The News Roundup For April 10, 2026

25:39There'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, including the Georgia one and including the one to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, you know, that also happened, you know, that the Democrats are overperforming.

26:13And 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 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.

26:43What'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?

27:14You can call us at 855-236-1212. 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 855-236-1212. 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 II that's captivated the world. We'll be right back.

28:03or overwhelming thoughts that money stress can bring. When life feels overwhelming, therapy can help. Get 10 % off at betterhelp.com slash NPR. 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.

28:40This action by the court came in response to a request from the Trump administration. Naftali, 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, 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.

29:10But 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 wrongful prosecution. We saw it 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.

29:44Meanwhile, Republican Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina told CNN that January 6th 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 Tillis has on this? Do we see other Republicans expressing similar points of view? No. Tillis is sort of rogue Republican senator right now. He's blocking the Trump administration on lots of stuff.

30:21But 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.

30:57So 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 Jeanine Pirro or somebody like that. But I also think the important thing about 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.

31:33They're happy to have Todd Blanch 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 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.

32:14Naftali, 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.

32:48And you hear Republicans like Nancy Mace say, you know, they really expect Bondi to appear. So while we don't know for sure, and 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.

33:22So it's likely that we will hear from Pam Bonney. I think Naftali's 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 that 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.

33:58The end of this week. Sorry. They'll be back next week. Right. So what or where are we at with funding conversations between the parties? The Senate passed a bill to fund DHS minus ICE and Border Patrol, which already has funding anyway. The House rebelled and 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.

34:39So what do we think House Democrats gained 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 use that as leverage to start this process of negotiating with the White House and Republicans where they wanted things like take your masks off, wear badges. and the administration has 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, every other part of DHS. And practically, they got nothing. And it seems like they're just kind of ready to move on.

35:18We 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 ICE has done.

36:02By 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. less, and we really aren't seeing that on the side of the Democrats right now. Upper and tech class.

36:34That's interesting. See also Epstein class for pejorative ways of describing the elite. Let's see what coming after the November elections. I mean, so 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's a change in power in at least one branch of 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.

37:11It 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.

37:42And that's going to be some pretty serious battles on 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 Naftali, 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.

38:11Not in 2024. Okay. Kamala Harris had bucket loads of money. And she didn't win a single one of the swing states. 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's seen particularly negatively, no amount of money can overcome that.

38:56But 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 set in 1970 by the three astronauts aboard Apollo 13. Here's the message NASA astronaut Christina Koch 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.

39:39We will found companies. We will boaster 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 five 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.

40:12wanted 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 in this mission. Indeed, at a time when that relationship has been tested, it was just a happy story. Go ahead. And it's hopeful. And it's not even Trump, who spent time talking to the astronauts, said anything weird.

40:57Unlike 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 the late 60s. It was another time of turmoil and division. A lot of turmoil. And it was an inspiring story to have those guys land on the moon. And I think that Christina Koch's comment was moving. And I think this idea of 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.

41:33Well, 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 Koch 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.

42:23So 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 up, 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.

42:53But also looking ahead towards President Trump's China trip, which the White House is starting to prepare for. And when's that? Remind us. 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. Naftali? 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. Right, 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.

43:32I know that's a little ways away, but people are starting to think about it, and that goes also to the 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 Naftali Ben-David, Washington editor at The Washington Post. I want to thank also Arthur Delaney, senior reporter at HuffPost, 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.

44:07Welcome 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 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 Datch, defense reporter at Politico.

44:41Hello, Jack. Good to talk, Naila. And with me here in studio, Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent at HuffPost and author of the upcoming book, Crossing the Red Line, Biden, His Advisors, and Israel's War in Gaza. Akbar, welcome back. Thanks 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.

45:23And 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 US 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.

45:57They 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.

46:37This 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.

47:17will 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. In 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 ties with both Iran and the United States? How do you see that continuing to play out? Well, look, as a Pakistani on the panel, I will first say I don't have any particular internal details, but I can think a lot about Pakistan's posture in the region.

47:58Look, 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 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 Whitcoff, the son of Steve Whitcoff, 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 Asim Muneer, the strongest military leader Pakistan has had in decades.

48:40President Trump loves a strong general, and he's made his respect for Marshal Muneer 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.

49:18Here'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 J.D. Vance. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has insisted that an end to the war in Lebanon was part of the deal and one of Iran's key demands.

49:51Israeli 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 Karlstrom, 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.

50:34This is very limited with Witkoff, Kushner, and other figures, as well as J.D. 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.

51:12And I just add, Ayla, you know, 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 the reason there's now confusion about whether Lebanon is included in the ceasefire?

51:45Certainly Netanyahu has a very strong desire, particularly politically, where he's facing an election himself that would be quite tough to continue the war in Lebanon. He likes positioning himself as a wartime leader. He wants to say, I will be the person to finally deal the death knell to Hezbollah. What we know, of course, is that Israel's own incursions into Lebanon both helped spark Hezbollah's rise in the 1980s. And then Israel has launched multiple assaults that haven't been able to degrade Hezbollah, including less than two years ago. So yes, Netanyahu's desire to continue to act in Lebanon and to act so aggressively, right?

52:22I 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 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.

53:06Israel says it will continue with the creation of the security zone in the 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.

53:52But 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 has resisted disarming and will continue to. The Strait of Hormuz, which lies between Iran, Oman, and 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.

54:39We 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.

55:18They 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. And 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.

55:57It's 25 percent of the world's oil that traffics through there. It's 80 percent for the Asia Pacific. This is also for Iran a way to, it's a kind of a backhanded gift that's been given to them 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 under international sanctions for so long. Crypto has been their lifeline.

56:32They'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, you know, 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?

57:15What 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.

57:52And 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.

58:28And yet, it's hard to see that as a complete victory when Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz, 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 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.

59:12Jack? 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 re-industrialize 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.

59:53I'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 the regime, including the IRGC, 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.

1:00:28And 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 Lapid. 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.

1:01:10Elizabeth, what is the conversation inside Israel as we look at their domestic politics? We've talked a lot about what this has 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 Netanyahu in a tough spot politically. He's taking heat from all sides inside Israel right now. We heard from opposition leaders like Yair Lapid calling the war a historic failure, saying that it damaged Israel's security. Also, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, another rival of Netanyahu's, is saying that Netanyahu's handling of the war has left Israel vulnerable to a vengeful Iran.

1:01:57And so with Israeli elections coming up, we even see some of 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 J.D. Vance. He'll be joined by Middle East Envoy Stephen Whitcoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner.

1:02:37Jack, 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.

1:03:14But can I ask how you all are reflecting on the events of the past few weeks as we – 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 the Trump administration through Greenland, through Venezuela, through the ongoing boat strikes in the Caribbean, which are very often seen as violations of international law.

1:03:51it'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 US? 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.

1:04:25And to the discussion earlier on 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.

1:05:04Well, 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. Um, 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.

1:05:52Jack, 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.

1:06:26So 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 and 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.

1:07:04Akbar, to 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? For 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 longstanding U .S.

1:07:45push to say, hey, don't get closer to China and Russia. The UAE, 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, how 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 could 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.

1:08:24Reports are circulating that Cardinal Christophe 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 Barry 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 Pentagon'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.

1:09:05has 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 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.

1:09:51Especially notable, of course, as we have the first American pope. Let's talk about NATO. The secretary general of the Defense Alliance, Mark Ruta, 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.

1:10:26He is clearly disappointed with many NATO allies. And I can see his point. But at the same time, I was also able to point to the fact that the large majority of European nations has been helpful with basing, with logistics, with overflights. Elisabeth 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 Ruta 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.

1:11:17war in Iran. But Ruta 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 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.

1:12:02commitment to the alliance. So Akbar, Reuters is reporting that Trump wants concrete commitments within the next few days for help securing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 countries are already working on a plan. Who is in the driver's seat here within NATO for securing the Strait, 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 US move out of NATO.

1:12:40You could see the Trump administration has hinted at punitive measures like moving US 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 Ruta, as a whisperer, as a kind of hype man, and people involved in this kind of coalition on the street of Hormuz, will push a PR narrative of we're still 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.

1:13:18So you've seen the French already do that. But you've seen also other U.S. partners, major non-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. I'd love for you to just weigh in on this most recent disagreement. agreement, how much of this is a further huge stress test for the alliance if this could be the final breaking point?

1:13:58Yeah, 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 worldview 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. has 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.

1:14:32So blame France, blame Spain, blame the UK, don't blame us is what I've been hearing from alliance officials. But there's an acknowledgement 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 and their relationship with the U.S.? Yeah, I mean, it would mean a further worse relationship.

1:15:07This 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 chessboard. 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.

1:15:45What'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 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 U.S.

1:16:18be? 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 unofficial 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.

1:16:58would stand by its Article V 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, would require certainly a legal fight from the administration. Let's take a quick stop. In Hungary, on Wednesday, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance went to Budapest. He was there to support the re-election bid of the country's longtime far-right prime minister, Viktor Orban. Vance even attended a U.S.-style rally in support of Orban. Hungary's general election is this coming Sunday.

1:17:40What 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 in 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 Vance to the, quote, bureaucrats in Brussels. He opened by saying he was primarily to send a message to those bureaucrats.

1:18:19Can you help us understand where this framing from Vance pro-Orban anti-Brussels comes from? And also in the context of everything we've been talking about, NATO and the U.S. and Europe? Well, Trump has a lot riding on this election. He stands to lose in 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 Vance's meeting with Orban in Budapest, his touting him as a true statesman and appearing at one of his campaign rallies, which was a rare instance of the U.S. very openly signaling support for a foreign leader's re-election.

1:19:04And those comments from Vance that we heard accusing the EU of interfering in Hungary's election, such as withholding funds and pressuring Hungary over Russian energy ties, EU officials were quick to dismiss those claims. And they noted that Vance's own pre-election trip, you know, could be seen as election interference. Jack, that support from J.D. Vance might not be enough. 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.

1:19:45What can you tell us about the new opposition leader? What are the stakes of this election? Yeah, Peter 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 Orban and Fidesz if he gets elected, would want to improve public services and reverse some of the authoritarian trends that, of course, 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.

1:20:23And 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 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 Fico. You have other governments that have emerged and become more skeptical, a part of the Romanian government as well.

1:21:06But 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 blocs. Of course, 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 Orban. France's national rally party run by Marine Le Pen could win the presidency next year. What does an Orban loss, what would that mean for Europe's political situation as we think about far-right movements across there? This likely loss for Orban on Sunday would be— So you think likely?

1:21:48I will go ahead and say likely. Let's see. But I will say likely. I think 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 ultranationalism, quasi-authoritarianism, and this kind of 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 body is still very strong across the continent, many of the centrist bodies have succeeded by adopting far-right messaging.

1:22:37So 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 there, 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.

1:23:13Elizabeth, can I start with you? Sure. Well, just returning 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.

1:23:59We'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. You 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 start in 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?

1:24:31My 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 done, 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 Hagedorn, diplomatic correspondent for El Monitor, Jack Datch, defense reporter at Politico, and Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent at HuffPost and author of the upcoming book, Crossing the Red Line, Biden, his advisors in Israel's war in Gaza.

1:25:12He'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 role. Thanks to all of you for joining us for your fantastic insights. My Kid is our sound designer and engineer. Chris Castano is our digital editor. Maya Garg is our acting executive producer. Alexandra Boti is our acting senior managing producer. Aileen Humphries is our senior producer and editor of 1A On Demand. And Thomas Liu produces our podcast. Special thanks to Matthew Simonson for additional on-demand support this week.

1:25:48This program comes to you from WAMU, part of American University in Washington, distributed by NPR. I'm Naila Boudou. Have a great weekend. Let's talk again soon. This is Winning.

1:26:14Thank you.