the crowd.
Similar antics were on display June 12 during the pre-fight press conference at the Lincoln Memorial.
Thousands of military members and special guests will sit ringside, while the Ellipse near the White House is set up to hold an overflow crowd of approximately 100,000.
Gates open at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday for the main event and Fan Fest watch party, which includes a replica octagon, interactive entertainment, live music, merchandise booths, live shows and appearances, meet-and-greets with UFC athletes, fireworks, and more.
The Zac Brown Band headlined Saturday night, with more musical acts featured along with motocross stunts by Travis Pastrana.
Officials with the UFC promoted the fights as the “most historic sporting event of all time,” with festivities coinciding with the nation’s founders signing the Declaration of Independence.
“UFC Freedom 250 commemorates the 250th birthday of the United States with a once-in-a-generation celebration of the American fighting spirit,” the organization said in a statement.
“From the revolution to the octagon, this historic event will connect fans through cinematic storytelling and unrivaled competition on the world’s greatest proving ground.”
People around the world can watch the fights live on Paramount+ beginning at 8 p.m. ET.
Ethereum could begin adding post-quantum protections to accounts for as little as $0.07, without waiting for a hard fork, according to the Ethereum Foundation’s Kohaku project lead Nicolas Consigny.
In a Saturday X post, Consigny shared a paper proposing a cheaper way for Ethereum users to protect their accounts against future quantum-computing threats. The approach adapts SPHINCS+, a post-quantum signature standard developed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology, to work more efficiently on Ethereum.
Dubbed “SPHINCS-,” the proposal aims to reduce onchain verification costs without requiring a protocol change or precompile. Consigny described SPHINCS- as a bridge toward a future post-quantum signature system dubbed “leanSPHINCS,” which aims to further reduce verification costs through aggregation.
The proposal seeks to address the long-term risk of a quantum threat to Ethereum’s Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm with a cost-efficient solution that may be deployed before a dedicated hard fork is developed.
Future quantum computing threats stirs crypto community
In April, post-quantum startup Project Eleven awarded a prize to researcher Giancarlo Lelli for using a quantum computer to break a 15-bit elliptic-curve key.
Bitcoin’s keys are 256 bits long, significantly larger than the 15-bit key Lelli managed to crack. He derived the private key from a public key paired to it, using a variant of Shor’s algorithm, a quantum computing technique that theoretically poses a threat to the type of cryptography used by Bitcoin.
According to Glassnode, about 1.92 million Bitcoin, representing nearly 10% of the total supply, are considered “structurally unsafe” in a future quantum attack scenario. Another 4.12 million BTC, or 20.6% of the supply, are classified as “operationally unsafe” due to key or address management practices.
The analytics company estimates that the remaining 69.8% of the supply, or 13.99 million Bitcoin, remains unexposed to a quantum computing threat, broadly in line with Ark Invest’s March estimate that 65% of the supply was safe.
Academy will tackle any details on a deal with Iran via a SITREP and a podcast, once (if) details are made available.
After last Friday’s extreme move (More Than Rates Moving Markets) we had a relatively tame week with the S&P and Nasdaq both gaining around 0.7%, but neither getting back to their highs of the week, set on Tuesday. Yields drifted moderately lower on the week, primarily on the back of steep declines in the price of oil (though I do feel the need to point out the Jan 2027 WTI contract, which I’ve been focusing on, is still at $76.1, barely one dollar lower than where it closed last Friday – I remain in the higher for longer camp). Credit spreads remain firm and the asset class remains “boring” which is a good thing!
Now let’s address two bigger picture issues that have been taking up a lot of time during recent client calls and visits. Space and AI.
Space: The Now Frontier
Space: The Final Frontier still gives me the chills! The excitement of exploration! The IPO of SpaceX and all the discussion it has created has brought back that feeling.
A colony of 1 million people on Mars! I love the concept! I have 0 opinion on whether the number of shares that Musk gets for achieving that target is the right number, but I love having that concept out there.
Think big:! This concept floating around, and now documented into Wall Street, excites me. On the back of Artemis II and the planned lunar landings, there is a lot of potential for new discoveries.
On a more practical (or near-term outlook) it can lead to AI and Data Centers in space. New sources of energy and potentially other materials.
But there are also important National Security elements that are gaining more attention.
Many members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group lament that we have been “soft” on space. That we have ignored the real dangers to national security by not focusing on space as much as we need to. While the Space Force was a step in the right direction, many argue that we are behind (some might argue woefully behind) where we should be in terms of ensuring that space is safe and our interests are protected!
At the simple and on the not controversial end of the spectrum, is “space junk.” The debris in orbit is increasing. While not currently posing a risk, it is something that should be addressed better than it has been.
What about GPS and communications? I’m not sure that I could walk to the corner store without using some map app. The working assumption that “no one is interested in disrupting GPS” may be naïve? While at least 95% of communication remains “terrestrial” (fiber optic cables, undersea cables, cell towers, etc.) space will become increasingly important to communications. While it might not be “mission critical” to protect the communications equipment in space today, it could be.
Who will control discoveries?
Let’s say we find some vital resources on the moon (seems the most likely “surprise” that could occur in the near future). Who will control that material?
At best, the discoverer and those with the capabilities to take advantage of such material.
At worst, might is right.
We expect this administration, and future administrations, will spend more on space to support National Security. This is a bipartisan issue as we think about the myriad of possibilities for space. Not just the good and altruistic possibilities, but also about the risk that some other country doesn’t share such a cooperative spirit about the future of space.
This is by no means, “closing the barn door after the horses have run out,” but it is something that deserves more serious attention and money going forward.
The national security elements are in addition to the commercial opportunities that will be funded as corporations rush to harness the potential!
If waking up to a $2.1 trillion market cap (and the first trillionaire) doesn’t motivate entrepreneurial and capitalistic spirits, then I should just give up this job, because it would go against everything I understand about capitalism!
Space may be the “final frontier” but it is also the “now” frontier, which is incredibly exciting!
The AI Revolution
Let’s get the hard part over, and start with this image:
This image is meant to grab your attention, if not create some shock value. Yes, I used AI (ChatGPT in this case) to create an image of modern-day workers storming a data center like villagers in the old days. It isn’t perfect, but it is about a zillion times better than I could do on my own.
My current thinking on AI:
It is crucial to have the lead in this technology from a National Security standpoint.
Maybe I’m falling into a trap where everything looks like a nail, when you only have a hammer, as I spend so much time with the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, but I do believe that the AI Race and the Data Race are real and it is crucial to stay ahead in these races. I cannot tell whether it is one race or two races that are similar, but that doesn’t really make a difference, so we will ignore that technicality for now.
We are all trying to implement AI into our routines, with varying amounts of success.
“Traditional” search (if you can call something that didn’t exist when I was born, “traditional”) has been almost fully taken over by AI. No longer are we just getting pointed to links and websites as search results. We now get the answers we presumably would have gotten by going to those links up front.
Sometimes we are “shocked” by the results of AI.
Sometimes those “shocks” are good – like the image delivered above.
Sometimes those “shocks” raise eyebrows – like how could it make up a ticker? Or not find the current version of what we were trying to solve. Ending up in a level of frustration over the need to correct some “slop” after spending money to generate that “slop” in the first place. At the back of your mind, you cannot help but wonder what you might have missed, in prior instances of using AI.
I think a lot about the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect (the ad that popped up for me on this link was for ShipSticks – got to give the ad agencies some credit for that).
We have moved beyond “generic” questions about AI and into wanting real world examples and case studies.
We are in the phase of trying to figure out “if it is worth it.” Not just figuring out how much time we saved (after applying our own touches) but we are also considering what we didn’t learn by going down the AI path.
With the prices rising for usage, it is becoming easier to think about AI in a “traditional” cost versus benefit framework. Presumably (based on market valuations), AI is going to look very cheap.
If my current thinking is generally positive on AI and I truly believe it is crucial for security, then why show a picture depicting the AI Revolution as people storming a data center?
Anthropic Disables Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This was done to comply with the U.S. government’s demands. National Security front and center. I will admit, there is a part of me that thinks this might be the best “velvet rope” marketing campaign ever. It is so powerful that you can’t use it, just makes people want to use it. But it is only a part of me that thinks that. The larger and less juvenile side of me thinks there are real security risks being unleashed.
It is difficult to undo discoveries. Now that everyone knows that this sort of AI has been developed, people will try to replicate it. How long before someone else has this tech and uses it against us (or you or me). We are going to have to ramp up our National Security Policy around data, chips, and AI at lightning speed!
There will be (and there already is) an element of I Told You So. Those who don’t want AI to succeed will use this to try to slow the development of AI. Again, just because we slow down and add stricter guardrails doesn’t mean those who want to do us harm would follow suit (they wouldn’t, they would just smile at the opportunity being given to them).
Remember the “viral” report on potential job losses from AI? Wall Street may have moved on, but not everyone in the country has forgotten about the fear it stoked in them (primarily around their own jobs and careers). While our Are We The Horses? in the buggy whip story hasn’t gone viral, it has gotten some attention. Lisa Abramowicz asked me about it during my interview last week and has mentioned it several times. I recently came across another report also asking those questions. Fear of job loss is real.
Add in robotics, and job loss fears mount even higher.
Electricity costs. People don’t love the looks of data centers (one friend pointed out recently, that while driving at 79 mph, it took 3 minutes to drive by a data center construction site). Water issues are there too, but for now it is the electricity consumption that bothers/scares people the most.
The biggest risk I see to the AI industry in the U.S. is that a political movement captures the angst surrounding the business and uses that sentiment to win elections and slow or even derail AI in the country.
We are not there yet, but the industry has to focus on heading this risk off at the pass.
We’ve seen a “softer” tone out of some AI executives, particularly trying to flip the narrative to job creation from AI rather than job losses.
The companies developing the AI and Data Centers are doing a much better job on the electricity side of things and will continue to do that.
While it is probably important to lobby in D.C., I think it is equally important (and possibly more important) to maintain/win in the court of public opinion.
My picture is unlikely to gain traction (no one uses torches anyways), but that sentiment is bubbling just below the surface and I think tackling it head on is one thing that AI needs to do. The national security focus helps, but is not in itself enough.
Bottom Line
I think I need to watch some Star Trek episodes on upcoming flights.I am very excited about space and think that sentiment is widely held. I am largely excited about AI but think there is a real risk of political backlash if the industry lets fears seep into the populace at large and some politicians harness that fear.
Hopefully, we have details on Iran and they are good and we can move on from that topic.
UK Intercepts ‘Russian Shadow’ Fleet Vessel in Unprecedented English Channel Commando Boarding
British Royal Marine Commandos conducted a high-stakes midnight raid in the English Channel on Sunday, boarding and seizing a sanctioned Russian “shadow fleet” oil tanker.
The elite UK forces conducted a fast-roping raid onto the massive crude carrier in the dead of night and into the morning daylight hours. While there’s nothing new in terms of an ‘illicit’ Russian tanker seizure in European waters, it is rare or even unprecedented that such an action occurred in the English Channel, so close to Britain’s shores.
According to the UK Ministry of Defense, it was a six-hour operation and a massive display of force involving a flotilla of navy vessels – including the frigate HMS Sutherland – and a fleet of aircraft, most notably heavy-lift Chinook helicopters.
The target has since been identified as the Smyros – a vessel allegedly flying under the radar in an effort to bypass Western embargoes.
“In the first U.K.-led operation of its kind, the vessel SMYRTOS was boarded by Royal Marine Commandos and specially trained law enforcement officers from the National Crime Agency, despite Russia’s best efforts to evade sanctions and continue fueling its barbaric war with Ukraine.”
France has been involved in several of these interdictions and boardings, but not yet the UK, until now. The captured vessel now being escorted to an anchorage off the south coast of England, where it will remain under heavy guard and surveillance.
The UK defense ministry in follow-up sated that “Russia relies on its shadow fleet to fund their conflict in Ukraine and our interdiction delivers a blow to Putin’s illegal war.” The statement added that this was done in “close coordination” with French authorities.
Russian “shadow fleet” methods have relied on constantly switching registries and disabling AIS transponders to avoid tracking.
The last several seized tankers – done by France which is up to four captures at this point – were flying flags of African nations, and these interdictions have stretched back through last year.
Watch: Royal Marine Commandos board the sanctioned Russian shadow fleet tanker SMYRTOS in the Channel, in the first UK-led operation of its kind, backed by HMS Sutherland, HMS Ledbury and an RAF P-8. The vessel is now held off the south coast as investigations continue. pic.twitter.com/omTnGlh3gk
In some instances, Russia has been sending military escorts – which of course has seen French and European militaries hold off executing any action. But unprotected ones are clearly exposed, and European militaries can taken action on these at will.
So what’s the priority of New York City’s Mamdani administration these days?
FrontPage Magazine reported:
Gonorrhea rates in New York City have more than doubled in a decade and syphilis is ‘surging’ statewide. Mamdani’s Department of Health has responded to this crisis by rushing a free supply of lubricant and chocolate flavored condoms.
Beam me up, Scotty.
FPM quoted NYC Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Helen Arteaga as stating,
“Providing high-quality sexual and reproductive healthcare services is a priority for the Mamdani Administration. Making safer sex products more accessible to the most affected and vulnerable communities is a critical public health need.”
Well, it’s good to have priorities. But are chocolate-flavored condoms safer than regular old garden-variety ones? I’m guessing not, but I couldn’t tell you from experience.
FPM again:
Councilwoman Pierina Sanchez, a Mamdani ally, explained that the free chocolate flavored condoms were necessary because “inequities persist among women, low-income households, and Black and Latino New Yorkers.
Women, low-income households, and black and Latino New Yorkers are adversely and disproportionately affected by a relative dearth of chocolate-flavored condoms? Is New York a den of iniquity inequity?
Unfortunately for virtue-signaling do-gooders, the free chocolaty condoms are coming from Karex, a Malaysian company that is apparently the largest manufacturer of condoms on Earth.
Why is this unfortunate?
According to The Telegraph, some Karex workers said they are put up in cramped and undignified conditions, with as many as a dozen housed in damp and unhygienic dormitories.
Workers at one site are allegedly granted just half of a steel bunkbed, with no mattress — and only have access to a filthy, broken toilet. And for these “amenities,” about 12 dollars a month is deducted from their wages. The Telegraph reported that one Karex employee said “sometimes poisonous snakes come in” to the dorms.
Not sure if that’s a blessing or a curse.
“Forget the crime! Forget the fact that the city is broke! Chocolate condoms for everybody!” does not seem like a winning slogan for Mamdani … but what do I know?
Ask not what you can do for the city, ask what Mayor Mamdani can do to — I mean for — you!”
I’m sure someone in the Mamdani administration will tout the mayor’s actions thusly: “These delectable prophylactics will be generously distributed, free of cost, to all genders with a penis … and to all those that love them! Mayor Mamdani is hard at work to make your lives better!”
Considering the shape the city is in, this may be the biggest cover up in the history of the Big Apple.
US-Iran MoU Deal Signing ‘Hours’ Away As Pezeshkian Touts Acceptable, Positive Results For Iran
Summary
Iran’s president issues pro-MoU signing statement as Tehran is boasting of great and solid results for its side. There are reports this includes a significant release of billions in its frozen assets in the West.
White House still suggesting an electronic MoU deal to be signed with Iran on Sunday, which leaves nuclear negotiations to further date, only with commitment that Iran not pursue a nuke.
Trump: new strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs “should not have happened” and given it was on “a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran.
“A draft of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding included diluting highly enriched uranium within Iran & the release of $25b of Iran’s frozen assets” (Reuters).
Iranian statements characteristically cautious: Fars News Agency reported earlier that Iran has not made a final call on a potential MOU with the U.S. Iranian authorities are still reviewing the political, legal, and technical details.
Iran’s President Pezeshkian Cites Solid Results For Iran As MoU Signing Could Be Just Hours Away: Rare Optimism From Both Sides
It seems like a deal will really happen this time… finally… given Tehran is boasting of great and solid results for its side. There are reports this includes a significant release of billions in its frozen assets in the West.
via Fars News:
Recent diplomatic efforts have yielded positive results.
Recent developments have shown that no country cares more about Iran’s interests than ourselves
Even if my personal opinion differs, I consider myself obliged to follow the final decision of the system
Resolution of the Supreme National Security Council is the basis of action, and whatever is approved and deemed appropriate by the Supreme Leader will be mandatory for all of us.
I regret the neighboring countries being exposed to the consequences of military actions. Our operation targeted the US bases on the soil of these countries.
Issues and misunderstandings with Gulf countries are being resolved
Ties with Gulf region countries are on path to improvement.
Talks do not mean abandoning principles. Iran won’t bow to any kind of bullying or illegal pressure.
Media reports on war, negotiations do not necessarily reflect Supreme National Security Council views.
Fox News, citing President Trump, says deal could be signed in Next 2-3 Hours:
Spoke with President Trump. He says the deal with Iran is expected to be signed in the next 2-3 hours.
President Trump said he asked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu “what the fu*k are you doing?” on a call after the Israeli strikes against Beirut. He told Netanyahu not to…
Israeli Strike on Beirut Once Again Threatens MoU Signing: Trump says “Let’s Not Blow It”
President Trump on Truth Social has sought to brush back the Israeli Sunday strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs, saying this morning’s attack “should not have happened” and given it was on “a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran.
He emphasized, “We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down.” He warned not just Israel against more attacks, but said Hezbollah must refrain, after the Iran-aligned Shia group sent more projectiles on northern Israel. “This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace” he said, and added “let’s not blow it.”
Lebanon’s civil defense agency has indicated that the new attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs killed at least three people. “The bodies of three martyrs were recovered from under the rubble and six wounded,” the agency announced in a statement.
Iran Weighs In on Anticipated MoU Signing Details, Potential Unresolved Issues
Bloomberg and Reuters are reporting Sunday some fresh details on Iran’s version of what the MoU to be signed – which President Trump says will happen today (albeit remotely) will inlcude.
“A draft of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding included diluting highly enriched uranium within Iran and the release of $25b of Iran’s frozen assets, Reuters reports citing a senior Iran official it didn’t identify,” writes Bloomberg in the latest. This includes:
Final deal to be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides
Also includes Iran immediately reopening Hormuz Strait to all commercial vessels and US lifting its naval blockade
Tehran in draft agrees that will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons
To maintain the nuclear status quo until final deal is reached, including by not enriching uranium and not expanding nuclear facilities
One potential major complication to the two sides actually signing is what’s happening in the Beirut suburbs, which the Israeli Air Force has just struck for the first time in about a week:
Israel has struck a building in Beirut’s southern suburbs in response to Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel, marking the first such strike since last Sunday. pic.twitter.com/VYv3mGFrF9
Provocative Israeli military actions previously effectively torpedoed prior Washington-Tehran attempts to get back to the negotiating table. Will the same hold-up happen again?
Pro-Israel supporters and lobbyists in the US have been raging against what they see as a ‘failure’ of a deal, and ‘capitulation’ to Iran on kicking the can on the nuclear issue… not least among them is on display in the following:
Has to be about releasing the $20-24 billion in frozen assets to Iran, the most immediately damaging concession for Trump.
I took a plunge into Mark Levin’s show–the squealing about Trump selling out Israel for Iran is rather enjoyable ngl.https://t.co/hf27AJiGuL
The usual caveats which proved all prior ‘deal imminent’ headlines to be premature and wishful thinking still apply. Some latest from Iranian state media according to Al Jazeera:
Iran’s Fars news agency, citing a source close to the negotiating team, is reporting that Iranian officials were discussing the ceasefire points with the Qatari mediators in Tehran.
The report added that the deal is yet to be finalised and “no agreement will definitely be signed at the time Trump announced”.
The comments were made to the agency prior to Israel’s deadly attacks on Lebanon’s southern suburbs today.
President Trump said Saturday that an interim U.S.-Iran deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and wind down the four-month conflict could be signed as soon as Sunday. However, Tehran has pushed back on that timeline, signaling that no final decision has been made while Iranian officials continue to review the terms of a potential memorandum of understanding.
“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday, while claiming that Iran “no longer wants a Nuclear weapon.”
The president continued, “At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States.”
Pakistan and Qatar are mediating, with technical talks expected to follow any signing and last up to 60 days. The MOU is structured as a step-by-step framework, meaning the Hormuz maritime chokepoint will reopen first, followed by economic rewards for Iran as conditions are met.
Pakistan’s Sharif Says Deal Imminent; Iran’s Statements More Cautious
Pakistan, which has served as one of the mediators, is preparing to sign the peace deal electronically, followed by technical-level talks next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. He said those talks would last two months and focus on Iran’s nuclear program.
Meanwhile, the Iranian media outlet Fars News Agency reported earlier that Iran has not made a final call on a potential MOU with the U.S. Iranian authorities are still reviewing the political, legal, and technical details, with no final decision announced as of Sunday morning.
The urgency behind securing an MOU to reopen the Hormuz chokepoint is clear: the world is drifting dangerously close toward an energy cliff. Strategic petroleum reserves are being drawn down rapidly around the world to offset the loss of Gulf production, while China’s weakening fuel demand is helping to offset some of the broader supply shock.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made clear Friday that Iran understands that terms related to its nuclear program will be finalized within 60 days of the initial agreement being signed. So in essence, this means Iran could get its wish of pushing nuclear negotiations back, only after the hot conflict has clearly ended. Iran has long sought to separate the issues of a final end to the war from consideration of its nuclear program.
Energy markets priced in de-escalation last week, with Brent crude futures sliding as much as 5.1% Friday and European gas dropped as much as 8.4% after Trump canceled planned new strikes on Iran.
IG’s weekend markets are pricing in a 50 bps decline in Brent crude when futures open on Sunday evening.
But throughput traffic through the Hormuz chokepoint remains far below pre-war levels, and a vessel was struck off Oman on Saturday. Normalization could take weeks, if not many months.
Bloomberg noted, “Roughly 140 ships passed through the narrow chokepoint each day before the conflict erupted.”
Here are the latest overnight headlines (courtesy of Bloomberg):
US-Iran Deal Progress
• Trump said on Saturday that a deal with Iran is scheduled to be signed on Sunday, claiming the Hormuz Strait will open immediately after signing and that Iran no longer wants nuclear weapons
• Iran contradicted Trump’s timeline, saying it is still reviewing the text and hasn’t announced a final decision, with authorities conducting a detailed assessment of political, legal, and technical dimensions
• Pakistan said on Saturday that an interim deal could be finalized within 24 hours and is preparing for electronic signing immediately after, followed by technical level talks next week
• A senior US official said on Friday there was an 80% or 85% chance an agreement gets signed soon, though some Iranian hardliners still want to kill any breakthrough
Draft Deal Terms
• According to a senior Iran official, the draft memorandum includes diluting highly enriched uranium within Iran and the release of $25 billion of Iran’s frozen assets
• The draft includes Iran immediately reopening the Hormuz Strait to all commercial vessels and the US lifting its naval blockade
• Tehran agrees in the draft that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons
• The draft includes a US oil sanctions waiver for Iran
• The final deal will be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides
• A central element is a step-by-step approach with the Strait of Hormuz reopened followed by Tehran getting economic rewards each time it meets US demands
Regional Tensions
• The Israeli military announced on Sunday it launched strikes on Beirut targeting Hezbollah infrastructure, with Netanyahu’s office saying the strikes were in response to Hezbollah attacks in northern Israel
• When Israel last struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, Iran responded with attacks
• US Central Command said on Saturday it shot down Iranian drones near the Strait of Hormuz
• Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with India’s External Affairs Minister on Saturday after US strikes left three Indian mariners dead, stressing that all commercial vessels should immediately comply with orders from US forces
Nuclear Program Developments
• According to five sources familiar with US intelligence, Iran has sealed off its cache of near-bomb grade uranium and placed explosive mines near entrances to the site in recent weeks, making attempts to remove the uranium far riskier
Financial Arrangements
• The UAE has agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Iran, with four sources telling Reuters the total was $10 billion, more than $3 billion of which had already been delivered, though two other sources put the total at $20 billion
• The UAE denied reports on the Iran funds transfer, specifically denying allegations concerning $3 billion
Diplomatic Activity
• Trump will meet with leaders of France, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt and India at the G7 summit in France, underscoring the outsized role the war in Iran continues to play
Khamenei Burial Plans
• Ali Khamenei, Iran’s former supreme leader killed in US-Israeli air strikes on February 28, is set to be buried at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad on July 9, with public funeral ceremonies in Tehran and Qom in preceding days
“Any deal that kicks the can down the road on the most critical issues and is conditions-based would put the US and Iran exactly where they’ve been: a fragile ceasefire in name only that is routinely tested and prone to violence,” said Becca Wasser, defense lead for Bloomberg Economics.
One can only hope that an MOU, and eventually a credible path toward a real peace deal, is something Tehran actually follows. What was initially sold as a quick war by the Trump administration has now dragged on into its fourth month. Early in the conflict, the administration’s view was that the Hormuz chokepoint would not be sealed shut, yet that is exactly what happened. Since then, the conflict has turned into a giant game of Shahed drone whack-a-mole with the Iranians. The Trump team needs this conflict resolved quickly, not only to prevent another wave of inflationary pressure in energy markets and avert the world from sliding into an energy cliff, but also to repair the political optics ahead of the midterms.
Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC).
Radical climate activists are counting on that.
Across the country, radical climate activists and left-wing environmental organizations are pouring millions of dollars into obscure utility commission races because they understand something many voters do not: these commissions increasingly influence the future of America’s electric grid.
These regulatory bodies decide how electricity is generated, how transmission infrastructure is built, how quickly power plants retire, how new resources are integrated into the grid, and ultimately how much Americans pay for electricity and whether the lights stay on when the system is under stress.
In Georgia, radical climate activists invested heavily in the 2025 PSC races, helping defeat Republican commissioners who supported an all-of-the-above energy strategy. In Arizona, activist-backed candidates won utility elections while advocating accelerated retirements of dispatchable generation. Similar efforts are already emerging in other states.
These organizations understand that utility commissioners play a critical role in shaping energy infrastructure, reliability, and investment decisions within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by their states. As national energy debates have become increasingly difficult to win in Washington, radical left-wing environmental activists have turned their attention to state-level regulatory races where those decisions are often debated and implemented.
What makes this debate so misleading is that activists frame it as a choice between renewable energy and the dispatchable generation still required to keep the grid reliable, affordable, and resilient.
It is not.
Most Republican PSC and PUC commissioners support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They recognize that meeting America’s growing energy needs while maintaining reliability and resilience will require contributions from virtually every available energy source.
What they reject is the fantasy that America can rapidly phase out dispatchable generation before replacement technologies are capable of providing the same level of reliability, resilience, and affordability.
Many radical climate activists have shifted their messaging from climate targets to affordability. Affordable electricity means very little if policymakers sacrifice reliability in pursuit of political timelines.
No major industrial economy has demonstrated that a heavily renewable-dependent electric system can operate at scale with consistent reliability and affordable consumer costs without substantial dispatchable backup generation.
At the same time, electricity demand is surging. Artificial intelligence, data centers, domestic manufacturing, and electrification are creating the largest increase in power demand America has seen in decades.
The Trump Administration’s Ratepayer Protection Pledge reflects a simple principle: large AI and data-center customers should bear their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs associated with their growth rather than shifting those costs onto families, small businesses, and existing ratepayers.
America’s electric grid was already facing enormous modernization requirements. Transmission systems are aging. Generation fleets are evolving.
AI is accelerating the urgency of these investments. It did not create the underlying challenge.
Utilities are expected to spend approximately $1.4 trillion over the next five years modernizing the electric grid, replacing aging infrastructure, hardening systems against extreme weather, and expanding capacity.
Recent Department of Energy actions to preserve dispatchable generation reflect a growing recognition that reliability and resilience must remain central considerations in America’s energy transition. The challenge is not simply building new resources. It is ensuring the electric system remains dependable during periods of peak demand, extreme weather, and other conditions that place stress on the grid.
The real challenge is not choosing between renewable and traditional energy. It is building a reliable, affordable, resilient, and scalable system capable of supporting long-term economic growth while withstanding major disruptions and restoring service quickly when Americans need power most.
Pretending otherwise may satisfy radical climate activists.
It will not keep electricity affordable.
It will not keep the lights on during hurricanes, polar freezes, or extreme heat events when millions of Americans depend on electricity not simply for convenience, but for safety and survival.
Recent victories in Georgia and Arizona have emboldened radical climate activists and their allies, who increasingly view state utility and regulatory commission races as some of the most important battlegrounds in American energy policy.
Republicans, business leaders, and ratepayers should start paying attention. The decisions made by these commissions will shape the affordability, reliability, resilience, and economic competitiveness of the American economy for decades to come.
Elizabeth Gianini is President of the Regulators RoundTable PAC.
Trump Says New Israeli Attack On Beirut “Should Not Have Happened” – Also Warns Hezbollah “Let’s Not Blow It”
Update(1140ET): President Trump on Truth Social has sought to brush back the Israeli Sunday strikes on Beirut’s southern suburbs, saying this morning’s attack “should not have happened” and given it was on “a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran.
He emphasized, “We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down.”
Some apparent last minute further Trump-Bibi fireworks, reported by Fox’s regional correspondent…
President Trump told Fox News he will ask Iran not to respond against Israeli strikes that targeted Hezbollah.
Trump says he asked Israeli PM Netanyahu “what the fu*k are you doing?”
The President believes a deal with Iran will be electronically signed in the next 2-3 hours. pic.twitter.com/t689DQWfOE
He warned not just Israel against more attacks, but said Hezbollah must refrain, after the Iran-aligned Shia group sent more projectiles on northern Israel. “This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace” he said, and added “let’s not blow it.”
* * *
On Sunday the spokesman for the Iranian parliament’s National Security Commission again warned against pursuing a deal with the United States without first restraining Israel. Iran has tried to force a ‘red line’ on Washington – essentially making clear that if it doesn’t get Israel under control in Lebanon, it can kiss an Iran and Hormuz Strait reopening peace deal goodbye.
“One must not fall into a calculation error. Even if you seek agreement or understanding, its path is disciplining the Zionist regime. If this rabid dog is not controlled the ink of an agreement not yet dry will bite our own foot,” the influential Ebrahim Rezaei wrote on X.
The warning came immediately on the heels of the Israeli military having hit Beirut hard on Sunday morning, with airstrikes on what the IDF called Hezbollah infrastructure, in response to recent attacks on northern Israel.
Iranian officials have in turn repeated their threat that they could respond with military action.
Just as President Trump has been touting that a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be signed Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has thrown a possible big monkey wrench into things by stating that “Israel will not tolerate firing into its territory.”
From Tehran’s perspective, this could put a deal with Trump on hold, as it seeks to maintain its firm line that Lebanon peace must also be incorporated into a broader overall US-Iran peace.
This has proven elusive thus far, and the Iranians have long charged that Trump acts at the behest of Israeli interests – while the White House has in turn sought to make clear it makes decisions independently, and that Israel answers to Washington, and not the other way around.
Iran’s response to the new Beirut bombings has been as expected, with the deputy commander of Iran’s top joint military command Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters stating that Israel’s assault on Beirut “will not go unanswered,” according to state media
“The Zionists’ crimes in the suburbs will not go unanswered,” Mohammad Jafar Assadi was quoted as saying. And more importantly:
Iran’s top negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said that Israel’s assault on Beirut’s southern suburbs showed that the US “either lacks the will to fulfill its commitments or the ability to do so”.
“If you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible,” he added.
Lebanon’s civil defense agency has indicated that the new attacks on Beirut’s southern suburbs killed at least three people. “The bodies of three martyrs were recovered from under the rubble and six wounded,” the agency announced in a statement.
— Arya Yadeghaar (Backup) (@AryJeayBackup) June 14, 2026
Again, Israel is saying this was necessary out of self-defense. The IDF “just carried out strikes in the Dahiyeh district of Beirut against terrorist targets belonging to the Hezbollah terrorist organisation, in response to Hezbollah’s firing toward Israeli territory,” it said. But certainly Tehran will voice vehement disagreement with this version of events.
Early Projections: 52% Of Swiss Vote Against Immigratiion/Population Cap
Summary:
The initiative “No 10 Million Switzerland” (population cap of 10 million) is being voted on by the Swiss and is likely to be rejected at the ballot box
New Projection by research institute GFS Bern, commissioned by SRG SSR, 1 pm local time
Vote Projection: 52% against Population Cap
Swiss voters are likely to reject the “No 10 Million Switzerland” (population cap of 10 million), according to public broadcaster SRF, which cited a political scientist at GFS Bern. These early projection results come after voting closed on Sunday.
As of 1 pm local time, GFS Bern political scientist Lukas Golder says the new projection of the “No 10 Million Switzerland” initiative shows 47.6% of voters in favor and 52.4% opposed.
The measure, backed by common-sense right-leaning politicians, including the Swiss People’s Party, argued that out-of-control migrant population growth was worsening overcrowding, housing costs, public transport pressure, and overbuilding.
Switzerland, with 9.1 million people, has the highest proportion of foreign-born of any major country, and the Swiss are sick of it.
On Sunday, Swiss vote on a referendum to cut family reunification and asylum claims to zero, if popultion reaches 9.5 million. At 10 million, not… pic.twitter.com/7Brx9CNPFj
Opponents, including the government, parliament, globalist CEOs, and economists, warned that the cap would restrict access to foreign labor, damage growth, and reduce long-term economic output.
Last year at the UN, President Trump warned globalists in the West who pushed nation-killing open borders and the migrant invasion: “When prisons are packed with ‘asylum seekers’ who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed.”
🚨 Trump at UN: “When prisons are packed with ‘asylum seekers’ who repay kindness with crime, open borders have failed.”
2024 stats:
• Germany: ~50% inmates foreign/migrant
• Austria: 53%
• Greece: 54%
• Switzerland: 72%
Across Europe and the U.S., years of top-down nation-killing open border policies by globalist politicians have collided with public outrage. In many countries, voters never gave left-wing political elites a mandate for the invasion of migrants. Now, out-of-control migrant crime, combined with pressure on housing, public services, wages, and social cohesion, is helping fuel a broader populist backlash against the left-wing political establishment.
Globalists Spread Doomer Propaganda As Switzerland Votes On Immigration Cap
Switzerland is not a part of the European Union; it’s an independent state operating in the midst of the EU apparatus, but you wouldn’t know it with so many EU representatives and globalist proponents demanding the right to dictate Swiss immigration policy.
The Swiss public is voting on June 14th on a population cap which is aimed at ending the steady stream of mass immigration into the country over the past 10 years. In response, globalists and multiculturalists from within the country and without have launched a propaganda campaign to frighten voters with fears of economic collapse should they vote yes.
It’s a narrative that has been repeated in the UK, the US, and a number of EU member states: “Without steady immigration, western economies will dry up from the lack of a skilled labor pool.”
The Guardian has platformed a member of the German branch of the Council on Foreign Relations (an institution specifically tasked with ending national sovereignty and erasing borders) who claims the Swiss are about to undermine their own prosperity by refusing to accept more immigrants. They refer to the vote as a “Swiss Brexit by stealth…”
But Switzerland cannot “Brexit” if they were never a member of the EU to begin with. This does not seem to concern The Guardian:
“If there is one near-uncontested lesson from modern economic history, it is that open societies win. Openness to immigration was long the defining superpower of the US. Japan’s strict immigration policy explains its dismal growth performance, and the fact that its average effective retirement age for men stands at 69.5 years.
Switzerland’s remarkable ascent from peasant backwater to high-tech economy in 200 years tells the same tale. With no natural resources, Switzerland has grown wealthy because it has provided a stable economic climate that attracted foreign innovators…”
There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the data shows quite the opposite is true. Mass immigration, specifically immigration from the third world, consistently drags the economy down. The US has seen this problem surface over and over again and it is largely due to the quality of the migrants. Third worlders do not bring wealth or skill value to any first world nation.
The EU, as an authoritarian body, might seek to punish the Swiss for defying the globalist agenda, but that is an engineered consequence, not a natural one.
Switzerland is the richest economy in Europe per capita and they do have an extensive migrant population. Around 30% of the nation’s current citizenry is foreign born. However, 80% of these “migrants” are western born and are not from the third world. The “skilled labor” is coming from other western nations, not India, not Pakistan, not the north of Africa.
The increasing tide of migrants from these parts of the world into Europe is starting to bleed into Switzerland, and the Swiss see the writing on the wall. The EU members with the most immigration are also dealing with the worst economic stagnation.
For example, Germany continues to deal with an unemployment rate hovering around 6.3%, with about 2.9 million people out of work. The labor market is experiencing a slowdown. Despite the rising joblessness, severe skilled labor shortages persist. In other words, migrants are not filling the job roles most needed within the German economy.
France’s unemployment rate climbed to 8.1% in the first quarter of 2026, reaching its highest level in five years and surpassing mainstream expectations. The increase brings the total number of unemployed job seekers to approximately 2.6 million. The French government has been flooding the country with migrants for over a decade and the system is drowning.
Spain has recently instituted an amnesty program for hundred of thousands of third worlders, which has triggered another migration rush. It’s important to understand that migrants from developing nations view the west as a target to be fleeced, not as a new home. Many migrants continue to maintain residency in their home countries while they siphon welfare benefits from Europeans.
Spain has the second-highest unemployment rate in the EU at 10.8% and a 23% unemployment rate for young workers 25 years old and under.
All of these countries are also facing a disastrous housing crisis. Mass immigration is destroying the rental and home owner markets. Germany has seen a 15% rise in rental costs, France is at 20% and Spain is at 25%. Rental availability is tight across the board with around 2% vacancy in medium to large population centers. Home prices in all three countries have skyrocketed by 15% to 40% depending on the region. Structural shortages continue to plague home buyers.
Switzerland has seen these numbers and they have seen the rising tide of third worlders trying to gain entry. It makes perfect sense for them to cap immigration. The Guardian Op Ed is revealing in the way it exposes the globalist ideology – Their argument is, essentially, that foreigners are entitled to access western economies as a kind of “civil right”.
“…Beneath the economics lies something even more troubling. What makes the Dubai model so appealing to the radical right is that abandoning EU treaties would not only allow the SVP to cut immigration but also to strip foreigners of their rights entirely. For instance, they have proposed barring German and French workers from bringing their families. Switzerland would join the league of autocratic states that deny foreigners what conservatives claim to hold most dear: a life rooted in family.”
It might sound like empathetic advocacy, but it is actually insanity. If it is “autocratic” for a nation to limit foreign access, then so be it. Foreigners (whether from the West or the Third World) are not entitled to the fruits of the Swiss economy. The idea that limitations are “unjust” or despotic is a product of leftist tripe and globalist disinformation.
Whether the vote on the population cap succeeds or fails, the Swiss have a renowned reputation as purveyors of order and common sense. It would be a shame for them to abandon it simply to avoid meaningless accusations of “xenophobia” or “autocracy”. Frankly, their economy will remain far better off than the rest of Europe by applying a measure of logical discrimination.
How we see politics reveals a lot about who we are. But it is less akin to a Rorschach ink blot than one of those reversible images, like the drawing that is both a rabbit and a duck. As messy as society might be, it is not some blob open to any interpretation (at least not yet, anyway). The patterns are there. But where we see one clear thing clearly, our pal may see another just as sharply.
The difference is that we can ultimately resolve the artistic conflict – yes, I see both my wife and my mother-in-law in the drawing; when it comes to politics, we tend to dig in our heels and insist on our single reading.
I felt as if I was peering at a reversible image the other day while talking with a progressive friend about the major challenges confronting the U.S. Surveying the American landscape, he saw a nation in peril largely because of a handful of billionaire “oligarchs” who use their tremendous influence to shape policy while resisting efforts to pay their “fair share.” Imposing wealth taxes and closing loopholes, he said, is both a moral and economic necessity to start improving the picture.
I countered that I didn’t see the problem as a handful of rich guys but the many millions of Americans who lack the education, skills, and burning desire to better their own lives. The problem is not, for example, a lack of funding, but a broken education system; it is not a porous safety net, but the unwillingness of people to work.
As these discussions go, my friend was not armed with studies and statistics to support his point – he’s kept busy by his demanding job and the family he loves. Honestly, this can get frustrating for those of us who are paid to know and remember such material. It’s taken me too long to realize that commanding more evidence doesn’t necessarily make me right. Other people’s summary knowledge of all they’ve seen and read may lack specifics, but it doesn’t make them wrong.
He made some excellent points. The rise of technology has allowed a coterie of true visionaries – including Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and the late Steve Jobs – and the hedge fund guys who’ve piggy-backed on their talents to become unimaginably rich. They didn’t invent the future, but were smart, and lucky enough to see where things were headed and did a better job than other smart and tenacious people to drive and capitalize on change. No matter their talents, many of them could only have grown so rich in America, which is home to about a third of the world’s billionaires.
As almost every American agrees on the need for a tax system, he noted, the question is not whether they should pay a portion of their earnings to the government, but how much. He could not pinpoint exactly what a fair share would be. He said that the question is beside the point – fair is not a firm rate but an ever-changing number based on what people have and what the government needs. He did say that I wasn’t crazy to think progressives reject any set limit as a ceiling that would limit their demand for more.
He was roughly aware that top earners pay a large share of federal taxes. I told him that the most recent IRS data indicates the top 1% paid about 38.4% of all federal individual income; include the top 10% and the figure rises above 70%. That’s a lot of their money going to us.
But he noted that their effective tax rate – for the top 1% it was 26.1% in 2022 – is not onerous. And the billionaires, in particular, use a passel of legal deductions and carve-outs to reduce their tax bills.
“I know their money creates jobs and investments in the private sector,” he said, “but we have a massive debt [now north of $39 trillion] and huge annual deficits that have to be paid by someone. They can best afford it.” He added, “Maybe we should, like Europe, raise everyone’s taxes a lot, but that is not politically viable right now. Since we need money, the rich and very rich are the best place to start.”
We both agreed that people should pay for the government they want and that tax rates should not be set because of some abstract notion of fairness, but at levels that will maximize revenue.
Nevertheless, I countered that the American landscape can be viewed another way. First, I said the focus on the rich seeks to create a single bogeyman to blame for all our problems. The implication that simply taking more from Bezos and Musk is the cure for what ails us is not true – rich as they are, their fortunes are small compared to government spending. More importantly, the focus shifts the responsibility from individuals who are the captains of their own ships and leaders who have failed to govern wisely to a relatively small number of largely blameless individuals.
To take a few examples, I asserted that the superrich are not to blame for the chronic rate of absenteeism at our public schools; the record numbers of young men who are not part of the workforce; the declining rates of marriage and births. The superrich are not the reason why some of the most heavily regulated industries, including health care, education, and housing, have seen some of the highest rises in costs. Our aching moral challenge is not centered in the tax code – which falsely suggests our problems could be easily solved – but in the decisions we the people are making in our own lives.
Finally, I said, the government has plenty of money. If the federal government were a private business, its increasing revenues over the years would make it a darling of Wall Street. The problem is we spend even more. And, as recent reporting has documented, a good deal of that spending is lost to waste and fraud at every level of government.
“Let’s try to fix what’s broken,” I told my friend, “instead of throwing more money on the dumpster fire.”
“I see your point,” he responded, “but we can’t let problems fester waiting for a fix that might never come. And it’s just wrong that these guys have so much when the need is so great.”
At the end, neither of us changed our minds; we still viewed the American landscape differently. But given how bitterly divided our nation is, I found great value in just having the conversation; in respectfully listening to one another, making the effort to see where each is coming from. So much political discussion looks for fault lines in the other side’s arguments rather than their strengths. We look to confirm our views rather than expand them. If we want to persuade others, the first thing we must do is listen to them. This seems obvious, so why don’t we start doing it?
