President Trump spent Sunday night on a rather different approach to technology. He had a private dinner with Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, two days after a federal appeals court upheld the Pentagon’s decision to exclude Anthropic’s Claude from its supply chain. The dispute centered in part on the company’s refusal to allow its AI to be used for mass surveillance of Americans or lethal autonomous warfare. The software couldn’t stay in the Pentagon’s supply chain, but its CEO could come to dinner.

Subscribe now

I’ve spent my morning making the sort of plans a parent makes when a child’s needs have to fit around an appointment time. Ezra’s MRI is scheduled for 2 p.m. in Portland, and his instructions say he can’t have food or a bottle after 8 a.m. There is a car ride between those two times, which seems like the sort of detail that should have received more consideration from anyone who has met a baby. I’m deeply grateful he has the appointment. I also expect the drive to give us all an intimate understanding of six hours.

I’ve ordered clothes without buttons or glitter, as instructed, and mentally packed our daughter’s things for Grammy’s house: pajamas, school clothes, ballet clothes, and something to occupy her when Grammy needs to work. After Ezra’s MRI, we’ll go to the hotel, find some takeout, and take it easy. We’ll be gone until Thursday, when my bonus son usually comes back for his week with us. His mom will keep him until we return, and I’m grateful we can work together when a week asks a little more of everyone.

That work is what caught my attention in Alabama’s settlement. The state alleged that TikTok’s design harmed young users’ mental well-being; TikTok has said that providing a safe, positive place for them has always been a priority. A settlement resolves those claims without a jury deciding them. What it does establish is a list of changes TikTok agreed to make for young users in Alabama: pauses after 15 minutes of continuous use, overnight access restrictions, stronger age checks, more parental controls, and limits on how adults can find teen accounts.

A pause after 15 minutes will not raise anybody’s child for them. It does, however, interrupt a product whose principal talent is making sure the next video arrives before you’ve had time to wonder where the last hour went. Parents still have to do the parenting, but the company will have to do more than hand them a pamphlet about screen time while its app auditions another 400 videos.

Yesterday, my husband and I were doing our own less consequential version of discovering that a plan needed work. We repainted the house the wrong color on purpose because we only had enough expensive primer for part of it. Painting Cedar Path over both the primer and the original color risked giving us two different looking walls. Halfway through, we realized the Element Guard paint we’d used in May was self-priming on wood, meaning at least some of our primer detour had probably been unnecessary. I was involved in this project, in case the sequence of events had not already made that obvious.

The wrong paint sprayer we received twice finally had its moment. It’s the refillable kind, which let my husband take it onto the roof without hauling a paint bucket along. We’re more or less back where we stood two weeks ago, except now the house is ready for its new color. Cedar Path will get its turn, and our little woodland getaway is inching closer to the mystical place we keep imagining.

For Oregon families waiting on solar power, getting back to the starting point is considerably less charming. On September 18, a federal judge ruled that the EPA unlawfully terminated the $7 billion Solar for All program and vacated that decision. Oregon had been awarded $86.6 million for a program intended to reach more than 8,000 lower-income households with home and community solar benefits. The ruling gives the grants a legal path forward, but Oregon’s Department of Energy still says residents cannot access the program. A decision on paper has not yet become a smaller electric bill.

Then there is Trump’s dinner, which raises a question beyond the seating arrangement. Anthropic held to contractual limits on two uses of Claude: mass surveillance of Americans and lethal autonomous warfare. The appeals court found that the Pentagon had grounds to exclude the product under the procurement law; it did not decide that either of those uses would be a good idea. Trump said before dinner that he and Amodei would talk about AI regulation, but the White House has not said what they actually discussed, and the meal is no evidence that either side changed its position.

Still, I wish I could see the place cards. Did his say Dario Amodei, or did someone use the Pentagon’s label, Supply Chain Risk, in tasteful gold lettering? Trump previously called Anthropic’s leaders “leftwing nut jobs,” so I hope the evening at least began with a thorough check of the guest list. The funny part is the dinner. The serious part is that the public still needs to know what limits its government is willing to accept when it puts powerful AI to work.

After all that, I went out to see what the vegetables had managed without me. They’ve been grossly neglected while we’ve dealt with lead exposure, this trip, the house, and the revolving door of national nonsense, but the tomatoes offered us a good harvest anyway. We picked our first cucamelon, which tasted exactly like a cucumber despite being the size of a small grape, and I finally planted the cool season vegetables.

My husband even gave me something else to look forward to. I told him how a kind pottery teacher noticed that I hated getting my hands gooey, showed me her beautiful pastel drawings, and suggested charcoal pencils when I struggled with pastels. He surprised me with pastels, a giant sketchbook, and wooden boxes for my supplies. I’m excited to make something for him with the art supplies that brought that childhood memory back to me.

Our house is full of unfinished projects with their own budgets and demands, and we are getting somewhere, even when we have to paint a wall twice. What matters is that we can see the result, admit when the plan needs changing, and keep doing the work. The families waiting for meaningful protections online or for a promised energy program should be able to expect that same follow-through from institutions with far more resources than a family buying primer.

If you know someone who has ever completed an entire project only to find themselves back at step one, please restack this piece and bring them into the conversation.

Subscribe now

Paid subscriptions help keep The Homefront Report and Mom’s clearly superior pieces researched, written, and available to everyone. That assessment is entirely objective and in no way influenced by the fact that she’s my mother. If you’re able to become a paid subscriber, thank you for supporting both of us.

And if you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family’s projects and adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

This week those adventures include getting Ezra to Portland, preparing our house for Cedar Path, and finding out what I can make with the pastels my husband gave me. It’s a crowded season, but there are tomatoes on the counter, a tiny cucamelon worth celebrating, and people helping us carry the complicated parts. We’re grateful you’re here.

San Marino dates its founding to 301 AD, when a Christian stonemason named Marinus fled Roman persecution and settled on Monte Titano. The founding story is part legend, but the independence is real. The republic outlasted the Papal States, the Italian city-state wars, Napoleon, and Mussolini. Its Statutes of 1600 remain the backbone of one of the world’s oldest constitutional frameworks still in force. When Napoleon offered to enlarge its territory in 1797, San Marino politely declined, reasoning that more land would only make it worth conquering. During the Second World War, it took in roughly 100,000 refugees, about seven times its own population.

Geography helped, and so did luck, and being too small to bother with. But Luca Beccari, the minister, offered his own explanation for how it has survived seventeen centuries without an army worth the name: “When power is not enough to protect you, rules matter.”

It’s a simple lesson, and it comes from a country that has never had the option of learning any other one.

Rules usually get noticed when someone wants to weaken or get around them. Yesterday, the United States offered a full day’s worth of examples.

Twenty-five years ago this December, Enron went from one of the largest companies in America to bankruptcy in a matter of months, after investors discovered that the finances management had been describing bore only a passing acquaintance with reality. Congress answered with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Executives had to certify their companies’ internal financial controls, and most companies also had to bring in an independent auditor to confirm those controls actually worked. The added cost and irritation were the point, since “trust us” had just cost shareholders and employees billions.

As the Financial Times points out, the anniversary now arrives alongside an SEC plan to exempt most of the companies still subject to that outside check. Any company with less than $2 billion in public float would be spared, along with every company in its first five years of trading, however large. Chairman Paul Atkins, who complained about the requirement as a commissioner two decades ago, describes the change as making IPOs great again. Management would still sign off on its own controls. What disappears is the second set of eyes.

The cost complaints aren’t imaginary, and the GAO estimates attestation accounts for 13 to 19 percent of a typical audit bill. But the case for the second set of eyes is hard to wave away. Companies already exempt from the requirement account for 60 to 80 percent of annual financial restatements, and research cited by the SEC itself found auditors catch control weaknesses that management either misses or describes as less serious.

Enron offered a fairly memorable demonstration of what happens when the people keeping a company’s books are also the only ones vouching for them. The catastrophe fades faster than the remedy does until all anyone remembers about the remedy is the invoice.

Back from Medinah on Sunday evening, Trump folded the Presidents Cup into a larger story. “You know why it’s good?” he asked reporters. “Because our nation is winning.” He cited his “tremendous progress” with Xi Jinping during last week’s state visit as evidence.

That same morning, his ambassador to China had offered a glimpse of what some of that progress involved. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, David Perdue explained that Trump likes to remind Xi that America sells weapons all over the world, then added: “He actually asked President Xi would he like to buy some at one point.”

When the New York Times asked about it, the White House said through an official that there were no plans to sell China weapons. The State Department was more direct: U.S. law prohibits arms sales to China and “there is no offer or plan” to do so.

This is where we are. The president makes the offer; the ambassador announces the offer, and the State Department arrives afterward to explain that the offer cannot actually be offered.

This would be peculiar enough on its own, but it’s also happening while a roughly $14 billion weapons package for Taiwan sits held up at the State Department. Congressional leaders approved the package early this year, and on Wednesday, hours before Xi arrived, a group of Republican senators led by Mitch McConnell pressed the administration to release it along with security aid Congress had already appropriated. Since 1979, the Taiwan Relations Act has committed the United States to making available the arms Taiwan needs to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.

Perdue also mentioned, almost in passing, that Trump and Xi discuss Taiwan arms sales every time they meet. That runs directly against one of the quiet pillars of American policy in Asia. In 1982, the United States gave Taiwan six assurances, one of which was that Washington would not consult Beijing on arms sales to the island. Asked about that commitment in May, Trump answered, “Well, I think the 1980s is a long way.” He told Fox the same month that withholding the Taiwan sale gave him a “very good negotiating chip.”

Which brings us to the difference between a rule and a chip. A rule exists in part to take something off the table, so it doesn’t get renegotiated every time two leaders sit down together. A security commitment isn’t wholly reassuring if every meeting begins with someone checking today’s odds.

The countries relying on those commitments, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan, are in San Marino’s position. They are hardly San Marino, but they share the vulnerability embedded in Beccari’s point: none can dictate Washington’s or Beijing’s behavior, which is exactly why predictable rules and commitments matter so much.

Another little rules question appeared on television this weekend in the form of a 30-second advertisement featuring Trump declaring that he would demolish the “deep state,” drive out “globalists,” cast out communists, Marxists and fascists and “rout the fake news media.”

Across the bottom appeared the helpful disclosure:

Paid for by the U.S. Government.

More than $300,000 was spent airing the ad over the weekend, according to AdImpact. The White House describes these spots as public-service announcements intended to promote patriotism and administration policies. Critics, including former ethics officials and members of Congress, argue that the campaign-style imagery and political rhetoric raise questions about restrictions on using taxpayer money for government publicity or propaganda. No court has determined that this particular ad violates those restrictions.

Then Republican Sen. John Kennedy wandered into the story and accidentally delivered today’s thesis.

“I don’t think any public official,” Kennedy said, should spend public money on ads for themselves.

He then observed that there ought to be a rule against that.

“There probably is a rule,” he added.

Gosh, yes! Welcome to the program.

Then there is the gold.

This morning the New York Times published a remarkable investigation into Trump’s post-Maduro Venezuelan gold rush. In 2019, Trump’s own Treasury Department sanctioned Minerven, Venezuela’s state-owned gold producer, as part of a campaign against a gold industry riddled with corruption, criminal gangs, environmental destruction and military exploitation.

After Maduro’s removal, the administration reversed course. In March, ten Venezuelan gold bars were stacked in the Roosevelt Room while aides took photographs and joked about keeping them. That same day, the administration issued a policy allowing traders to import Venezuelan gold, with the first supplies coming from Minerven, which was still designated a U.S. national security threat at the time.

The gold moved quickly. The due diligence did not. According to the Times, shipments began before the trading giant Trafigura or any independent auditor had visited the mines. Reporters in the mining town of El Callao then found brigades of miners working on Minerven’s own property and paying protection to the Tren de Guayana gang. One brigade leader said 20 percent of his team’s gold goes to the gang each month, under an arrangement so routine locals simply call it el sistema. Another share goes to Minerven, which melts it down along with the gold it sells to Trafigura. Trafigura says its auditor has found no evidence of extortion or illegal actors at the sites, but the upshot of the Times’s reporting is that bars bound for the United States contain at least some gold tied to a criminal gang.

Now hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of that gold is sitting in warehouses, because refiners won’t touch it without being able to certify that the supply chain is clean. This is almost perversely perfect. The administration changed the sanctions policy, brokered the contract, put the gold on airplanes and staged a victory lap in the Roosevelt Room, but it could not manufacture trust on command, and somewhere downstream, somebody still has to put their name on the proposition that this gold isn’t financing gangsters.

The rule that looked like an obstacle to the transaction turns out to be what makes the transaction possible.

Before we leave the Department of Things Going According to Plan, a brief visit to Iran.

Trump told Axios on Sunday that he expects another round of talks this week, a day after he rejected Tehran’s latest proposal: a seven-day ceasefire to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and resume nuclear negotiations, in exchange for releasing frozen Iranian assets, waiving sanctions on Iranian oil and lifting the U.S. naval blockade. Then he explained what was wrong with it. “It is what we would have agreed to maybe a year ago,” he said. “They overplayed their hand.”

Trump’s point is that the United States is in a stronger position now and deserves better terms. But the quote also contains an awkward admission. Seven months into the war, Iran is still offering roughly what Washington says it would once have accepted, only now the Strait of Hormuz is closed, the blockade is in place and the bill keeps growing. God Mode, Interrupted has provided its own pull quote.

It never hurts to remember that Washington once had negotiated restraints on Iran’s nuclear program in writing. The 2015 agreement capped enrichment, slashed Iran’s uranium stockpile and put its nuclear infrastructure under extensive international monitoring. Trump walked away from it in 2018. Eight years later, after seven months of war, Washington is again trying to negotiate limits on Iran’s nuclear program, only from a vastly bloodier and more expensive starting point.

Iran’s foreign minister told NBC on Sunday that Tehran is prepared for the war to resume but ready for diplomacy, and that the choice belongs to Trump. Whatever he decides, force has changed a great deal about this conflict without delivering a deal better than the one already on the table. Tomorrow’s terms are not guaranteed to beat yesterday’s.

Which brings us back to San Marino.

Rules are often dismissed as bureaucracy because bureaucracy is what they look like after everyone has forgotten the disaster that produced them.

That may be the real pattern running through today’s stories. The rules aren’t sacred because institutions never make mistakes, regulators never overreach, or laws never become outdated. Rules can and should be examined, amended and sometimes discarded.

But it is worth remembering what problem they were designed to solve before announcing that the problem has disappeared. Guardrails look completely unnecessary while everyone stays on the road.

San Marino has survived more than seventeen centuries without God Mode. Its strategy has been much less glamorous: dialogue, law, institutions and a remarkably durable memory of what happens when the strong are permitted to make up the rules as they go.

The world’s oldest surviving republic may know something about survival after all.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

My ADHD takes me on journeys I never agreed to, and anxiety knows how to make even the most familiar places feel strange. It tells me I’m too much to live with and somehow not enough to be loved, then files the complaint before I can ask what evidence it has. I can know those thoughts are untrue and still feel their weight. A shadow can fall across something precious without taking the precious thing away, but when I’m standing inside it, I sometimes forget that the light is still there.

Then I peek around the door in the morning, and Ezra sees me. He is one year old, and the joy that crosses his face has nothing to do with whether I managed to keep my thoughts in order yesterday or whether I remembered every task I meant to finish. I opened a door, and the person he was hoping to see appeared on the other side. For him, that’s enough to make the morning wonderful, and for a moment I get to see myself the way he sees me.

Subscribe now

In the middle of the night, my daughter climbs into bed with me because she feels safe there. At breakfast she thanks me for her strawberries, smiling as though I have given her some extraordinary gift instead of the fruit she was already going to get because feeding your children is generally expected. My husband reaches for my shoulder in his sleep, and sometimes I lie there thinking about how his hand found me when he wasn’t even awake enough to know I needed it. In daylight, he gives up a chance to go play in the woods so he can work on one of the strange projects I have been talking about, because he heard what mattered to me somewhere in the middle of all my words.

My bonus son has a mind so much like mine that I think he understands some of my mistakes before I have finished making them. Putting feelings into words is hard for him sometimes, but when I do something ridiculous, he laughs with the relief of someone who knows he could’ve done it too. The laughter reaches me before any reassurance could.

And Odin, who has been asked more times than I can count to stop lying behind my office chair, returns to that exact spot as soon as I look away. I could interpret this as a troubling lack of respect for basic workplace safety, but his fluffy body has made its preference clear: wherever I am is where he wants to be. These moments are small, and anxiety is loud, and sometimes I have to wait for the light to move before I can see what has been beside me the whole time.

Perhaps that’s why I couldn’t stop thinking about the baby raccoons at Woodside Wildlife Rescue in Mississippi. I have always maintained that my brain is governed by raccoons, so I was prepared to enjoy a story about raccoon boot camp, but I wasn’t prepared for how much I would feel for the little creatures who arrived there after losing the one who was supposed to teach them how to live.

Some of the kits are sick or injured, and others have been separated from their mothers by storms, traffic accidents and the ordinary dangers of a wild life. The rescuers look for their mothers and try to put the families back together when they can. When they can’t, founder Paula Woodside, rescue director Raquel Priest and the people working alongside them begin the slow, tender business of teaching the kits what they still need to know.

They hide worms beneath the dirt so little paws can learn to find them. They open pine cones and acorns to show the raccoons that food is waiting inside. They let the kits practice fishing in shallow pools, then take them out to the pond and encourage them to swim. In the woods, a trilling call means danger, and the raccoons scramble up the trees; a short whistle means the danger has passed and they can come down.

The Associated Press described the kits discovering a new food, then running to show it to their caregivers before hurrying back to keep the other raccoons from stealing it. That detail undid me a little. Their mother is gone, the world is larger and more dangerous than they know, and still there is someone they want to run toward when they find something good.

There’s sorrow in this story too, because care can’t save every kit. The staff hold a ceremony for the raccoons they lose, and then they go back to the ones who are still hungry, still frightened and still learning. They can’t make the woods harmless, but they can give a small creature another day to grow strong enough to enter them.

After months of care, the kits who are ready get a graduation ceremony. The rescuers play “Pomp and Circumstance,” read their names aloud and release them into a forested part of the property. I keep picturing the people standing there as the raccoons turn away, watching the little lives they’ve fed and worried over disappear among the trees. They taught them to go, and when that day finally comes, they celebrate.

I recognize something in the frightened part of me that needs to hear the whistle before it can climb down. On the days when my mind tells me I have drifted too far from love, it helps to notice where love has been all along: smiling at me from a crib when I open the door, thanking me for strawberries, laughing at a mistake, finding my shoulder in sleep and stubbornly settling behind my chair.

The shadows don’t vanish because I’ve noticed these things. They may be there again tomorrow, lying across the very people I know are near. But the sun moves, and sometimes all it takes is one face lighting up at the sight of mine to show me what the shadow was hiding.

Somewhere in Mississippi, a rescued raccoon hears a whistle and knows it can come down from the tree. Someone stayed long enough to teach it that sound, and when I think about that, I remember how much hope can live in the simple promise that when fear sends us climbing, love will still be there when we’re ready to come down.

Subscribe now

If this story brought a little warmth into your week, you can leave a little extra love here:

Support our Adventures

Your kindness helps us keep going, looking closely, and bringing the hopeful things we find back to share with you. There’s never any obligation, we’re just glad to have you all along for the ride.

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Everybody gets a trophy, except the people buying gasoline.

In a gaggle before leaving for Chicago, where he’s honorary chairman of a golf tournament, Trump helpfully expanded upon his definition of victory.

“We have the best employment numbers that came out in the history of our country,” he told reporters. “More people working today than at any time ever before.”

Then he arrived at poverty.

“We have the best uh I guess you could say poverty. They talk poverty,” Trump said, before announcing that “we have the best poverty numbers ever in the history of our country.”

Best poverty (n., Trumpolinguistics): The grading of human hardship on the same scale as hotel ballrooms and golf courses. Usually preceded by a brief pause while the speaker locates the word, which he attributes to others: “They talk poverty.” Compare Trumpetitive.

From there came the “best income numbers per individual in the history of our country,” grocery prices that have supposedly “come way down,” oil that he said is cheaper than under Biden and, finally, a claim that the United States moved a “record amount of oil” through Hormuz overnight — more, he said, than before the war.

It was a 1:38 rollout of Trumperbolic superlatives, delivered in the rain while holding an enormous umbrella.

Trump had apparently spent Saturday marinating in good news. On Truth Social he announced that, since the “Fake News” refused to report his achievements, he had assumed a new responsibility: reporting them himself. There was the fastest U.S. business growth in more than five years, record real median household income, record-low poverty, surging exports and “Trillions and Trillions” in new investment.

S&P Global really did report the fastest growth in U.S. business activity in more than five years. It also reported input costs rising at nearly a four-year high, selling-price inflation still well above a pace consistent with the Fed’s 2 percent target, and an economic indicator sitting “very much in rate hike territory.” That part somehow failed to make the presidential clipping service.

Natalie Harp, Trump’s executive assistant, may or may not have delivered this particular briefing. She is, however, known around Trump’s orbit as the “human printer,” carrying hard copies of news articles and social-media posts for a president who prefers paper, and she routinely types and posts Truth Social messages for him. CBS has also reported that she is quick to provide favorable news coverage for his perusal.

Whatever the provenance, we know what survived the editing process. By Sunday morning, record household income had become the “best income numbers per individual,” strong business activity had joined the general atmosphere of triumph, and record official poverty had blossomed into best poverty.

One banner was technically genuine. The official poverty rate fell to 10.2 percent in 2025, a record low. But that yardstick dates to the 1960s and ignores what housing costs. The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which does account for rent, taxes and medical bills, put poverty at 13.1 percent, unchanged from the year before.

Others require more creative bookkeeping.

The household employment survey does not show more Americans working than ever before. Grocery prices are higher than when Trump returned to office. Regular gasoline averaged nearly $4.49 nationally last week, compared with about $3.11 when Joe Biden left office. West Texas Intermediate crude was trading around $96 a barrel early last week, roughly twenty dollars above its level during Biden’s final days.

As for the new Hormuz record, Trump provided no number. The most recent independent shipping data available before his remarks showed a recent surge in crude traffic but not a return to ordinary prewar commercial traffic.

Perhaps that hardly matters in the emerging grammar of victory.

Iran remains at war but has won, and is offering negotiations because it is losing. Oil remains expensive but Trump says it is cheaper. Groceries cost more but have come way down. The Strait remains the central bargaining chip in a seven-month war, yet a successful convoy becomes proof that the underlying problem is practically solved.

Count whatever moved today. Declare the transaction complete. Leave tomorrow in the footnotes.

Nowhere is that accounting method more perfectly illustrated than in what Trump announced Saturday: while the United States is fighting a war centered on one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints, his administration wants American cars to use more gasoline.

The federal government first required automakers’ fleets to meet fuel-economy standards in the 1970s, after the 1973 oil embargo. Gas prices were soaring, supply was choked off, and Congress decided American drivers shouldn’t be so exposed to whoever controlled the flow of oil out of the Middle East. Dave Cooke, who studies fuel efficiency at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says we’re reliving “exactly the moment” the standards were designed for.

Trump announced his answer to that moment on Truth Social: “I have just approved new Fuel Economy Standards that TERMINATE Sleepy Joe Biden and Pete Boot-EDGE-EDGE’s ridiculous EV Mandate.”

He promised LOWER PRICES.

The Biden-era rules aimed for a fleetwide regulatory average of roughly 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. The Trump administration’s proposal lowers that to roughly 34.5 mpg. NHTSA still describes the replacement as a proposed rule.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says the old standards were an electric-vehicle mandate in disguise, and the White House says they would have added nearly $1,000 to the price of a new car.

That’s the first column.

The government’s own analysis supplies the second.

For a model-year 2031 vehicle, the weaker standards could mean roughly $1,400 more in lifetime fuel costs. NHTSA’s modeling also projects thousands fewer auto-industry jobs in 2031 under its preferred alternative and greater economic vulnerability to global oil shocks as vehicles consume more fuel. Increased emissions bring additional asthma attacks, emergency-room visits, heart attacks and premature deaths.

NHTSA nevertheless concludes that the proposal produces net savings overall, because it places greater value on lower vehicle-compliance costs than on the additional fuel and other costs. This really ends up as a dispute over which side of the ledger gets the larger number.

The analysis even finds a safety benefit.

Traffic deaths fall partly because, when each mile costs more, people drive fewer of them, so one way to make the highways safer is to make filling the tank sufficiently unpleasant.

The same ledger turned up when EPA repealed the greenhouse-gas Endangerment Finding in February. Administrator Lee Zeldin advertised more than $1.3 trillion in savings, largely from lower vehicle-technology and charging-equipment costs.

EPA’s own regulatory analysis contains the second column again. Depending on the assumptions, it calculates between roughly $420 billion and $1.47 trillion in offsetting costs from additional fuel, maintenance, insurance, congestion, noise, energy-security effects and related consequences. Under EPA’s reference-price scenario, repeal produces about $180 billion in net societal costs at a 3 percent discount rate.

Congress had already set the civil penalty for violating fuel-economy standards at $0, largely stripping the program of its primary enforcement mechanism. Now the administration is lowering the standards themselves.

The same bookkeeping runs through the federal budget. Friday, Trump asked Congress to cancel $810 million it had already appropriated. The timing is the whole trick. Under the Impoundment Control Act, Congress normally gets 45 days of continuous session to consider a rescission request. Trump filed five days before the fiscal year ends Wednesday, leaving nowhere near enough time for that process to run before the money expires. The maneuver is known as a “pocket rescission,” and the Government Accountability Office considers it illegal because it allows a president effectively to rewrite the law by running out the clock.

The law the administration is using for the maneuver was passed in 1974 in response to Richard Nixon’s impoundments. That was one year after the oil embargo that produced the fuel-efficiency standards Trump is now weakening.

More than half the proposed cuts, $567 million, come from HHS services for refugees and unaccompanied children. The rest target migrant students, mental-health and social services for migrants, housing counseling, a Justice Department office that works to ease racial tensions, and the Minority Business Development Agency. The administration called the programs “wasteful” and “harmful.”

Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chair of Senate Appropriations, called the move illegal. She said OMB deliberately held the money for months to set it up and that OMB does not get to decide which programs are worth funding. Sen. Patty Murray, her Democratic counterpart, said Vought was effectively telling Republicans that their votes don’t count.

Trump has run this test before. In 2025 he attempted the same maneuver with a $4.9 billion foreign-aid rescission package. The Supreme Court later stayed a lower-court order requiring roughly $4 billion of those funds to be spent before they expired, but it did not decide whether pocket rescissions themselves are lawful. Congress could appropriate new money for the same programs next year if it chooses.

The pocket rescission doesn’t just ignore the next accounting period. It weaponizes the end of this one.

Congress will decide whether to defend its power of the purse. Ballots are harder to cancel by running out a clock, which may be why experts expect the pressure to shift to the clock that starts when polls close.

Congress will decide whether to defend its power of the purse. Ballots are harder to cancel by running out a clock, which may be why experts are increasingly focused on the clock that starts when polls close.

The administration’s pre-election court record is mixed. This month the Supreme Court left in place an injunction blocking the Postal Service’s new ballot-mail rules, while separately allowing DHS’s expanded citizenship-verification system to operate during its appeal. On Friday, the Court also kept Missouri’s Trump-backed 2025 congressional map out of the midterms, leaving the state’s 2022 map in place. Against that unsettled legal backdrop, former federal officials at a Brennan Center briefing warned that the hours and days after polls close may present a different vulnerability: the period when legitimate ballots are still being counted but the public does not yet have a final result.

Caitlin Durkovich, a former deputy homeland security adviser, said she expects claims of foreign interference to be used as a pretext for seizing voting equipment or ballots, whether or not there is any legal basis. Some states take days to count, and California can take weeks. Control of Congress may depend on those results. Durkovich called the waiting period the point where doubt begins to surface.

The administration’s warnings about foreign threats come with a second column of their own. It has sharply cut election security staff and funding at CISA. Geoff Hale, a former CISA official, said the nation-state threat briefings that states once received dozens of times a year now happen rarely or not at all. Beth Sanner, a former deputy director of national intelligence, said there are no known examples of a foreign country manipulating the technical vote count, including in 2020.

Federal election-related activity, meanwhile, has hardly gone quiet. DHS is still pursuing state voter rolls, and a whistleblower told Congress last week that its non-citizen voter initiative relies on highly questionable data.

Larry Norden of the Brennan Center, who calls the counting window the biggest threat right now, says voters still have extensive options for casting ballots before Election Day. Military and overseas ballots are already out nationwide, and mail and early-voting periods are opening on different schedules across the states.

Casting a ballot early does not necessarily mean it will be counted early; state laws determine when election officials may process and tabulate it. But voting before Election Day can reduce exposure to last-minute problems such as lines, illness, transportation trouble or mail delays. The count itself will still follow the timetable set by state law.

What voters control is simpler: make a plan, check your registration, and sign up for ballot tracking where your state offers it. Oregonians can track theirs through the Secretary of State’s site once ballots go out.

I’ve been stretched a little thin this week. Much of my reporting time has gone into a deeper look at sustainability and the climate crisis, along with a decidedly more local project: our upcoming sheriff’s race here in Coos County.

So this weekend is partly an exercise in catching up, sorting notes, reading reports, watching the stories I temporarily shoved to the side reproduce when I wasn’t looking.

Washington has shown no inclination to slow down while I reorganize my desk.

Back tomorrow, hopefully with fewer open tabs and at least the illusion of being caught up.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The system, called SAVE, now draws on Social Security records and permits election officials to check groups of names at once. In its order, the Court acknowledged the case of a naturalized citizen whose Social Security record does not accurately reflect her citizenship. A state using the system could require someone in her position to produce more proof before she can register or remain registered. The Court has allowed the expanded program to operate during the appeal; it hasn’t issued a final decision resolving the lawsuit. I spent years working in healthcare quality and compliance, and one lesson followed me home: a record is only as reliable as the process for correcting it. If the computer gets your life wrong, handing you a form is a response, but it is hardly the whole answer when your vote depends on what happens next.

At our house last night, the consequences of something being in the wrong place were considerably less grave and much funnier, at least from where I was standing. Ezra had become fascinated with our Bluetooth speaker while we listened to music, so my husband put it on the floor for him. Somehow it migrated into a corner beneath the edge of a hanging blanket, just far enough out of sight that my husband’s brain continued along its usual route while his foot encountered a suspiciously placed speaker.

He stubbed his toe, and I laughed hysterically, demonstrating the kind of spousal compassion that may need to be reviewed by a committee. He was fine, and the sheer ridiculousness of it caught me at exactly the right moment. I have spent so much of this week thinking about frightening things that I was grateful for a little slapstick comedy staged by a one-year-old and an appliance with poor situational awareness.

The voter database is a more serious version of a familiar problem: information can sit out of sight, incomplete or out of date, until somebody runs into it. The Court’s majority concluded that the federal government is likely to prevail on its argument that a 1996 law permits the information sharing behind the expanded system. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, disagreed and warned that outdated citizenship records could burden lawful voters. Those are the competing views at this stage of the case, with the appeal still ahead.

There is also an important limit on what Friday’s ruling does. Federal law restricts systematic removal of voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, and the Court said that limit reduces the ruling’s immediate effect. Individual inquiries can still occur.

Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read says our state will not participate, and that Friday’s ruling will have no impact on Oregon’s upcoming election. I’m glad he said so plainly. People have enough to do in the weeks before an election without wondering whether a federal database has developed an outdated opinion about their citizenship.

Today, our own schedule has a much happier recurring entry: cheesecake. A retired school bus driver bakes mini cheesecakes and sells them from a little red cart beside the road, and they are the best I have ever tasted. My husband loves cheesecake, the kids love it, and Ezra has apparently decided that being one year old entitles him to strong views on dessert. There is something lovely about the woman who spent years getting children where they needed to go now making something wonderful for people who happen to stop.

My husband will be helping his grandmother move furniture today, because when someone needs him, he shows up. The kids and I will soldier on without him and perhaps accomplish something around the house, although I am leaving the definition of “something” open until I see how the day goes.

We may finally have a workable approach to the coating on our floors that we believe is contributing to the lead problem. We tested a small patch with chemical stripper, and it came off beautifully. That gives us a way to explore removing it without filling the house with the dust sanding could create, although a successful patch is only a start; the work, cleanup, and testing still have to keep Ezra safe. Buying enough stripper for all the floors is going to look like one enormous dollar sign, but this is for our baby, so we will keep figuring it out. We are learning how expensive it can be to correct a problem even after you know where to look. That is part of why I have little patience for a government system that treats the person caught in its error as the last step of quality control.

There is another test of who gets to correct the record in Washington today. A federal judge temporarily ordered the White House to restore access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico after their credentials were revoked. Yet for the president’s Saturday trip on Air Force One, White House guidance left CNN off its scheduled turn providing video coverage for the television press pool and listed Real America’s Voice instead. The judge’s order addressed access to White House grounds and did not expressly decide who travels on the plane. The result is that a reporter can have a restored credential while the fight over independent coverage continues somewhere else.

In healthcare, the administration announced this week that CMS had canceled roughly 315,000 Marketplace enrollments covering more than 760,000 people back on August 31. CMS says it and insurers confirmed the enrollments were unauthorized, and the agency expects to recover about $2.2 billion in subsidy payments. Unauthorized enrollment is a real problem for the people whose information was used without permission. It would be a mistake to describe those 760,000 people as having committed fraud; CMS is also targeting agent and broker conduct and introducing stronger consumer authorization rules.

I want systems that catch that kind of abuse, just as I want accurate voter rolls and honest information from the White House. I also want the people operating those systems to explain their decisions, correct mistakes promptly, and remember that the entries on a screen belong to actual people with elections to participate in, doctors to see, and lives already full of things that need doing.

A life is made of moments so small they can seem disposable until they accumulate: my husband moving furniture for his grandmother, a woman selling cheesecake from her red cart, Ezra enjoying music, and me laughing far too hard when his father discovers where the speaker went. Those moments deserve room to continue, which is why the larger fights matter even on a Saturday when I would much rather be discussing dessert. A citizen’s vote and the public’s view of its government should not depend on whether the people in charge find accountability convenient.

Subscribe now

If this report helped make the week a little clearer, please restack it so someone else can find it, and consider a paid subscription if you’re able to support our work.

If you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

The test patch on our floors gave us a promising way forward, and now we’re figuring out how to afford enough supplies to do the rest carefully for Ezra. Your kindness helps us through the expensive, unglamorous work of making our home safer, with room for a little Saturday cheesecake along the way. Thank you for caring about the life behind these reports.

Give a gift subscription

Share

Refer a friend

Days later, Norway’s foreign minister, Espen Barth Eide, stood before the same General Assembly and began somewhere very different.

“The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters.”

The words, Eide explained, stem from the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci (in their popular rendering), written from one of Mussolini’s prison cells during another period of insecurity, collapsing hegemonies and political upheaval. Gramsci had reason to worry. That era ended in catastrophe and, eventually, in the construction of institutions intended to keep raw power from becoming the only rule that mattered. International law, Eide argued, isn’t charity for the weak; it’s a common investment that lowers risk, friction and cost for everyone, great powers included.

Those two speeches frame a question worth sitting with this Saturday. Power can still compel, but what happens when the people across the table, and the citizens back home, stop believing what they’re told?

Start with Trump’s own example. In August he unveiled the Venezuelan oil arrangement as “the biggest oil deal in world history,” a specimen of what the Lords and Serfs Dictionary calls Trumperbole. The Guardian spent the following weeks reading the fine print, and the fine print declines to cooperate.

Venezuelan law, according to legal experts cited by the paper, does not permit 100-year oil concessions; Venezuela itself says the arrangement runs for 25 years. The Pentagon’s supposed 35 percent ownership position was described to lawmakers as warrants: rights to purchase shares, rather than shares already owned. And questions remain about which Pentagon office even possesses the legal authority to hold such an interest.

The administration continues to defend the agreement as a historic opportunity. But an announcement is not the same thing as an enduring arrangement, and that is precisely the distinction worth making.

Former diplomat John Feeley compared the whole thing to the wall Mexico was going to pay for. Apparently even the spoils come with terms and conditions.

Credibility isn’t only an export product. This week the Pentagon’s public casualty tally for the Iran war quietly grew by 37 wounded, 29 Navy sailors and eight Marines, bringing the total to 861. The database doesn’t say when or how they were hurt. More than half of those wounded are now filed under the obscure ‘Overseas Operations’ rather than the war’s own name, a category used since the July ceasefire, which later collapsed. A war the administration prefers not to call a war is keeping its casualties off the war ledger, too.

The Post reported the previous week that six U.S. officials familiar with internal Pentagon casualty accounting said more American service members had died in the Middle East during the Iran conflict than appeared in the public database. Five of those officials said the actual number was at least 22 when the publicly reported figure stood at 18. The public tally has since risen to 19 after another death was recorded, but the larger discrepancy has not been publicly resolved.

Rep. Jason Crow, who heard the higher figure from briefers on Capitol Hill, has now introduced a bill requiring the president to disclose how many troops have been killed and wounded. That such a bill has to exist tells you where we are.

When citizens have to keep refreshing a government website to learn what a war is costing their sons and daughters, the trust problem is already inside the house.

Iran is where leverage and trust part company, and honesty requires admitting that leverage has its uses. Ali Ansari of the University of St Andrews told LBC this week that he thinks the balance has tilted toward Washington. The Navy is shepherding more tankers out of Hormuz than most people realize, and Ansari said Iranian economists are estimating their economy has shrunk about 10% in six months.

If your opponent genuinely believes you may do something extreme, erratic or disproportionately expensive tomorrow, that possibility has to be priced into whatever decision he makes today.

Ansari effectively acknowledges that advantage. But then he identifies its cost.

Iran, he says, is accustomed to Western interlocutors who operate within recognizable rules. With Trump, Tehran confronts someone Ansari describes as “completely unreliable, completely unpredictable.” Iranian leaders therefore have to recalibrate because they cannot assume the old diplomatic rulebook applies.

Iran has now offered to reopen the strait within seven days, with its old conditions attached, and the Wall Street Journal reports Trump has turned it down. Sir Robin Niblett, former director of Chatham House, explained why on Times Radio: Trump’s foreign policy has to look like winning. After a war this expensive, he can’t sign anything that looks worse than Obama’s 2015 deal. Tehran’s hardliners are caught in a mirror image of that trap, having promised their people a victory they can’t deliver. The result is two governments that sold triumph and now can’t afford compromise, while the bill arrives, as Eide put it, at petrol pumps from Minneapolis to Oslo.

Leverage can force someone to make a deal. Trust determines whether they build their future around it. Both sides remember how the last memorandum collapsed, and every new offer is being read through that history.

Then came Xi Jinping’s state visit, for which Trump rolled out so many red carpets that one LBC presenter suggested he practically hoovered them himself. The White House fact sheet delivered ten million tons of annual coal exports to China (Make America Grimy Again, export edition), a new dialogue on artificial intelligence, and not one word about Taiwan, days after Xi made a pointed statement on the island. A rare-earths arrangement was extended just two months, because Washington believes Beijing hasn’t honored its earlier commitments. Dennis Wilder, who once ran China policy at the National Security Council, said the summit’s message was the summit.

Taipei can read a fact sheet. So can Ottawa, Tokyo, Canberra and Brussels. Niblett’s hardest point is that allies can’t write this off as one man’s aberration, because Americans elected Trump twice, so any sensible government has to price in a repeat. He called the past 18-plus months an abusive relationship for America’s partners. Governments in abusive relationships don’t issue press releases announcing that they’ve stopped trusting Washington. They buy weapons elsewhere, lock in critical minerals elsewhere, and cultivate the middle-power partnerships Mark Carney keeps talking about. Lost trust may rarely make a speech, but it sure changes procurement.

On Friday the United States rejected a nonbinding U.N. declaration pledging cooperation on pandemic preparedness. The EU and Italy objected too, the EU mainly over intellectual property, which is a fight about terms. Washington’s complaint was about “divisive ideologies,” and according to an early draft seen by the New York Times, the U.S. sought to strike the words “equity” and “solidarity.” In a pandemic declaration, solidarity is now too divisive for American public health.

The message was delivered by the new CDC director, Erica Schwartz, whose own résumé highlights the drive-through COVID testing she built during Trump’s first term. The same weekend, the Times reported that her agency has lost nearly a third of its staff and all but one of its eleven center directors. HHS says the CDC is being reshaped to advance “the priorities of President Trump and Secretary Kennedy,” with public health bringing up the rear of the sentence. There’s much more to say about that, and a standalone piece is coming. For now, note the pairing: America is stepping away from the table at the same moment it’s losing the capacity to act alone. The declaration will probably pass at a later meeting anyway. The world is learning to route around us.

Back to the General Assembly hall. Eide’s strongest argument wasn’t that rules are morally nicer than raw power. It was the colder observation that rules make everyone else’s behavior predictable, which is worth more to a superpower than to anyone. “Double standards quickly translate into no standards at all,” he warned.

So the week offers two definitions of strength. One says strength means taking whatever victory permits. The other says lasting strength includes keeping the systems other people expect you to honor. The first wins news cycles, while the second wins decades.

Eide also reminded the assembly that the United Nations belongs to its member states, not its secretariat. A republic belongs to its citizens in the same way. Trust squandered by the powerful doesn’t get rebuilt by another declaration that everything is fine. It gets rebuilt by people who keep the receipts.

Somebody at the Post kept checking a Pentagon database until 37 wounded service members became a story. Members of Congress responded with legislation intended to make casualty accounting harder to obscure. County health departments still have to answer the phone when federal capacity falters. None of that is glamorous. No red carpets. No flyovers. No “biggest in world history.”

But that is how institutions are held to account, and how trust, when it deserves to be, gets rebuilt.

In Eide’s words, it is our turn to face the monsters of our time.

Share

Subscribe now

We have grown accustomed to asking what candidates think about healthcare, food assistance, and the cost of living, and getting back a statement of values broad enough to fit on a yard sign. I would like to know what happens when someone gets a raise on a Tuesday, when their benefits change on a Thursday, and when they still need to buy groceries on Friday. There ought to be an answer that survives contact with a calendar.

Subscribe now

I have received these benefits, and moving up in my job once left me worse off financially. It is a strange kind of congratulations, being told your work is worth more while discovering that the additional income doesn’t replace what you’ve lost. My refrigerator, which has never shown much interest in the theory of upward mobility, remained stubbornly focused on its own contents.

I’ve also worked in Federally Qualified Health Centers and as a Quality and Compliance Specialist in private practice, where I saw what these rules do to people from the side of the system trying to help them. Community health centers serve people who face barriers to care and adjust fees based on income. The people working there can be doing everything they are supposed to do while the larger system sends someone home with an entirely accurate explanation of why they can’t afford what they need. I know what a properly completed process looks like, and I know that a family can still be in trouble at the end of it.

These days I’m self-employed, raising children with a husband who has been through two back surgeries, and working out the household budget with the usual assortment of medical needs, unexpected bills, and plants I brought home before identifying where they would live. Our lives don’t get simpler because an eligibility formula says they should, and I would dearly love to see the form on which one requests that children, injuries, rent, and grocery prices coordinate their timing.

That’s why I want us to spend some of the time we devote to reacting to terrible policy talking about the policy we would actually build. I’m tired of arriving at “the system is broken” and treating it like the only destination, when it ought to be the point at which somebody goes looking for the tools. So here’s my answer, in terms a family should be able to use: you keep your healthcare when your income changes; your grocery assistance declines gradually as you can afford more; and the government checks what all of its programs are taking away before it congratulates you on earning more.

First, healthcare should be something you have because you live here, with clear residency rules and automatic enrollment, rather than something you keep by remaining poor enough, employed by the right person, or exceptionally skilled at opening government mail. I would create a national public plan covering medical care, prescriptions, mental healthcare, maternity care, and essential dental and vision care. Hospitals and doctors could remain privately operated, and private insurance could sell supplemental coverage, but everyone would have the same dependable foundation underneath them. Changing jobs, starting a business, losing work, or accepting a promotion wouldn’t end that coverage. Your pancreas wouldn’t have to be informed that you’ve become a supervisor.

Primary care, preventive visits, and essential treatment for chronic conditions would have no deductible standing at the door with a clipboard and a suspicious mustache. For other covered care that involves copayments, I would set an annual limit that rises smoothly with income rather than jumping at a cutoff. Here is an actual proposed rule: Families earning up to twice the federal poverty guideline would pay no cost-sharing for covered services. Above that income, annual cost-sharing would be capped at five percent of the amount earned over the threshold. For a family of four, twice the 2026 guideline is $66,000; at $80,000 in income, the annual cap would be $700. Those numbers describe what I would propose, not a benefit that exists today, and the taxes financing the plan would be separate. I want someone to be able to look at an offer of higher pay and know that the medical bill will not suddenly become a new member of the household.

Oregon has already taken a smaller step in this direction with OHP Bridge, which covers eligible adults between 138 and 200 percent of the federal poverty level without premiums, deductibles, or copayments. The state recognized that making a little more money doesn’t cause affordable healthcare to appear in a puff of congratulatory confetti. I would build from that bridge toward coverage people can keep at every income level.

A national plan would have to preserve Medicaid’s disability services, home care, and long-term supports for the people who rely on them. It would also have to pay doctors and hospitals fairly, negotiate drug prices, support rural hospitals, and train enough people to provide care. An insurance card ought to come with a reasonable chance of an appointment.

Second, I would rebuild food assistance around the question the current eligibility rules too often fail to answer: after the necessary bills are paid, how much can this household reasonably spend on groceries?

I would begin with a food allowance based on what an adequate diet actually costs, adjust it for household size, and count income after reasonable deductions for taxes, housing, utilities, childcare, and disability-related costs. Housing allowances would use local benchmarks that move when rents move. We can put limits on the reimbursement for a house with its own bowling alley without pretending that last year’s rent is what a family pays this year.

Then I would remove the separate income gate that can end eligibility even when the benefit calculation says a family still needs help. SNAP already uses a formula that reduces assistance as countable net income rises, so the idea of a gradual reduction is not some exotic invention I found buried under a cabbage at the farmers market. The rules need to let that calculation do its job all the way down to zero.

Here is how the proposed version could feel in practice. Suppose a family’s maximum food benefit is $1,000 a month, and the income counted after its allowed expenses is $1,000; using a 30 percent contribution, the family receives $700. If its countable income rises to $1,100, the benefit becomes $670. It has $100 more counted income and $30 less in grocery assistance, leaving it $70 further ahead before taxes and changes in other programs. These are illustrative numbers. That’s an outcome a person can understand. It also requires paying attention to childcare and housing assistance, because three programs can’t each take a bite out of the same raise and then stand around looking innocent when there’s almost nothing left.

I would set a target that low- and moderate-income workers keep at least half of each additional dollar they earn after taxes and reductions in the major benefits. Where the programs together take too much, a coordinated credit would fill the gap. The exact rates would need to be tested against real household budgets, including different family sizes and local costs, but the instruction to the people writing those rates is simple: a raise should leave a family better off.

Before any program takes a piece of a raise, I would like it to meet the other programs taking a piece of that raise. The family has apparently been coordinating their work for them.

Families should also be allowed to keep a modest emergency fund, a necessary car, their retirement savings, and their home without treating those things as evidence that they can live without help. Investment income and substantial accessible wealth could still count. If a program expects someone to get to work, it should leave them some way to repair the car that takes them there.

Third, applying for help shouldn’t become an additional part-time job. I would use one application for the participating programs, reuse information with proper privacy safeguards, renew eligibility automatically when existing records establish it, and keep a human being available when the computer has decided that someone’s life is impossible.

For people with variable or self-employment income, routine calculations could average several months while responding quickly to a job loss or a sharp drop in earnings. One good month should not be interpreted as a lifelong promise from the universe, especially when the same income has to carry a family through the next slow month. A child can’t eat an annualized projection, even if you cut it into little triangles.

I would offer employment help that actually helps: childcare, transportation, training tied to available jobs, and healthcare that remains in place while someone gets steady. I would remove work reporting as a condition for basic health coverage and food assistance. Studies of Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas and SNAP work requirements found substantial losses of coverage or participation without a corresponding increase in employment. We can offer support without making the grocery card or the doctor’s appointment the prize for successfully navigating another reporting portal.

Now for the question politicians often reach with a sudden desire to discuss something else: how do we pay for it?

The health plan would use existing public healthcare funding for the services it replaces, employer contributions in place of core insurance premiums, and progressive contributions from households, including investment income as well as wages. Some people would pay more and others less, and an honest comparison would show the total of taxes, premiums, deductibles, and copayments for households at different incomes. Controlling drug and hospital prices would matter, but I wouldn’t claim that every new benefit pays for itself by saying the word “efficiency” with sufficient conviction.

The Congressional Budget Office has modeled public healthcare designs with very different effects on federal spending and total national costs, depending on payment rates, benefits, administration, and use of care. I would require an independent cost estimate for the actual bill before setting tax rates. A proposal can be specific about its benefits and financing method while being honest that a precise tax rate needs a precise plan to price.

Food assistance needs a real appropriation as well. For scale, if one million additional households received an average of $200 a month, that would be $2.4 billion annually before administrative costs and other effects. Helping more families further up the income scale costs money, and I would rather debate that price openly.

We could begin before the entire healthcare system is rebuilt. Congress could close the Medicaid coverage gap, expand Bridge-style coverage, make Marketplace plans affordable, and repair SNAP’s income gates and expense allowances. Automatic enrollment, coordinated benefit reductions, and a national public plan would take more time, along with checks that patients can actually get care as coverage expands.

This would take years and federal legislation, which means Congress would have to agree that a person should be able to accept a raise and continue eating dinner.

I would measure success by whether people can buy food, get an appointment, avoid medical debt, and take a better job without being punished for it. If the enrollment rolls shrink because families are genuinely more secure, we should be able to see that in their lives; if they shrink because people lost coverage while their bills remained, we should be able to see that too.

I have been the person receiving help, the person hurt when moving up made it disappear, and the person working in healthcare while other families ran into these rules. I know a complete bill would involve arguments and revisions, because I have seen what happens when a beautifully organized process forgets the person it was supposed to serve.

Still, we can ask candidates and lawmakers for more than an admirable destination. We can ask them to show us how a raise changes the grocery benefit, what happens to the insurance card, how the doctor gets paid, and where the money comes from. Then the next person can accept the promotion, keep the appointment, and put groceries in the refrigerator, which has been waiting patiently for the government to finish its speech.

And when somebody tells them congratulations, I would like the system to mean it.

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Subscribe now

Congress has already written a law restricting federal officials from bringing armed men to places where elections are held, with an exception for repelling armed enemies of the United States. The Democratic plaintiffs also argue that a deployment would violate the Voting Rights Act’s prohibition on voter intimidation. Apparently we must now litigate whether the trip to cast a ballot should come with the sort of security presence one expects around a visiting head of state.

I’m following this from home, where yesterday’s effort to obtain the correct paint sprayer has reached a conclusion of sorts. The replacement never arrived. Amazon has offered a full refund and told me to keep the wrong sprayer, which still won’t do the job we bought it for. My artistic brain will probably find a use for it eventually. My husband, who was hoping to paint the house before the rain, might reasonably prefer that I first produce an idea involving the side of the house.

Then he told me he was nearly out of deodorant. I went to order his usual kind and found it listed for $22 a stick. It’s made in Canada, though I have no idea which part of its journey produced that price. I do know that for $22 it should arrive with a small velvet pouch and a handwritten note about its provenance. We can find another deodorant. I can turn a mistaken paint sprayer into some strange art project, or at least give it a respectable period of contemplation in the garage. Those are irritating, ordinary problems with options. A voter who turns away from a polling place can’t be offered store credit after the election.

I’m tired today, too. Keeping up with the news all week has felt like trying to read every warning label in the house while someone keeps bringing in new appliances. I suspect Mom is feeling some of that exhaustion as she follows the war and the people living with its consequences. I keep looking for things that engage a happier part of my brain, and sometimes I find them. Sometimes I just stand in front of a $22 stick of deodorant and wonder whether we’ve made personal hygiene a luxury import. The temptation on a day like this is to skim past one more lawsuit because it sounds procedural, but the procedure is the story. The question is whether a person can exercise a right without first having to assess the intentions of an armed stranger.

The plaintiffs are the Democratic Senate, House, and governors’ campaign committees, along with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Their complaint points to remarks from senior officials about federal agents’ authority to protect elections. It asks the court to declare the alleged policy unlawful and prevent armed officers from being stationed at voting locations, drop boxes, and places where ballots are counted or certified.

The government’s position also deserves to be reported accurately. White House officials previously denied that Trump was considering ICE monitoring of polling places. Tom Homan has dismissed the idea of plans to sweep them. FBI Director Kash Patel, asked about agents at the polls, defended the bureau’s role in protecting elections without ruling out a presence there. A statement about authority is not itself a deployment order, but voters and election workers deserve a clear answer about what the government actually intends to do.

Here in Oregon, we vote by mail, which can make a debate framed around lines outside polling booths sound distant. The complaint’s requested protection extends to drop boxes and other places where ballots are handled. Oregon voters shouldn’t have to wonder whether the familiar errand of returning a ballot has acquired an unexpected federal cast.

The administration says it cares about election integrity. Fine. An eligible voter being able to participate without intimidation is part of election integrity. If officials believe some specific threat requires a federal response, they can explain the threat, the law authorizing that response, and how they will protect the people who came to vote. “Trust us, the armed people are here to make you comfortable” is a difficult sales pitch, even by the standards of this week. The burden of explaining a plan belongs with the people who might carry it out. It shouldn’t fall on every voter to decide whether a reassuring denial applies to her particular ballot box.

There is a different, almost theatrical dispute over a public institution in Washington. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski are backing a draft bill that would require congressional authorization before the Kennedy Center, or another presidential memorial, could be demolished. Merkley hopes to seek Senate consent for the measure Monday. It hasn’t passed, and a single senator could stop that expedited route.

The building needs repairs. Congress approved substantial renovation funding, and the center has cited safety concerns during its closure. President Trump has argued that his administration deserves recognition for taking on the work and has said that without it, the center could end up being ripped down. A Kennedy Center spokesperson has said nothing is being demolished. A federal judge has required advance notice before major physical changes, including demolition.

I recognize the first part of this problem. We, too, have a building that requires work, a painting schedule at the mercy of the weather, and equipment that has declined to participate. My husband has never responded to a delayed project by proposing that we rename the house after him and, failing that, consider removing it from the property. He would probably settle for the correct sprayer.

The senators’ proposal is about who gets to make that decision for a national memorial. Murkowski’s point is that Congress authorized renovations, while demolition would require a separate act of public oversight. Repairing something that belongs to the country should involve more explanation than one man’s appraisal of whether the country has been sufficiently grateful.

Here in Oregon, lawmakers are also asking the federal government to explain a decision about protection. Governor Tina Kotek appealed FEMA’s denial of a Fire Management Assistance Grant for the East Evans Creek Fire, and seven members of Oregon’s congressional delegation backed that appeal Thursday. Their letter says the fire had reached more than 15,700 acres when the state first sought assistance, with more than 3,100 structures threatened and hundreds of homes under the highest evacuation warning.

The grant would help cover eligible firefighting costs. FEMA denied the initial application; Oregon is asking it to reconsider. That does not mean the appeal will succeed, and the lawmakers’ account does not, by itself, tell us why FEMA denied it. Those are answers still worth pursuing. Firefighters and residents did their part during an emergency, and the state is now trying to establish whether the federal program meant to help with that work will pay its share.

These stories are different in scale, and I don’t want to pretend that a wrong package explains a voting-rights lawsuit or that our house is a national memorial. What the package has reminded me of is the odd feeling of receiving an answer that closes a case without doing the thing you needed done. Amazon can refund us and leave me to make art with the sprayer. Public institutions have responsibilities that can’t be resolved that way.

A ballot must be cast and counted. A memorial’s future must be decided by people with the authority to decide it. A firefighting grant must receive a defensible answer under the program’s rules. The people who rely on those systems should be able to see who made each decision and why.

I’m going to look for a reasonably priced deodorant and give my husband the full report on our newly acquired, incorrectly specified art supply. Then I’ll keep watching what happens in court, in the Senate, and with Oregon’s appeal. Being exhausted is a reasonable response to this week. It is also a good reason to insist on clear answers, so none of us has to spend our remaining energy guessing what the people in charge intend to do.

Subscribe now

If you know someone wondering what the polling-place lawsuit actually asks for, please restack this for them. I’d also like to hear what answer you want from federal officials before November. A paid subscription helps Mom and me keep following these decisions and explaining what they mean once they reach the people at home.

If you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family’s projects, plants, and everyday adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

Right now, that includes Ezra’s medical travel, lead testing, and the ongoing effort to make our home safe while the children continue growing and Oregon’s rain keeps an eye on the painting schedule. Your kindness gives us room to handle the frightening and expensive parts, and still enjoy the little life we’re building between them. There’s never any obligation, and I’m grateful you’re here.

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

The measure before the Senate, H.Con.Res. 89, directed the president to remove U.S. forces from hostilities with Iran absent congressional authorization. It failed by a single vote, 49–50. Republicans Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Rand Paul and Thom Tillis joined Democrats and independents in voting for it. Democrat John Fetterman voted against it. Angela Alsobrooks was absent. Both of Oregon’s senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, voted yes.

There is a small Washington procedural absurdity tucked inside the larger Washington procedural absurdity: the Senate was voting on the House resolution passed back in July, not the newer Iran war-powers resolution the House passed September 15 by 220–204.

Congress has reached the stage where it can vote again and again on whether to exercise its constitutional authority over war while the war itself carries on regardless. It’s tempting to say the war is running on autopilot, but even autopilot implies a flight plan. And our service members are the ones paying the price.

The conflict has passed the 200-day mark. The Pentagon has publicly acknowledged 19 U.S. military deaths associated with the war and more than 800 wounded, though internal figures may be higher. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that combat operations cost the Defense Department about $38 billion through August 1. A later CENTCOM estimate put the bill at $43.6 billion through September 3, with weapons expenditures accounting for much of the increase.

CBO estimates another month of fighting could cost roughly $2 billion at the comparatively lower intensity seen in May and June, or about $3 billion at July’s intensity. Those estimates come with an extraordinary footnote: the Defense Department did not respond to CBO’s requests for information, so Congress’s own budget analysts had to reconstruct the costs using government databases and public reporting.

Even the damn receipt is classified from the people paying the bill.

Those costs are not confined to the Treasury. CBO found that disruption to oil markets and refining is feeding through into consumer prices and now expects year-over-year PCE inflation in early 2027 to run about half a percentage point higher than it projected before the war. Meanwhile, analysts tracking U.S. missile-defense stocks estimate that Patriot and THAAD inventories have been significantly depleted, creating risks for other contingencies, particularly in the western Pacific.

Then we have the human ledger. Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao has now acknowledged in a letter to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand that eight sailors assigned across the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group attempted suicide during its extraordinary deployment. The figure includes the carrier crew, air wing, strike-group and destroyer-squadron staffs, escorting destroyers and embarked aviation squadrons. None of the sailors died by suicide.

That disclosure arrived after months of reporting from military families and journalists about exhaustion, food shortages, problems with toilets and laundry facilities, extraordinarily long stretches at sea and growing concern about sailors’ mental health.

When those stories surfaced publicly, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the situation had been “completely misrepresented.”

Now the Navy is supplying some of the numbers itself. That should be enough to stop treating deployment length as an abstraction on a Pentagon PowerPoint.

This is where yesterday’s Senate vote becomes something more than another piece of congressional parliamentary furniture. If lawmakers choose not to restrain a war, they inherit responsibility for what continuing it requires.

That responsibility covers the money, the missiles and the 19 military deaths publicly acknowledged so far. It extends to the people sleeping in racks below the flight deck while the people who sent them there argue about whether Congress technically needs to participate in the decision.

If you or someone you love is in crisis, call or text 988. Veterans and service members can press 1 to reach the Veterans Crisis Line.

Which brings us to a rather remarkable cover story from The Economist this week.

The headline is “When America walks away.”

The subtitle is even less coy: “For decades America has enjoyed hegemony over the Middle East. That is about to end.”

The Economist’s argument is not that the United States will disappear from the Middle East. America will retain bases, alliances, intelligence relationships, naval power, counterterrorism capabilities and the ability to use enormous military force when presidents decide American interests require it.

What The Economist believes is ending is something larger: Washington’s attempt to serve as the architect of the regional order.

And if you look closely at what the administration itself is doing, you can already see pieces of that retrenchment taking shape.

This month, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman repeatedly asked Trump to strike the Houthis as they threatened Saudi interests near the Bab al-Mandeb. Trump declined and offered intelligence and targeting help instead. American diplomats then met Houthi representatives in Oman to preserve the U.S.-Houthi ceasefire and keep Bab al-Mandeb open. Trump later reviewed strike options and held off again.

So Washington is at war with Iran, Iran’s proxies are at war with Saudi Arabia, and Washington is negotiating with those proxies to protect its own ships while trying not to inherit Riyadh’s fight. Each decision may be defensible on its own. What’s missing is the strategy connecting them.

Trump stood before the United Nations this week issuing fresh threats against Iran and dismissing concerns about American weapons stocks. Meanwhile, military planners are husbanding scarce interceptors, American diplomats are negotiating with an armed militia, the president is declining an ally’s request to open another front, American bases have suffered significant missile and drone damage, and a carrier strike group is finally making its wat toward home after a deployment that seems to have been measured using geological time.

“Where does this end?” deserves an answer considerably more sophisticated than we’ll know when we get there.

A strategy tells you where you are going and how you will know when you have arrived. Instead, Washington has offered escalation, negotiation, redeployment, threats, restraint and escalation again.

That may explain why The Economist now treats the decline of American hegemony in the Middle East not as some distant possibility but as the premise of its argument.

There is another piece of arithmetic underneath it.

For much of the postwar period, protecting Persian Gulf oil could plausibly be described as protecting a vital American energy lifeline. The United States today is one of the world’s largest oil producers, and Gulf crude accounts for only a small share of what we import. China, meanwhile, is the world’s largest crude-oil importer and one of the region’s most important customers.

And this week, while American ships and service members continue carrying much of the military burden of maintaining order around those energy routes, Trump has been rolling out the red carpet for Xi Jinping personally greeting him at Joint Base Andrews, staging a military arrival ceremony and flyover, and hosting him at a White House state dinner.

Diplomacy is cheaper than war, but the juxtaposition is hard to miss.

China has an enormous commercial stake in Gulf stability. The United States continues paying a disproportionate share of the military cost of providing it. And Xi gets to arrive in Washington for dinner while American sailors patrol the sea lanes that help keep Chinese refineries supplied.

China may have discovered one of history’s great geopolitical bargains: if somebody else insists on paying for the aircraft carriers, perhaps do not interrupt him.

Stepping back carries risks. But seven months of war haven’t solved any of those problems. Iran’s ambitions, the rivalries and the chokepoints were all there before February and will still be there when this ends. The obvious counterargument to retrenchment is formidable. Iran remains a regional power with nuclear ambitions. Israel, Turkey and Iran have competing interests. Gulf monarchies have structured their security around American protection. Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb remain indispensable arteries of global trade. Terrorist organizations have not disappeared merely because Americans have grown weary of the neighborhood.

What political objective does continued military engagement achieve, what price is the country prepared to pay for it and what measurable condition would permit the people aboard ships like the Lincoln to finally come home? Something like a plan or strategy would be helpful.

Amid all this, something rather beautiful happened at the United Nations yesterday.

Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten took the podium. He began with Anne Frank as a teenage girl with no office, no army and no power beyond a pen and a diary. Jetten used her belief in the ability of ordinary people to change the world as the doorway into an argument about the institutions created after the catastrophe that killed her.

The United Nations. International law. The International Court of Justice. The International Criminal Court.

He spoke about Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, and argued for giving middle powers and underrepresented countries more responsibility. He talked about climate change not as an ideological loyalty test but as a problem humans possess the technology to address if governments can summon the cooperation to use it.

Then he addressed recent attacks against the ICC.

“International law either works for everyone, or for no one,” he said.

Two days earlier, Donald Trump had stood before the same United Nations and called on every country belonging to the International Criminal Court to quit it immediately, describing the ICC as a “rogue institution” and its officials as an “evil group of people.”

Jetten did not need to mention Trump.

The ICC is headquartered in The Hague, in Jetten’s country. He reminded the assembly that the court grew from the legal inheritance of Nuremberg and Tokyo, created around the revolutionary proposition that even the gravest crimes should be answered with law rather than vengeance.

“Hands off the ICC,” he said.

Then Jetten remembered Americans. He returned to Anne Frank and reminded the room that liberation from fascism arrived too late for her and millions of others. But when it finally reached the Netherlands, it came with American, Canadian, British, Polish and other Allied soldiers, many of them barely older than Anne.

Some of the Americans never went home.

They are buried at the American cemetery at Margraten in the southern Netherlands.

A wall stands over their graves bearing the words:

“To you from failing hands we throw the torch. Be yours to hold it high.”

America does not have to dominate the world in order to remain engaged with it. Those soldiers did not die so that succeeding generations of Americans would be required to police every shipping lane, arbitrate every ancient rivalry or permanently station themselves inside every regional conflict.

They helped create something after the war: alliances, courts, treaties, international institutions, and a belief, frequently violated, imperfectly applied and maddeningly slow, that nations might occasionally settle disputes without sending another generation of young people to kill one another.

There is a vast distance between hegemony and isolation. Somewhere inside that distance is strategy and Congress ought to be capable of discussing it.

Citizens are entitled to demand that discussion.

If Washington is improvising a war with no clear end, then Congress has an obligation to stop behaving like a spectator. Lawmakers should define the mission or end it, account honestly for the costs in lives and dollars, explain what success would look like and protect the people we have sent to fight. Indefinite war should not be the default setting of American foreign policy.

Thursday’s vote gives every American something concrete to ask about. Call your senators and representative to find out how they voted and why. Press them on what American forces are supposed to accomplish in Iran, what authority permits the war to continue without explicit congressional authorization, and what measurable conditions would allow those forces to come home.

Write to your local newspaper. Ask those questions at town halls. Listen to military families and veterans. Support organizations demanding honest casualty figures, realistic deployment schedules and adequate mental-health resources for the people carrying out decisions made thousands of miles away.

When a senator says, as Dan Sullivan did Thursday, that a war-powers resolution means “removing American forces from the region,” read the resolution yourself. It does not order America out of the Middle East. It directs the president to remove American forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress authorizes those hostilities.

Fight for our troops like they fight for us.

Share

Subscribe now

I’m following this from a household that has received the wrong paint sprayer twice, which has given me a particular interest in whether a process eventually produces the thing it was supposed to produce. My husband ordered a sprayer so we could paint the house before the rain comes. The wrong one arrived, so he submitted a replacement request, waited a few days, and received the same incorrect sprayer again. Somewhere, a replacement had been successfully processed. Here, the house remained unimpressed.

Subscribe now

This morning I applied my professional writing skills to Amazon customer support, and after some prodding, they agreed to have a sprayer here by the end of the day. We’re expecting rain at six, which leaves an important scheduling dispute between Amazon and the sky. I’m not entirely confident in Amazon, and the sky has declined to open a support ticket.

The stakes in Washington are considerably larger, but I recognize the burden placed on the person at the receiving end, who must keep explaining that the original problem still exists. NPR interviewed five Education Department employees who requested anonymity. Staff describe inadequate training and complications moving grants through other agencies. They say two attempts to move Title I and other large grants through Labor’s systems were halted after states raised concerns. The October 1 Title I installment is scheduled to use Education’s existing system.

The department defends its work, pointing to more than 7,200 payments totaling over $1.93 billion processed through Labor since October 2025. Those payments matter, as do the difficulties employees describe. This reporting doesn’t establish that school funding has vanished; it raises questions about the machinery delivering it.

My grant-writing and healthcare quality background makes me interested in that machinery. Who knows how to use the system? Who answers when something goes wrong? What happens to the person waiting while two departments establish which one owns the problem? Those questions are less glamorous than a grand announcement about reform, but they’re usually where I’d start looking for whether the reform is helping. I’m happy to see an inefficient process improved. I would simply like the improvement to survive contact with the people expected to use it. A replacement request, for instance, benefits enormously from somebody checking what goes in the box.

Our own household is undergoing a staffing change today, because our oldest goes to his mom’s for his week there. We’ll miss him, especially his little sister, who will now appoint me resident big brother and expect me to carry her train while she plays Elsa and show her how to play Spyro. The position has a broad portfolio, and nobody appears interested in reviewing my existing workload. I absolutely love that her brother does these things with her. There’s something so sweet about watching a bigger child make room for a little one’s whole elaborate world, including its wardrobe requirements. I’ll do my best to fill in, although my back would like the kingdom of Arendelle to consider a shorter train.

She had her first ballet class after the summer hiatus, made new friends, and loved her teacher so much that she’s announced she’ll give her a hug every single day. I’m not sure the class schedule can accommodate that level of affection, but she’s prepared to provide it. Naturally, I’m now disappearing into a rabbit hole of ballet attire, because every single ballet outfit on a four-year-old is adorable and she must have all of them, regardless of whether we have anywhere to put them. She shall have them all, I decree, subject to further discussion with the raccoons governing my brain. They have an enthusiastic acquisitions department and very little interest in storage. I’m mostly joking, although the committee remains in session.

These are the ordinary things I want room for: a child making friends, a brother agreeing to another round of pretend, a mother being ridiculous about a tiny ballet outfit. So much of parenting is trying to keep the necessary arrangements working in the background while children get on with being children. When those arrangements become another full-time job, the hours have to come from somewhere.

Medical research has its own version of that problem. A new NPR analysis finds that preserving NIH’s overall budget hasn’t prevented substantial delays in committing and renewing grants. Congress didn’t enact the administration’s proposed 41 percent budget cut for fiscal 2026, but the process of committing funds to projects was running about 42 days behind its 2021–2024 average pace through early July.

That’s a July snapshot of agency data, subject to revision, rather than a measurement of today’s backlog. NPR also found that renewals arriving at least 90 days late were considerably more common in fiscal 2025 and 2026 than in the preceding four years. Researchers described uncertainty about retaining staff and keeping projects running. NIH says its funding strategy is intended to support rigorous science, improve accountability, and direct finite resources toward public benefit. Those are worthwhile aims. My question is how the agency ensures the people doing that science can keep working while the funding decisions move through the system.

A laboratory can’t pay its staff with the reassuring knowledge that Congress has approved an impressive number somewhere. The money has to become something usable, on a timetable that allows the work to continue. I imagine “your rent has entered an additional review stage” would be received with limited enthusiasm by anyone’s landlord.

At home, Ezra has decided crawling is no longer the fastest means of transportation and now runs all over the house. It’s amazingly cute and precious, and I already miss the sound of his little hands and feet clobbering through the rooms. Apparently his feet alone will have to suffice this time, although I would’ve appreciated a little notice before he discontinued the previous service.

We’ve booked the hotel for his MRI trip. We leave next Wednesday and come home Thursday, and after all the waiting, we finally have a trip to make. I’m nervous, but I’m grateful we’ve reached this point. I probably won’t be very active here those two days, though I’ll be sure to give you an update afterward.

For now, he’s busy discovering how quickly he can get somewhere, while I’m trying to hold both things at once: the joy of watching him grow and the worry that comes with wanting answers. He’s my sweet baby pie, even if he now travels at a speed that suggests he has somewhere more important to be.

Wanting dependable answers also brings me to the third story, because good decisions require information we can trust. On Wednesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren asked Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to explain why the department removed language protecting scientific work from political interference. Her letter concerns an August 19 policy revision and requests answers by October 7.

Commerce oversees both the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, so this reaches into the statistics used to understand our population and economy. Warren’s letter asks who ordered the changes and how the department will protect its data. NPR reported that Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget hadn’t responded to its requests for comment; the Federal Reserve said it planned to answer a separate letter.

From a quality and compliance perspective, I’d want an especially clear explanation for removing an explicit safeguard. If a rule needs replacing, show me what replaces it and how it protects the work. My raccoons can submit a ballet-clothing budget based on their feelings, but I’d prefer the federal government maintain a more demanding relationship with numbers.

We’re still waiting for the public health department’s findings on the lead concerns at our house, and I’m trying to be patient because I know they’re trying. I’m also trying not to call too often, with what might generously be described as mixed results. The receptionist and I are on a friendly first-name basis now; she has a boy and a girl who are constantly fighting over the television remote. Every day might be overkill when your follow-up calls have developed a supporting cast.

I want the answer to be careful and useful, and I also very much want it to arrive. I can appreciate the people doing the work while still being the mother who looks at her baby running through the house and finds waiting difficult. Both things fit inside the same phone call, although I’m sure the receptionist would appreciate an occasional day off from mine.

Odin, meanwhile, remains fluffy, is Ezra’s chosen favorite, and is thoroughly enjoying all the smells the moist air is stirring up. He has found a way to appreciate the weather without acquiring equipment, comparing estimates, or contacting customer service. I respect his approach, even if it seems unlikely to get the house painted.

What I want from the systems around us is enough competence to let people get back to the lives they’re trying to live. Let teachers teach, let researchers work, and let families spend a little less time following up on the thing they already followed up on. There’s a great deal worth doing with those hours.

Here, there’s a little girl who’ll miss her brother, a baby who’s finding his feet, and a husband trying to finish something before Oregon turns the rain back on. I’d like to help carry a train, admire a ballet outfit, and watch Ezra make another delighted trip across the room with his favorite fluffy companion nearby. If the correct paint sprayer arrives, we may even get to use a little of this day for the thing we ordered it to do.

Subscribe now

If you know someone who’s spent their lunch break chasing an answer, a payment, or a replacement that didn’t replace anything, please restack this for them. A paid subscription helps Mom and me keep reporting on the public decisions that follow families home, with enough humor to get through the hold music.

If you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family’s projects, plants, and everyday adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

Right now, those adventures include the trip for Ezra’s MRI, lead testing, and trying to make our home safe and beautiful while the children continue growing at a frankly inconsiderate pace. Your kindness helps us carry the worry and the unexpected costs, leaving a little more room to enjoy the running feet, the ballet excitement, and the life happening around all these plans. There’s never any obligation, and we’re grateful to have you here with us.

Share

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

“Two years ago, we were laughed at. We were mocked. We were like a bunch of fools,” he said. “We’re the most respected country anywhere in the world by far.”

The usual network television pool was missing. Since Monday, the major television networks had stopped covering presidential pool events. They were protesting the White House’s decision to block CNN from its assigned pool rotation, after the President banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the grounds by Truth Social post over their reporting. The White House now decides which outlets make up the pool. The questions that afternoon reflected that. One reporter praised his “very powerful speech” at the UN and asked him to share his conversations with world leaders. Another asked which celebrities would attend Thursday’s state dinner for Xi Jinping.

The claim was made to a press pool shaped by the same administration making it. In the 48 hours around that gaggle, the claim met five tests it didn’t choose: the guest he rolled out the red carpet for, the allies who talked around him, a federal judge he appointed, a press corps that held together, and a planet that doesn’t respond to spin.

For a president preparing for one of the most consequential state visits of his second term, Trump had quite a bit on his mind.

The helipad, for example.

He praised it as perhaps the most beautiful helipad ever built, explained the advantages of landing on pavement instead of grass, reminisced about generations of presidents and staff apparently trudging through White House mud and declared that the new landing area finally provided a “proper entrance” to the executive mansion.

Then there was the facade, which he said had been largely falling off and had now been rebuilt.

Then the ballroom.

“We’re ahead of schedule,” Trump reported. The first column was up. The north portion had been built structurally. Soon it would be enclosed in “very powerful glass.” He wished the ballroom were ready in time for Xi’s state dinner because, he explained, the guest list was packed. The “entire tech world” wanted in. The “entire banking world” wanted in. It was, by Trump’s description, the “ultimate crowd.”

Somewhere underneath the helipad, the glass, the ballroom and the seating chart lay American foreign policy.

Trump said there had been “some good meetings in terms of various things.”

He would not go into details. Eventually a reporter asked about Trump’s meetings with other world leaders at the United Nations. That was when he offered his assessment of America’s standing in the world.

The guest of honor offered the first test.

When Trump arrived in Beijing in May, Xi Jinping didn’t come to the airport. China sent Vice President Han Zheng, along with a few hundred young people waving flags in uniforms matched to the colors of Air Force One. That’s standard Chinese protocol, and it was the same in 2017.

This week, Trump went further than American protocol requires. He met Xi on the tarmac at the foot of a 100-foot red carpet, instead of waiting for him at the White House. Melania explained that her husband chose to greet Xi personally because “they have a great relationship,” and that on American soil “we need to welcome them with the most respect.”

Respect traveled in one direction on the tarmac. The same afternoon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that the trade truce with China would be extended until January, with both sides easing tariffs. At the gaggle, asked about fentanyl, Trump said China had been “really penalized very strongly.”

The penalty had just been extended as a truce.

Fortunately, some of America’s closest allies have been talking about international respect this week too, although they are using rather different vocabulary.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham gave us a small master class in diplomatic footwork during his meeting with Trump at the United Nations.

A reporter asked about Britain’s decision to sanction organizations involved with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Trump appeared unfamiliar with the move.

“I don’t know about the move,” he said, before turning toward Burnham. “Do you know about the move?”

Burnham did.

“Yes,” he replied. “Obviously we took that decision, the foreign secretary and I, and, you know, we did call you just to say why we had taken that.”

It was exquisitely done. Just a gentle diplomatic nudge toward the previous conversation, wrapped in enough verbal cushioning to land a sofa.

Burnham then moved immediately back to policy.

He explained that Britain had spent years supporting a two-state solution and argued that governments eventually have to demonstrate that their words mean something when policies threaten to make that solution impossible. If politicians repeatedly make commitments and then refuse to act on them, he said, people begin to conclude that they are “all talk.”

He was talking about the West Bank.

But the sentence travels rather well.

There was no need to speculate about why Trump did not appear to recall the previous discussion. The observable moment was interesting enough: the prime minister of a close American ally found himself gently reminding the president of a substantive foreign-policy conversation they had already had.

Mark Carney supplied the larger thesis. Speaking about the international system this week, the Canadian prime minister described a world in transition. The postwar order, he argued, is ending, but the problems that made international cooperation necessary certainly are not. Climate change does not stop at customs. Pandemics ignore tariffs. Artificial intelligence, financial shocks, wars and supply-chain disruptions do not become manageable merely because a powerful country decides it would prefer to handle them alone.

Carney called his alternative “values-based realism”: cooperate deeply with countries that share your values, remain clear-eyed about those that do not, and build coalitions around problems that governments are actually prepared to solve.

And then came the line.

“Partners are working with Canada because Canada is predictable, reliable, and principled in a world that’s anything but.”

He didn’t need to say who had become unpredictable.

Carney has been making this argument for some time. Earlier this month, speaking directly to “our American friends,” he said Canada’s reputation as a “reliable, predictable partner” had rarely been more valuable in a world where “transactions are replacing relationships” and “zero-sum is favoured over win-win.”

Canada, he said, possesses plenty of valuable commodities.

“But we have earned our most valuable asset - trust.”

That is a remarkably polite way to describe a geopolitical market opening.

Power is more than aircraft carriers, armies, GDP, energy, technology, and the ability to impose costs on somebody else.

Credibility and predictability are forms of power too, and so is knowing that an agreement reached with Washington on Tuesday will still mean roughly the same thing on Thursday, that a security guarantee can survive a change in mood, and that months of negotiations will not be discarded because somebody posted something overnight.

Countries make investments, construct supply chains, deploy military forces and enter alliances based partly upon those expectations.

When predictability becomes scarce, predictability becomes valuable.

Which brings us back to Washington, where the question of what an official commitment is worth received another test before most Americans had finished their first cup of coffee.

Early Thursday, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, temporarily blocked the President’s ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico. He ruled narrowly, not on the First Amendment fight still ahead, but on due process. The D.C. Circuit has long held that an issued White House hard pass can’t simply be taken away without notice, a chance to respond, or clear standards, and the outlets got none of those.

Kelly also wasn’t persuaded by the administration’s national security argument. He found that nothing predating the lawsuit suggested security had motivated the ban, which Trump himself had announced as a response to “fake news.” The Pentagon officials who submitted declarations had no direct knowledge of White House reporting, and in most of the stories cited, the reporters didn’t even hold hard passes.

His order was plain: “immediately return, reinstate, and restore” the credentials. The administration had asked him to delay it. He declined.

Then Thursday morning arrived. A Politico reporter was turned away at the gate, and according to Politico, the Secret Service confiscated his pass. CNN and MS NOW reported that their people were turned away too.

There may be a mundane explanation, since court orders don’t reach checkpoints instantly. But the administration managed to deactivate those credentials over a weekend. Restoring them “immediately,” on a federal judge’s order, apparently proved harder.

Kelly set the outlets’ bond at one dollar. The republic may be expensive to run, but due process still has a bargain rack.

Respect is difficult to measure. But credibility leaves evidence. You can watch how allies behave and listen to the words they choose.

One prime minister carefully reminds the president of a conversation they already had. Another advertises his own country as “predictable, reliable, and principled” because those qualities have become increasingly valuable in an unstable international environment. News organizations withdraw their cameras rather than participate in a pool system from which one of their members has been excluded. A federal judge tells the White House that constitutional procedures still apply even when the president dislikes the coverage.

All this gives us considerably more to work with than Trump’s “by far.”

There is one realm where reliability is no longer a diplomatic virtue or a geopolitical advantage. It is a physical requirement of civilization.

The latest Planetary Health Check finds seven of Earth’s nine planetary boundaries outside the ‘safe operating space’ in which civilization developed, with pressure across the breached boundaries continuing to worsen. Climate is only one of them. Biodiversity, freshwater and land are all degrading. Ocean chemistry is shifting, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles are overloaded, and synthetic chemicals and plastics are accumulating throughout the environment.

These systems also act on each other. Ecosystem loss weakens the planet’s ability to absorb carbon, and warming disrupts freshwater cycles. Deforestation reduces the rainfall forests depend on, and melting ice exposes darker surfaces that absorb more heat. Scientists now report early warning signs of tipping behavior where those pressures compound, as one failing system pushes another closer to failure.

That separates this moment from the environmental debates many of us grew up with. The question used to be whether summers would get somewhat hotter, or whether a particular forest was worth the economic cost. Now it’s whether the planetary machinery that delivers dependable rainfall, fertile soil, livable temperatures and functioning oceans keeps running. Food systems, cities and economies are all built on the assumption that it will.

Against that measure, the report card is unforgiving. Summits, net-zero pledges, subsidies, electric vehicles, and carbon markets have produced real progress in places. Taken together, they haven’t bent the trajectory fast enough.

This week put a number on that failure. NOAA confirmed the current El Niño has broken its own 150-year temperature record months before its expected peak, and researchers at the Climate Impact Lab project it will drive 450,000 additional deaths worldwide over the next six months; concentrated in Nigeria, Indonesia, Sudan, India and Brazil. The United States, which bears far more responsibility for the emissions driving these systems, is expected to lose 3,500 people over the same span.

The ozone layer is recovering because scientists identified the threat, governments cooperated, industry replaced the chemicals, and regulation held. The Planetary Health Check cites that recovery, along with improving aerosol levels, as proof that humanity can change its impact on the planet for the better.

The planet grades us on outcomes. So the problem is the gap between action and enough action. Politicians can argue about reputation and respect all they like. Physics only checks the results.

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Yesterday, the kids and I ventured into the big city, by which I mean Coos Bay, for labs and a haircut for my oldest before picture day. School pictures are running upwards of $70, which seems ambitious for a photograph in which I can’t guarantee that everyone will have negotiated successfully with their own face. Today is also my daughter’s actual first dance class after summer break, following last week’s preview event, in which I drove her there and introduced her to disappointment.

Meanwhile, we’re looking at hotels for Ezra’s MRI, and one option charges $35 a day for parking on top of the room, with a breakfast-inclusive rate another $70 per night. Apparently, both the car and the toast require separate accommodations, and I would like to know whether either will be contributing toward gas. These ordinary expenses are why I pay attention to what accountability actually delivers, especially when the answer involves money reaching people who’ve already earned it.

I’m currently comparing hotel prices because my baby needs an MRI, while also pricing home repairs and trying to keep the regular machinery of family life moving. There’s no department I can contact to explain that our household is experiencing a complicated series of overlapping expenses and will therefore be calculating its obligations according to a method the bank hasn’t yet approved. The bank is very committed to its method.

What I want for my family is ordinary enough to sound almost embarrassingly modest when written down. My daughter will dance, Ezra will get his MRI, and the children will have school pictures with nice hair. We will keep finding ways to make those things happen, because their lives are happening now, while we compare prices and wait for answers. There’s a great deal of love in that determination, along with a fair amount of arithmetic, and I know we have plenty of company. Families everywhere are trying to turn the money and time they have into a childhood, a safe home, a doctor’s visit, and a little happiness that doesn’t have to justify itself on a spreadsheet.

That’s the household arithmetic I bring to New York City’s $131.5 million settlement with DoorDash. On Tuesday, Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection announced the agreement, which includes more than $115 million for over 260,000 delivery workers. The city says its investigation found missing payments, late payments, and violations of its minimum-pay requirements. More than $16 million goes toward civil penalties and costs. For a worker waiting on pay, the difference between money that’s been calculated and money that’s arrived can be the rent. I can imagine explaining that the payment is working its way through a complicated system, but I suspect the landlord would still like it to finish its little journey before the first of the month.

DoorDash acknowledged payment errors and apologized, saying the mistakes were unintentional and that technical bugs and complicated delivery situations contributed to them. The company also says most of the settlement concerns a disagreement about calculating pay for time workers spend online between deliveries. It maintains that its approach was lawful but has agreed to use the city’s method going forward. I’m familiar with the experience of having a calculation I prefer and another one I’m expected to use, although mine usually ends with closing the hotel website and opening it again in case the toast has reconsidered.

Those distinctions are important when describing what happened, and the company’s explanation belongs in the account. So does the worker’s perspective, which I imagine becomes fairly straightforward when groceries, rent, or a child’s appointment depend on money that hasn’t arrived. A technical explanation may identify the problem, but I haven’t found a place on the electric bill to attach one, even as a beautifully formatted PDF.

My background in healthcare quality and compliance makes me particularly interested in what happens after the apology. The useful questions are how an organization identifies a failure, corrects it, and demonstrates that the correction keeps working after everyone leaves the meeting. This is where my professional background and motherhood begin sharing a clipboard, because “I already took care of it” becomes much more informative once someone opens the bedroom door.

The DoorDash agreement includes monthly data reporting for three years, software and internal-control changes, and a system intended to let workers share their trip and earnings information directly with the city. That’s 36 monthly reports, which gives my compliance brain something specific to follow. My parenting brain is considering a similar arrangement for the laundry, though I expect resistance to the independent sock audit.

For the households receiving payments, there’ll be their own decisions about where that money goes. I know how quickly an amount that looked available on Monday can become dinner, a utility payment, or whatever expense has just announced itself from the back seat, causing you to nearly crash on the interstate. Nothing tests a parent’s composure quite like an unexpected financial disclosure from someone who still needs help opening string cheese.

Which brings us to Washington, where a different set of financial questions has acquired a private island. Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate whether relatives of presidents have used those relationships for private financial benefit or preferential treatment. His request includes subpoenas for both Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden, with Curtis calling for the same scrutiny regardless of party.

The request follows reporting that Russian businessman Umar Kremlev, who has ties to Vladimir Putin, helped fund celebrations following Trump Jr.’s wedding in the Bahamas, including a private-island rental. The couple described the festivities as a generous gift from a friend, and President Trump has said his son would reimburse him, according to the Associated Press. I’ve been trying to determine whether breakfast is worth an additional $70, so this has considerably expanded my understanding of a wedding registry. I’d been working under the assumption that the gifts needed to fit in a cabinet, and apparently we could’ve registered for temporary access to a coastline.

Curtis put his argument this way: Republicans “nearly wore out the subpoena machine investigating Hunter Biden’s foreign relationships” and “should not unplug it now.” His request calls for fact-finding, not a presumption that either man committed a crime. I’m familiar with the need to hear what actually happened before reaching a conclusion, because if the loudest opening statement settled a case, every sibling disagreement would end with someone doing twenty years for looking at a cracker.

The next question is whether the committee acts on Curtis’s request. DoorDash has agreed to payments and monitoring; the letter asks a congressional committee to begin an inquiry. Those are different stages, and I know enough from announcing that we’re leaving the house to distinguish a stated intention from an event that has actually occurred. Somewhere between the announcement and the departure, there’s usually a person wearing one shoe who’s decided to begin a craft.

There’s also news from Philadelphia, where OnLabor reports that approximately 2,000 school bus drivers, cleaners, building engineers, mechanics, and tradespeople have approved a three-year contract. The agreement includes raises totaling 9.5 percent and $2,350 in bonuses, along with 25 days of paid parental leave beginning January 1, the first such benefit in their union’s contract with the district. The workers are represented by 32BJ SEIU District 1201.

Those are the people who drive the bus, clean the building, and repair what broke before the children arrive. I can barely get a room clean before a child enters it carrying something that crumbles, so I read that list of jobs with a fairly vivid understanding of the working conditions. A school has hundreds of children, and I assume at least one of them has been saving a yogurt for later in a place no adult has thought to look.

The pay and leave provisions put specific numbers into the contract, although the households using them will supply the less orderly details. Twenty-five days of paid parental leave is a tidy phrase on paper; life with a new baby is where you discover that you can spend an entire afternoon carrying the same sandwich through several rooms without ever technically having lunch. The baby will have eaten four times and somehow be furious with you.

I don’t expect every problem to be solved before I get my daughter to dance class, although I’d appreciate it if the pipes and floor varnish stopped volunteering additional assignments while we’re out. We’re still working through the questions about our home, and I’d very much like the next estimate to arrive carrying a small apology and perhaps a coupon. At this point, even a handwritten “Well, this is unfortunate” would suggest some awareness of the situation.

For today, my daughter will dance, Ezra’s MRI trip will keep coming together, and the children will have school pictures with nice hair, provided nobody makes an independent styling decision between now and then. That’s the kind of winning I’m working toward, with the budget open, the appointments on the calendar, and one final check that dance class is actually happening. I’m trying to keep disappointment off the extracurricular schedule.

Subscribe now

If you know someone doing this same arithmetic, please restack this piece for them. A paid subscription helps Mom and me keep reporting on what public decisions mean in the lives of the people expected to pay for them.

If you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family’s projects, plants, and everyday adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

Right now, those adventures include arranging the trip for Ezra’s MRI, working through lead testing and home-repair costs, and trying to leave room in the budget for the small, happy things our children will remember. We’re still dreaming of a safe home, a finished deck, and a few more plants than my husband believes we have room for, with our children growing up inside a life that feels full of possibility. There’s never any obligation, but every bit of love you send helps us carry the worry while making room for the joy.

That’s only the warm-up. Tomorrow the pageantry moves to the White House, where 479 military personnel, trumpets, drums and a flyover by a B-2 Spirit and four F-22 Raptors will provide the state-visit version of the welcome.

Trump used this same diplomatic vocabulary in Alaska last year. Vladimir Putin stepped onto an actual red carpet while American military aircraft flew overhead. There were smiles, handshakes, and even a ride together in the presidential limousine before the two men disappeared into talks about Ukraine. The summit ended without the ceasefire Trump had been pursuing, but the pictures were magnificent.

Xi now gets the deluxe Washington edition.

Xi is the leader of the world’s second-largest economy, America’s largest strategic competitor, and one of its most consequential trading partners. A state visit is normal diplomacy between major powers. But Trump does have a fondness for communicating foreign policy through architecture, choreography, and things that make a pleasing whooshing noise overhead. Nothing says “we have a complicated bilateral relationship involving export controls, military deterrence and supply-chain vulnerability” quite like a stealth bomber.

Complicated barely begins to describe what Xi is walking into. China is simultaneously the country Washington is trying to deter, the supplier Washington is trying to become less dependent upon, the technological competitor Washington is trying to outrun, the trading partner American farmers and manufacturers still depend upon, and one of the very few governments the United States may actually need if anyone hopes to put meaningful international guardrails around increasingly powerful artificial intelligence.

Welcome to Washington. Would you care for the beef or the fish?

The contradictions were already gathering around Trump yesterday at the United Nations.

The day before Xi’s arrival, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi sat down with Trump in New York for about 35 minutes. The public portion was almost comically brief, Trump praised Takaichi and Japan; Takaichi thanked him, flagged Asia’s difficult security environment, and essentially suggested the press could leave so the adults could discuss the complicated stuff.

Tokyo’s official readout tells us what that was: economic security, AI, semiconductors, critical minerals, and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, with the timing made unusually explicit. Trump and Takaichi exchanged views on China “bearing in mind the upcoming U.S.-China Summit meeting” and agreed to coordinate closely. Diplomatic language for: before you sit down with Xi, Donald, there are a few things we’d like you to remember.

The concern underneath it, per Takaichi’s own framing before she left Tokyo, is resilience. Not simply tariffs or who wins the next headline, but supply chains, including energy, that can survive whatever comes next.

That word, resilience, keeps following us around.

It is one thing to possess leverage. It is another to build an economy that can withstand someone else using theirs.

China demonstrated the distinction efficiently when rare-earth export restrictions began disrupting global manufacturers; these aren’t decorative rocks for the presidential ballroom, but the material embedded in electronics, EVs, communications systems, missiles, aircraft, and much of the modern industrial economy. Even the White House’s own economic analysis has acknowledged how fast that exposed American and allied supply-chain vulnerabilities.

Trump and Xi tried to address some of this when Trump visited China in May. The resulting agreement included Chinese commitments to address American concerns about rare earths and other critical minerals, along with agricultural purchases, Boeing aircraft and new bilateral trade and investment mechanisms. But implementation has been decidedly less “historic deal accomplished” and more “please see attached spreadsheet.”

Which brings us to the stranger part of this week’s welcoming ceremony.

While Washington prepares to fly America’s premier stealth bomber over Xi’s head, American officials have been connecting Chinese commercial technology to something considerably less ceremonial.

The Wall Street Journal reported this month that U.S. officials have linked high-resolution satellite imagery obtained by Iran from Chinese entities to the July 17 ballistic-missile attack on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, the strike that hit a housing area, killed three American service members and wounded four others. Iran obtained imagery of the base both before and after the attack, according to the officials.

U.S. officials stopped short of accusing the Chinese government itself, and China has denied wrongdoing and demanded evidence. But we are well past the earlier stage when this could be waved away as generalized suspicion about Chinese commercial satellite companies. American officials say they have linked Chinese-supplied imagery to a specific Iranian strike that killed Americans.

Bluntly, the United States will demonstrate some of the most sophisticated military hardware on Earth to the leader of a country whose commercial entities, according to U.S. officials, supplied imagery connected to a missile strike that killed three American troops.

Diplomacy occasionally has a sense of humor so dark it requires no assistance from us.

That issue came up in an illuminating Bulwark discussion this week with Democratic Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA officer Mark Polymeropoulos and journalist Michael Weiss.

Weiss juxtaposed Russia’s intelligence assistance to Tehran with the increasingly concrete evidence surrounding Chinese commercial satellite imagery and asked what it means to lavish ceremonial honors on Xi while American officials are connecting Chinese-supplied capabilities to Iranian attacks on U.S. forces.

Himes’s answer was more interesting than simply demanding Trump snarl harder at China: mixed messages, he argued, are unavoidable because the relationship itself is mixed. Washington should be extremely reluctant to strengthen certain Chinese capabilities, he singled out advanced AI processors, saying bluntly the US should not send China H200 chips or comparable technology.

That isn’t hypothetical. In January, Trump’s Commerce Department changed licensing policy so Nvidia H200s, AMD MI325Xs, and comparable chips could be approved for export to Chinese customers case by case, subject to security requirements, the administration’s bet that controlled sales can strengthen the American tech ecosystem without surrendering its most advanced capabilities.

So tomorrow, beneath the B-2 and F-22s, another weapons-system argument will happen quietly indoors. Not about airplanes. About compute.

An H200 does not make quite the same entrance as a B-2 Spirit, but China’s access to advanced computing power affects everything from commercial AI to scientific research to military applications. Washington therefore finds itself trying to preserve an American technological advantage while American chipmakers understandably remain interested in selling very expensive chips to one of the largest markets on Earth. Capitalism has always enjoyed a complicated relationship with the phrase “strategic competitor.”

But Himes made the turn that makes this entire story more interesting than another round of China hawks versus China doves.

Immediately after arguing that Washington should restrict China’s access to advanced American chips, he said the United States also needs to work with China on AI safety.

His reasoning is difficult to dismiss. America can construct all the domestic guardrails it wants, but artificial intelligence will not respect customs checkpoints. If an increasingly capable system creates a national-security crisis in one country, the consequences could cross borders before diplomats finish deciding whose embassy should issue the sternly worded statement.

Himes argued that Beijing may have its own powerful incentive to cooperate because the Chinese government has little affection for things it cannot control.

Already this is moving from theory toward actual diplomacy.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng met in New York over the weekend preparing the ground for Trump and Xi. Among the subjects was a proposed mechanism through which the United States and China could notify one another about AI incidents that rise to the level of national-security threats. Bessent has described this as an area of “shared risks,” and Trump and Xi are expected to discuss it during the visit.

We may be reinventing the Cold War hotline for robots.

We spent decades worrying that somebody would misread a radar screen and launch nuclear weapons. Now the working question is what happens if an AI system launches a cyberattack, penetrates infrastructure or begins behaving in ways neither government intended, and Washington and Beijing have to determine whether the thing currently setting fire to the internet is hostile Chinese action, hostile American action, or merely Tuesday.

Trump, in almost classic Trumpian irony, has repeatedly framed AI as a race America must win against China. Yet one of the potentially most important deliverables from his summit with Xi may be an agreement to call each other if the race car catches fire.

Contain the capability. Cooperate on the catastrophe.

Iran complicates the relationship in another direction: energy.

Yesterday, Trump stood before the UN and offered Tehran a particularly Trumpian menu: agreement and “potential greatness,” or obliteration. Later, beside Zelenskyy, he revealed Witkoff and Kushner had just finished a three-hour meeting with Iranian representatives, with another planned. Beneath the threats, diplomacy is happening, and woven through its economics is China.

Beijing remains Tehran’s biggest oil customer and economic lifeline. But the relationship cuts both ways: China’s own strategic reserve, roughly 1.4 billion barrels, let it pull back on imports after the Hormuz disruption, which analysts told the AP helped keep global oil prices from climbing even higher. So: the US is fighting Iran, Iran is bankrolled by China, Chinese satellite capabilities have been linked to a strike that killed American troops, and China’s energy planning is simultaneously cushioning the shock of the war it’s indirectly fueling. Every arrow points back to the same box.

Trump is meeting Xi because China is woven through nearly every problem Washington is trying to solve: rare earths, semiconductors, AI, agriculture, Boeing, Iran, oil, military targeting, North Korea, the Indo-Pacific. Even Japan’s brief meeting with Trump yesterday was really an exercise in preparing for that reality: Tokyo wants deeper cooperation with Washington not to divorce China, which proximity makes unrealistic, but to reduce the number of switches Beijing can flip when disagreements arrive.

Which brings us back to those airplanes.

Tomorrow, Xi will stand at the White House while a B-2 and four F-22s pass overhead, a perfectly legible display of American power. But both sides already know what the other has: bombers, rare-earth leverage, semiconductor dominance, an AI race neither can afford to lose and neither can fully control and now, Chinese-linked capabilities connected by U.S. officials to a strike that killed American troops. There is no single gesture that resolves any of that. Trump may like gestures because they photograph better.

In Alaska, the red carpet beneath Putin raised a straightforward question: after the invasion, after years of isolation, what exactly had he done to earn it? Xi’s red carpet poses the harder one: what do you do when the country you’re trying to contain is also the country you still need?

On that note, I’m going to spend part of today doing something almost quaint: covering local government.

We have an important sheriff’s race coming up in November, and this afternoon I’ll be at a candidate forum hosted by the Chamber of Commerce. No complicated foreign relations, missile inventories, or oil chokepoints, just old-fashioned hometown politics, sometimes dirty, usually funny. Candidates answering questions from people who might actually run into them at the feed store or the post office.

Sheriffs wield real power. The leadership culture of any law enforcement agency can have a huge impact on outcomes for both victims and perpetrators alike. And the decisions they make affect public safety, civil liberties, budgets, and the daily lives of the people who live here. That is precisely why the race matters.

So I’m trading Washington’s firehose for a folding chair and a candidate forum for a few hours, which feels like a breath of fresh air.

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Here at home, I’m also thinking about the surface beneath our feet, although my planning process involves flooring prices, pending test results, and a baby whose safety has rearranged the entire project list. Before I could get to any of that this morning, however, I had to investigate how a person can wake up at six to get children ready for school and still drop her daughter off eight minutes late while sending her oldest out the door six minutes behind schedule. Those are separate delays, which suggests a coordinated effort, although the investigation hasn’t yet established whether the coordination originated with the children or their mother.

I should have plenty of time, at least according to the clock, which continues to insist that it’s provided the same number of minutes to everyone. Are the kids not staying on top of their assigned tasks, or am I not staying on top of the kids? Am I moving too slowly, or adding too many things to the list? Somewhere between a reasonable starting time and our eventual departure, the morning develops additional requirements that were apparently agreed upon at a meeting I didn’t attend. I remain hopeful that I will identify the problem before tomorrow introduces a new way to be late.

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for the health department’s official results on the floor. The swab we used at home gave a positive result for lead, which adds to our concern, but we don’t yet have the department’s findings or know what they’ll recommend. So now I’m pricing flooring, which is a wonderful activity if you’ve ever looked at your bank account and thought it could use a little character development. I love those old oak floors, and I keep thinking about the trees that grew all that beautiful wood, only to end up beneath a woman pacing around with a calculator. I’d like to honor their contribution, preferably without making a second contribution that requires financing. There is so much history in those boards, and I’d love to keep it, but first we need the official results and a clear understanding of what will keep Ezra safe.

Either way, the possible expense has put the deck on hold, and my poor husband is heartbroken. He’s holding it together and continuing to put in the work on the other projects, even while something he wanted so much moves farther down the list. Of course the baby comes first, but that doesn’t make the disappointment disappear. Loving your children doesn’t switch off the part of you that was looking forward to sitting outside with them.

I can be deeply grateful for the way he keeps showing up for us and still wish, with my whole heart, that showing up didn’t require setting aside another thing he was looking forward to. I want him to get to enjoy some of what he’s working so hard to build, preferably while seated, with nobody approaching him carrying something broken. We’re all so lucky to have him.

We’re also trying to navigate the public works department to establish whether our water is safe, what needs to happen next, and who would be responsible for any additional work. Having already spent a considerable amount on plumbing, I am hoping the answer doesn’t arrive with another bill attached. I appear to have enrolled in continuing education for homeowners, a program with no graduation date and unusually aggressive tuition.

Improvements are expensive, healthcare is expensive, and figuring out exactly what needs improving can become a project of its own. For now, we’re gathering information and making the next decision as carefully as we can, while occasionally remembering that we bought a home because we wanted to live in it. That’s what follows me into today’s news: the distance between an announcement and the person trying to understand what it means for their family. Lately, I seem to bring a mental kitchen table to everything I read, with room for the paperwork, the questions, and whoever needs to sit down for a minute.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced Tuesday that it is canceling approximately 315,000 Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollments covering more than 760,000 individuals, describing them as unauthorized and estimating roughly $2.2 billion in associated subsidies would be returned. The agency says its enforcement effort is intended to protect consumers and taxpayers from improper enrollment activity.

Reuters reported that the cancellations occurred in August and involved unresolved citizenship or immigration documentation and suspected improper enrollments. The agency’s concerns include brokers enrolling people without their consent, changing their coverage without permission, or submitting inaccurate information. Those actions can themselves create problems for consumers, including unexpected coverage changes, medical bills, and tax complications.

The distinction is important when reading that enormous number: an unauthorized enrollment doesn’t, by itself, establish that the person named on the policy committed fraud. Someone can be the subject of an improper application without having submitted it or even known about it, which makes it especially important to understand whose actions are being described.

CMS is also tightening broker oversight, including a temporary registration moratorium for agents and brokers without an active 2026 exchange agreement and additional identity and consumer-authorization requirements. An insurance-broker trade association told Reuters that a blanket moratorium could also affect legitimate professionals and urged more targeted enforcement. For the people attached to those records, the questions are much smaller and more immediate than a national dollar figure: How will I be notified? What if something is wrong? What happens to the coverage I thought I had? The announcement describes the enforcement effort, while the answers to those questions will help explain what it means in practice.

Another healthcare story brings us to the family calendar, where working hours and predictable hours aren’t always the same thing. With Medicaid work-reporting requirements scheduled to begin nationally by January 1, 2027, a study published August 28 in JAMA Health Forum examined working adults plausibly eligible for Medicaid expansion and potentially subject to those requirements. It estimated that 19.8 percent were at risk of noncompliance because their usual hours were near the threshold or their hours varied.

The study also found that the working adults in the relevant population averaged about 36 usual hours a week. That helps explain why knowing someone has a job doesn’t tell us everything about whether they can consistently satisfy a monthly reporting requirement. Exemptions and other qualifying activities also affect who must meet the rules.

As the requirements take effect, the details to watch include how changing schedules are recorded, how exemptions are identified, and how people learn what they need to submit. A rule can be described in a paragraph, but understanding how it operates means following it into an actual week, with its shifts, appointments, and responsibilities already penciled in.

In San Antonio, the paperwork concerns something people will be living beside. The Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen sued Vantage and VoltaGrid on Monday over the power plants supplying two data-center campuses, alleging that the developments used permits intended for smaller pollution sources when they required more stringent permits under the Clean Air Act. According to the plaintiffs, the larger-source process would require additional pollution controls, monitoring, and opportunities for public participation.

The groups say the projects include 405 megawatts of dedicated gas-fired generation, along with backup diesel generators, in an area already failing federal smog standards. They are seeking to stop construction and operation until the permitting requirements they contend are necessary have been met. The allegations remain to be decided in court. It’s one of those stories that brings an airy phrase like “the cloud” back down to earth, where computers need electricity and someone lives near the equipment producing it. The case concerns the permits, pollution controls, and public participation that the plaintiffs argue these particular projects require.

I’m following it with the particular attention that comes from waiting for environmental test results in your own home. Our circumstances are different, but the questions are familiar: what has been measured, what remains uncertain, and what information will help determine the next step? I’ve discovered that once you’re waiting for an answer about the place your children live, the word “pending” can occupy a surprising amount of your brain.

The last story takes us beyond this week’s paperwork and into the years our children have ahead of them. Research announced Monday by Vrije Universiteit Brussel projects that European children born in 2025 would experience 84 percent more extreme fire weather over their lifetimes than people born in 1950 under current climate policies. The researchers estimate that most of the increase comes from climate change, with a smaller share attributable to longer lifespans.

The study concerns European populations and measures exposure to the hot, dry, windy conditions that favor dangerous fires, rather than counting fires a particular child will experience. It also finds that limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would reduce the projected lifetime exposure of children born in 2025 by about 1.3 years on average across Europe, compared with the current-policy scenario. The projections change with the emissions pathway.

Ezra was born in 2025, so that date doesn’t sit on the page as just another number for me. I know how small a person born that year still is, and how much of his life remains ahead of him. The European estimates aren’t a forecast for my Oregon child, but they make the length of a child’s future easier to imagine. Right now, so much of our attention is on the floor beneath him, while the years in front of him stretch much farther than I can see.

For today, our own next steps are closer at hand: wait for the official results, compare the options, follow up about the water, and keep trying to make this home safe and beautiful for the people inside it. I still love the old oak, and I still want my husband to have his deck. I want him to have the ordinary pleasure of sitting outside with our children in a place he helped make, with something on the project list finally finished and nothing urgent asking for his attention.

I can’t put a date on that yet, any more than I can promise tomorrow morning will run on time, but the hope is still here. We’ll keep working toward it together, one answer and one repair at a time, until we get to sit down and enjoy a little more of the life we’re making. And if we lose eight minutes out there someday, I hope it’s because we’re too happy to notice.

Subscribe now

If this work helps you make sense of the news while holding on to the people and things worth caring for, please consider subscribing to Geddry’s Newsletter or restacking this piece for someone who might need it. There’s always room for another person at this kitchen table.

If you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family’s projects, plants, and everyday adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

Right now, those adventures include paying out of pocket to test the water the city supplies to our home, because apparently the water bill and the peace of mind are sold separately. After everything we’ve already spent on plumbing, we’re still working to get the answers we need to keep our children safe. Anything you leave here helps cover those costs and gives us a little breathing room while we figure out what comes next. Underneath the testing, the estimates, and my increasingly complicated relationship with the faucet is the same small dream: children growing up safely, plants taking root, and two parents getting to enjoy the home they’re working so hard to care for.

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

“The numbers are absolutely incredible.”

“No one thought that was possible.”

“More than ever before.”

“The biggest deal ever made.”

A year ago, Donald Trump stood at this podium and declared Iran solved. “With Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity demolished,” he told the General Assembly in September 2025, “I immediately brokered an end to the 12-day war, as it’s called, between Israel and Iran, with both sides agreeing to fight, fight no longer.” It was the fifth country on his list of seven wars ended in seven months — Israel and Iran, filed alongside Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, a closed case.

It did not stay closed. Within months, the United States was fighting a war of its own, Operation Epic Fury, authorized in February, which killed Iran’s Supreme Leader alongside a wide-ranging Israeli bombing campaign and opened a year of naval blockades, missile exchanges, and a Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to most tanker traffic. Seven months of it, ongoing as of this week.

Tuesday, at the same podium, Trump described the aftermath in similarly triumphant terms Iran’s navy “lying at the bottom of the sea,” its air force “gone,” its economy collapsed under inflation he put at “well over 300%.” What he did not do is call it settled. This year’s list of wars ended runs to eight rather than seven, but Israel and Iran is no longer on it. In its place is an open question, answered with a promise rather than a receipt: “Will a deal be made with Iran? ... I believe we will make a deal. Right after the election.”

That is the throughline for the whole speech, in miniature, before the rest of it even starts. Not a claim proven wrong and corrected — a claim that quietly stopped being made, replaced by a bigger one, pointed at a future date far enough off that it can’t yet be checked.

Associated Press describes the U.S.-Iran conflict as nearing its seventh month. Most of the Iranian delegation walked out during Trump’s remarks as he recounted the damage inflicted on their country.

One year ago: I ended the Israel-Iran war.

Yesterday: I believe we will make a deal.

Reality keeps forcing amendments to the press release.

This becomes even stranger at the peace scoreboard.

Last year, Trump said he’d ended seven wars and named them: Cambodia-Thailand, Kosovo-Serbia, Congo-Rwanda, Pakistan-India, Israel-Iran, Egypt-Ethiopia, Armenia-Azerbaijan.

Yesterday, the number rose to eight, but the list swapped in Gaza and quietly dropped both Israel-Iran and Egypt-Ethiopia. One of last year’s “ended” wars hadn’t just fallen off; it had taken over the opening third of this year’s speech as an active conflict awaiting a future settlement. Yet the total went up. The presidential peace scoreboard has a plus button but no subtraction key.

Ukraine got the same treatment. Last year, Trump expected it to be the easiest war to solve, given his relationship with Putin. Yesterday: “We will get that one done. I think it will happen more quickly than people understand.” The war remains underway. “Soon,” it seems, has excellent rollover benefits.

Then we arrived at another familiar number.

Last September Trump told the General Assembly that he had secured $17 trillion in new investment in only eight months, compared with less than $1 trillion during Joe Biden’s entire presidency.

Yesterday, $17 trillion became $21 trillion.

“We’ve secured commitments for $21 trillion in new investments from all over the planet,” Trump said, again comparing it with less than $1 trillion under Biden.

This is where the accounting gets creative.

Trump’s own White House currently claims more than $11 trillion, not $21 trillion. And even that $11 trillion includes years-long corporate announcements, speculative future projects and foreign commitments rather than $11 trillion that has actually arrived and been invested. FactCheck.org examined Trump’s $20 trillion version earlier this month and found that his number was nearly double his own administration’s already expansive tally.

Actual Bureau of Economic Analysis data show foreign investors spent $232.2 billion acquiring, establishing or expanding American businesses during 2025. Including planned future spending associated with those projects brings the figure to $284.5 billion.

The real trick, however, is not merely that Trump’s number is too large. It is that Biden and Trump are being measured with two different rulers.

The “less than $1 trillion” figure for Biden roughly corresponds to a narrow measure of actual foreign-direct-investment expenditures. Trump’s total sweeps together announced corporate spending, long-term investment plans, foreign pledges and assorted commercial agreements.

Biden gets audited on cash through the door, while Trump gets to include the Christmas wish list.

Both numbers are expressed in dollars, which gives the comparison the reassuring appearance of arithmetic. But comparing realized investment with announcements and multiyear commitments is roughly like comparing what you spent on groceries last year with everything you have ever added to an Amazon cart.

And the number keeps improving with age.

Seventeen trillion last September. Twenty trillion earlier this month. Twenty-one trillion yesterday.

The investment boom may or may not be historic, but the investment number is certainly enjoying robust growth.

There were, however, some statistics in yesterday’s speech that deserve to be treated seriously because the underlying news really is good.

Trump said median household income had risen to roughly $87,000. Census puts real median household income for 2025 at $87,460, the highest recorded in the series dating to 1967. The official poverty rate fell to 10.2 percent, and Hispanic poverty reached a record low of 13.9 percent.

Violent crime also fell sharply in 2025. The FBI reported the largest one-year decline in violent crime and murder rates since it began publishing nationwide estimates in 1936. The reasons for that decline are more complicated than a presidential victory lap, crime had already been declining for several years, and criminologists caution against assigning it to one administration or policy, but the decline itself is real and significant.

Facts do not become less factual merely because Trump says them, but it also illustrates the larger problem with his rhetoric.

$87,460 is information.

“THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN HISTORY,” is decoration.

A 9.7 percent decline in violent crime is information.

“No one has ever seen anything like it,” is mood lighting.

Trump’s speeches are so saturated with “greatest,” “biggest,” “most powerful,” “never before,” “nobody thought possible” and “the numbers are incredible” that useful information and promotional lacquer arrive in the same bucket. Eventually, you find yourself scraping adjectives away with a putty knife just to see whether there is a statistic underneath.

Which brings us to what Trump did not say yesterday.

Last year, “inflation has been defeated.”

Yesterday, that victory announcement disappeared.

Last year, gasoline prices were down. Later in the same speech Trump went further: “We’re going to be much lower in a year from now.”

One year later, the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows consumer prices up 3.4 percent from a year earlier, energy prices up 16.3 percent and gasoline up 27.4 percent. Last week the Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a quarter point and said, with the sort of restrained central-bank prose that leaves very little room for “Golden Age” merchandise, “Inflation remains elevated.”

Trump talked extensively about Iran today, and predicted oil prices would come “plummeting down” once the conflict resolves.

What he didn’t say: that inflation had been defeated. That American gasoline was down. That last September, he’d predicted it would be “much lower” by now.

The boast simply missed the flight to New York.

Last year’s poll-numbers boast, inserted after he praised his border and economic record, also went missing, with no acknowledgment or replacement.

The Gulf relationship got a similar downsizing. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE were “closer than ever before” in 2025. This year, Trump arrived amid a regional war that’s disrupted oil shipments, strained those same economies, and forced their governments into urgent talks about getting out of the crisis he helped create. “Closer than ever” stayed home with “inflation has been defeated.”

There was still plenty to fill the vacuum: Maduro’s capture, the cartels, Cuba, Greenland, the International Criminal Court, immigration, transgender policy. And then, because artificial intelligence was apparently suffering from a branding problem, the president informed the assembled heads of government that it shall henceforth be known as Super Intelligence. “SI.” “Sounds much better,” he explained, before adding: “Let’s see if I have any power. Maybe I do. And maybe I don’t.”

And before a room filled with heads of state gathered to discuss war, peace and nuclear weapons, Trump returned to one of his favorite domestic culture-war formulations, denouncing what he repeatedly calls the “transgender mutilization of our children.”

The address sometimes sounded less like a diplomatic program than an annual reunion tour. Associated Press described it as heavily focused on domestic accomplishments, immigration, military strength and familiar political themes even as world leaders gathered amid wars in Iran and Ukraine, economic uncertainty and anxiety over AI.

One more omission worth noting: last year, Trump closed by calling on nations to “defend free speech and free expression.” That line didn’t return, not incidentally, coming days after he barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over coverage he calls unfair, and after Mayor Mamdani made a point of welcoming all press to Gracie Mansion’s lawn in pointed contrast. No correction needed. It simply wasn’t on this year’s playlist.

That’s the most useful way to read the whole speech: not as forty minutes of claims requiring individual adjudication, but as a document meant to sit beside its predecessor. Investment figures grow. Settled wars change status without ever being wrong. Promises reset their own clocks. And the boasts that didn’t survive a year of reality, inflation defeated, gasoline coming down, the highest poll numbers ever, “closer than ever” with the Gulf, free speech itself, don’t get corrected. They just stop coming up.

Trumperbole is built for the moment; it only has to survive the sentence it’s in. Reality has a longer memory. Fortunately, so does the transcript, including last year’s, which supplied what might be the perfect epigraph for this whole exercise: “I’ve been right about everything.”

One year later, we have the receipts.

Subscribe now

Share

This afternoon, I’m taking my daughter to the clinic to get her tested for lead exposure, and my husband and I both have appointments with our provider to get our own testing arranged. We are making progress, although I would have preferred a family activity that involved fewer bodily fluids and perhaps a commemorative photograph. Next on my list is Odin, because our golden doodle is also a member of this family, despite contributing absolutely nothing toward the mortgage and having no apparent plans to seek employment.

Ezra remains happy and full of love, carrying on with the very important business of being our baby boy while the adults attempt to identify every possible source of trouble around him. His happiness is a comfort, even while we wait for answers, and I’m trying to let myself enjoy it without making every sweet moment report for duty in the worry department.

The public-health program manager came by today and collected samples from our hardwood floors. He explained that the old finish could contain lead and considered it a possible contributor worth investigating, which was a development I had somehow failed to anticipate when admiring the character of our 1952 house. Apparently, “original charm” may come with additional paperwork. We don’t have those results yet, so the floors remain under investigation, and I will resist issuing a conviction against the entire living room. If the samples come back positive, we’ll need help figuring out what needs to happen to make them safe, alongside the water concerns we’re already working through.

Now, I did want to give these floors some love, because they need it, but I had pictured doing that in the imaginary future when we had finished several other projects and my bank account had developed a second source of income without involving me. There is a considerable difference between choosing a renovation and having the renovation arrive at your door carrying a deadline. And if the floors need work now, the money for my husband’s deck will have to go toward that instead. Of course our baby comes first, and I know he would put every penny toward keeping him safe, but knowing what we need to do doesn’t make it painless. My husband does an amazing job of pretending he isn’t sad, but I could still see the heartbreak in his face.

He’s been dreaming about that deck since he was a little boy sitting on one with his grandpa. There are years of love wrapped up in that dream, and I think about what it would mean for him to sit on his own deck someday, with our children beside him, carrying a little of that happiness forward. I’d been worrying about lumber and costs and how we would build it, and then I looked at his face and remembered just how much we were hoping to build.

I hate the thought of that dream being swallowed by another thing we have to fix. He can love our baby enough to give it up without hesitation and still be heartbroken, and I love him too much to pretend I don’t notice just because he’s trying so hard to make it easier. I want our children safe, and I want him to have that place to sit with them, and it hurts that right now I don’t know how to give our family both.

Underneath the jokes, of course, I’m scared, and tired of discovering another thing to worry about in a place we love so much. I want to make this home beautiful, but more than that, I want my children to be safe in it, without having to wonder about the water or the floor beneath their feet. There is a particular helplessness in looking at your baby, who trusts you with his whole little existence, and knowing that loving him this much still doesn’t make the answers arrive any faster.

We will find solutions, even if I don’t yet know exactly what those solutions look like or how we’ll pay for them. He is our baby boy, and the whole family, including the large unemployed dog, deserves a safe home, so we will keep asking questions and taking the next step. The gentleman from public health seemed to genuinely care, and I don’t want that small, ordinary goodness to disappear underneath everything else. He took the possibility seriously and collected samples so we could learn more. In the middle of a frightening situation, having someone show up whose job is to help, and who actually wants to do that job, means a great deal.

That seems like a reasonable standard to carry with us into the news: when something may be wrong, investigate it, tell people what you know, and help them work out what comes next. Which brings me, naturally, to today’s news. According to the Associated Press, CNN, MS NOW and Politico have sued the Trump administration after their journalists were barred from the White House and had their credentials revoked. The outlets allege that the administration is retaliating against coverage it dislikes and violating their First Amendment rights. Trump has defended the restrictions as an attack on “fake news,” while professing support for a free press.

I suppose every inspection would be more pleasant if the person being inspected could dismiss anyone who looked behind the refrigerator. We could’ve saved ourselves a great deal of trouble today by informing the public-health department that our floors were tremendous, possibly the finest floors anyone had ever seen, and that further sampling would be regarded as a hostile act against the household. Unfortunately, that would leave us with exactly the same possible problem and considerably less useful information.

There has been a response beyond the courthouse. People reports that the major networks in the White House television pool, including Fox News, ABC, CBS and NBC, joined CNN in halting their shared pool coverage after CNN was prevented from carrying out its assignment. That arrangement supplies footage to other news organizations, so disrupting it affects the information available well beyond the journalists standing at the gate. The public has an interest in reporters being able to ask questions that a president would rather avoid, just as we have an interest in inspectors being able to identify problems that a homeowner would rather not pay for. Access to the truth becomes especially valuable at the exact moment somebody powerful finds it inconvenient.

For those following Jimmy Kimmel, the current update is less dramatic than some of the speculation: ABC rejected a report earlier this month that his show would end in 2027, and TheWrap has reported negotiations about its future beyond his existing contract. His September 2025 suspension ended that month, and ABC has episodes scheduled this week. The dates matter, even when the national atmosphere makes every week feel like a rerun with a larger legal department.

Meanwhile, the proposed triumphal arch has apparently developed defense requirements. According to reporting from the Associated Press and the Financial Times, Trump said Sunday that the planned 250-foot arch near Arlington National Cemetery would house drones, snipers and ammunition, citing a request from the military. The Pentagon told AP it had no information beyond his statement. A lawsuit challenges proceeding without congressional authorization, and final planning approval remains pending.

I understand how projects expand, because I live in a house where fixing one thing regularly introduces us to three other things with financial expectations. Even so, I’ve never gone shopping for a decorative feature and come home needing an ammunition inventory. There should be a point in every design meeting when somebody is permitted to ask whether the throw pillows really require air support. The president’s statement establishes what he says he wants; it does not, by itself, establish that the military needs it. That distinction deserves to survive the rendering of an enormous arch, however tastefully the drones are arranged.

The same respect for evidence would be useful in the discussion of childhood vaccines, which is not an area where I particularly want anyone improvising. KFF Health News reports that Trump said Friday he would demand that drug companies divide vaccines into five doses at six-month intervals, claiming this would reduce autism, without making clear which immunizations he meant. On Sunday, Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said the FDA nominee needed to reject Trump’s claim that the measles vaccine is lethal. The World Health Organization’s review of the evidence reaffirms that vaccines do not cause autism.

As a mother currently arranging testing for her family, I would appreciate a government that made reliable health information easier to obtain. I already have appointments to coordinate, questions to ask and a dog who can’t provide his own medical history. I shouldn’t also need to determine whether the latest presidential health announcement has survived contact with a qualified scientist. The public-health visit today helped because someone took a concern seriously enough to investigate it. That’s a process I can understand and participate in, even when the possible answers frighten me. Confidence delivered from a podium is much less useful when nobody can explain what evidence it rests on.

And while we are discussing inspections, the planet has received another report that should probably move a few items up the maintenance list. The latest Planetary Health Check finds that seven of nine planetary boundaries are already exceeded and that pressure across those seven continues to worsen, according to the Stockholm Resilience Centre. These boundaries describe interconnected systems that help keep Earth stable, including climate, biodiversity, freshwater and ocean chemistry. The researchers warn of growing risks of persistent, potentially irreversible change, while emphasizing that we still have the capacity to change course.

This is the part of homeownership where the person inspecting the property stops discussing your preferred paint color and asks whether you have understood the condition of the foundation. Unfortunately, the property in question contains everybody, and there is no available rental where we can stay while someone sorts it out. I don’t need every public official to make me feel comfortable, and today’s visit certainly did not leave me feeling that our renovation budget was about to enjoy a peaceful autumn. What mattered was that someone cared enough to help us find out what we were dealing with.

That is what I want for my family, and it’s a fair thing to expect for everyone else’s family, too: people who take the problem seriously, respect the evidence and stay interested after the photograph has been taken. I can joke about the floors because otherwise I might sit down on them and cry, although I would now prefer to wait for the laboratory results before choosing a location. Underneath all of it is the same simple determination that keeps us making appointments, asking questions and working out the next repair.

We love the people who live here, and their safety matters more than our pride in the house. I would like the people running the country to demonstrate the same attachment to its inhabitants, even if that means delaying the ceremonial sniper balcony.

Subscribe now

If this work helps you make sense of the news while holding on to the people and things worth caring for, please consider subscribing to Geddry’s Newsletter or restacking this piece for someone who might need it.

If you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family’s projects, plants, and everyday adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

Right now, those adventures involve lead testing, hardwood floors awaiting a verdict, and a repair budget threatening to swallow the deck my husband has dreamed of since he was a little boy sitting beside his grandpa. We’ll do whatever we need to keep our children safe, and I’m still hoping we can find a way to keep that dream alive, too. Anything you leave here helps us care for this home and the people growing up inside it, while we work toward the day he can sit on that deck with our children beside him, making the kind of memories that stayed with him all these years.

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

His public schedule contained exactly one substantive entry: “Executive Time,” Camp David, closed press. He was supposed to remain there until Sunday but returned to Washington Saturday evening, a day early. The White House has not publicly explained why. We do know that golfers Bryson DeChambeau and Gary Player were among the people who spent time with him there, because photographs are wonderfully indiscreet things. What we still do not have is a public list of the officials who participated in whatever national-security discussions took place behind those gates.

CNN national-security analyst Alex Plitsas said he was told the Camp David meeting had been convened to “deliberate and review Yemen strike options.” The White House has not confirmed that account, so it should remain attributed to Plitsas rather than engraved onto one of Washington’s increasingly plentiful slabs of granite. But it fits what was happening elsewhere in the government. The New York Times now reports that the United States came extraordinarily close to launching another bombing campaign against Yemen’s Houthis this weekend.

According to the Times, Trump met with advisers Wednesday and told them he did not favor striking the Houthis. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman called him Thursday and again pressed for American military help. After that conversation, Trump reversed course and instructed the Pentagon to prepare airstrikes. By Sunday he had reversed course again and decided against them, at least for now. Commanders literally had approved target lists, American personnel were loading bombs onto the warplanes selected for the operation, and the first wave of attacks was reportedly close to beginning when Trump flipped again.

Changing one’s mind about military action is not inherently evidence of poor judgment; there are occasions when the wisest presidential decision is the one not made simply because preparations have reached the point where everyone else is expecting it. Presidents are supposed to keep asking questions until the moment there are no more questions available to ask.

When the sequence is no, yes, load the bombs, no, knowing something about the deliberative process becomes important.

Who was in the room? What changed Trump’s mind after the Saudi call? What was presented at Camp David? What did military commanders say about the risk of Houthi retaliation against American forces? What was the assessment of American interceptor inventories after seven months of war with Iran? What did CENTCOM say about the possibility of simultaneously defending American bases, keeping Hormuz functioning and reopening a fight around Bab el-Mandeb?

We don’t know, but we know who the golfers were. Quite an information hierarchy for the history books: Marine One foursome, available. War council, please check back later.

The problem facing the administration is genuinely difficult. Saudi Arabia is being attacked by the Houthis and has repeatedly sought American military assistance. The United States, meanwhile, has a separate understanding with the Houthis under which they have agreed not to attack American vessels so long as Washington does not resume bombing them. A senior Houthi official reaffirmed that arrangement to the Associated Press this weekend while simultaneously warning other countries against joining Saudi Arabia’s fight.

So attack the Houthis and Washington risks blowing up the separate ceasefire that currently keeps American ships out of their crosshairs. Don’t attack them and the United States risks further alienating Saudi Arabia precisely when American operations against Iran depend upon Saudi bases, Saudi airspace and Saudi cooperation.

And this isn’t merely the Middle East supplying another ancient riddle for Washington to solve. Several pieces of this particular puzzle were laid down by the administration itself. Trump backed the Saudi strike that helped reignite the Houthi confrontation. His administration separately negotiated a ceasefire protecting American vessels from Houthi attack. His war with Iran has strained the very interceptor stocks Saudi Arabia now needs. And Riyadh has already demonstrated that when it dislikes Washington’s Iran strategy, it can simply close the door on American bases and airspace.

Which leaves the president with a wonderfully inconvenient piece of policy origami: protect the Saudi ally and endanger the American ceasefire; protect the American ceasefire and aggravate the Saudi ally whose cooperation you need for the Iran war.

There is just something uniquely Trumpian about this quagmire.

Former CIA officer Marc Polymeropoulos, discussing the situation with Sam Stein over the weekend, took a strong position that failing to assist Saudi Arabia risks telling Gulf allies that American security assurances cannot be relied upon. Stein then asked the question on the other side: what are the cascading consequences if Washington does intervene when American munitions are already strained and another major energy chokepoint could be dragged into the war?

Current and former American diplomats and commanders interviewed by the Times questioned whether another limited bombing campaign would accomplish much, anyway. The United States bombed Houthi targets for more than 50 days last year and struck more than 1,000 targets. The Houthis survived it, kept firing and have since rebuilt much of their capability. The same officials warned that renewed fighting could threaten Bab el-Mandeb while Hormuz remains unstable. This is the discussion we should be having because there is no tidy option here.

Iran, meanwhile, is issuing its own warnings. An Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps spokesman says another American attack would produce changes in the “geography” of the war, different weapons and targets Iran has not previously struck. Iranian legislators have also submitted legislation seeking withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Those are Iranian threats and political moves, but, they are nevertheless part of the threat environment American planners have to consider.

This is where my concern stops being theoretical. The Americans who will pay first for a miscalculation are not sitting at Camp David. They’re sitting at Prince Sultan Air Base. Camp Buehring. Camp Arifjan. Naval Support Activity Bahrain. Al Udeid. And the other American installations scattered across a region in which Iran has already demonstrated that those bases are not invulnerable.

The Pentagon inspector general released the first comprehensive official accounting of Operation Epic Fury last week. Iranian attacks damaged or destroyed hundreds of buildings and other structures at American bases in eight countries. The report documents major equipment losses and what the inspector general calls strategic munitions shortfalls and defense-industrial bottlenecks. AP reports that as many as 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones were lost, seven KC-135 tankers were damaged or destroyed and 18 American service members died during the period examined, 11 of them killed in action, the rest in incidents the report classifies as non-hostile, including a KC-135 collision that killed six and a helicopter crash into the Arabian Sea.

Then CBS News obtained photographs from service members showing what some of that damage actually looks like: wrecked buildings, vehicles and equipment at American positions in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, including damage at Prince Sultan Air Base and Camps Buehring and Arifjan. One service member told CBS, “We’re not defending these bases. We’re just watching them get destroyed.”

The Pentagon has disputed broader suggestions that American forces lack the weapons necessary to conduct their missions, and military defenses have successfully intercepted enormous numbers of Iranian missiles and drones.

There is no longer much room to pretend the force-protection question is hypothetical. Hundreds of structures have been hit. Aircraft have been destroyed. Americans have been killed. Strategic munitions inventories are under strain.

When Washington considers adding another enemy to the list of forces capable of shooting back at Americans, the question “How well are our troops protected?” ought to be somewhere very near the top of the briefing book.

This is where I am going to wander farther into territory I ordinarily avoid for the excellent reason that my medical training consists largely of knowing where I keep the ibuprofen.

But actual physicians and mental-health professionals have been arguing for years that Trump’s publicly observable behavior raises concerns serious enough that they believe silence would be irresponsible. Psychiatrist Bandy Lee has been among the most persistent. She argues that determining whether someone meets a particular psychiatric diagnosis is different from assessing whether observable behavior presents a potential danger, and that in extreme circumstances professionals can have a duty to warn.

Lee goes considerably further and describes what she considers a “presidential psychiatric emergency” and believes Trump is dangerously impaired. Those are her professional conclusions. Absent Trump’s full medical records, something the White House has refused to provide members of Congress, we cannot confirm her conclusions, nor can I write that Trump has dementia.

It does leave us with something I think journalism is obligated to examine: what happens when serious questions about presidential decision-making are being raised at precisely the moment that presidential decisions can put thousands of Americans in immediate danger?

Consider only what is publicly observable. While Washington was deciding whether to add Yemen to the weekend’s military itinerary, Trump announced that his planned 250-foot triumphal arch, barely a mile from the Pentagon, is being upgraded from monument to heavily armed Fort Versailles.

At the “strong request” of the United States military, he says, the arch will become a “top grade Military Complex,” complete with large numbers of drones, snipers stationed on the roof and plaza, and enough sniper ammunition to ensure the gift shop never gets lonely. The Pentagon, asked by the Associated Press to explain this newly discovered defense requirement, had no information to offer beyond Trump’s post.

Perhaps the threat assessment is still coming. Maybe NORAD has identified an urgent strategic gap and generations of Pentagon planners somehow overlooked the tactical possibilities of ornamental neoclassicism with overwatch.

For now, Trump’s explanation begins and ends with the hardware: drones, snipers, ammunition. Missing are such fussy military details as what the threat is, what mission this solves, how it plugs into Washington’s existing layered defenses, and precisely how fleets of drones are supposed to operate beside some of the most restricted and congested airspace in America.

Not a diagnosis, simply another piece of observable presidential reasoning available for the public record.

So are Trump’s words about Iran. On Sunday, while discussing his choices in the war, Trump publicly framed one of the possibilities as the question, “When do I blow the entire nation up?” He also mentioned economic pressure and negotiating an agreement, and he has indicated that he remains open to diplomacy with Tehran. The larger context therefore matters; this was not an announcement that he had ordered Iran destroyed. But presidents know, or should know, that their words are listened to by adversaries, allies and American troops who may be the first targets of retaliation.

That brings me back to Camp David.

We don’t need to know what was happening in Trump’s brain Saturday afternoon, or if he was on some sort of Lazarus drip; just what was happening in the room.

The War Powers Resolution says the president shall consult Congress “in every possible instance” before introducing American forces into hostilities or circumstances in which imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated, and it requires continuing consultation thereafter. Congressional Research Service describes the statute as a structure intended to ensure that the judgment of both elected branches participates in decisions about armed conflict.

A Congress exercising that oversight can demand the basic facts surrounding decisions that put American forces at risk: who attended the Camp David meeting, which military options and intelligence were presented, how CENTCOM assessed the danger of renewed Houthi attacks, whether commanders believe existing bases and missile defenses are adequately protected, what alternatives to direct strikes were considered, and under what legal authority the operation would proceed.

Congress can ask what changed between Wednesday’s no, Thursday’s yes and Sunday’s no and when lawmakers were brought into that process. It is called oversight.

American troops deserve for them to be asked somewhere other than after-action reports.

One of the most troubling things in the material we’ve been reading over the past several days is how many enormous decisions are converging at once.

Iran. Hormuz. Saudi Arabia. The Houthis. Bab el-Mandeb. Depleted interceptors. Damaged bases. Global fuel supplies. Russia and Ukraine. A president considering whether to expand one war while trying to end another and simultaneously talking about blowing up an entire country.

That would be a formidable decision-making environment for any president.

Which is why this should be an essay about whether the institutions surrounding any president are doing enough to verify, challenge and oversee decisions whose consequences are measured in American lives.

Bandy Lee and dozens of her colleagues believes there is a medical emergency. This layperson tends to agree.

The Pentagon inspector general, meanwhile, says Iranian missiles and drones have already damaged or destroyed hundreds of structures at American bases. An American service member tells CBS that troops at his installation feel as though they are watching the bases be destroyed. Saudi Arabia is asking Washington to enter another fight. The Houthis are promising not to attack Americans unless Americans attack them. And, according to the Times, we came close enough this weekend that bombs were being loaded onto aircraft before the decision changed.

Whatever anyone thinks about how this war began or how it should end, one fact ought to cut through the noise: Americans in uniform are already bearing its consequences. They are flying the missions, standing the watches, sleeping within range of missiles and drones, and living with decisions made thousands of miles away.

Congress has a role here that cannot be performed by press release, television hit or campaign speech. The Constitution gave it powers over war precisely so that sending Americans into danger would not become the decision of one person operating without sustained public accountability.

Call Congress today and demand they fulfill their responsibilities to our troops and the country.

Men and women wearing the uniform are fighting for us, we damn well better fight for them.

Share

Subscribe now

A few weeks ago, our main waterline broke, and we spent a tremendous amount of money replacing the entire house’s pipes with PEX. There was digging, there was frustration, and there was the newly familiar experience of owning a home that occasionally presents you with an invoice for continuing to exist. My husband worked his tush off, my brother came to help, and our front yard briefly became an excavation site for money we had previously imagined spending on other things.

Subscribe now

At the time, I was grateful for the people helping us and considerably less grateful for the plumbing. I understood that owning the ground being torn apart was a privilege, especially after everything we had been through to keep it, but I would also have appreciated the privilege of leaving it alone. Then Ezra tested positive for lead exposure, and suddenly those new pipes meant something different.

His blood lead level was slightly elevated, and we’re working with his pediatrician on follow-up and with public health and the city to investigate the water. The old pipes were still here because hauling them away was on the list, and our list has become less of an organizational tool and more of a historical record of our intentions. My husband and I tested them, and the tests indicated lead. A test of water coming from the main raised concerns, too, so we’re still working to establish the source and find a solution.

In the meantime, we’re drinking, cooking, and brushing our teeth with water purchased by the gallon. Our kitchen has acquired a small municipal supply department, and apparently I am its director, purchasing agent, and most vocal dissatisfied customer.

I’m hopeful that Ezra is going to be okay, and we’re following through with his care, but there is something terribly unsettling about discovering that an ordinary act of caring for your children might have exposed them to something harmful. You turn on the faucet because someone is thirsty, because dinner needs to be made, because there are little teeth to brush before bed. You’re doing the things love asks you to do, and you want so badly for those things to be enough.

I wish he’d never been exposed. I wish we’d found out another way. But I also keep looking at him and thinking that, without his test, we might never have known to ask these questions, and our family could have continued using the water without realizing there was a reason to investigate it. To explain why that thought reaches so deeply into me, I have to go back to my grandfather.

When he died in February of 2024, my husband and I were struggling financially, and I couldn’t see how our lives were going to get easier. Grandpa was grouchy, sarcastic, well-read, and deeply loved. During his last weeks, Mom would call me to help get him back into bed, and I would stay beside him afterward. I sometimes wondered whether he was finding ways to get a few more minutes with me.

When Mom called that morning to say she thought he had passed, I hurried over. Sitting beside him, I felt an inexplicable certainty that another child would somehow help save us. My husband and I couldn’t make sense of it, and eventually put the thought aside.

Nearly a year later, despite birth control, I was pregnant. We spent months considering names before choosing Ezra, meaning helper. His arrival led me to work with Mom and helped set in motion the fundraiser that saved our home. Writing became my work, and a future I couldn’t see began taking shape.

I still don’t have an explanation that would satisfy someone asking me to show my work, and I’m generally a person who appreciates being able to show my work. All I know is that I sat beside someone I loved at the end of his life and felt, for a moment, that there was something waiting for us beyond everything I was afraid of.

Now that something is a little boy, my sweet mister boy, generally delighted to be alive unless the people responsible for snacks and affection have failed to interpret his instructions promptly enough. He has no idea how much of our world changed around his arrival, how many possibilities came back into view, or how often his mother looks at him and thinks about her grandfather. And now, because of him, we know to investigate the water.

I can’t call his exposure a gift, because I would take it away from him in a heartbeat. But I can be grateful that we know, grateful that we can act, and grateful that the pipes inside our house had already been replaced before we understood what else might be wrong. I can look back at that expensive, exhausting trench and see more than I could while we were standing beside it.

It makes me wonder how much of our lives we are only able to understand later, after the dirt has settled and something we thought was merely another hardship becomes part of the reason we made it through.

I have been thinking about that while reading about a place in Salinas, California, where people have spent years working toward something they can now finally walk through.

According to Big Sur Land Trust, more than 7,000 residents participated in planning, advocacy, and other work behind Ensen Community Park. Its 67-acre restoration area is scheduled to open today, September 20, with wetlands, grasslands, more than 12,000 native plants and trees, and 1.7 miles of trails. The project brings nature closer to neighborhoods that have historically had limited access to green space, and the landscape will continue to need care as it matures. Already, 68 bird species have been documented there, along with frogs, toads, and a family of gray foxes, who apparently reviewed the development and found the accommodations acceptable.

I keep imagining what it would feel like to have helped make that place possible and then see a bird using it as though it had always been there. You might remember the meetings, the uncertainty, the long stretch when there was still more to do than there was to admire, but the bird has found what it needs and is getting on with being a bird. There’s something wonderful about that, about a human decision becoming another creature’s ordinary life.

And someday a child may walk those trails with someone they love and carry that afternoon with them for decades. They may remember the water, a fox disappearing into the plants, or a parent stopping to help them see something they would otherwise have missed. They won’t need to know who attended which meeting or how long the work took, because the gift will already be there, waiting for them to live inside it.

I know what it is to have a place you love depend on other people caring about its future. I know how different the ground feels beneath your feet when you can finally stop wondering whether you will have to leave it. So when I read about thousands of people helping bring a landscape back, I think about all the lives that will unfold there, all the small happiness that has been given somewhere to happen.

Meanwhile, in Somerset, England, volunteers are learning to use scythes to help protect the rare shrill carder bee, which is the kind of news that makes me feel humanity may still be qualified to supervise itself. English Heritage is training people at Muchelney Abbey to care for its meadows using the traditional tools. The Times reports that the slower cutting gives wildlife more opportunity to escape than mechanical mowing, allowing people to manage the grass with greater care for the creatures living in it.

Somewhere, the local hobbits have formed a conservation committee, and I am relieved that somebody sensible has taken charge. My husband will also be relieved to know that I have managed to read this story without ordering a scythe, although I can’t make any promises about my future development. I love that someone decided this bee was worth learning something for. That its continued existence deserved time out of a human day, a change in habit, and the willingness to be a beginner at something because another life might benefit.

The volunteers may never see every bee their work helps, just as the people who helped create the park will never meet every child who loves it. There’s no way to stand at the beginning of an act of care and see everything that might come after it, which seems like a very good reason to be generous with the care we offer.

My grandfather couldn’t have known the little boy I would eventually hold, and the people who helped our family keep our home couldn’t have known every ordinary happiness their kindness would make possible. They helped us have somewhere to go on living, and living, as it turns out, keeps producing things worth being here for.

There are gardens to plant, anniversaries to reach, children to watch becoming themselves, and mornings when a baby calls for you as though your arrival is the only remaining requirement for a satisfactory universe. There are also broken pipes, frightening phone calls, and days when you need someone else to help you remember that the whole story hasn’t happened yet.

This week, we’re still finding answers. I would love to be able to tell you that everything is resolved, but for now there is another gallon of water to buy, another question to ask, and a little boy who deserves to get on with the important business of growing up while we handle the rest.

He has already helped us find our way toward so much. I want him to have years in which he gets to be the one receiving the gifts, discovering a beautiful place someone restored before he could walk, hearing stories about the people who loved him before they met him, and learning how much goodness was here waiting for him all along.

I still think about my grandfather and that strange moment when, in the middle of losing him, I felt certain that our family had a future I couldn’t yet imagine. Today I can hold a piece of that future in my arms, and he is warm, loud, hungry, happy, and completely unaware that his mother occasionally finds his existence almost too beautiful to bear.

We have more work to do, and I’m sure I will complain about some of it, but I am so grateful that we get to be here doing it. Somewhere in California, foxes have found a home in a place people brought back to life, somewhere in England, people are learning to leave a meadow kinder than they found it, and here in Oregon, we are taking care of the little boy who helped us believe in tomorrow before we knew what tomorrow could hold.

Subscribe now

If you’d like to leave a little extra love for our family’s projects, plants, and everyday adventures, you can chip in here.

Support our Adventures

Right now, those adventures involve new pipes, lead testing, and enough bottled water to suggest we’re preparing to cross a desert, but underneath it all is the life we fought so hard to keep: children growing, dreams taking root, and two parents trying to make this little piece of the world safe and beautiful for them.

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

Nevertheless, these countermeasures are being launched as midterm voting begins.

It is Sunday, September 20, and we appear to have reached the phase of the midterm campaign in which foreign policy increasingly comes with production design, and the White House has a Greenland deal to sell.

President Donald Trump announced Friday that the United States has obtained what he calls “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the emerging agreement “historic” and said it “permanently and completely” addresses American national-security concerns. Former administration official Katie Miller, wife of Stephen Miller, dispensed with the diplomatic nuance altogether, posting an image of Greenland covered by the American flag beneath the words “ITS HAPPENING.”

Trump has gone even further, describing what he calls an “Infinite Life” agreement: a deal with no end, forever and ever, amen.

Assuming everything proceeds as planned, they will sign the agreement next week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Back in June, there was Versailles. The United States and Iran had reached what was actually an interim memorandum intended to begin a longer negotiating process. But there was Donald Trump, seated amid the gilding and chandeliers of the Palace of Versailles, unexpectedly signing the thing in a room that had spent several centuries accumulating historical gravitas so politicians could eventually borrow it by the hour.

The setting said peace treaty.

The document said keep negotiating.

The cameras got Versailles.

Reality got the fine print.

Now the chandeliers have been replaced by rows of national flags and the United Nations seal, but the production technique is awfully familiar: choose a venue so freighted with diplomatic legitimacy that some of its importance rubs off on whatever piece of paper happens to be on the table.

Versailles supplied borrowed history.

The UN supplies borrowed legitimacy.

And neither tells us what is actually in the agreement.

Denmark, Greenland and the United States have spent months negotiating an updated Arctic-security framework. The deal reportedly excludes non-NATO countries from establishing military bases in Greenland, restricts potentially threatening investments, provides for an expanded American military presence and is intended to remain in force even if Greenland eventually becomes independent.

That last provision is probably the strongest argument that Trump’s defenders can make that this is more than reheated leftovers from 1951.

The United States already possessed remarkably broad military rights in Greenland under the Defense of Greenland Agreement signed 75 years ago. American forces once operated numerous installations there, and the United States still runs Pituffik Space Base for missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance. The old agreement was hardly some month-to-month sublease awaiting a Trumpian master negotiator to secure a better landlord. State Department historical records say it remained in effect for the duration of the North Atlantic Pact, an alliance conceived as being of indefinite duration.

But if Greenland someday chooses independence from Denmark, the new agreement reportedly follows Greenland into independence rather than leaving the security relationship dependent upon Copenhagen.

Meaningful, yes, but “meaningful” appears to lack sufficient tensile strength for the current White House. Therefore, meaningful morphs into permanent control. Expanded military rights become “Infinite Life.” A prohibition on hostile foreign bases becomes something approaching American dominion.

And an agreement that Denmark says explicitly recognizes its sovereignty and territorial integrity and Greenlanders’ right to self-determination becomes a Stars-and-Stripes graphic declaring ITS HAPPENING. Denmark says the deal still requires parliamentary action before it can take effect.

A perfectly respectable security agreement lies trapped somewhere inside all that chest-thumping, waving a tiny flag and asking someone to let it out.

The Washington Post reports, citing people familiar with the negotiations, that the agreement was deliberately structured so Trump could declare victory while Denmark and Greenland preserved their sovereignty red lines. Those people also said the agreement does not give Washington the veto over Greenlandic decisions that Trump’s rhetoric might suggest.

A Danish parliamentarian with knowledge of the negotiations made the same basic point from the other direction on France 24. Asked whether the agreement substantially expanded the military rights Washington had possessed since the 1950s, Lars-Christian Brask initially answered, “Short answer is no,” before explaining that modern missile-defense technology requires an updated arrangement and that a larger American presence is expected.

Later, describing the negotiations themselves, Brask said the questions of possession, ownership and control had essentially been set aside so negotiators could focus on what the whole Greenland saga was actually about: security in Greenland and the Arctic.

Trump spent more than a year insisting sovereignty was the problem, yet negotiators appear to have solved the security problem without changing the sovereignty.

There is still no logical answer to why an allied security problem that Denmark and Greenland were already prepared to negotiate had to pass through months of threats to take the territory, NATO contingency planning and Greenlanders wondering whether soldiers from an allied country might someday arrive to occupy them before everybody eventually returned to negotiating Arctic security.

AP notes that Denmark had repeatedly made clear it was willing to expand the American military presence and strengthen U.S. commercial interests even while refusing to discuss sovereignty. For some reason, we took the scenic route.

AP further observes that the announcement gives Trump a foreign-policy achievement to tout ahead of the November midterms, while the six-month Iran conflict has complicated the domestic political environment.

Because political theater works considerably better when nobody wanders behind the curtain and asks who is actually writing the agreements, we should take a look backstage.

The Kyiv Independent did exactly that this week, publishing a deeply reported examination of Steve Witkoff’s role in the Russia-Ukraine negotiations. The White House angrily disputes the article, calling its characterization “fake news nonsense” and defending Witkoff as an envoy working intensively with both Kyiv and Moscow. That rebuttal belongs in the record, along with the allegations.

According to Ukrainian officials and people familiar with the talks, frustration with Witkoff has spread to both sides of the negotiating table. Ukrainian officials have questioned his understanding of the war and its territorial history. People familiar with Kremlin thinking told the outlet that Russian officials have also wondered whether their positions were always being accurately conveyed to Trump.

And then there is the piece of paper. During an April meeting, according to the Kyiv Independent, Vladimir Putin wrote “3+2” while discussing five Ukrainian territories. Witkoff returned to Washington with the paper. The reporting says he subsequently understood Putin to be proposing one territorial exchange; people familiar with Moscow’s actual position say he had misunderstood it.

European and Ukrainian officials reportedly realized almost immediately that something had been lost in translation.

There is a reason professional diplomacy comes equipped with enough translators, stenographers, regional specialists, and note-takers to staff a respectable wedding. “What exactly did Putin mean by 3+2?” is the sort of question one would ideally answer before rearranging the internationally recognized borders of Europe.

Another episode is even more remarkable. Before the Alaska summit, Witkoff reportedly met Putin without an American stenographer and relied upon the Kremlin’s translator rather than a U.S. government interpreter. The Kyiv Independent says he subsequently conveyed a Russian territorial position that did not match what Moscow was actually prepared to offer.

The White House disputes the characterization, but even the dispute illustrates something important. Foreign relations are not merely deals in the real-estate sense, where two principals shake hands and lawyers spend the next week figuring out what they meant.

One Ukrainian official gave the Kyiv Independent perhaps the most concise summary of the frustration: Washington kept telling Kyiv that it had to end the war.

“As if we don’t fucking want to end it.”

And this is where the gap between the announcement and the underlying reality stops being amusing.

Last Monday, Trump said Russia and Ukraine had agreed not to attack each other’s energy facilities. That certainly sounded encouraging, but Zelenskyy said Kyiv was willing to suspend attacks on Russian infrastructure if Moscow made a firm reciprocal commitment and Washington could help guarantee it. Ukraine was still waiting for something concrete. Russia, meanwhile, said its broader military operations would continue.

Six days later, the Moscow oil refinery was on fire.

Ukraine launched what Russian authorities called the largest drone attack ever directed at Moscow. Russia claimed more than 1,100 Ukrainian drones were intercepted across the country, Crimea and the Black Sea, including hundreds headed toward Moscow. Two people were killed in the wider Moscow region and others were wounded. Ukraine said it used an array of domestically produced systems, including Flamingo and Pelican missiles, against oil and logistics infrastructure that helps finance Russia’s war.

Russian officials immediately accused Kyiv of timing the attack to disrupt the final day of parliamentary elections, though DW found no evidence Ukraine had targeted election infrastructure, and the election itself proceeded with meaningful anti-war opposition excluded and voting conducted in occupied Ukrainian territory Moscow claims to have annexed.

The refinery, however, was quite definitely burning.

Ukraine’s campaign against Russian energy infrastructure is increasingly consequential in its own right. DW reports that Russian refineries were hit on average roughly once every three days during the first eight months of this year, and that June refinery throughput fell to 3.8 million barrels per day, its lowest level in more than two decades and roughly 30 percent below the previous year.

Fuel shortages have spread into ordinary Russian life. DW reports long lines, drivers using apps to locate stations that still have gasoline, and accounts of questionable fuel mixtures appearing where supplies are scarce.

Ukraine decided that if Russia intends to make war an everyday fact of Ukrainian life, some portion of that reality can travel in the opposite direction.

And Ukraine can increasingly do it with weapons built in Ukraine, which presents Washington with a new complication: a Ukrainian Flamingo does not require permission from Washington to fly. Neither does a Pelican.

The war is becoming harder to control precisely as the rhetoric from Washington keeps suggesting that pieces of it have been brought under control.

The Middle East is even less cooperative. The Versailles ceasefire tableau now belongs to another political geological era, approximately three months ago.

Iran is warning that renewed large-scale American strikes could bring retaliation against U.S. bases and potentially against regional governments that facilitate those attacks.

The Houthis have opened another front against Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities say they intercepted a ballistic missile aimed at Riyadh, the first such attack on the capital during this latest escalation, while Houthi attacks or attempted attacks have also been reported against other Saudi locations and infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia is reportedly running low enough on missile interceptors that it has sought additional air-defense help from France, Britain, Pakistan and Egypt. The ink is barely dry on a new mutual-defense pact with Turkey and Pakistan, and someone’s already reaching for the warranty card; Ankara says it’s ready to help, though nobody seems eager to leap into another shooting war.

Italy, meanwhile, has contributed one of those sentences historians cherish because it usually precedes several chapters explaining why the sentence became necessary.

“We are not at war.”

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said that while urging Europe to reinforce its naval mission protecting Red Sea shipping after an Italian military aircraft was reportedly damaged in Saudi Arabia.

Not at war.

Just reinforcing the naval mission in the increasingly dangerous war zone while military hardware gets damaged.

Completely different department.

When a war treated as one problem encounters a region containing a dozen others, this is what happens.The Houthis have their own interests. The West Bank has its own dynamics. Lebanon is another theater. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Pakistan each have separate calculations. The danger is that those theaters are becoming connected by retaliation, alliance commitments, shipping routes, and energy infrastructure.

Where all this geopolitical grandeur finally makes its way is into your checking account. Today’s AAA national average for regular gasoline is $4.476 a gallon. One year ago, it was about $3.20. AAA attributes the latest climb principally to high crude prices and continued volatility around the Strait of Hormuz.

Now the war has followed Americans from the gas station into the oil-change bay.

The Financial Times reports that the price of Group III base oil used in many modern synthetic motor oils has nearly quadrupled since February to a record $12.45 a gallon. Costco has raised prices and is rationing some synthetic motor oil to one purchase per customer. Walmart has reported low inventory on several brands. Independent garages are struggling to obtain supplies. Valvoline has raised oil-change prices as its lubricant costs climbed.

The supply chain is another little tour of globalization we were apparently all expected to learn only after somebody blew part of it up.

An Iranian strike damaged Shell’s giant gas-to-liquids facility in Qatar, an important source of the highly refined base oils modern engines require. Hormuz disruptions then interfered with tanker flows feeding other major producers.

And because full-synthetic motor oil has strict formulation and certification requirements, you cannot simply wander into the warehouse, pour whatever is nearby into a bottle marked 0W-20 and hope nobody’s Chevrolet notices.

The internal combustion engine has joined the geopolitical conversation.

Battery-electric owners may now enjoy the exotic luxury of learning about the Group III base-oil crisis from newspapers rather than from the person holding their car keys at Jiffy Lube. There is no engine oil to change.

For everyone else, another Middle Eastern supply-chain disruption has quietly entered the household budget.

Higher diesel costs move through trucking and distribution and eventually into the price of almost everything that has to travel. Not every expensive tomato is Iran’s fault, but energy is threaded through the economy.

War has transmission mechanisms. So do incompetence and uncertainty.

And there is only so much counterprogramming available when people can see the number on the pump.

Which brings us back to our friend in the imaginary White House press room, yelling: RELEASE COUNTERMEASURES! Greenland deal! Historic! Permanent! Infinite! Look at the flags, do not look at Costco rationing motor oil, or Riyadh, or the Moscow refinery.

Next week’s UN photographs won’t tell us whether the Greenland deal is historic; the agreement will. The same test applies elsewhere. Refineries and power grids will tell us whether an energy truce exists, while Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, Riyadh and the tankers will tell us whether the Middle East is stabilizing. At home, the evidence arrives on gas-station signs, oil-change invoices and grocery receipts.

Reality leaves paperwork.

The administration can choose Versailles or the United Nations, arrange the backdrop and supply the adjectives. It cannot order a tanker through Hormuz, stock a Costco shelf by press release, negotiate with a burning refinery or make $4.48 disappear by moving the camera.

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

At our house, questions of access are currently concentrated around a gray dining chair, although before we get to that particular negotiation, we need to discuss the apparently extravagant ambition of having a deck and a kitchen sink. We’re still working on building the deck, which is a lot, and expensive, but we want to do it right. We want this place to feel like us, and we also need to be wise about how we spend our money, because the bank account has consistently refused to participate in my vision.

My husband is generally the one who agonizes over these things, while my ADHD brain simply reacts to whatever is directly in front of it. This is why we have so many plants with no homes, because apparently seeing a plant, liking a plant, and bringing a plant home are three stages of a process that my brain considers complete. Where the plant will live is a problem for a future version of me, who would probably appreciate being consulted.

My husband plans, thinks, and prepares, and although I envy that ability sometimes, I mostly feel lucky to share a life with someone who makes room for the way my mind works. He helps carry the practical details so I can flow a little, which is a lovely thing to have in a marriage, even when the flow leads directly into another nursery.

We have so many big plans, and realistically, nowhere near enough money to complete all of them on the schedule I have developed in my head. Everything I price seems determined to remind me of this, especially kitchen cabinets. Ours have an immense amount of water damage from a longstanding leak that we fixed after moving in, but stopping the leak unfortunately did not persuade the wood to return to its original condition.

The kitchen sink needs replacing too, and I find it absolutely horrendous that someone can look at a sink and decide that $1,000 is a reasonable amount of money to charge for it. At that price, I would like it to wash the dishes, put them away, and gently ask whether I have had enough water today. Then there are the hardwood floors, which could be beautiful with enough work, although apparently the work also expects to be paid for.

Meanwhile, the children have opened a new front in their ongoing sibling negotiations, and this one concerns the gray chair. The gray chair is the tallest chair, which means it goes to my daughter because she is the shortest person trying to eat dinner at the table. I have explained this arrangement enough times that I feel qualified to teach a small course on it, but her older brother continues attempting to acquire the chair whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Perhaps the chair has qualities I have failed to appreciate, or perhaps announcing that something cannot be his has transformed an ordinary piece of furniture into the most desirable object in the house. He is ten, and he is still learning how to manage the large feelings that arrive in a relatively small body, while I am learning that dinner apparently requires a seating agreement and someone to supervise its implementation.

All of which has made the words agreement, access, and ownership unusually prominent in my day, and brings us back to Greenland. According to ABC News, Trump described the agreement as giving the United States permanent control over Greenland’s security. A State Department official described permanent access, military basing, and overflight rights, along with restrictions on sensitive investments by American adversaries. Trump also said the United States would begin developing a larger military presence there. Those are the administration’s descriptions of the arrangement, and the detailed terms will matter in determining how it operates.

The statement from Denmark and Greenland says the three governments expect to sign at the coming United Nations General Assembly. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said the agreement recognizes the Kingdom of Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, along with Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. Greenland’s leader, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said it recognizes Greenland’s interests and role in international cooperation. Their announcement describes a security agreement, with national parliamentary procedures required before it enters into force.

The United States already has a substantial defense arrangement dating to 1951 and operates Pituffik Space Base, which helps monitor potential missile threats over the Arctic. ABC reports that it remains unclear whether the new agreement will amend or supplement that existing pact. The next details to watch are the agreement’s text, its approval process, and the scope of any new deployments. Military access and sovereignty are separate questions, and the announcements so far do not establish a transfer of ownership.

There is also an update on the White House media ban: journalists from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico reported being denied entry on Saturday after Trump announced restrictions on Friday. ABC directly observed a CNN reporter and photographer being turned away. Trump cited objections to the outlets’ coverage, while the organizations said they would defend their reporting and First Amendment rights. For more on the media ban, check out Mom’s piece from earlier today.

A separate report concerns a dispute over CBC’s language guidelines and cooperation between American and Canadian police. According to New York Times reporting, as summarized by TheWrap, some FBI cooperation with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was temporarily interrupted after Director Kash Patel objected to CBC’s guidance on using the terms terrorism and terrorist when describing September 11. Meetings were reportedly canceled, but the interruption did not encompass all FBI cooperation, and other American agencies continued sharing intelligence. It reportedly ended around September 11, so this is newly reported past conduct rather than evidence of a current cutoff.

CBC, which is editorially independent of Canada’s government, changed its guidance on August 28 to permit describing the attacks as terrorism without attribution. The broadcaster told TheWrap it made that decision independently and had not been contacted by the FBI or American government about its guidance. The FBI declined to comment to TheWrap, and the interruption’s exact duration and operational consequences remain unclear in that account.

Finally, new research from Nepal examines what happens when a disaster exceeds the protections a community has built. World Weather Attribution published its analysis on September 17, examining the August 26 rock-and-ice collapse that became a destructive flood. Researchers describe geological weaknesses interacting with warming, thawing ice, and water movement, while explicitly stating that they didn’t determine whether this particular collapse would’ve happened without human-caused climate change.

The study also explains that Nepal’s warning systems have saved lives in more predictable floods, including downstream during this disaster, but the speed and scale of this event exceeded what existing systems could manage in the hardest-hit areas. Its findings include a need for better monitoring, communication, and support for recovery, while acknowledging that even improved preparation has limits. The human consequences extend beyond the initial flood to the difficult work of restoring homes, services, and livelihoods.

Reading about families rebuilding after that kind of loss gives the word home a weight that no renovation estimate can quite capture. Our projects are about making a place we already have more comfortable, more functional, and more ours, and there is a great deal of good fortune tucked inside that sentence.

For now, our deck remains a work in progress, the plants remain optimistic about their housing applications, and the gray chair remains the subject of negotiations that I expect to reopen at dinner. My husband will keep thinking through the practical details, and I will keep imagining what this place can become, while we try to make those two approaches meet somewhere the budget can tolerate.

That’s the life happening alongside the headlines, and it’s why I keep returning to the details of what people are building, what they are trying to protect, and what happens after an announcement becomes part of somebody’s ordinary day.

A restack does more than you might think! If you value The Homefront Report, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or sharing it with someone who might enjoy reading along. Your support helps Mom and me keep this newsletter going, and we are grateful to have you here.

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Share

Leave a comment

Refer a friend

If you’d like to chip in on our family’s projects, plants, and everyday adventures, you can leave a little extra love here.

Support our Adventures