The News Roundup For April 10, 2026

This message comes from the Southern Environmental Law Center. No one voted for dirty air and water. That's why SELC is fighting back to defend the healthy environment everyone depends on. Because it's not political. It's fundamental. Learn more at selc.org. Hi, it's Naila Boodoo, your host for this edition of the News Roundup. Just a quick heads up before we start the show. The news is rapidly changing.

Things may have changed by the time you hear this episode. Stay up to date with all the latest by listening to your local NPR station and visiting NPR.org. I'm Naila Boodoo. It's the 1A podcast. You're listening to the Weekly News Roundup. President Trump started the week warning of apocalyptic consequences for Iran if it did not open the straight of Hormuz. Then Tuesday, just ahead of his 8 p.m. deadline, news of a ceasefire agreement between the U.S., Israel and Iran. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth says, quote, Iran begged for a ceasefire. With Israel unleashing its deadliest attacks yet on Lebanon in the hours that followed, it doesn't look much like a ceasefire right now. This hour, we're going to try to make sense of what's going

on and what the White House is saying. Plus, we're going to be talking about results in Wisconsin in Georgia elections and hear how the Artemis II mission has fared ahead of its scheduled splashdown tonight. Here in this, for that and more, Arthur Delaney, senior reporter at Huff Post. Thanks for joining us, Arthur. Great to be here. Jeff Mason, White House correspondent for Bloomberg. Jeff, welcome.

Thank you. And Neftali, Ben David, Washington editor at the Washington Post. Neftali, welcome back to 1A. Thanks for having me. Neftali, let's start with the ceasefire. It didn't actually stop the violence, which is traditionally the definition of a ceasefire, especially as we're thinking about what happened in Lebanon. Can you tell us what the agreement was supposed to entail and how this came about?

Well, it was pretty vague. I mean, the idea was that Iran was going to let shipping go through the Strait of Hrabuz, and in return, the U.S. and presumably Israel, would stop their attacks. But there are these three enormous holes, I think, in this ceasefire. First of all, the reopening of the strait was the central element of it, and yet Iran and the U.S. seemed to completely disagree on what that means. It's not at all clear that Iran's going to open up the strait in the way that the U.S. expected it to. Secondly, how could they not think about Lebanon. I mean, there seems to be a disagreement between the two sides about whether or not Lebanon was part of this. Was part of it. And that's either strategic ambiguity and was intentional or they really just never got around to nailing that down. Either way, it's an enormous vulnerability for the ceasefire. And lastly, I would just say that in general terms, Israel is kind of a wildcard here. I mean, they're not really part of the ceasefire. They've said that they are supporting it, but they have their own agenda. They clearly don't feel bound by all parts of it, the way that the U.S. and Iran are. So that's another wildcard.

And so I think with a ceasefire like that, it's very unclear what it even means, let alone whether it's going to hold. With all of that, Arthur, can I just zero in for a second on the situation in Lebanon? Is that the main reason why we think the ceasefire is fragile or shaky? What else should we be thinking about in addition to what Neftali was talking about? That's where the violence is happening. So yes, it's the main reason it's shaky. But the whole thing, like Noftali said, is totally ambiguous. There were these 10-point plan and a 15-point plan from the United States.

Iran put out its version of a 10-point plan that the Trump administration said is not the real one. They're sending us something else that looks totally different. We have no idea what's going on, honestly, except that the Strait of Hormuz is not open. And the president said, well, maybe we'll run it as a joint venture where the U.S. and Iran are tolling ships for passing through, which I don't really understand. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Cain, spoke to reporters after the ceasefire was announced. Iran begged for this ceasefire, and we all know it. Epic Fury was a historic and overwhelming victory on the battlefield. A capital V military victory.

By any measure, Epic Fury decimated Iran's military and rendered it combat ineffective for years to come. Jeff, we've been hearing these boasts of victory from the Trump administration from nearly the very beginning of this now 43-day-long war. In particular, we've heard the five goals from the president about what he wanted to accomplish. Did that happen? A handful of them did, but I think you're right to raise the question because did they achieve their overall aims? I don't know. I think it's also important to mention that really from the very beginning the objectives were not always clear. He launched this war, or at least announced the launch of the war with a video on Truth Social, in which he touched on a bunch of different things, including wanting, encouraging the people of Iran to take over their government at the end of this operation.

Regime change was implied, and regime change is something the president has talked about and said alternatively that it was something he wanted and that it was not something he wanted. but either way it was something he thinks he has accomplished. The facts don't support that claim. The person who succeeded the Ayatollah, who was killed on the first day of bombing, is his son. And so the religious leaders are still in charge. The other main objective that he has articulated

is to keep Iran from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon. Well, they still have uranium, and it's buried deep underground. He suggested that the United States, and Iran would work together to dig up that uranium, but we haven't heard that from Iran. And Iran, despite taking part in these peace talks this week or this weekend, is not giving signals that it's somehow going to forgive the United States for this attack. So lots of objectives are still questionable in terms of what he aimed out to do. And just to emphasize the mixed signals near the outset of the war, he said, as part of regime change,

we'd be liberating the Iranian people to take their government. It would be yours for the taking. He said, and then this week he said, I will kill you all. He threatened to eradicate their civilization. He did indeed. And he also said he wanted to have a hand in choosing the next leader. And he did not have a hand in that. He's also said at one point that perhaps he would administer with Iran, the Strait of Hormuz, which, of course, he is not. So lots of ambiguity and lots of mixed messages. Now, Dali, can I just ask you about the issue of uranium? What do we know about the nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium that's still in Iran? I mean, the main thing we know about is that the Iranians still have it.

And I think you would be hard pressed to not see it as a failure of the war effort if Iran keeps highly enriched uranium at the end of the conflict, particularly if it hasn't disavowed its nuclear aspirations. The president does say that it's buried beneath rubble and that we would be able to see if they went to try. to get it, and so that therefore it's all very secure, but that's really not quite the same thing as removing the highly enriched uranium from Iran. The other thing is that a lot of diplomats think that if this leadership of Iran survives the war, they may be more determined than ever to pursue a nuclear weapon because there's a thinking that had they had one, perhaps they wouldn't have been attacked in this way by the U.S. and Israel. So if they manage to hang on to it, and right now there's not a lot of indication that they won't, I think it's definitely a set of

back for the war aims of the U.S. I would also add to that that the president has been very, very critical of the Iran deal that was established during the Obama years. Actually, we just got an email about that. James just wanted to know if we could compare the ceasefire deal to what Obama's nuclear deal had been negotiated. Well, and the one thing that really pops to the top of my head on that is monitoring. And there was pretty intrusive monitoring as part of... International monitor. Yes, involved in that deal that allowed... monitors to get into the country and to look at what Iran was doing. That is not something, of course, that the international community has now. Is that going to be on the table for talks this weekend? Maybe. But it seems unlikely that that's something that Iran is going to agree to now. And they did then. But President Trump is very, very, not only critical of that agreement,

but he withdrew the United States from it. I mean, I think the critical thing is going to be what happens in the next two weeks. We're supposed to be negotiating with Iran in Islamabad, in Pakistan, and whatever comes out of that could mean further hostilities, it could mean an end to hostilities. But I think despite all the talks of the 10-point plan on the part of Iran that nobody knows what it is and the 15-point plan on the part of the U.S. that nobody knows what it is, is I think both of these sides just are going to have to decide if they want to end the war, get out, have as much of a face-saving agreement as they can. I don't think this is going to be one of those negotiations where there's, you know, hard-fart discussions over Article 7 and whether or not they can reach a compromise between the two. I think it's going to be two governments that are in the situation that is not good for either of them deciding how they can extricate themselves. And I think that's what the next couple of weeks are going to be about.

Now, Talley, as we think about how this week started with President Trump's Eastern morning words and then threats that continued up until the Tuesday deadline, where would you say we are now with between as these negotiations so far are scheduled to go ahead in Pakistan tomorrow? Where are we? You mean compared to a day ago? Or even a week ago. I mean, at least the two sides have toned down their hostilities. Again, there's this wildcard of Israel and Lebanon continually. to go at each other, or Israel and Hezbollah, I should say. And, you know, they are agreeing to talk. So in that sense, I suppose you could say it's progress. But the situation is so murky and so messy because, you know, there was all this talk of very specific goals at the beginning, except they all

kind of contradicted each other. And it's not clear that any of them were achieved. So I think you'd have to say at least they're talking, but the future remains incredibly murky. I did want to ask about Congress, what we're hearing from other members. of the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. Arthur, we've again heard Hakeem Hakeem Jeffries talk about reintroducing the war powers resolution in Congress. What's happening with that? So first of all, Trump's Easter morning statement with the profanity and then his genocidal threat to destroy the entire civilization instantly changed the politics of the war. Republicans spoke out against these words, including two, who said, that is not an okay.

thing to say even as a negotiating tactic. And it being a negotiating tactic was the only excuse anyone could make for it. Republican leaders were silent. Democrats pulled a stunt as a result and tried to force a war powers vote this week. Congress has the power to stop wars. They gave themselves this power after Vietnam. And Democrats are going to be pursuing that with renewed vigor as a result of Trump's statements this week. When we come back after this short break, we'll continue this conversation talking more about the ramifications for that vote, as well as what we're hearing from other political leaders, how that could affect the conversations that are going to begin this weekend in Pakistan. Stick with us for the news route.

This message comes from MintMobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash switch. Taxes and fees extra. See MintMobile for details. As America marks 250 years, remember, we the people, make a free press possible. Together, we hold the powerful to account with reporting for the public, funded by the public, at plus.npr.org. For decades, Chicago has dominated Illinois politics. Now rural residents say they're fed up. There comes a time of reckoning, and we're getting very close.

On the Sunday story, why secession is brewing in the land of Lincoln. Listen now to the Sunday story from the Up First podcast on the NPR app. Welcome back. It's the news roundup on the 1A podcast. We got this comment from WAMU listener Randall in Maryland, who says, as far as I can tell, VP JD Vance's conditions for success in his negotiations are to return to the status quo as much as possible. straight of Hormuz open, Iran not producing nuclear weapons. So aside from all of the death and destruction that the U.S. and Israel triggered by attacking Iran without provocation, what are we striving for? Is a world like the one before we attacked? Let's talk about JD Vance. Go ahead.

So to the listeners' question, number one, I think that there's, again, there's some question marks and there's ambiguity about what they exactly want to. obtain in talks this weekend. Certainly they want to get some sort of a longer-term peace deal that, again, prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And yes, gets things back to the status quo in terms of the Strait of Hormuz. That's been the biggest negative impact for President Trump and largely U.S. allies from this war. But I do think it's really significant that the president is sending his vice president to be part of these talks. Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are the other two envoys who are taking part. They were involved in the talks right up to the edge of the war.

Putting JD Vance in now puts a very, very high-level government official at the table and gives a chance to his vice president, who all reporting suggests oppose this war, to perhaps have a role in ending it if these talks go well. And that could be politically useful for him going forward if he becomes a candidate for the presidential nomination. And as we were talking about war powers and the debate in Congress, before the break, Arthur, you were just talking about how the president's comments at the beginning of the week have changed the domestic political calculus in the conversation. How else are we seeing that play out? So there was an attempt this week by Democrats to force a war powers vote, even though the House is not in session. And that didn't work.

It was a pro forma and they were ignored. The gavel went down. But they will try to force this next week. when they're back. In the House and the Senate, and they already did this last month, and it didn't work. But it's a big question whether those vote totals will be the same, given the new skeptical comments from certain Republicans on both sides of Congress. And on Thursday, a Democrat was asked what she thought of JD Vance being involved,

and she said, this was Susan Jacobs of California. She said, well, at least he's in the government. At least we're sending someone who works for the administration because Steve Witkoff. And the president's son-in-law are special government employees. So it's a much more significant person that we're now sending to get involved in this. I mean, if we talk about the effect on the U.S., we got a question from Tom that wanted to know what level of destruction have U.S. bases experienced during this war. Do we know the extent of that yet?

I don't think we know the extent of that. We were talking about that a little bit during the break. There has certainly been damage, but we don't have a lot of. or I at least have not seen a whole lot of information about that. Yeah, we've seen numbers that there have been a significant number of wounded, by which I mean somewhere in the neighborhood of 100. Most of those are not serious, but that does suggest that some damage has been inflicted on American military basis, but it's been a pretty closely held thing. And so I think it's just something we don't know yet. Right. And of course, we have also the 13 military lives who have been lost for U.S. military members.

can I ask about effects on Americans in terms of the price of gas? Jeff, we got some alarming data about inflation this morning. Last month's inflation is at the highest in almost two years. One of the biggest monthly changes since 2022, which is when the world was dealing with the energy crisis from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. What else do we need to know about this morning's numbers, what we've seen this week as we're looking at inflation? So a couple things. consumer prices up 0.9% from February on an annualized basis that's up 3.3 and up 2.4% from the month before. Energy prices up about 11%. That's when we're talking about gasoline and the results of the increase in oil prices from this war. Politically, and this is my wheelhouse, this is super damaging to the president. It takes away a talking point that he absolutely loved having for the first year and a half of his presidency, that he was responsible for bringing prices down from the

inflation jump that occurred during the Biden years. Now, there is no way to draw a line to anyone but President Trump and his decision to go to war with Iran that led to this increase in prices. Now, there's time for these prices to go back down again between now and the November elections, but fuel prices in particular may take longer than some of the other prices if this war does actually conclude in two weeks at the end of this grace period for the talks. I mean, it's not just the war, though. The Strait of Hormuz has to resume allowing tankers through. Which it is not doing right now, except for a handful. And that control of the Strait of Hormuz will, the question over who continues to have control, it will almost

certainly be Iran. And that, to go back to your listener's initial question, is back to the status quo. I want to talk about the conservative Christian language that has been pervading press briefings and social media posts about the war, not only from the president. God wants to see people taking care of God doesn't like what's happening. But also, as we've often heard from Secretary Pete Hegseth. Our troops, our American warriors deserve the credit for this day. But God deserves all the glory.

Tens of thousands of sordies, refuelings, and struts. strikes carried out under the protection of divine providence, a massive effort with miraculous protection. Dude 44 Bravo spoke for all of us. God is good. That was, of course, President Trump and then Pete Hegseth, both speaking on Monday. I have heard commentary from some Americans this week who have said that this kind of talk sounds more like the theocracy that exists in Iran. Arthur, can I just start with just your observations. Jeff, Nafali, would love to have you weigh in as well about if this language does seem different than what we've heard from previous administrations. Oh, of course. And it's not just been God. Pete Hegseth has also mentioned Jesus Christ in his

briefings at the Pentagon. And it's obviously contrary to the idea of the United States as a secular country where we don't respect an establishment of religion. It makes it hard to draw the distinction that they want to, that Iran is a theocracy where the people have no freedom, and it probably gives them great propaganda. So it's questionable talk about. This is what we signed up for when we got Pete Hegseth-th. He has a background of describing a crusade and American military service members as crusaders. Yeah, I mean, I think it's a real reframing of the conflict. In other words, it's one thing to look at this as the United States pursuing its military and geopolitical objectives in the Middle East. It's something.

else if this is a clash of civilizations and if this is a war to protect, you know, not only Western civilization, but Christianity specifically. Another element that really jumped out at me is that one of President Trump's very, very hard-hitting posts, he added praise be to Allah. It's hard to see that as anything other than kind of a taunt of a major religion, which isn't something we're used to sing from the president. And it does contrast very dramatically with President George W. Bush, who also led a war in the Middle East, but was very careful to at least say this is not a war against Islam. We do not hate Muslims. This is about a specific group of people who seek to harm the United States. But this war is unpopular. And it may be that if you reframe it into

again, a clash of, you know, between Western Christian civilization and barbarians, then maybe you drive support among certain people who might otherwise be skeptical. I would note that it has also received criticism from the Pope, which is a pretty big deal for a Pope who has tried to I mean, who's a new, number one, and two, who has not been naming President Trump by name, but has criticized the idea of couching war in the name of God. And to dovetail on what Arthur were saying, Pete Hegseth, in one of the press conferences that I listened to at the end of his remarks said, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. So he is absolutely not only couching it with religious language that I think, as Neftali says,

does appeal to some of the Trump's base, but also really trying to suggest that it has the blessing of Christianity and of Jesus Christ. And of course, this is an American Pope. So you have the two most influential Americans on the global stage presenting starkly different ideas

of what represents American values and American perspectives. And that's a really striking thing to see. Let's turn to election news on Tuesday President Trump signed an executive order restricting mail-in voting and act voting rights

advocates argue could disenfranchise millions of Americans. The order requires that the Department of Homeland Security compile a federal database of eligible voters in each state with the help of the Social Security Administration. At least 23 states are suing the Trump administration to overturn this. Jeff, what exactly with his executive order do? What implications does this have for the midterm elections? The main thing that he's wanting to do is he's wanting to gain data about American citizens and then pass that data on to the U.S. Postal Service and say you are only allowed to send a mail-in ballot to people on this list. And that is a part of a broader effort by this president and this administration to crack down, I guess, on elections and what he considers election

fraud, for which there is zero to very little evidence. It is also, as you said, being legally challenged. And it's also ironic because the president himself, despite his long-time criticism of mail-in voting, uses it himself repeatedly. Including last month in Florida. Including last month in Florida for that election. And a court's going to say, no, you can't do that. It's going to be blocked by courts. Then we'll see what the Supreme Court says. Do we know the timing of this so in terms of the midterms? Well, I don't know when a court will block it, but I think it will be soon. And I also would suspect that the case would not be finished before the midterbs.

But I don't know. Maybe the Supreme Court would want to jump in sooner. But I believe it will be quickly blocked. And it's similar to what they're doing in Congress where they're pushing legislation to change voting procedures that they know can't pass. And you have to imagine or wonder whether it's an attempt to set up a way to complain about a midterm election result that is widely expected to be unfavorable for them. And so they'll say, well, we didn't get our mail-in vote.

voting regulation, and we didn't get our law passed in Congress, so how can you trust this result? Speaking of the Postal Service, the USPS is running out of money and resorting to extreme measures to stay afloat on Thursday. The Postal Service announced it was temporarily suspending payments to the federal employee pension program to save cash amid financial stress, estimating a savings of $2.5 billion through September 30th. And after a fraught negotiation process, Amazon and USPS this week also, reached a tentative deal that will cut the number of packages Amazon ships by 20% while still preserving an essential source of income for an agency that amounts to billions of dollars. Even so, the USPS warns it could run out of money as soon as next February if major reforms

are not made to its business model. Let's check in on Georgia. This week, the U.S. Special House runoff election to replace former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green took place Clay Fuller, a Trump-endorsed, a Trump-endorsed Republican. won the seat against Democrat Sean Harris, 57% to 43%, according to the Associated Press. You see the results, and it was still a dominating performance last night. We're really proud of how we did. And I'd be more concerned about the money that the Democrats lit on fire, and they weren't even competitive in the special election.

That was Fuller on CBS News on Wednesday. Neftali, this is a deep red district. Fuller said Democrats weren't competitive, we just heard him say, in this race. But even though they lost, they still shifted the district 25 points from the 2024 election. What are the big takeaways you're seeing from this? Well, I think that this is just the latest in a series of off-year elections that the Democrats have overperformed in virtually every single one by significant amounts. Last November in New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and some other places, if you look at the victories of the Democrats, they were deep and they were wide. They'd won in places they hadn't won in decades.

there's a narrative out there that people may not like President Trump, but they don't like the Democrats either. And that may be true, but it's not affecting the results of the election because these elections are a referendum on President Trump. They're not really a contest between the two parties. And it's been pretty striking the sort of unbroken record here. And you, of course, want to be careful about predicting the future and predicting the midterms. But it's pretty clear that in every election, every election, including the George one and including the one to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, You know, that also happened, you know, that the Democrats are overperforming. And I think that's one of the things that's creating this current dynamic where you see Republicans acting like they're nervous and Democrats acting like they're confident.

Quick follow up to that, though. Interesting reporting in the Washington Post this morning about fundraising and Democrats not enjoying as much success as Republicans on that front right now. Yeah, that is an interesting dynamic. The Democrats expected a boost in fundraising after dominating the elections in Virginia, New Jersey. That didn't happen. But to me, that just strengthens the point that, look, people don't love Democrats. What's happening here isn't a country falling in love with the Democratic Party. It's a country recoiling against some of the things that President Trump is doing. And so that's why you can see not a lot of great fundraising for the Democrats, but huge results for the Democrats, which are in effect results against the Republicans.

For Monday's installment of our weekly politics series, if you can keep it, we'll unpack these recent Democratic Party wins and what they tell us about how voters feel right now. And we would love to hear from you, especially if you typically vote Democrat, what do you think has helped the party gain support? You can call us at 855-236-1-2-1-2. And if you typically vote Republican, why do you think the party has been struggling to win special elections since Trump returned to office? Our number is 855-236-1-2, or you can email us at 1a at wamu.org. And we'll get to your thoughts on Monday. Still to come, the journey of Artemis 2 that's captivated the 1.1.2. We'll be right back.

This message comes from MintMobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash switch. Taxes and fees extra. See MintMobile for details. On Consider This, NPR's afternoon news podcast, we cover everything from politics to the economy, to the world. But every story starts with a question.

At NPR, we stand for your right to be curious to make sense of the biggest story of the day and what it means for you. Follow, consider this, wherever you get your podcasts.

Every episode, if it's been a minute, NPR's What's Happening in Culture Podcasts, starts by asking three questions. Who? How? Why now? If the culture's asking it, we're talking about it. At NPR, we stand for your right to be curious and indulge your cultural curiosity. Follow it's been a minute wherever you get your podcasts, and we'll break down the zeitgeisty topics that are filling your feed. Hi, it's Terry Gross, the host of fresh air. Catch my interview about the birth of the culture wars.

Even breakfast cereals have become part of the culture wars. Author Isaac Butler takes us back to when the Christian right mobilized against provocative art. Listen to fresh air on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcast. Welcome back to the weekly news roundup. The January 6th attack on the Capitol happened more than five years ago. But this week, we have some legal news connected to that day. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the dismissal of a criminal conviction of Steve Bannon. The longtime advisor to President Trump served four months in jail for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena related to the investigation into the January 6th insurrection. This action by the court came in response to a request from the Trump administration.

Neftali, what exactly is the Trump administration asking for when it comes to Steve Bannon and why now after he's already served his sentence? Well, the administration and the Justice Department essentially want to drop the case. They want to dismiss the case. And it wasn't clear from the lower courts that they would be able to do that. And the Supreme Court said, you know, yes, they can. You're right that in a sense it's symbolic because Steve Bannon has already served his time for defying the congressional subpoena. But nonetheless, these things are important. I guess the only thing I'd say is that this reflects the fact that the Trump Justice Department

not only pursues the political adversaries of the president, but also in many ways protects or helps the political allies of the president. We've seen this in the case of Mike Flynn, where the Justice Department had a payout for ostensible, you know, wrongful prosecution. We saw in terms of the Justice Department no longer pursuing its case against Peter Navarro, and, of course, the pardons of the January 6th attackers. So this just shows kind of a flip side of what's going on in the justice system under the president. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina told CNN that January 6 will loom large for him

in the search for an attorney general to replace Pam Bondi, who the president fired last week. For me, the threshold for somebody following Pam Bondi ends the moment I hear they said one thing that excused the events of January the 6th. I've been very clear on that. Arthur, how much sway do we think Thom Tillis has on this? Did we see other Republicans expressing similar points of view? No. Timulus, excuse me, Thom Tillis is sort of rogue Republican senator right now. He's blocking the Trump administration on lots of stuff.

But there's 53 Republican senators and you only need 50 to get someone through. I think the biggest question is whether he can hold up a nominee in the Judiciary Committee. I don't think they're going to find somebody. I was going to say, who is being considered right now. It could be the deputy attorney general. I don't think we have a name. Jeff does. Well, I was just going to say, we wrote a story this week, a colleague of mine and I,

that the White House actually isn't in a big hurry to replace Pam Bondi, in large part because Todd Blanche, who is right now taking over, who was her deputy, they have some concerns that he would have trouble getting confirmed. So they're not in a big rush. Yeah, I don't think we should expect to see a nominee in front of the Senate anytime soon. They can leave Todd Blanche there for. a while. I don't think they relish going through a confirmation process with him or anybody else who might be up for it like Janine Piro or somebody like that. But I also think the important

thing about Thom Tillis is that he is on the Judiciary Committee. And that's, I believe, a 12 to 10 division between Republicans and Democrats. So if he votes no, then that could hold up a positive recommendation of the committee to the full Senate. But I think the larger point is, again, that they are not in a big hurry to fill this position. They're happy to have Todd Todd Blanche run the department for as long as they can without bringing it to the Senate. I would just add to that to go back to the initial question that Thom Tillis' opposition to anyone who wants to rewrite what happened on January 6th is largely at odds with a good chunk of the rest of the Republican Party that has largely very happily rewritten or tried to rewrite what

happened on January 6th. And that is a legacy that will stick with President Trump and his supporters for a long time. I did want to ask one other Pam Bondi question. She will not appear next week for a scheduled deposition with the House Oversight Committee as part of its inquiry into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Nftali, at this point, how likely is it that this deposition will ever happen? Well, it's hard to know for sure. My hunch is that it will. And the reason I say that is only because when Bill and Hillary Clinton were subpoenaed, they issued a defiant, fiery statement saying they were never going to appear before the committee. this was a matter of deep principle, and then they testified a week or two later. And I think that, you know, nobody really wants to face, you know, contempt of Congress charges. The thing that's interesting about this is a lot of Republicans on the committee joined Democrats against the desires of the Republican leadership to issue the subpoena. And you hear Republicans like Nancy Mace say, you know, they really expect Pam Bondi to appear.

So while we don't know for sure, and Pam Bondi was resisting this even when she was Attorney General, let alone now that she no longer is, it wouldn't surprise me if, as the weeks unfold, she does make an appearance. These appearances are, by the way, behind closed doors. So it wouldn't be a public testimony. The Justice Department said she wouldn't come. She didn't say it. And she's been fired from her job. Maybe she's ready to spill.

But it's a ridiculous argument because they subpoenaed every recent former attorney general. And they all responded. And Bill Barr even came in. So it's likely that we will hear from Pam Bondi. I think enough is right. Let's turn to the partial government shutdown. Does everyone remember that now that TSA officers? Is that still happening?

Yes. So, good. Jeff, I want to ask you about it. So we know the TSA officers have largely reported back to their jobs. Security lines are moving again. You might not realize that parts of DHS remain shuttered. But a deal to restore funding for most of DHS is on the table. Arthur, tell us if Congress is – and we know that Congress is still out on recess through the end of next week.

That's right. No, I'm sorry. The end of this week. Sorry. They'll be back next. Right. So what or where are we at with funding conversations between the parties? The Senate passed a bill to fund DHS minus ICE in Border Patrol, which already has funding anyway.

The House rebelled. It said, we won't do it. And then Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, said, actually, we will do it. And I expect them to do it, although not without some drama because a bunch of the right-wing Republicans really hate it. And so we'll be following that next week. But this is something we do expect to pass because Mike Johnson and John Thune, the Senate majority leader, made a deal during the recess. So what do we think House Democrats gain politically from holding the line on DHS funding?

Well, they – I think they highlighted the abuses of immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis. And then they used that as leverage to start this process of negotiating with the white. House from Republicans where they wanted things like take your masks off, wear badges. And the administration had said, okay, well, we'll do some of that. But they've given away their leverage the Democrats have by saying we'll support the rest, you know, every other part of DHS. And practically, they got nothing. And it seems like they're just kind of ready to move on. We have the Iran war now dominating the news. There has certainly been frustration amongst Democrats with their Democratic lawmakers for not doing more. and this was an opportunity for them to stand up.

And in many ways they did. But important to note that Democrats in Congress have almost no power. No majority in the House or the Senate. They don't control the White House. And of course, the Supreme Court, and now I'm talking about Washington broadly, is dominated by a conservative majority. So in the few instances where they can sort of hold the line,

and this was one of them, that's a political talking point that they can bring into. the November elections and help with some of the folks who are really upset about what ISIS has done. By the way, we got this about our discussion regarding fundraising for the midterms. This comment commenting on the less fundraising for Democrats, this one listener says, we're broke. The increasing disparity between upper and tech class that consistently donate to Republican or right-leaning platforms is only funding themselves more and more.

I mean, that may be part of the explanation, but I think usually when there's enthusiasm for a party, There's a lot of small dollar donations that roll in nonetheless, and we really aren't seeing that on the side of the Democrats right now. Upper and tech class. That's interesting. See also Epstein class for pejorative ways of describing the elite. Let's see what coming after the November elections. I mean, surely the House is looking very positive for Dems,

even if the money isn't flowing as much. And I think that if that happens, if there is a change in power and at least one branch of Congress, Congress, that's going to spark some fundraising going into the presidential, which will start right after that. Well, and as we've seen, and I'm thinking particularly of Wisconsin, not this particular race for the Supreme Court, but last year, the amount of funding that someone like Elon Musk spent made no difference.

It made no difference whatsoever. And that was a big lesson for him. It doesn't mean he's not going to keep putting money in if he decides to. But there are certainly plenty of opportunities for Democrats to gin up support amongst their fundraisers going into the next election. cycle. Yeah, we're not really going to know much about the strength of the parties until after the midterms. I mean, I think these midterms are most likely going to be decisive wins for the Democrats, just how much, you know, we'll see. But then the two parties will start very quickly in the

process of nominating their nominees for a post-Trump era. And that's going to be some pretty serious battles in both sides and how those battles unfold and who the nominees eventually are and how those nominees are viewed by the public. That's going to be the real question about the future of the party. I think for now, through the midterms, again, this is mostly just a referendum on President Trump. Can I ask Niftali, Jeff, Arthur, if you want to weigh in, just conventional wisdom has been that fundraising makes a huge difference in elections. We've certainly seen that over the past couple of years, but then we have seen a few exceptions to this rule. Not in 2024. Okay. Kamala Harris had bucket loads of money,

and she didn't win a single one of the swing states. So, and there was tons of money going her way in a very short amount of time after she got the nomination after President Biden jumped out. And President Trump also in 2016 ran a shoestring budget campaign against Hillary Clinton, who was backed by, again, bucket loads of cash, and he won. I think money is important, but it can be superseded if there's something bigger from a social and political perspective happening in the country. If somebody catches fire or if somebody has seen particularly negatively, no amount of money can overcome that.

But all things being equal, money does help. So I think you can't dismiss it, but you also can't say that it's dispositive. On Monday, the four astronauts aboard Artemis II traveled farther from Earth than any human has ever gone before. 252,756 miles. The previous record was sat in 1970 by the three astronauts aboard Apollo 13. Here's the message NASA astronaut Christina Cook had for humanity. after viewing parts of the moon previously unseen by the human eye. We will explore, we will build, we will build ships, we will visit again.

We will construct science outposts. We will drive rovers. We will do radio astronomy. We will found companies. We will boast our industry. We will inspire. But ultimately, we will always choose Earth. We will always choose each other.

Artemis II is scheduled to splash down this evening off the coast of San Diego around 5 o'clock local time. We know that reentry is one of the most risky parts of the journey. There's been a special focus this mission on the heat shields of the vessels, but NASA officials say they're confident in the successful return of the astronauts. What have we learned so far from this mission? I'm just going to jump in and say, I think we learned that the U.S. wanted and needed a happy story. And it was in a week. And the world, right? And the world, absolutely.

It's been a lot of very hard news with the war and the economy and the really, really tough rhetoric that we were talking about earlier that President Trump used against Iran earlier this week. So seeing sort of a happy story and seeing humankind go to space and science working. And U.S. and Canada working together on this mission. Indeed, at a time when that relationship has been tested, it was just a half. happy story. Go ahead. And it's hopeful, and it's not even Trump, who spent time talking to the astronauts, said anything weird, unlike when the United States won the hockey game against Canada.

And so things are going well. And I'm looking forward to a successful splashdown. I mean, it reminds me of 1969, not that I was there at the time, but it reminds me of 1969 in Apollo 11 when it was in late 60s. It was another time of turmoil indivision. A lot of turmoil. And it was an inspiring story to have those guys land on the moon. And I think that Christina Cook's comment was moving. And I think this idea, we will always choose Earth is going to be right up there with one small step for man. I mean, it was a very inspiring story in a time when I think people feel a desperate need for it. Well, and as we were talking about language earlier, I have been very struck by the language that has been very deliberate that the astronauts have been using about choosing Earth, about sort of invoking a common humanity. It seems very deliberate.

Agreed. And like I said, I thought that that whole little speech by Christina Cook was really moving and is something that's going to stand the test of time. Okay, we've got a few minutes left. Let's talk about what other stories you're working on or watching for next week. Or you think we missed. Arthur, can I start with you? Well, there's a mystery over why Melania Trump, the first lady of the United States, had a press conference last night where she just said, I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein at a time when nobody was really asking, at least in public, about the ties between Melania Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. So what was that about? And a lot of us speculated, well, there must be some story coming out. None has come out yet. it could be that she's just a spontaneous person, but I'll be watching for this next week. I'm glad you read that of, Arthur.

We got an email from Cape Cod asking about that. So thanks for bringing that up. Anything else anyone want to weigh in about Melania or do you want to move to another story? I would move to the next story for me, which will be the follow-up on the Iran talks this weekend, which again, really high stakes for this administration and for Iran and for what's next in the war. But also looking ahead towards President Trump's China trip, which he is the white. White House is starting to prepare for. And when's that?

Remind just that's in mid-May. So not that far away. And also interesting because of China's role right now. Especially in this conflict. In this conflict, yes. Neftali? I've been struck by this flare-up between the president and some people who used to be some of his biggest supporters, Tucker Carlson.

Tucker Carlson's statement on Easter Sunday morning this week. Candace Owens, Megyn Kelly, Marjorie Taylor Greene. I think we're starting to see a real rift in the MAGA movement. and I think that this is happening as people start looking to a post-Trump world. I know that's a little ways away, but people are starting to think about it. And that goes also to the JD Vance questions that we were talking about. So I'm definitely going to be watching how MAGA World reacts in the weeks to come to the outcome of the war. That's Neftali, Ben David, Washington editor at The Washington Post.

I want to thank also Arthur Delaney, senior reporter at Huff Post and Jeff Mason. Washington and White House correspondent for Bloomberg. Thanks for being with us. Up next, we'll have a new panel in the news from around the world. We'll be right back.

This message comes from MintMobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash switch. Taxes and fees extra. See MintMobile for details. Hi, it's Terry Gross, host of fresh air. Hey, take a break from the 24-hour news cycle with us and listen to long-form interviews with your favorite authors, actors, filmmakers, comedians, and musicians, the people making the art that nourishes us and speaks to our times.

So listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY. Welcome back to the 1A podcast. Let's get into the international edition of our weekly news roundup. It's the ceasefire that isn't stopping fire from fully seizing. After days of break, we're going to, President Trump threatening an apocalyptic end to Iran. On Wednesday, the United States, Israel, and Iran agreed to a two-week pause. Our expert panel is here to walk us through what's actually happening in the region as well as the reverberations throughout the rest of the world. With us today, Elizabeth Hagedorn, diplomatic correspondent for Al-Monitor. Hi, Elizabeth. Hi, happy to be here. Jack Dach, defense reporter at Politico. Hello, Jack. Good to talk, Naila.

And with me here in studio, Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent. at Huff Post, an author of the upcoming book, Crossing the Red Line, Biden, his advisors, and Israel's war in Gaza. Akbar, welcome back. Thank so much for having me. Jack, before we get to the exact terms of the ceasefire, within hours, both sides accused each other of violating the terms. Can you give us a sense of just how fragile everything is right now?

What is the state of play today? Right. After the ceasefire was announced, Iran immediately shut down the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, which the administration insisted was a legitimate misunderstanding, not clear where the wires crossed there. And Israel has continued striking residential areas in Lebanon as late as this morning. So that's the real rub here. It would be one thing if you just had to get the U.S. and the Iranians to sit down to talk, and they've only really talked once face-to-face in four and a half decades.

It's another thing entirely to get the Israelis and the Lebanese to talk. they're going to come to the State Department next week to speak with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. So this is a very delicate dance, and not to mention you have just goals from the administration that are sky high. They want the Strait of Hormuz open. They want Iran to renounce its stockpiles of enriched uranium. So this is kind of going to have to be one miracle after another to pull this off. Elizabeth, so Jack sort of laid out what the U.S. wants. What are the terms?

There is this 10-point framework we've heard about. What's in that? Well, Iranian state media released a version of these 10 points that the White House says is different from what was originally agreed to as the basis for negotiations. But what is clear is that the Iranians, at least publicly, are making greater demands of the U.S. than they were before the war when the two sides were negotiating primarily over Iran's nuclear program. This 10-point plan calls for the U.S. military's withdrawal from the Middle East, the complete lifting of sanctions. and permanent Iranian control over the strait of Hormuz. Obviously, some of those points are completely far-fetched, and Iran knows that, but it believes it has the upper hand here, in part because of its chokehold on Hormuz,

and the fact that this is a midterm election year for the United States, where the Trump administration is sensitive to rising gas prices. And so what has emerged is a familiar Iranian negotiating tactic. They stake out an extreme opening position. They know the U.S. will reject. And then they're later able to frame any future concessions they make as a reasonable compromise. But with the two sides' positions so far apart to start, I don't expect any breakthroughs during this opening round of talks.

And this opening round of talks set to begin Saturday in Islamabad Akbar. How did Pakistan come into playing the role as mediator here? How did the country leverage its top? with both Iran and the United States, how do you see that continuing to play out? Well, look, as the Pakistani on the panel, I will firstly I don't have any particular internal, you know, details, but I can think a lot about Pakistan's posture in the region.

Look, this is a country that is the only nuclear power in the Muslim majority world. It has that stature, right? Which gives it, even though it is a poor country and an unstable country, often it has that heft. Pakistan has also been able to, to leverage really close personal ties to the Trump administration. So you've seen Pakistan invest a lot in lobbying.

You've seen figures close to the Pakistani government, cut deals with Zach Steve Witkoff, the son of Steve Witkoff, President Trump's top negotiator. And of course, Pakistan is now effectively ruled even though it has a civilian government. It's quite strongly influenced by the military leadership, particularly field marshal Asimunir, the strongest military leader Pakistan has had in decades. President Trump loves a strong strong. general, and he's made his respect for Marshall Munir quite clear. All of that was part of how Pakistan got into this role. Then you have the added dilemma of Iran, right? So the Pakistanis share a very

long border with Iran, have a sectarian mix that includes many Shias, which is a majority Muslim sect within Iran. There's a trust on both sides here that both can leverage, but I wouldn't overstate the Pakistanis. I think they're more of a messenger than crafting the terms of the deal. Thanks for that. The biggest point of contention and confusion in the ceasefire, Israel's war with Lebanon. Here's the vice president as he was departing Hungary on Wednesday night speaking to reporters. I think this comes from a legitimate misunderstanding. I think the Iranians thought that the ceasefire included Lebanon, and it just didn't. We never made that promise.

We never indicated that was going to be the case. What we said is that the ceasefire would be focused on Iran and the ceasefire would be focused on America's allies, both Israel and the Gulf Arab states. That's JD Vance. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has insisted that an end to the war in Lebanon was part of the deal in one of Iran's key demands. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump said it was not part of the deal. Wednesday and Thursday, we saw some of the biggest and deadliest strikes on Beirut since the war began. Greg Carlstrom, Middle East correspondent for the economist, friend of 1A, often guests, said this was a case of, quote, text message diplomacy. Nothing seems to be written down.

Jack, this seems to be a major misunderstanding. How could this happen? Yeah, I mean, essentially a game of telephone, right? And you've seen the U.S. coming with a very limited negotiation team. This is not sort of the fulsome negotiations of the past, like something that you would have seen leading to the 2015 joint accord on Iran's nuclear program. This is very limited with Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and other figures, as well as JD Vance now leading this negotiating team.

And I think it speaks to what Elizabeth was talking about as well with regards to the Iranians. They've taken this position of leverage that they now find themselves in over a month into the war with control over the Strait of Hormuz effectively, with Trump having his back against the wall, with some of the MAGA right and facing an election in November. And they find themselves sort of able to begin to dictate some of their own terms and expand, perhaps the negotiation to some of their own security goals in the region, including Lebanon. And I just add, Ila, as Jack said, the Iranians are coming in thinking they are the winner. The U.S. doesn't get to set the terms of this negotiation.

And I think there's still a real unwillingness on the part of the Trump administration to understand Iran's strategic picture. They see this alignment with Lebanon now as a matter of their prestige, as a matter of their future security. It's not optional for them. You can join the conversation by emailing 1A at wamu.org. Cynthia asked Akbar, was Benjamin Netanyahu? Benjamin Netanyahu the reason there's now confusion about whether Lebanon is included in the ceasefire? Certainly Benjamin Netanyahu has a very strong desire, particularly politically, where he's facing an election himself that would be quite tough to continue to war in Lebanon. He likes positioning self as a wartime leader.

He wants to say, I will be the person to finally deal the death now to His Bulla. What we know, of course, is that Israel's own incursions into Lebanon both helped spark Hisbalah's rise in the 1980s, and then Israel has launched multiple assaults that haven't. been able to degrade his bullet, including less than two years ago. So yes, Benjamin Netanyahu's desire to continue to act in Lebanon and to act so aggressively, right? I mean, that's what's so crazy. You mentioned the Wednesday strikes. That was the worst violence Lebanon has seen since 1982.

More than 200 people killed, residential neighborhoods destroyed. These are choices that Benjamin Netanyahu is making. And that, it's important to remember, a lot of Israel's political and military establishment are behind as well. So it's not just an individual. Elizabeth, I want to ask about the Israel-Lebanon negotiations that are expected next week here in Washington. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he approved direct talks. A reminder, there is a ceasefire that was put in place in 2024. But Israel has killed more than 1,700 people in Lebanon since the war in Iran began.

And its military has displaced more than a million people. Israel says it will continue with the creation of the security zone and the security zone in the war. south of Lebanon. Given all of that, Elizabeth, what can we expect from these talks in Washington? Well, it's a major development, right? Because these two countries have technically been at war since Israel's founding. The last time they held anything resembling direct talks with the goal of normalizing relations was in the early 1980s. So this is significant. And already we are learning that there is an attempt at getting these talks underway as soon as today, Ashark News reported there would be an initial phone call between the Lebanese ambassador to Washington, the Israeli

ambassador to Washington, and the State Department today. But going forward, these talks between Israel and Lebanon are going to face enormous hurdles, in part because the Lebanese government has no direct control over Hezbollah, which, you know, has resisted disarming and will continue to. The Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran-Oman in the United Arab Emirates, is one of the world's most critical energy choke points, carrying roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day, along with about one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas. There's currently no global structure in place setting up a toll booth for an international waterway. Iran has made it clear that it wants to control the strait, charging a dollar in cryptocurrency per barrel of oil for safe passage, for large

tankers that could mean payments of $2 million. We got this question from Pam who emailed. I'm trying to understand what the status of the Strait of Hormuz was before this past week. Who controlled it? Who regulated the international ship traffic that passed through it? How does it come about that Iran now appears to exercise unilateral and total control? Jack, I started to answer that. Can you finish that?

Yeah, I mean, the Strait of Hormuz is largely international waters. of course there's a part of it that's controlled by the Iranians, part of it that's controlled by other countries, and ships can transit down the middle of that. What's been the difficulty is the threat from the Iranians to close the Strait of Hormuz. They don't even need to act upon it to actually have threats to shippers, to raise insurance rates, and to make this essentially unviable. It's similar to what we saw with the Houthis in the Red Sea over the past couple of years from 2024 onward. It just shows the degree to which Iran by asymmetric means through their threats of drones,

their threats of missiles, can really exact pain on the international economy. And yes, you do indeed still have the threat of the Houthis lurking in the background to close the other side transiting through Yemen and the Red Sea. So it's just it puts the international economy in a chokehold. It's 25% of the world's oil that traffics through there. It's 80% for the Asia Pacific. This is also for Iran a way to, it's kind of a backhanded gift that's been added, given to that by the Trump administration. Prior to this, the U.S. commitment to a free flow through international waters was a really big standard and pattern.

The fact that A, it's now been activated that Iran can behave in this way, and B, that Trump has even said, I might work with the Iranians. That's huge. And important to remember the Iranians have been living on the international sanctions for so long, crypto has been their lifeline. They've built a $9 billion economy just in crypto. Which makes sense why they're saying we want to charge this in crypto. Precisely. Because does that get around sanctions? It gets you around the U.S. dollar, U.S. financial system, banks, the Treasury Department, to a degree, right?

I mean, that could be regulation that comes in here, although many in the U.S. don't seem to want to do that. And notably, to that question of the Trump administration allowing this, Iran has said we'll accept these payments in the coin that is worked on by the Trump family in their. crypto, right? So what does that tell you about this changing status quo and this very different world we're going into, which does align with President Trump's thinking in a lot of ways, this kind of more mercantilist, less open trade world? What we heard this week from both the United States and Iran was claiming victory, but let's go through some of the numbers. According to a report from the Washington Post last month, the U.S. had launched at least 850 Tomahawk missiles since the war began. Defense Secretary

Pete Hegseth has repeatedly claimed Iran's missile and drone programs are, quote, destroyed. But more than half of the country's missile launchers are still intact. Thousands of one-way attack drones remain in Iran's arsenal. That's according to a recent U.S. intelligence assessment reported by CNN. And when it comes to President Trump's goal of regime changes, the same one is still in place. And there's the issue of uranium. It's been central to Western relations with Iran for more than two decades. Its existence was one of the reasons for the war. It's still there. The obvious question I want to pose to all three of you is what does winning mean? What does victory mean? How much does that square up with the reality of what we are

seeing? Elizabeth, can I start with you? Sure. Well, I mean, as you laid out, U.S. and Israeli strikes have certainly crippled much of Iran's defenses, its Navy, its missile program, suffering major losses and key leaders and its security apparatus were killed. And yet, it's hard to see that as a complete victory when Iran still controls the Strait of Hermuz, when it's demonstrated that it can shut the strait and drive up the cost of oil whenever it doesn't get its way going forward.

And on top of that, Iran and its proxies, while weakened, retain enough striking power to threaten U.S. interests in the region. And perhaps most importantly, as you mentioned, the war ends with Iran still in position, possession of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which gives it a pathway to a bomb, should Iran's new hardline leaders choose to pursue one. And that, of course, runs counter to Trump's oft-repeated pledge that he will prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Jack? Yeah, I mean, I think it shows the degree to which the U.S. has had to walk back some of the key positions and the Iranians have gained leverage, right? They have a lot of unsanctioned oil sitting at sea. The administration would have to put the genie back into that box and probably doesn't want to do it considering the state of oil markets. The Iranians also, even though they've had some destruction of their ballistic missile arsenal, can reindustrialize by piggybacking on the Russians and the Chinese as well. And you just see that degradation of the American missile arsenal as well. So the Iranians have a lot of capacity to cause damage in the strait and may have more leverage than they did on day one.

I'd also like us to think about the losers in this, which is really the Iranian people, who were told a story of freedom, regime change, and instead it's been the most hardline elements of their regime, including the RIGC, Iran's most feared military apparatus that's come up. And nowhere in the 10-point plan from Iran or the 15-point plan from the U.S. Has any mention been made of human rights, accountability, justice for the Iranian massacres of their own people in December and January, or for now, of course, the U.S. and Israeli strikes that have hit many civilian targets, left Iranians, terrified, traumatized. And so that's a really concerning loser, too, on the outside. This is a joint military operation.

The other player, of course, Akbar, as you just mentioned, is Israel. And for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's biggest critics, he is the biggest loser in this war. Here's Israeli opposition leader, Yair Lepid. Benjamin Netanyahu has led us into a strategic collapse. no less severe. There was a disgraceful combination of arrogance, irresponsibility, and lack of planning. Negligent staff work, zero attention to the home front.

Lies that were sold to the Americans and damaged the trust between the two countries and a military success that turned into a diplomatic disaster. Elizabeth, what is the conversation inside Israel as we look at their domestic politics? We've talked a lot about what this is meant for the U.S. and how U.S. domestic politics have been affected. How has Benjamin Netanyahu been affected by this?

Well, I think the fact that this war has ended somewhat ambiguously in a U.S.-Iran ceasefire leaves Benjamin Netanyahu in a tough spot politically. He's taking heat from all sides inside Israel right now. We heard from opposition leaders like Yar-Lopid calling the war a historic failure, saying that it damaged Israel's security. also former Prime Minister and Aftali Bennett, another rival of Benjamin Netanyahu's

is saying that Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the war has left Israel vulnerable to a vengeful Iran. And so with Israeli elections coming up, we even see some of Benjamin Netanyahu's usual supporters starting to lose patience with him after so many wars,

including in Gaza, ending with the total victory, or ending without, rather, the total victory that he keeps promising. And I think that's where we are with Iran. This weekend, the Pakistani capital city will play host to negotiators from Iran and the U.S. in the first in-person negotiations since talks mediated by Oman collapsed in late February.

The U.S. delegation will be led by Vice President JD Vance. He'll be joined by Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Jack, any insight on what might be coming down the line here? Yeah, the hope is that they'll be able to talk and they can keep talking, right? the Iranians have already warned they may actually ditch these talks if they don't get the ceasefire in Lebanon. We've seen fresh attacks in Kuwait as well. So I think the difficulty is actually getting these talks started and across maybe the one-yard line. And then you can begin to contemplate what's further down the road.

So we'll see if this track even has any mileage at all. It's probably a little too soon to look at day after scenarios for this war as we're not even sure if it's concluded. But can I ask how you all are reflecting on the events of the past few weeks? We're going to talk about this a little more in the hour. But as we talk about Europe, more divided than ever, new opportunities for Russia and China, Gulf countries. The list goes on here. Can I start with you, Akbar? Yeah, I see the sort of effects as both external and internal, right?

Externally, the U.S., the impression of the U.S. as a rogue actor, which had been growing throughout this period of Trump administration through Greenland. through Venezuela, through the ongoing both strikes in the Caribbean, which are very often seen as violations of international law, it's really hard to put all that back in a box, right? So this kind of perception that the Trump administration not only is taking these decisive moves maybe without consideration for restraint and warfare, but without a strategic plan,

that concern is really shared by allies. And there was an interesting report today in the Financial Times, talking about the Canadians, for instance, moving closer in defense to the British Italians and Japanese. So how are other countries going to posture themselves away from the U.S.? Then there's the internal toll. I think there's a huge social dissension in this country where there wasn't a case made for war. And to the discussion earlier on Benjamin Netanyahu, I think the question of Israel as a U.S. partner is so heightened after this war. And you see that it's been rising

among Democrats amid frustration over Biden's handling of the war in Gaza, which Trump really perpetuated and built on. But you see that so much among Republicans now. And that conversation internally about who are we going to war for with whom and how, I think that's going to be very tough for everyone to handle in society going forward. Elizabeth, what about you? What are you thinking about? I know we're going to talk about NATO and a few other things in the hour, but just as you're thinking about how you're reflecting on everything.

Well, to Akbar's idea of it being difficult to put everything back in the box, I mean, Trump is looking for a quick resolution here. But it's hard to see how the two sides reach any sort of comprehensive agreement in a short period. When you consider that the 2015 nuclear deal took almost two years to negotiate, that deal was 160 pages long. And it covered just one issue, Iran's nuclear program. And so in thinking about this weekend's talks and the road ahead, there are just so many thorny issues in the negotiations. and the nuclear program being just one of them, yeah, I'm just skeptical that either side will be able to climb down from the maximalist positions that they are coming to the table with.

Jack, how are you thinking about things? Yeah, unless you're Israel, a lot of countries are wondering whether U.S. security guarantees are still the best deal in town, whether it's in the Middle East, where they had this massive retaliation from the Iranians and U.S. air defenses weren't really able to come to the rescue in NATO, where Trump has really bashed the alliance and basically caused whiplash throughout Europe, forcing people to really reexamine whether that's a credible proposition. Now you see the Brits having their own talks about reopening the Strait of Hormuz that do not include the United States. So the distance between the U.S. and its allies has never been more stark than it is right now.

Just to add, the normalization of extreme brutality in warfare post-Gaza, I think, has become so clear through this war. And that's something the U.S. is part and parcel of through the Biden and Trump administrations. And it just has become clear. Not only are there not going to be consequences, but there's not even going to be reflection on do we want to be doing this. The Trump administration dismantled so much of the infrastructure to reflect on the civilian toll of U.S. wars. All of that has been destroyed now. Al-Bartar Jack's point as well about security guarantees, what are Gulf states saying about what it's going to take to rebuild some of their infrastructure? And where are we at with Gulf states in their relationship with the U.S. and U.S. security guarantees?

So Gulf states, this is a terrifying moment, right? Their entire business model has been sort of tax-free islands of stability in a very tough region. I think now not only are they going to be more, are they going to face greater skepticism from the expats and from the flows of capital and business that they see coming in and really rely on, they're also going to be a lot more resistant to what's been a long-standing U.S. push to say, hey, don't get closer to China and Russia.

The U.E, for instance, has faced consistent U.S. concerns about Chinese military cooperation, but will they be saying, look, the U.S. wasn't there for us in this moment? I also think this is part of what Elizabeth noted, difficult it is with the Iranian negotiations to get to a place of compromise, a big area where Iran has maybe been willing to go and good address U.S. concerns is a regional uranium enrichment consortium. Really hard to do that now, where others in the region are so much more skeptical of both the U.S. and of Iran.

Here are two words that don't often go in the same sentence, the Pentagon and the Pope. reports are circulating that Cardinal Christoph Pierre, the Vatican's U.S. representative, was summoned to a closed-door Pentagon meeting by the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy following a January speech given by the Pope. The free press that's Bari Weiss's publication reported on the meeting, Jack, what did that outlet say was the content of the meeting that I should add the Pentagon is denying? Yeah, so what the free press has been reporting is that Elbridge Colby, the controversial head of the Pennsylvania, and gone's policy office and somebody who's been a real articulator of MAGA foreign policy met with a key cardinal in the Vatican and warned basically the U.S. has the military power to do whatever it wants and the church had better get on side. Now, of course, this is anonymous sources, which is, you know, typical in this town, but I haven't seen anyone else. Back up this reporting,

I haven't heard the same thing. But it does show the degree to which Pope Leo and the Trump administration are not on the same side. When it comes to foreign policy ideas, Pope Leo came out very strongly against the administration, wrapping itself in religious colors to support the Iran war. And the Pope has really followed in the footsteps of Pope Francis, who has been perhaps the world's loudest public champion of nuclear abolition in a time where we're seeing major rearmament, not just in the United States, but among adversaries and perhaps in Europe. especially notable, of course, as we have the first American Pope. Let's talk about NATO, the Secretary General of the Defense Alliance, Mark Rutte, met with President Trump behind closed doors in Washington on Thursday.

Afterwards, Trump posted in all caps on truth social, quote, NATO wasn't there when we needed them, and they won't be there if we need them again. For weeks, President Trump has demanded that NATO allies help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Most have refused. Mark Rutte tried to strike a conciliatory note on CNN, the Secretary General, called the meeting a discussion between two good friends. He is clearly disappointed and with many NATO allies, and I can see his point. But at the same time, I was also able to point into the fact that the large majority of European nations has been helpful with basing, with logistics, with overflights. Elizabeth Mark Rutte said there was widespread support in Europe for the mission to degrade Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capacity. How accurate is his portrayal of the situation?

Well, that was a very diplomatic response from Mark Rutte after his meeting there, at least in contrast with Trump's Truth Social Post. I mean, he was in Washington this week in an effort to smooth over tensions between Trump and NATO, which as an institution did not formally participate or support this U.S. war in Iran. But Mark Rutte is right that it is true. A number of countries provided the infrastructure and permissions that made U.S. operations against Iran easier. At the same time, Spain closed its airspace to U.S. military aircraft. France also refused access to Israeli aircraft carrying U.S. weapons. And I think that what this comes down to is, you know, the fact that Trump did not consult NATO or European partners before launching the war, only to then quickly press them to support it after the fact. And when they didn't send warships to the Strait of Hormuz, as Trump

demanded, he responded with threats that have raised questions, as I'm sure we'll get into, about the future of the U.S. commitment to the alliance. So Akbar, Roedish is reporting that Trump wants concrete commitments within the next few days for help securing the Strait of Hormuz or about 40 countries are already working on a plan. Who is in the driver's seat here within NATO for securing the straight, assuming that Iran allows for that? The British are sort of the closest U.S. partner in this effort. And Keir Starmer was in the region this week. Yeah, and has spoken up about being supportive of this.

I would see this largely as a PR effort to sort of assuage Trump and prevent any kind of dramatic U.S. move out of NATO. you could see the Trump administration has hinted at punitive measures like moving U.S. troops out of some countries that have not been as supportive towards countries that have been, perhaps like Romania. All of that said, again, Europeans across the board are feeling a lot more alone in the world and alienated from the US. So while I think Mark Rutte as a whisperer as a kind of hype man and people involved in this kind of coalition on the Strait of Hormuz will push a PR narrative of West Steve Scalise, close to America. What I think you'll actually see is many countries do their own dealings with Iran and try to have a more cautious approach to this. So you've seen the French already do that. You've seen also other U.S. partners, major non-N NATO allies like South Korea and Japan, have some of those discussions. Jack, as we think about NATO, of course, this goes deeper than

just this most recent war with Iran. I want to remind everybody that Trump threatened to seize Greenland. He said he may not come to the defense of NATO. countries. He says they don't spend enough on defense. Where, I'd love for you to just weigh in on this most recent disagreement, how much of this is a further huge stress test for the alliance if this could be the final breaking point. Yeah, I mean, it's the biggest existential crisis that NATO has faced since the end of the Cold War, which is the biggest existential crisis NATO has faced since Greenland two months ago. And if you're Donald Trump, whose worldviews, has always been animated by getting back at the people who have ripped the U.S. off.

This is just more ammunition, right? The U.S. needed its allies, and they didn't show up. And there haven't been any formal steps that the U.S. is made to pull out, and NATO is trying to shield some of the damage, perhaps by throwing some of the allies under the bus that didn't provide airspace or access. So blame France, blame Spain, blame the U.K., don't blame us is what I've been hearing from alliance officials. but there's an acknowledgment the damage is very, very severe.

And even if it returns to something of the NATO that it used to be, it's not going to be the same as it was. Jack, the Wall Street Journal is also reporting something that we were just talking about that the White House is considering a plan to pull U.S. troops out of NATO countries whose leaders have criticized the war in Iran. What would that mean for those countries in their relationship with the U.S.? Yeah, I mean it would mean a further or worse relationship. This could be countries like Germany that we've already heard came up in posture talks last year for the U.S. to pull troops out of.

The U.S. has about 35,000 troops in countries like Germany. They could perhaps move them across the geopolitical chess board. This could take months, of course, and you could see Congress potentially step in. The last time the president tried to do this, he stepped in front of the Congress in taking troops out of Romania. but you could see a Democratic Congress potentially come back at the president because this would be a process that would take months and months and months to try and reduce the size of these bases. What's also significant for these NATO governments

is that the Trump administration not only is posing a threat to them through the Greenland talk, which is not dead and could come back up any time. It's also that the Trump administration has taken its eye off what they see as their biggest size essential threat. The Trump administration made it easier for Russia to make money during this war, lifted sanctions on the export of Russian oil. And so there's a lot of concern about for their long-term security as they plan for a potential maybe Russian attack on some NATO members in the next three to five years, where will the US be?

So it's not just about managing Trump now. It's about that kind of long-term planning. Elizabeth, can I just ask you about something Jack mentioned about congressional approval? President Trump needs congressional approval to officially withdraw from NATO. But what else could he do to quiet quit the alliance if we want to use that language? Right. Well, and I think that's a good way to put it, right? Because even without an official withdrawal from NATO, this sort of increasingly confrontational posture from Trump towards the alliance could weaken it in practice.

If, you know, members no longer trust that the U.S. would stand by its Article 5 commitments. NATO's ability to deter Russia evaporates. And I think that there is a lot Trump can do to weaken the alliance short of formally withdrawing from it, which, as Jack and Akbar outlined, you know, would require certainly a legal fight from the administration. Let's take a quick stop in Hungary on Wednesday U.S. Vice President JD Vance went to Budapest. He was there to support the re-election bid of the country's long-time. far right Prime Minister, Viktor Orban. JD Vance even attended a U.S. style rally in support of Viktor Orban. Hungary's general election is this coming Sunday.

What has happened in this country, what has happened in the midst of this election campaign, is one of the worst examples of foreign election interference that I've ever seen or ever even read about. The bureaucrats and Brussels have tried to destroy the economy of Hungary. they have tried to make Hungary less energy independent. They have tried to drive up costs for Hungarian consumers, and they've done it all because they hate this guy. Elizabeth, there were a lot of references from JD Vance to the, quote, bureaucrats in Brussels. He opened by saying he was primarily to send a message to those bureaucrats.

Can you help us understand where this framing from JD Vance, pro-Orbond, anti-Brussels comes from? minute. And also in the context of everything we've been talking about NATO and the U.S. and Europe. Well, Trump has a lot writing on this election. He stands to lose in Viktor Orban, a vocal ally who has echoed his own critiques of the European Union, its bureaucrats, and NATO spending. So that is sort of the backdrop for JD Vance's meeting with Viktor Orban in Budapest, his, you know, touting him as a true statesman and appearing at one of his. his campaign rallies, which was a rare instance of the U.S. very openly signaling support for a

foreign leader's re-election. And those comments from JD Vance that we heard accusing the EU of interfering in Hungary's election, you know, such as withholding funds and pressuring Hungary over Russian energy ties, EU officials were quick to dismiss those claims. And they noted that, you know, JD Vance's own pre-election trip, you know, could be seen as election interference. Jack, that support from JD Vance might not be enough. Viktor Orban is running for a fifth term. He's been in power for 16 years.

Multiple election observers, I should point out, have said that previous elections under his government have not been free and fair, but the opposition is polling well. What can you tell us about the new opposition leader? What are the stakes of this election? Yeah, Péter Magyar was once aligned with Viktor Orban. but he's a conservative who's turned on Viktor Orban based on anti-corruption. He seems to be promising to investigate Viktor Orban and Fidesz if he gets elected, would want to improve public services and reverse some of the authoritarian trends

that, of course, JD Vance was talking about and led to those EU sanctions. So you'd see a much more pan-European approach advocating for stronger ties with the EU, probably reversing those closer ties with Moscow and Beijing. And you would also see just critical in Brussels right now a reversal of the Hungarian blockade on that $90 billion euro aid package to the Ukrainians, which is helping keep their economy afloat because it's not an exaggeration to say the EU has basically helped float the Ukrainians for the entirety of this war. The Hungarians have been blocking that up.

And so we know that Viktor Orban has been the lone vote against EU support for Ukraine? Yeah, the critical vote, certainly. I mean, you have the Slovakians who have been skeptical under Robert Fizzo. You have other governments that have emerged and become more skeptical a part of the Romanian government as well. But the key vote has been with Viktor Orban. And that's kind of why the Europeans have taken this approach of hitting with financial sanctions and basically putting him on timeout in some of the key EU blocks. As far as we look more broadly at Europe, thinking about a far-right leader in Italy, Poland ousting its anti-EU government in 2023 that was allied with Viktor Orban.

France's national rally party run by Marine Le Pen could win the presidency next year. What does an Viktor Orban loss? What would that mean for Europe's political situation as we think about far-right movements across there? This likely loss for Viktor Orban on Sunday would be— So you think likely? I will go ahead and say likely. Let's see. But I will say likely. I think Viktor Orban's loss would be a really powerful signal of the plummeting, plummeting resonance of this narrative that the Trump administration and some of its allies in Europe have had, that no one, it's Brussels bureaucrats who shove down your throat governments that are not far right. And in fact, what Europeans want is ultra-nationalism, quasi-authoritarianism, and this kind of Viktor Orban-style governance. It would really show that no, actually, people have been mobilized around another message. All of that said, what's alarming, as you mentioned, the French election, is not only a far-right party is still very strong and across the continent, many of the centrist bodies have succeeded by adopting far-right messaging.

So the question becomes, what part of the far-right has now been amalgamated into the center, even where some of the most extreme Trump-style rhetoric might. be pushed back, these claims of the deep state, these claims of interference, you know, that might be resisted, but some of the tactics might still be that, and especially some of the nativism and the closed borders and the EU skepticism has really taken deep roots. Well, we've talked about a lot this hour. We do have a few minutes to kind of peek into your notebook, see what you're watching for next week, or if there's something you really wanted to talk about this week that we didn't get to. Elizabeth, can I start with you? Sure. Well, just return.

briefly to the talks this weekend in Islamabad, I wanted to add that there are at least six Iranian Americans held by Iran on bogus charges picked up as leverage. And the administration, the Trump administration, has long touted its ability to bring home wrongfully detained Americans abroad. I'm watching to see if these Americans are raised during this weekend's talks. Jack, what about you? What are you thinking about what we missed this week or what you're looking for next week. A major gaggle of European leaders coming to Washington next week for the Bilderberg meetings probably headlined by Finnish leader Alexander Stubb.

We'll see if he gets a White House meeting. But the charm offensive on Donald Trump to talk him down from this negative NATO rhetoric set to continue. I just were making me think that we also have the talks next week in Washington with Israel and Lebanon at the State Department, too. Right. And the question becomes there. of can these broader issues of Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon, its plans, which important to remember, would be a violation of international law.

You don't get to just claim a buffer zone in your neighbor's territory. It doesn't work that way. Will the U.S. raise that and actually push back? My sense from the Trump administration is they're not thinking about that yet and don't have a plan. What else are you looking for on Saturday? Two big things. One is will the American side actually bring any technical experts in here? Elizabeth mentioned how hard it is to get these deals on, technical energy or economic experts, and then broadly I'm looking at the economic toll of this war. We will all be paying higher prices and see a disrupted global economy for a very long time to come. A big thank you to our panelists today.

Elizabeth Haggardorne, diplomatic correspondent for Al-Monitor, Jack Datch, defense reporter at Politico, and Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent at Huff Post, an author of the upcoming book, Crossing the Red Line, Biden, his advisors in Israel's war in Gaza. He's also headed to the publication notice to report on U.S. foreign policy. Congratulations, Akbar. We can't wait to see the work that you do there. Thank you. Very excited.

And you'll be back with that new rule. Thanks to all of you for joining us for your fantastic insights. My Kid is our sound designer and engineer. Chris Costano is our digital editor. Maya Garg is our acting executive producer. Alexandra Boti is our acting senior managing producer. Eileen Humphreys is our senior producer and editor of OneA on Demand. and Thomas Liu produces our podcast. Special thanks to Matthew Simonson for additional on-demand support this week.

This program comes to you from WAMU, part of American University in Washington, distributed by NPR. I'm Naila Boodoo. Have a great weekend. Let's talk again soon. This is winning. This message comes from MintMobile. If you're tired of spending hundreds on big wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com slash switch. Taxes and fees extra. See MintMobile for details.

For instant clarity on world events in just five minutes, listen to NPR News now. New episodes drop every hour. With the latest on U.S. politics, international news, the economy, health, science, technology, and more, five minutes is all it takes to get fully caught up with NPR News Now. Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get podcasts. Hi, it's Terry Gross, host of Fresh Air. Hey, take a break from the 24-hour news cycle with us and listen to long-form interviews with your favorite authors, actors, filmmakers, comedians, and musicians, the people making the art that nourishes us. and speaks to our times. So listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYY.