On paper, Donald Trump’s war in Iran seems like it could be close to over. The U.S. has paused its attacks and Iranian strikes on commercial ships have gotten more infrequent. But less fighting doesn’t necessarily mean we’re getting closer to peace. Beneath the surface, the conditions are brewing for a prolonged conflict—and possibly an even more intense one.

Wait, back up: Why did the fighting taper off?

Good question. Last month, after Trump’s fragile ceasefire collapsed, the U.S. launched 13 straight days of missile strikes and bombing runs against Iran. Iran, in turn, used missiles and drones to attack U.S. military bases around the region. But in August, the guns have largely gone silent. Trump abruptly called off more strikes a couple of weeks ago, citing progress in peace talks. The real reason for the pause may be that the U.S. is reportedly running dangerously low on the interceptors it uses to shoot down Iranian missiles and drones, interceptors it also needs elsewhere (including to help Ukraine against Russia). Either way, Iranian attacks—which the country’s officials have characterized as “retaliatory operations”—have mostly abated since Trump hit pause, leaving the war in a state of limbo.

But the war isn’t over, right? So if not with drones and missiles, how are the two sides fighting?

At least for now, a hot war has morphed into an economic and political war of attrition. Having failed to beat Iran into submission with bombs, Trump is banking on economic pressure to bring it to heel. The U.S. has yanked away the waivers it gave Iran to sell oil during the ceasefire, reimposed its naval blockade on Iranian ports, and reportedly plans to slap on another round of economic sanctions this week. Throttling Iran’s economy to force its leaders to make a better deal appears so key to Trump’s strategy that today he threatened to “bomb the shit out of” Oman, a U.S. ally that’s been mediating talks, if it “gets in the way” of a peace deal. Iran’s leaders, meanwhile, can read polls—and the calendar. They think a prolonged, unpopular war will keep gas prices high, perhaps costing Trump and his party control of Congress in the November midterms. That might be enough to deter future U.S. attacks.

Who has the advantage?

Iran’s economic pain is real. Inflation is high, poverty is rising, there are shortages of medicine and other goods, and the fighting has damaged businesses. But Iranians have long lived under the yoke of U.S. sanctions, and the country’s new supreme leader—who inherited the job after U.S. and Israeli strikes killed his father early in the war—seems prepared to quash dissent. He recently appointed a hard-liner to run the Basij, a domestic paramilitary group that helps the regime disrupt protests and carry out mass arrests. Iran’s president is popularly elected. But he ultimately answers to the country’s autocratic supreme leader, who can afford to brush off at least some amount of public unhappiness. That looks like a recipe for nobody to give in anytime soon.

It sounds like neither the U.S. nor Iran has enough of a military, economic, or diplomatic edge to decisively win—but neither is willing to back down, either.

Well put. But Trump’s position may be deteriorating as his allies in the region get increasingly nervous about what a prolonged war could mean for them. Israel has urged on the fighting, but others appear to be getting squirrely. As the Wall Street Journal reported last night in an article headlined “Iran’s Secret Plan to Escalate the War,” Iran could try to sabotage internet cables in the Persian Gulf, fuel domestic unrest inside Kuwait and Bahrain, and maybe even attack Kuwait with ground forces. Iran has also urged the militant groups it supports in Yemen and Iraq to target Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally whose oil exports Iran wants to disrupt. The Houthis, a Yemeni militia, reportedly attacked Saudi ships in the Red Sea on Monday. And despite the overall lull in the fighting, Iran fired drones at oil tankers from the United Arab Emirates, another U.S. ally, as they transited the Strait of Hormuz this month.

OK, but you mentioned that we might be in for even more intense fighting. Why would a conflict that’s cooled off suddenly turn hot again?

Right now, diplomacy doesn’t seem to be working. Today brought a punctuation mark of sorts: the end of the 60-day negotiating period in which Trump’s team was supposed to hammer out an agreement over the future of Iran’s nuclear program. Instead, those talks never really got off the ground after the ceasefire collapsed, and Iran instead seems to be preparing for an escalation. Per the Journal, the hard-liners who occupy the country’s key military posts have focused on rebuilding their missile and drone arsenal. So even if one side or the other does claim that diplomatic progress is being made, it could just be a smoke screen before the fighting starts again.

Time to focus less on the vagaries of geopolitics and more on how you can have a great rest of your night. My colleagues suggest:

An old-school habit that could change your relationships: Party Like It’s 1996, Slate’s six-week time-travel challenge to rediscover the lost art of hanging out, is back with its second installment today. This one is focused on how lonely many of us are despite being constantly connected with everyone in our lives through our phones, and proposes a way to change it. (If you missed the start of this series, you can sign up and start getting it in your inbox from the beginning!)

A subversive, funny new show: HBO’s new Sunday night series, Lanterns, is the spiritual successor to Watchmen: a superhero show for people who don’t think they like superhero shows. Sam Adams explains why it’s worth the watch.

A candid conversation with a man who loves to lead people on: As part of Pillow Talk, an interview series that deciphers our mixed signals about sex, Slate’s Isabelle Kohn spoke to a 38-year-old who’s often accused of being a fuckboy about why he acts the way he does. If you enjoy puzzling over the mysteries of the human psyche (or rubbernecking over other people’s messy love lives), this one is a juicy read.

A chance to flex your big vocabulary: Do you know which activity a pugilist engages in? Do you pride yourself on the depth and breadth of your command of the English language? Today’s bite-sized trivia quiz might be worth a try!

Thanks as always for reading the Slatest, and see you tomorrow!

—Ian

Donald Trump’s war with Iran has been fought largely from the air, with U.S. warplanes dropping bombs and missiles on targets across the country. But those planes have to take off and land somewhere, and that somewhere has often been American aircraft carriers stationed off the coast. The war, which Trump said would last around four or five weeks but which is now going on six months, has taken a toll on those carriers and their crews. Conditions have reportedly gotten particularly dire aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been at sea since last year.

Dire how?

The Lincoln, normally based in San Diego, set sail in November for a routine deployment to the Pacific. But it got rerouted to the Middle East shortly before Trump attacked Iran, and has been there ever since. Besides defending against Iranian missile and drone attacks, the carrier’s roughly 5,000 sailors and other service members have complained of food rationing, water shortages, nonworking toilets, and moldy showers, as well as spotty access to mail, laundry, basic hygiene products, and the ability to communicate with their families. USA Today published a photo earlier this year of a sailor’s mostly empty lunch tray, which included a few chunks of boiled carrot and processed meat of an indeterminate nature.

That’s obviously gross and unpleasant. But is anything more serious happening?

Unfortunately, yes. The Lincoln’s extended deployment, already about three months longer than the typical carrier mission, appears to have tanked sailors’ morale. The crew’s mental health is suffering, and some have apparently attempted suicide. In at least two instances, crew members reportedly tried to jump overboard. In another case last week, a sailor jumped off the ship and spent about an hour in the water before he was rescued and medically evacuated from the Lincoln. That sailor’s wife, who described her husband’s act as a suicide attempt to MS NOW, shared text messages in which he’d previously expressed feelings of hopelessness and said he’d gone to his superiors for help but was rebuffed.

That’s awful. How has the Trump administration responded to these reports?

They’ve largely denied them. Pete Hegseth, Trump’s truculent secretary of defense, called the reports “completely misrepresented,” adding that he has “more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody.” And despite published evidence to the contrary, Navy officials say they haven’t “identified an increase in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts aboard the ship,” even though they’re reportedly working to send more mental health professionals aboard.

That response has upset some whose loved ones serve on the Lincoln. According to MS NOW, a Navy official said during a town hall with about 200 family members in San Diego last week that it was unclear if the sailor who went overboard had jumped or simply fallen, angering attendees. Democrats in Congress, meanwhile, have pressed Hegseth and other Trump officials over the reports. Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona, a veteran of the Marines, wants a bipartisan delegation to visit the Lincoln. Trump, asked today if he was worried about the conditions aboard and whether the ship had been deployed for too long, said, “Not nearly long enough.”

U.S. troops are routinely asked to face dangerous and adverse circumstances. How is this different?

Service members certainly sign up to serve their country, often under difficult conditions and sometimes in ways that take them away from their families and put their lives at risk. But what’s happening aboard the Lincoln is also highly unusual. Carriers typically stop in port every 30 to 45 days for reprovisioning, repairs, and crew rest. The Lincoln has docked just twice since it left San Diego, and its crew has sometimes supported nonstop combat operations for weeks straight. In this case, it isn’t an adversary that’s making things hard; it’s the military’s own conditions and, arguably, an administration that failed to anticipate an extended conflict. For a president who boasts about having “rebuilt the military” and a defense secretary who pledges to prioritize “the needs of the warfighter,” the contrast is pretty glaring. And at the end of the day, as people who’ve served have told me, being in the military is a job. How would you feel if your office had backed-up toilets, terrible food, and virtually no days off?

That’s fair. So is there any relief in sight?

The Navy is reportedly dispatching another carrier, the USS George Washington, to replace the Lincoln. Administration officials say the rotation was prescheduled, but the timing is hard to ignore. Still, CBS News reports that it could be weeks before the Lincoln returns to San Diego.

Overtaxed crews can be a problem even outside of wartime. The USS Gerald R. Ford suffered plumbing issues, low morale, and a laundry-room fire that injured multiple sailors during an extended deployment to the Caribbean and the Middle East that mostly preceded Trump’s Iran war. But wars inevitably cost those who fight in them; ideally, the commander in chief would start them only after carefully weighing those costs. Instead, Trump launched this war capriciously, with vague strategic aims and apparently without understanding its potential to become a quagmire. So even after the Lincoln’s crew sails home, we might soon be reading similar stories about a different ship named after a president—even as the man who currently occupies Washington, Lincoln, and Ford’s former office tries to wash his hands of it all.

I realize that’s a heavy way to wrap up the week, so let’s shift gears. To get your weekend off to a fun start, my colleagues recommend:

Something new to listen to: Six years ago, indie rocker Phoebe Bridgers’ last solo album became one of the defining records of the decade. Now she’s back with a new one—and it’s something else altogether. Carl Wilson reviews “Lost Weekend” and the ways it confronts grief, new love, and sudden fame.

Standouts for your weekend watch list: If you’re going to the movies this weekend, check out Anne Hathaway’s new dinosaur film, The End of Oak Street. Sam Adams writes that the cosmic horror blockbuster is a satisfying throwback to Jurassic Park. If you’d rather stay in and watch TV, you should cue up Amazon’s latest hit show, Sterling Point. Rebecca Onion declares that in a crowded field of summer romance series, this is the one that will stand the test of time.

A (literal) sign of the times: To get a sense of what Trump’s plummeting approval ratings might actually mean, Jessica Pishko traveled to the Trump “Superstore” in Tennessee (which recently put up a giant “Going out of business” sign) and asked the employees what they think of the president these days.

A sippable sweet treat: Refreshers—a nebulous class of drinks similar to lemonade or smoothies—are taking over menus from Starbucks to McDonald’s. They’re peppy and fruity … and a glaring recession indicator. Steffi Cao argues that America’s favorite new beverage reveals a lot about the vibes economy.

OK, that’s all for me. Enjoy your Friday evening, and see you Monday!

—Ian

As regular Slatest readers know, we usually spend this newsletter answering questions about the news. Sometimes, though, it’s worth taking the time to pose big questions we don’t yet have answers to. So after yet another bitter primary election this week that pitted Democrats’ progressive and moderate wings against each other, let’s explore one crucial question that confronts the party going forward: Will all these rancorous nominating contests hurt Democrats’ chances against Republicans in November?

Healing those wounds is no small challenge. Democratic divisions have been front and center this year (losing another presidential election to Donald Trump will do that to a party). Some of the divides are over ideology and policy; in last week’s Michigan Senate primary, Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive supporter of Medicare for all, narrowly beat Rep. Haley Stevens, a pro-Israel centrist. Others—including Tuesday’s Wisconsin governor primary, in which the moderate David Crowley even more narrowly defeated Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist—are about which candidate is better equipped against Republicans or is advocating exciting new ideas.

Divisive primaries happen for a reason; they can help parties work out policy disagreements or stress-test candidates’ mettle. But bridging those divides isn’t easy, and this year’s primary season could haunt Democrats in key races this fall. Political science research suggests that longer and more competitive primaries can ultimately cost the party’s nominee votes in the general election. Only one candidate can win, after all, which leaves plenty of room for hurt feelings among the losing contender’s supporters—some of whom might choose to stay home rather than vote for someone who wasn’t their first choice.

Several of this year’s bitterest primaries so far also involved more than two candidates, which can split the vote such that no one gets a majority. That’s what happened in Michigan (where El-Sayed won with 49 percent of the vote) and in Wisconsin (where Crowley emerged victorious despite earning less than 40 percent). A 2024 study that looked at both parties’ House, Senate, and gubernatorial primaries from 2010 to 2022 found that candidates who win only a plurality of the vote tend to underperform in general elections relative to expectations. For plurality winners in closely divided parts of the country (like, say, Michigan and Wisconsin), “this translates into a reduced likelihood of winning,” the paper concludes.

Acrimonious primaries can hurt victorious candidates in other ways, too. Sometimes the positions they take to court their party’s base actively repel the wider pool of voters whose support they may need in the fall. Contentious primaries often bring media scrutiny, which can expose damaging truths about a candidate’s past; Hong’s years-old criticisms of policing and Thanksgiving probably helped doom her in Wisconsin. Extended primaries also eat up resources. Dollars spent on attack ads against a fellow Democrat over the summer can’t be spent on attack ads against a Republican in the fall.

But just because divisive primaries can be fatal in general elections doesn’t mean they have to be. Democrats have a choice about whether to let the wounds of primary season hamstring their nominees. How the winning and losing candidates—and those candidates’ supporters—treat each other over the next few months will help determine whether those divides heal in time for November.

There’s already evidence that at least some Democrats are trying to mend fences. Stevens, the centrist congresswoman who previously accused El-Sayed of wanting to “blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans,” is already campaigning for him. El-Sayed, who called Haley “the least capable candidate in America” in the race’s final days, has since praised her at a unity rally the two held together. A similar spirit of reconciliation seems to be afoot in Wisconsin. On Wednesday, Crowley posted a chummy-looking photo of a breakfast meeting that included Hong and was captioned “Wisconsin Democrats are united.”

Not every erstwhile Democratic nominee has been so helpful, though. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, who lost the primary for U.S. Senate to state Rep. James Talarico in March, quickly endorsed him. But so far she hasn’t stumped for him, instead lobbing veiled criticisms of Talarico’s efforts to win over Black voters. There’s some evidence that Crockett’s reticence may be having an effect. An Emerson College poll on Thursday found Talarico slightly lagging among Black voters compared to Texas Democrats’ nominee for governor.

Ultimately, though, it’ll be up to Democratic voters, not just elected officials, to decide if they want to forgive and forget enough for their party’s battle-scarred nominees to win this fall. Republicans, meanwhile, are trying their best to prevent that. In Michigan, after some Democratic voters threatened to withhold their support from El-Sayed over his decision to campaign with controversial progressive activist Hasan Piker, former Rep. Mike Rogers, the GOP Senate nominee there, urged them to join his campaign. “You have a home with us,” Rogers said. Last week, Michael LaRosa, a former Jill Biden spokesman who harshly criticizes his party’s left flank, appeared to endorse the idea of Democrats voting for Rogers.

If anything can get quarreling Democrats to put their differences aside, though, it’s probably a common enemy. That’s what happened after Joe Biden beat Bernie Sanders for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020 and went on to defeat Trump. Yet just four years later, some prominent progressives refused to endorse Kamala Harris over the war in Gaza even though Trump was the alternative. But with the president’s popularity in the toilet, bringing back the spirit of 2020—without pretending that the divisions of 2026 don’t exist—would seem to be Democrats’ best bet for a good November. “We’re not all going to agree on everything,” Crowley conceded to Politico on Thursday. “But I think we agree that the ultimate goal is making sure that we don’t have a MAGA extremist and congressman Tom Tiffany sitting in the governor’s office.”

OK, that’s a lot of thinking about the future. Time to think about the here and now—like how you’re going to enjoy the rest of your evening. My colleagues recommend:

A nostalgic pop culture podcast: Do you remember McGruff the Crime Dog? He was a hallmark of 1980s public safety PSAs, and he left an indelible impression on America’s youth. On Decoder Ring, host Willa Paskin analyzes McGruff’s bizarre yet catchy anti-drug songs to make sense of the strange afterlife of PSAs.

An investigation into the unsung hero of condiments: Relish is the ideal summer ingredient. It’s sweet, tangy, and pickley—the perfect complement to backyard cookouts. So why is it disappearing from the shelves? Nadira Goffe makes the case for a relish comeback.

An ode to the ecstasy of Scrabble: Do you love hearing someone talk about something they’re really passionate about and know very well, in great intimate detail? Then you’ll love Stefan Fatsis’ essay on everything that can make playing Scrabble “a borderline mystical experience, and impossible to quit—an inexplicable meld of timing, skill, serendipity, and enough improbability to keep a statistics class busy for a semester.”

And speaking of word games … For a juicy twist on a game involving the letters of the alphabet, may we recommend Slate’s Pears? You get six letters that you must turn into as many words of four letters or more as you can; as you create words, you’ll uncover fun little asides and notes. For every fifth word, you’ll get thrown a new pair (pear!) of letters that you must combine with your existing set to make the longest word you possibly can. (The longest word in yesterday’s game was ESCHEWED.) Give it a try!

That’s all, folks! Have a great rest of your night.

—Ian

Another Democratic primary, another progressive outsider vs. establishment-backed moderate that ended in a photo finish. Except this time the more moderate candidate won. That’s the story of last night’s highest-profile race, in which David Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, narrowly beat Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, to become the party’s nominee for Wisconsin governor. Crowley’s win was also a surprise, making it the second recent primary in which a Midwestern moderate has defied the polls. (In Michigan last week, a centrist congresswoman came from behind and nearly upset Abdul El-Sayed, a Bernie Sanders–endorsed progressive.)

But two elections does not necessarily a pattern make, particularly when those elections yielded two very different winners. And elsewhere, progressives had some big wins in last night’s primaries, so the struggle for the Democratic Party’s future remains far from settled. Let’s get into what happened, what it means, and what it doesn’t mean.

Back up. Who are Crowley and Hong?

Crowley is a former member of the State Assembly who in 2020 became the first Black person to lead Milwaukee County. But after launching his gubernatorial campaign last year, he struggled to gain traction and actually suspended his bid in July. Other moderates also floundered, leaving Hong, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who represents a deep-blue State Assembly district, as the prohibitive favorite. But left-wing comments she made on social media a few years ago put her on the defensive—including support for abolishing the police and canceling Thanksgiving, positions she ultimately disavowed (though, according to my colleague Luke Winkie, not particularly well). Then, in the race’s final weeks, two other moderates dropped out and Crowley revived his campaign with the sitting Democratic governor’s endorsement. He was ultimately the only plausible option for voters worried that Hong’s controversies risked blowing the general election and ended up eking it out by less than half a percentage point.

That’s a tight margin! What else makes his win notable?

Mostly how unexpected it was. As polling booths closed, Hong was overwhelmingly favored on betting markets like Polymarket and Kalshi. That impression was based largely on polls, which showed her roughly doubling Crowley’s support. But in retrospect, it’s probably better to think of the result as a product of very specific circumstances: a field that was fractured among multiple moderates and progressives, Crowley’s late-stage resurrection, a perceived front-runner who was sui generis in the controversies she created, and voters who decided late in the game that Hong risked losing to a Republican in November.

In fairness, Hong barely lost the primary. Why did voters see Crowley but not her as electable?

Electability can be a frustratingly amorphous concept—one that isn’t always fair either. Some voters view female candidates as innately less electable even though political science research suggests that they tend to perform as well as or better than men. On a different note, since Donald Trump’s reelection, many progressives have argued that it’s the Democratic establishment that has lost the capacity—or maybe the right—to discern who is electable. But the evidence also suggests that candidates whom voters perceive as less extreme have a better track record in purple, closely divided states, like … Wisconsin. As mild-mannered Democratic Gov. Tony Evers put it after winning reelection in 2022, “Boring wins.” Hong’s DSA label and progressive platform excited many younger and more educated Wisconsinites, but these qualities evidently raised concerns about her viability statewide for plenty of other Democrats. One of them was Evers, who warned that Hong would “probably” lose to Rep. Tom Tiffany, the Republican nominee. Notably, many Wisconsin Republicans agreed: GOP-aligned super PACs spent millions to boost Hong’s candidacy, and polls suggested that she would struggle against Tiffany.

Is Hong’s defeat a setback for the left?

It depends who you ask! Some progressives are actually relieved. If Hong had gone on to lose in November, it could’ve become an albatross for their whole movement—and would’ve handed leadership of a swing state to a Trump-endorsed Republican. Even some fellow progressives seemed skeptical of Hong’s campaign and rhetoric; both Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declined to endorse her. (They claim to be focused on congressional races, but both have endorsed candidates in other kinds of elections too.)

Progressives also have more-straightforward reasons to celebrate: The more-liberal candidates won primaries last night for Vermont governor and for open U.S. Senate and House seats in Minnesota.

So was Crowley’s win the only real bright spot for the Democratic establishment?

No, which is another reason the party’s civil war will almost certainly drag on. Gov. Ned Lamont of Connecticut easily beat back a lefty challenger, moderate Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar romped in her state’s gubernatorial primary, and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan became the party’s Senate nominee, also in Minnesota. But Flanagan is a progressive as well, a reminder that the establishment–outsider dynamic doesn’t always map perfectly onto the party’s ideological divides.

Another race that exemplifies the varying dynamics at play here: Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, a 78-year-old who suffered a complex partial seizure on the House floor last year, lost his bid for a 15^th (!) term to Luke Bronin, a former mayor of Hartford. Larson, a progressive, had support from more-moderate Democrats in Congress, while Bronin, a 47-year-old Navy veteran, ran mostly on generational change with the backing of the Connecticut Democratic Party.

One last question: Given how off the polls were in Wisconsin, should we doubt them going forward?

It’s hard to say! In fairness, getting a bead on a primary in which the candidates keep shifting and many voters remain undecided isn’t easy. Pollsters basically nailed Hong’s share of the vote: Averaged out, surveys over the past month showed her at about 41 percent; she ended up with 39 percent. What the polls generally failed to foresee—and arguably shouldn’t have been expected to, given the fluctuating field—was that just enough voters would ultimately coalesce behind Crowley to put him over the top.

In the aggregate, despite the framing of Crowley’s win as an upset (and it was!), primary polls in other races have tended to be relatively accurate. So although it’s always worth taking them with a grain of salt, last night’s bigger loser was betting markets, whose predictive power in Wisconsin was effectively zero. The ultimate takeaway of all of this might be: If you think you know which faction of the Democratic Party will end up ahead, I have a Polymarket share to sell you. In other words, we’re still in a contentious primary season, and the upshot for the Democrats isn’t clear yet.

OK, I’ve officially maxed out on electoral shop talk for today. To help you avert your gaze from Dems’ slow-rolling identity crisis, my colleagues suggest:

A review of Trump’s “patriotic” art exhibition (yes, that’s a thing): Christina Cauterucci paid a visit to Passport to Patriotism, which functions as the Trump administration’s rebuttal to the Smithsonian’s nuanced interpretation of American history. At the show, Christina found a sea of glittery paintings, several A.I.-augmented portraits of the Founding Fathers, and more than five dozen takes on the American flag. Her dispatch offers an insightful, hilarious window into the MAGA aesthetic.

An eccentric election tradition: If you need a break from U.S. politics, take a peek at what’s happening across the pond. Imogen West-Knights explains the long British tradition of joke candidates and introduces us to Count Binface, an “independent space warrior” who is currently running to unseat Nigel Farage from Parliament.

A defense of Mr. Darcy: Speaking of delightful things the United Kingdom has given us: This analysis of the many discourse cycles that the flawed yet beloved Pride and Prejudice character has set off over the years is a fun one to revisit from Slate’s archives.

A bite-size crossword: Do you ever feel overwhelmed by a full-size crossword puzzle? Do you ever wish for a quick and satisfying little mini one? We have good news for you!

And with that, go enjoy your night! I’ll see you back here tomorrow.

—Ian

After the NATO summit in Turkey last month, Donald Trump pulled up in a limo, climbed the stairs to the blue-liveried door of Air Force One, then turned and waved. The plane took off from Ankara 20 minutes later, ferrying the president, his entourage, and the journalists who had covered his trip.

Or so it seemed. In truth, as the Washington Post revealed last night, the White House had pulled a switcheroo. A surreptitious airport catering truck secretly shuttled Trump to a waiting military plane, which flew him out instead. By itself, the story is a bizarre chapter in presidential history. But the context of the bait and switch—including the assassination threat that preceded it, an evident comfort with deceiving and potentially endangering members of his own administration and the press, and even controversy surrounding Air Force One itself—also marries a few themes of Trump’s second term so far.

This sounds like something out of a spy movie. Tell me more!

Here’s what we know. The catering truck, which typically loads in-flight meals, parked on the right side of Air Force One, partially shielded from media cameras. According to the Post, Trump crossed to the other side of the presidential plane after boarding and stepped into the truck’s elevated container. Video shows a suited man climbing into the vehicle’s cab, the container lowering, and the truck pulling away. It then sidles up to a smaller U.S. government jet and elevates its container once again, presumably letting Trump board unnoticed. The smaller plane then flew to the U.K., where Trump stopped en route to Washington, under a nondescript call sign. To help conceal the plot, which one anonymous U.S. official called a “deception operation,” White House officials made journalists aboard Air Force One close their window shades. Once in Britain, according to the New York Times, Trump was covertly ferried back to Air Force One as though he had been aboard the whole time.

That’s pretty elaborate! But why do this? You mentioned something about an assassination threat …?

One doesn’t play Schrödinger’s president just for fun. U.S. officials allegedly devised the ruse after they became concerned about an Iranian threat to target Trump as he left Turkey, which borders Iran. The Wall Street Journal reported today that the intelligence came from Israel and included a threat to shoot shoulder-to-air missiles at Air Force One.

So, besides lying to journalists aboard, the administration basically used them as bait?

You could say that. Journalists—and even some lower-level Trump officials—didn’t realize that the president wasn’t really on the plane with them. Nor were they told of the threat that prompted the switcheroo. Later, asked why reporters had had to close their window shades when leaving Turkey, Trump failed to mention that he had switched flights. “I’m No. 1 on their list,” he said, referring to Iran. “But if I go, you go. Right?” As it turns out, maybe not.

That’s dark. Has anything like this happened before?

Sort of. U.S. presidents rarely travel without journalists, and it’s even rarer for administrations to conceal the president’s true location. Officials were vague about George W. Bush’s whereabouts immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, and Bill Clinton took an unmarked plane from India to Pakistan in 2000. But even Bush had reporters with him, and Clinton’s staff told at least one journalist about the switch beforehand. Joe Biden’s clandestine 2023 train trip to Ukraine involved a false public schedule, but it also included two journalists—and everyone else found out about it as soon as Biden arrived. Per the Times, though, the Secret Service has occasionally used decoy flights or motorcades to protect presidents.

So is this just a case of liberals criticizing Trump for something other presidents have done?

Presidents rightly expect more security than the rest of us, but that typically comes with greater scrutiny of their locations and activities too. Journalists wrist-slapped Barack Obama in 2010 after he briefly slipped the press pool in Washington to attend his daughter’s soccer game. In Trump’s case, his status near an active war zone was unknown to even senior U.S. officials for hours—and was kept hidden from the public until reporters exposed it more than a month later.

Wait a sec: I remember Trump bragging about a new plane he got from Qatar. So why was the old Air Force One the decoy in this case?

Good memory. Trump flew into Turkey on a luxury Boeing jet that Qatar’s government gave him last year, an offering that was widely seen as a bribe. But on July 8, as the NATO summit ended, the president posted that he would be leaving aboard the older Air Force One, which is still decked out in its Kennedy-era color scheme, “for old time’s sake.” The stated reason was to let U.S. troops at a British base tour the Qatari-gifted aircraft, which had been freshly repainted in red, white, blue, and gold. (This is Trump’s plane, after all.) But as the Times later revealed, the truth was more sinister. Trump’s demands to quickly retrofit the Qatari plane had apparently left it without sophisticated defensive systems, making it more vulnerable to Iranian attacks. The Times reporting enraged Trump, and the administration tried to unmask the paper’s sources before ultimately backing down. In retrospect, though, the president’s post was likely part of the gambit, helping him slip away aboard an entirely different plane.

Speaking of Iran: How is Trump’s war going?

If having to conceal himself inside a catering truck is any indication, not well. The Iranian assassination threat came after the president’s ceasefire fell apart. Since then, the two sides have continued to trade attacks. As my colleague Fred Kaplan explained yesterday, Iranian hard-liners want to keep control of the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route. Trump, apparently wary of escalating the fight, is hoping that Iran’s economy will collapse. On Tuesday, an American helicopter appeared to have fired a missile at a Panama-flagged container ship that tried to break the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports. In short, lasting peace seems further away than ever.

In case you’d prefer not to keep picturing our president perched on a pile of in-flight meals, my colleagues have some other ideas about how to spend the rest of your evening:

Rediscover the power of serendipity: Longtime Slatester Dan Kois is your tour guide on a journey back in time to rediscover the lost art of hanging out as it was practiced in 1996, the year of Slate’s birth. The first challenge centers on the one part of Friends that was 100 percent accurate. (Sign up here to get all the challenges in your inbox as they roll out over the coming weeks!)

Check out a genre-spanning series: Slate book critic Laura Miller has a tried-and-true suggestion if you’re in need of summer reading material. Robert Jackson Bennett’s fascinating Ana and Din series deftly blends fantasy and mystery, and luckily for us, a new installment just published. Laura has recommended these books over and over, and they’ve proved to be a hit with everyone.

Enjoy some low-stakes WFH drama: What should you do when cats (and their butts) take center stage during Zoom meetings? A manager wrote in to Slate’s Good Job column for help with a delightfully silly workplace issue: “I don’t want to take away something that brings my employee joy, but I’m also tired of looking at cat butts when we’re trying to accomplish something.” Doree Shafrir offers some purrfect advice.

Unwind with a classic game: Five letters for “Event on the campaign trail”? Eleven letters for “Movie villain described by Tobe Hooper as a ‘big baby’ ”? Three letters for “Uhh …”? If these clues get your neurons firing, you’ll love our daily crossword!

That’s it for me! Enjoy the rest of your night, and see you tomorrow.

—Ian

A deadline came and went this afternoon that could shift the balance of power in Washington—and further rip apart a prominent political family. Today at 4 was the Ohio Republican Party’s last chance to replace Rep. Max Miller, a GOP congressman accused of abuse, on the November ballot. But Miller doesn’t want to go. He denies the allegations—including from his ex-wife, a U.S. senator’s daughter—and insists he’ll stay in the race. Miller’s stubbornness echoes Donald Trump’s scandal playbook, but it may also hand Democrats his seat. Here’s how.

Hold on—“Max Miller” sounds like a fictional Republican politician. Who is this guy?

Miller is a former Marine Corps Reserve corporal who worked for Trump’s 2016 campaign before joining the first Trump administration as an aide. He won a seat in Congress in 2022, the same year he and Emily Moreno—whose father is Ohio Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, a staunch Trump ally—married at one of Trump’s golf clubs. Miller is now running for a third term.

What are the allegations against him?

They’re serious. Now divorced, Miller and Emily Moreno are involved in a custody battle over their 2-year-old daughter. Moreno has accused Miller of holding a gun to her head, shoving her against a wall, throwing scalding water at her, and fracturing their daughter’s collarbone. According to Bernie Moreno, Miller once refused to turn over a favorite stuffed animal of the couple’s daughter during a custody exchange. In a frankly stomach-churning CNN interview with Jake Tapper last week, Miller called the allegations “false and baseless”—but also couldn’t say when he last used illegal drugs and dodged responsibility for posting documents meant to exonerate him that reportedly included a partially nude photo of his toddler.

Ugly accusations often fly in custody battles, but these aren’t the first against Miller. Another ex—former White House communications official Stephanie Grisham, who dated Miller when they both worked for Trump—has also accused him of abuse. And in high school, Miller reportedly pushed a girl down a set of stairs after he tried to touch her and she resisted. Miller denies any wrongdoing, claims his ex-wife has struggled with “significant mental health challenges,” and has accused his former father-in-law of spreading “lies.”

That’s really hard to read. What have Miller’s fellow Republicans said?

Several senators have called on him to drop out—including Moreno, who said last week that his former son-in-law fails “any basic standards of character required to hold elected office.” The House Ethics Committee is investigating Miller, but so far his colleagues have largely withheld judgment. “I know Max is a good man,” fellow Ohioan Jim Jordan said. Speaker Mike Johnson, who made sure to describe himself as the “father of two daughters,” called the claims “serious” but added, “We have to allow this process to play out.” Trump, for his part, has not demanded Miller’s withdrawal. “I feel badly for him,” he said last week.

Speaking of Trump: Isn’t Miller just doing what our shameless president does every time he’s accused of something bad?

According to Miller, yes. He has referenced the “extreme allegations” Trump faced during his 2016 campaign, noting that the future president “stayed in and he was resilient.” But Miller’s refusal to bow out wasn’t a foregone conclusion, either. Two of his House GOP colleagues, Tony Gonzales of Texas and Chuck Edwards of North Carolina, recently dropped their reelection bids after allegations of inappropriate behavior with female staffers.

So Miller’s for sure going to be on the ballot?

It would seem so. After today’s deadline, there’s no mechanism to force him off. He also plans to lend his own campaign $1 million, which seems like the sort of thing you do if you intend to gut it out. And while it sounds heartless to talk politics about what’s clearly an awful situation, Miller’s decision has helped turn his seat into a pickup opportunity for Democrats.

So you say, but voters have tolerated Trump’s scandals for a decade. Why would this be different?

True, but the president’s deny-deny-deny approach hasn’t always worked for others. In 2017, the year Trump took office, Republican Roy Moore lost a Senate race in deep-red Alabama after multiple women accused him of preying on them as girls. Miller’s district favors the GOP, yet recent polls show him trailing his Democratic opponent, a city councilor and ironworker named Brian Poindexter.

But even with these horrific allegations, he could still win?

He could. Miller’s race may test whether there’s any bottom for an elected official, even one accused of hurting his own spouse and kid. It’s true that Democrats tend to take scandal in their own ranks more seriously. The party forced Eric Swalwell to resign from the House and Graham Platner to quit the Maine Senate race after they were accused of sexual assault (allegations that both denied). But in our hothouse of a two-party political system, many voters have evidently decided to put up with almost any player so long as it helps their team. “We’re going to support our nominees,” the Republican National Committee chairman said yesterday when asked about Miller, after some throat-clearing about how, in divorce, “nobody’s a winner.”

That’s some heavy news to start the week. To take your mind off things for the rest of the night, my colleagues think you should:

Join us on a time-travel adventure to the ’90s: If you’ve recently been paralyzed by choice or felt overconnected but underinvested in your friendships, Slate has an antidote for you. For the next six weeks, join us for Party Like It’s 1996. Every Monday (starting today!), you’ll receive an email from Dan Kois with instructions for going out, staying in, hanging out, keeping in touch, and road-tripping like it’s 1996. If you join by Aug. 14 and are among the first 100 people to complete the challenges, we’ll send you some fun stuff in the mail. Sign up here!

Devour some books … and pizza: Pizza Hut’s Book It! program, which rewarded children for reading with personal pan pizzas, is part of the lore of countless childhood readers turned adults. Now the Reagan-era initiative is officially back for the summer—and some adults want in on the nostalgic fun. Rainesford Stauffer explores the program’s legacy.

Sample a twist on dinner and drinks: Would you try a mojito with gazpacho or a martini with pho? These might sound like strange pairings, but, as Courtney Iseman reports, soupy cocktails are the newest trend in booze. Savory cocktails have become de rigueur in recent years, and if we’re willing to sip olive or oyster brine, why not try some broth in your drink?

Read an explainer of the year’s most bizarre rom-com: One Night Only, the buzzy new movie starring Monica Barbaro and Callum Turner, is garnering plenty of chatter—and raising plenty of questions. The film is set in an authoritarian version of America where a chastity “mandate” prohibits premarital or extramarital sex, except for a singular 12-hour period each year when everyone gets to get it on. If you’re confused by this premise, you’re not alone. Luckily, Slate’s Nadira Goffe is here to break down just how something as ridiculous as The Purge, but for sex, could possibly work.

And with that, you’ve made it through another day. Enjoy the evening, and see you tomorrow!

—Ian

On Friday, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana took to the Senate floor to announce his intent to vote for Todd Blanche, Donald Trump’s nominee to be attorney general. Cassidy’s support almost certainly means that Blanche, who faced tough questioning from even some of Cassidy’s fellow Republicans over his loyalty to the president, will be confirmed as the country’s chief law-enforcement officer.

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid this year after voting in 2021 to convict Trump over Jan. 6, seemed hyperaware of his swing-vote status. For six minutes and 30 seconds, he laid out his case for confirming Blanche. But it turned out to be a weak case, one that falls apart under the weight of its own contradictions, omissions, and leaps of illogic. Today’s newsletter offers a close reading.

“Not a referendum”

Cassidy opened with an attempt to reframe the debate. “Mr. Blanche has become a referendum on how people feel about President Trump,” he said. “I have not approached it that way.” Instead, Cassidy continued, the vote should hinge on how Blanche “will go forward in a difficult job.”

But there’s a reason people see Blanche’s nomination that way, even if Cassidy prefers not to. Before elevating Blanche, Trump fired the previous attorney general, Pam Bondi, in part because she failed to prosecute his political opponents fast enough. Trump seems to view Blanche as someone he can more easily control, which makes Cassidy’s choice to confirm him inextricable from the president’s efforts to bend the department to his will.

“Greater leverage”

Cassidy next noted that Blanche, who has led the DOJ in an acting capacity since April, could continue to do so even if senators reject him. Then he argued that a Senate stamp of approval will give Blanche “greater leverage to push for things that should be pushed for” in the form of buy-in from rank-and-file department staff—and “more leverage to push back” on the president.

Whether Blanche will meaningfully stand up to Trump remains to be seen; despite trying to distance himself during his confirmation hearing, Blanche at one point accidentally called himself the president’s lawyer. But setting that aside, it’s mighty strange to argue that putting a check on Trump requires confirming his handpicked nominee. By Cassidy’s own logic, wouldn’t Senate confirmation also give Blanche more “leverage” to execute Trump’s pet projects, not just ones that are in the country’s interest?

“I’m not entirely satisfied”

From there, Cassidy moved to mollify his own fears. Cassidy first criticized Blanche for approving a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” to funnel taxpayer money to Trump allies (including, potentially, pardoned Jan. 6 rioters). Then he noted that Blanche had “made commitments” to shut down the fund in exchange for the votes of two other GOP senators. (At this point Cassidy couldn’t resist a bit of whataboutism, accusing “presidents of both parties” of siccing the law on their foes.)

But then Cassidy did something strange. “I’m not entirely satisfied where this is,” he said of the fund, “and I have no doubts that I’ll have concern in the future.” So why confirm Blanche if his commitments aren’t satisfactory? Cassidy has been down this road before. Last year, he supplied a key vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary. Cassidy, a doctor who criticized Kennedy’s anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, ultimately backed him after Kennedy promised not to fire members of a vaccine advisory group or muck with language on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website affirming that vaccines don’t cause autism. When Kennedy ended up violating those pledges, Cassidy disagreed with him from the sidelines but could do little else.

“Episodes of apparent lawfare”

Cassidy is clearly no fan of Trump’s attempts to use the DOJ for retribution. “A never-ending cycle of prosecuting political enemies undermines the rule of law, degrades the public’s trust in our institutions, and makes our politics more extreme when we need to unite to solve the big problems of our time,” Cassidy intoned, before praising Blanche for, he said, focusing the DOJ on violent crime, human and drug trafficking, and fraud.

But Blanche has been a participant, not just a spectator, in Trump’s efforts to weaponize justice. He has overseen transparently pretextual accusations the DOJ has leveled against Trump foes including former FBI Director James Comey, alleged Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool vandals, and others—none of which Cassidy mentioned. Seems like a big omission!

“It is a reality”

Throughout, Cassidy cast himself as a realist. “The choice,” he claimed, “is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who, indeed, may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

This is a wild misreading of the situation. For one thing, Blanche may not be as good as Cassidy thinks (see above). But even if he is, Blanche is only up for the job because Trump chose to fire Bondi, whom the Senate also confirmed. So if he does push back, why wouldn’t Trump just run the same playbook and replace Blanche with an even more servile minion?

“True no matter who”

Cassidy closed with what sounded like a lament. “Ultimately,” he said, “decisions are made by the president.” Trump may be “unrelenting” in his pursuit of political prosecutions, Cassidy added, “but this will be true no matter who the attorney general is.”

This is a depressingly resigned and remarkably fatalistic admission from a U.S. senator. If Cassidy is right that no one can slake Trump’s thirst for political vengeance, what’s the point of confirming Blanche at all? And if he’s really so convinced of Trump’s motivations, he has options other than rubber-stamping the president’s nominees. Cassidy might, for example, refuse to confirm Blanche unless Trump signs legislation restricting how long a government official can serve in an acting capacity or adopts roadblocks to political prosecutions. The fact that he isn’t is a tell about even Trump-critical Republicans’ appetite to defy the president. If a senator Trump effectively ran out of office won’t even stand up to him, why would Blanche?

Which leads to one final question: Why did Cassidy really back Blanche? Maybe he’s convinced himself of a flimsy case. Maybe Senate leadership leaned on him or he’s covering for a colleague who faces a tough reelection. Or maybe he just doesn’t care that much. Asked last year if he regretted voting to confirm Kennedy, Cassidy demurred. “You live life forward,” he said. “Let the day’s own troubles be sufficient for the day.” If Blanche does end up playing Cassidy for a fool, at least we know the senator won’t spend too much time looking back.

Congrats! After another long stretch of unrelenting news, the weekend is finally nigh. To help you enjoy it, my colleagues suggest:

Something to look forward to on Monday: Picture a time when plans didn’t require a 12-person group chat, three calendar apps, and a poll just to grab a drink. When you could just ... show up? In honor of Slate’s 30^th birthday, Dan Kois is challenging you, and your crew, to mentally travel (via newsletter) back to that time and rediscover the lost art of hanging out. Sign up to do the challenges along with him here! (And please enjoy this delightful video of Dan and Slate’s Kate Lindsay having a definitely-not-staged phone call to discuss the challenge!)

Test your news knowledge: Between Iranian cyberattacks, wildfires, and the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, a lot has happened this week. How closely have you been following the headlines? See if you can get more answers right on the news quiz than Slate’s senior director of podcast operations.

One movie to skip, and one not to miss: If you’re having trouble deciding what to watch this weekend, Sam Adams is here to help. First, what to skip: Sam writes that The Last House, Greta Lee’s new flick about a family of four trapped inside their suburban home, offers a pretty self-serving solution for how to spend the end of the world. Instead, consider Jane Schoenbrun’s Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, which riffs on slasher films like Sleepaway Camp and Friday the 13^th. Sam writes that it’s a brilliant, funny, and blood-soaked manifesto on how to love people who have less-than-perfect politics.

A very revealing investigation: When did everyone get so shy about nudity? Two generations ago, it wasn’t that weird to be naked in front of other people. Now everyone hates it. To find out what changed, Rowan Jacobsen stripped down and visited the last nudist resort in Southern California. His rollicking investigation might make you yearn for the liberation of a tranquil day spent in the buff.

And with that, enjoy the rest of your Friday evening! We’ll see you next week.

—Ian

The Food and Drug Administration approved a potentially revolutionary flu vaccine yesterday, and the push alerts came rolling in. The bureaucratic, multistep process for bringing new shots to market used to be the uncontroversial stuff of trade publications and medical journals, not national news. That has changed under an administration that tends to sow doubt about vaccines. But are Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other Trump officials really backing down on their vaccine skepticism? Let’s weigh the evidence.

Hang on. Flu shots have been around forever. What makes this one special?

Call it a solution to the chicken-and-egg problem. For more than 70 years, most annual flu vaccines have come from a manufacturing process that incubates the virus in chicken eggs. That process takes about six months, which means scientists have to guess which strain will dominate the upcoming flu season and tailor the shot to it in advance. As a result, seasonal flu shots can be less protective against unforeseen strains. It’s a big issue: The flu kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. This new vaccine, which is called mFlusiva and comes from the pharmaceutical company Moderna, is the first seasonal flu shot that uses mRNA. That technology, which Moderna also uses in its COVID vaccines, lets scientists modify the shot much faster. Moderna’s clinical trial also showed that mFlusiva is more protective against the flu.

That all sounds good! What’s the catch?

Moderna’s study found that mFlusiva carries a higher risk of fatigue, headache, and other side effects than earlier vaccines. But as with many vaccines, more serious complications are extremely rare.

When can I get this new shot?

Therein lies the rub. The FDA greenlit mFlusiva for adults age 50 and up, and Moderna wants to have it available for the coming flu season—that is, a few months from now. But a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory panel gets to set guidance for who should receive it. Kennedy, Donald Trump’s kooky Health and Human Services secretary, fired the experts on that panel last year and replaced them with people who have in some cases sought to limit who gets COVID shots, promoted unproven treatments, and spread misinformation about other vaccines. So while mFlusiva has the FDA’s blessing, Kennedy’s handpicked panel could still recommend that only a subset of Americans—say, people with compromised immune systems—get it. That could undermine the vaccine’s financial viability, a de facto way of discouraging Moderna from continuing to market it.

I was going to say: It seemed a little out of character for the Trump administration to sign off on this. What’s the backstory?

You’re not wrong to wonder. Kennedy has repeatedly criticized mRNA vaccines. Last year, he falsely said the shots “fail to protect effectively” against disease in order to justify cutting funding for mRNA research. Earlier this year, it did indeed look like the administration would block mFlusiva; the FDA initially refused to review Moderna’s application, backtracking only after experts and the company pushed back.

So does that mean the administration is changing its mind about vaccines?

The signals are mixed. In the “Yes” column: Trump nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz to lead the CDC, even though she has repeatedly broken with Kennedy’s anti-vaccine views. The Senate confirmed her this week. Last week, the administration released $600 million to an international group that helps poor countries get and distribute vaccines—overruling Kennedy, who had blocked the funding for months. And Dr. Vinay Prasad, the Kennedy-aligned FDA official who signed off on the agency’s refusal to review mFlusiva, has since left the administration.

So what’s in the “No” column?

Elsewhere, the administration seems to be hewing to its vaccine-skeptical approach. It’s appealing a federal judge’s order that blocked Kennedy’s plan to overhaul vaccine recommendations for kids. And according to the Wall Street Journal, Trump himself has encouraged Kennedy’s efforts to find evidence for the conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism.

Yikes. But this kind of straddling must surely be making Trump’s base mad?

Tensions have been brewing between the administration and the so-called Make America Healthy Again movement for months. Some MAHA voters, who backed Trump after Kennedy endorsed him in 2024, have become disillusioned as the administration repeatedly sides with the pesticide, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries. Last month, an impromptu debate broke out in the Oval Office between MAHA farmers and a top agriculture lobbyist. So Trump’s hot-and-cold approach to vaccines may just reflect his efforts to muddle through a political conundrum. While any departure from Kennedy’s anti-science approach is welcome, the real tests are yet to come.

Now that you’ve gotten a shot of the news, it’s time to kick back. For your evening enjoyment, my colleagues recommend:

The anatomy of a romance trope: At the ICYMI live show in Brooklyn, YouTuber Princess Weekes turned her viral video essay on the enemies-to-lovers romance trope into a full-on presentation. She digs into why it’s so appealing—and why it’s also become the most abused trope on BookTok.

Unwind with a classic game: Can you think of a five-letter word for a gadget to make gnocchi? Or three letters for “Rapper who famously beefed with Jay-Z”? Try your hand at today’s crossword!

Tune in to House of the Dragon: After a slog of a second season, HBO’s Game of Thrones prequel is back with a surprisingly enjoyable third season. Slate culture editor Jenny G. Zhang writes that the latest House of the Dragon has managed to pull off not one, but two seemingly impossible feats—and has her rooting for characters she never thought she would.

Make the most of fresh herbs: If you enjoyed Danny Palumbo’s deep dive into the secrets of making a better potato salad, here’s another summer cooking tip for you. We’re in the prime season for cooking with aromatics like basil, parsley, and mint, but recipes too often waste these ingredients’ potential. Here’s how to make your fresh herbs shine in any dish.

OK, time for me to leave you in peace. Have a great rest of your night!

—Ian

Hello! I’m back from a matrimonial break with a pep in my step and a shiny new ring on my finger. But politics news waits for no one, so let’s dive right in:

The progressives-versus-establishment battle for control of the Democratic Party drags on. Last night’s marquee race, the U.S. Senate primary in Michigan, was a bit of a letdown for both sides. Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive, beat the centrist Rep. Haley Stevens, but by an unexpectedly narrow margin. The story was much the same in other primaries across the country: real wins for the left tempered by plenty of evidence that the party’s center is still alive and kicking.

Political journalists often sieve through elections for clear takeaways, which make for better stories (and punchier headlines). But yesterday’s results, from El-Sayed’s narrow victory on down, don’t point in any single direction. Unsatisfying though it may be, voters in different places picked different candidates for reasons that go beyond ideology; the only way to declare this a win for centrists or progressives would be to ignore part of the story. Instead, let’s explore where each faction prevailed—and where they fell short.

Progressive strength:

El-Sayed’s close win, in which he underperformed the polling, in some ways undersells his achievement. He fought Michigan’s Democratic powers that be to a draw-plus-1 despite being vastly outspent. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, showered almost $30 million on Stevens’ candidacy.

But progressives flexed muscle elsewhere, too. Michigan state Rep. Donavan McKinney, a democratic socialist, ousted Rep. Shri Thanedar, the latest Democratic incumbent to fall to a lefty challenger. The establishment also whiffed in Kansas, which held primaries yesterday as well. State Sen. Cindy Holscher, who supports a data center moratorium and accuses both Democrats and Republicans of having “sold out” the working class, won the gubernatorial primary over a candidate who had the moderate sitting Democratic governor’s support. A decade ago, these kinds of progressive wins in purple and red states would have qualified as a political earthquake. Now, it’s just Tuesday.

Moderate resilience:

Elsewhere in Michigan, though, establishment Dems struck back. Jocelyn Benson, the sitting secretary of state, easily won the Democratic primary for governor and is favored in November. State Sen. Jeremy Moss handily beat a progressive in a safely blue House district. And it was Stevens, not El-Sayed, who won most of the rural and working-class parts of the state where Democrats have lost ground in the Trump era.

The pattern continued in other states. Former Rep. Elaine Luria, a moderate Navy veteran, won the primary in a Virginia swing seat she narrowly lost to a Republican in 2022. On the opposite coast, Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington easily put down a progressive challenge. And in Kansas, Adam Hamilton, a pastor who talks about bipartisanship, will take on Republican Sen. Roger Marshall in November. Is Hamilton likely to win in a state that overwhelmingly backed Donald Trump? No. But he could force the GOP to spend money there, which means less to spend elsewhere. The upshot: Progressives increasingly talk about the Democratic establishment as sclerotic, even moribund. Tuesday’s results make those forecasts of imminent death look more like wish-casting.

The center fails (to coordinate):

Still, establishment Dems really have stepped on several rakes this year, and last night’s primary in a Michigan swing district offered another example. Two moderates stubbornly stayed in the race, effectively drawing votes from each other as William Lawrence, a lefty activist, won with a plurality. A blue wave in November might well carry Lawrence to victory; Trump only narrowly won the district in 2024. But the seat could be harder to hold in 2028, which may be a less Democrat-friendly environment. Sure, party leaders can try to chalk up this result to a one-off mistake. But redistricting in GOP-led states has made the race for the House a bigger lift for Democrats, and every seat counts.

A major progressive faceplant:

In Missouri, former Rep. Cori Bush flopped in her bid to reclaim her old seat, losing by 22 points to the same AIPAC-backed candidate who’d ousted her in 2024. Bush had her liabilities—Joe Biden’s Justice Department investigated her over campaign spending—but still boasted support from Bernie Sanders and other progressives. Swing and a miss.

What’s next?

The fight for Democrats’ future continues on Tuesday in another Midwestern state: Wisconsin. Polls show the leading Democratic candidate for governor is Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist who over the years has adopted some of the left’s least electorally palatable positions, including abolishing the police and even canceling Thanksgiving. Hong has since backpedaled on some of those stances (she told Politico today that Thanksgiving is, in fact, her favorite holiday). And the fact that polls wildly overestimated El-Sayed may bode well for Hong’s more moderate rivals.

But as my colleague Jim Newell writes, the real question isn’t whether lefty candidates can win primaries; it’s whether they can beat Republicans in general elections, especially in purple states like Michigan and Wisconsin. For El-Sayed, that test is just beginning. We’ll soon find out whether Hong will get the same chance.

OK, that’s enough election talk for one day. Now I’ll hand things over to my colleagues, who have some ideas for how you might enjoy the rest of your night.

Have a nostalgic night out: Many restaurants are struggling these days—with one red-hot, surprising exception. Buoyed in part by mozzarella-stick-seeking Gen Zers, Chili’s has transformed from a ’90s relic to the hottest restaurant chain in the country. The intrepid Dan Kois visited Chili’s test kitchen to learn the secrets of its success.

And speaking of the ‘90s … The internet longs for a time before tech—and it’s expressing it in some questionable ways. ICYMI host Kate Lindsay and showrunner Daisy Rosario dig into what’s really behind all the nostalgia floating around the internet these days. Plus: Kois pops in to talk about how he channeled the best of that ’90s spirit in Party Like It’s 1996, his six-week series of challenges designed to help us recapture the lost art of hanging out. (If you sign up before Aug. 14, you can do the challenges along with him!)

Ground yourself with some compassion: Slate senior editor Tony Ho Tran takes a spin as Prudie and dishes out some exceptionally heartfelt advice. He counsels letter writers on how to handle a cheating brother, discuss religion with a devout friend, and avoid spiraling over the fear of being single forever. If you’re looking for words of wisdom, Tony’s got you covered.

Some juicy wordplay: How many words can you make with the letters N, U, E, P, G, and R? For every four you complete, you’ll unlock a new pair of letters to use with your existing set—and you have just one shot to find the longest word you can make with them. The longest words in yesterday’s game were LAYAWAY, PAPALLY, and PAYWALL. See if you can figure out today’s!

And with that, you’re done! Congrats on making it to the back half of the week, and see you tomorrow.

—Ian

Nominally, Jeanine Pirro is the U.S. attorney for D.C., appointed by Donald Trump and tasked with enforcing the law in the nation’s capital. In reality, Pirro’s job—like that of everyone else in Trump’s orbit—is to protect the president’s ego, image, and delusion. Pirro briefly confused these two roles recently, and it almost cost her her employment. It’s a lesson in how our government works now, and also, it involves the best story of the summer: the total disintegration of D.C.’s Reflecting Pool.

Sorry, start at the very beginning. What’s going on with the Reflecting Pool?

The Trump administration, as part of its program to beautify Washington, announced that it was going to “fix” the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which had long been clouded by algae and generally not super nice to look at. Trump promised to make the pool nicer than ever before, with his team asserting that his predecessors were incompetent not to have done so. Except, of course, keeping a massive outdoor pool pristine and leak-free is complicated, and Trump’s renovation flopped: The algae came back, joined by pieces of the pool’s new lining floating in the water. Beyond that, it came out that the administration had awarded a “no-bid” contract to the firm tasked with making the pool great again, and that—per the National Park Service’s own analysis—the firm was benefiting from an excessive profit margin. The whole thing became a delicious metaphor for his second term: Claim you can easily fix something difficult, fail miserably, and get some corruption in along the way.

OK, but what does this have to do with Judge Jeanine?

Well, Trump couldn’t just take responsibility for his pool flop, and so he did what he often does: He made up a bunch of stuff. In this case, he blamed vandals for damaging the pool. It was briefly funny, then it got ugly. Federal prosecutors charged several people with vandalism, including former Olympic canoeist David Hearn, a 65-year-old who maintains he just picked up a piece of loose lining because he was curious …

… Wait, Trump made ridiculous claims to excuse one of his administration’s failures, and those actually became the grounds for federal charges?

Yes. Some real North Korea “Dear Leader” stuff.

Still waiting to hear about Pirro though …

OK, here we go. On Friday, Pirro’s office asked a court to drop the charges against Hearn, telling a judge that “botched installation”—and not this Maryland sexagenarian—was to blame for the pool’s subpar condition. (Charges against other individuals were dropped on Monday, NPR reports.) Pirro’s team blamed the Interior Department for the flub, saying it had misled prosecutors about the pool.

I bet Trump didn’t like that!

Indeed. Trump wasn’t going to let the truth get in the way of his preferred pool narrative, and he certainly wasn’t going to stand for that truth coming from inside his administration. So the nation’s top propagandist went to work, again claiming, without evidence (and, in fact, with clear counterevidence), that the pool was plagued by vandals—and going after Pirro personally in an Oval Office rant yesterday. “I was disappointed with Jeanine Pirro, really disappointed with Jeanine Pirro,” he said. “She folded like an umbrella, and people get away with things. It’s a disgrace.” He also said she “choked.”

So it’s curtains for Judge Jeanine?

It got real close. She was summoned to the White House Monday to meet with Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose department oversaw the renovation and who is standing by the president’s official (phony) “vandalism” line. Pirro brought a box of documents to make her case, and the meeting got heated, but ultimately, so far, she still has a job.

Why should I care about this?

I also am not losing any sleep over Pirro’s employment status, and I’ve always believed that the pool story is—as my colleague Christina Cauterucci explained—useful more as a metaphor than as a policy issue. But this cycle illuminates an ongoing problem that afflicts the Trump administration.

That problem: When Trump says ludicrous things, his team scrambles to prove the president right—all so he never has to admit he’s wrong. Sometimes, this is as banal as Stephen Miller going on cable news and repeating Trump’s lies at a high volume. But increasingly, it involves using government resources to manufacture fiction. And in this case, it means that people who are clearly innocent are facing federal charges. Beyond that, by publicly dressing down Pirro for putting that pesky “rule of law” ahead of the “word of Trump,” the president further made clear to his entire administration that they work to reinforce his version of reality—even if that requires bending the facts and breaking the law.

Did anything else happen today that is extremely relevant to this topic but in a much scarier way?

Glad you asked. Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney general, Todd Blanche, cleared a big hurdle in the Senate. Blanche became Trump’s nominee by facilitating his conversion of the Justice Department into a personal cudgel for use against the president’s personal and political enemies. He got the job after his predecessor, Pam Bondi, was fired for not moving quickly enough to find ways to charge those enemies with crimes. You can bet that Blanche won’t make Pirro’s mistake. And that means trouble for all of us.

Before we get to good stories, I have good news: Ian is back tomorrow! Get ready for his return with, courtesy of my colleagues, some good advice on potato salad, parenting, and pricey underwear.

A revealing dispatch from across the pond: Kim Kardashian’s underwear empire has expanded to the U.K., to much fanfare. Slate contributing writer Imogen West-Knights visited the massive new Skims flagship in London to see what the fuss is all about. She expected to dislike the store—but that’s not exactly what happened.

A potato PSA: Before your next cookout, you need to read Danny Palumbo’s guide to making a better potato salad. In the course of researching nearly 50(!) recipes, he discovered the secret to making potato salad with real flavor. It turns out it’s not what you mix into the dish that makes it delicious—it’s how you cook the potatoes. And there’s one genius recipe that has cracked the code.

Sound advice for a struggling new parent: Slate’s advice columnists have heard it all over the years, so our parenting advice column has been bringing back some classics from the archives. Today, we’re resurfacing this gem, in which former Slate columnist Rumaan Alam (the author of Leave the World Behind, which became a Netflix movie a few years back) responds to a letter writer whose husband is not helping around the house.

An oddly satisfying word game: If you’re a fan of crosswords, we have a new twist for you. In Slate’s SoundBites, you fill in words in response to a series of clues, and the highlighted letters reveal a “sound bite”: a letter or set of letters that make a single sound. Then you sound out those highlighted letters, pronounced as they appear in the original clue answers, to solve the final mystery word. Give it a try!

That’s it from us. Thanks to Ian for lending me the chair, and, above all, thanks to you for reading.

—Patrick

Donald Trump’s media company is selling early access to his Truth Social posts, allowing companies to pay to be first to get information that will move the market. It’s every bit as corrupt as it sounds! Let’s get into it.

Sorry, that can’t be real. Prove it.

Last month, the company that controls the Trump social media network Truth Social announced that companies would soon be able to buy a service that flags the president’s social media posts within “milliseconds” of Donny hitting publish. Corrupt promises made, corrupt promises kept: “Truth API” went live on Saturday.

How much does this access cost?

The announcement doesn’t list a price, but the Guardian reports customers are paying as much as $100,000 per month. I reached out to see how much they’d charge, say, Slate—to be clear, our ceiling is $0.00—but haven’t heard back.

Why would anyone pay that much for early access to a Trump post?

Because it could pay for itself many, many times over. Let’s break it down: Trump’s pronouncements move markets all the time. Look at Iran: When the president posts wild threats about escalating the war, oil prices go up. When he says we’re days away from a lasting peace, oil prices drop. Now, imagine you’re a stock or commodities trader who relies on high-speed deals to make a living. Getting that information even slightly early could be worth millions (or more) on a single trade. It’s also a shakedown of these companies by the Trump empire, because if they don’t have that information and their competitors do, it could cost them a lot of money.

Got it. But companies pay for all sorts of services aimed at getting them fast information. Why is Trump’s company so corrupt for selling this?

Where … to begin. In theory, a private company helping investors get information quickly is a legitimate, widespread, and prosperous business model. But this isn’t any private company, and it’s not just any information that’s being sold. It’s easy to forget given all we’ve been through but: As president of the United States, Trump is an employee of the American people, and the information he dispenses belongs to the American people. It belongs to them equally and, critically, it should belong to them at the same time. Instead, that information is being sold by a Trump-controlled company in a way that enriches Trump personally.

Is there a more direct way to explain it?

If you cut out all the middlemen, what’s effectively happening here is that businesses are giving Trump money so they can be among the first to know what he’s saying. If those companies were bringing suitcases of cash to the Oval Office, it obviously would be illegal. The fact that the money goes through intermediaries doesn’t change the fundamentals of the arrangement.

Finance is complicated and you’re a politics editor. Why should I take your word for it?

[LeVar Burton voice] You don’t have to! Here’s what a Wall Street executive told NPR about the scheme: “In another administration, this would be considered criminal.”

Well after that I need a walk with my dog, a podcast to listen to while I’m out, and a good read (ideally about rubber-chicken world records) for when I’m back home. Fortunately, my colleagues have us all covered.

What everyday activism can do: On the latest episode of Amicus, the team took a trip down (recent) memory lane to look at the successes of the fight for equal marriage, and what we can learn from them today. Just listening through to all the celebrations after Windsor and Hollingsworth and finally Obergefell was like light therapy in the depths of winter.

An antidote to August ennui: When Byard Duncan began to feel the creep of a midlife crisis, he realized that desperate times call for farcical measures. So he took up the strangest hobby he could think of. Snap out of the summer malaise with this delightfully weird (and surprisingly poignant) essay about Duncan’s attempt to break the Guinness World Record for the longest throw of a rubber chicken.

Some advice for modern dating: What would you do if your partner wanted you to move to a new country—but wasn’t willing to commit to marriage? In the latest Unhinged column, Steffi Cao advises a letter-writer who is excited by the opportunity to move abroad, but doesn’t want to get burned.

A ’90s time-travel challenge: Have you noticed that even though you’re more in touch with your friends than ever before, you’re not actually as close to them as you wish you were? Have you noticed that even though your every whim can be satisfied with the tap of a screen, you feel unsatisfied quite a lot of the time? If you’re feeling the malaise of life in the 2020s, we have a fun challenge for you: Starting on Aug. 10, longtime Slatester Dan Kois will be taking you on a six-week time-travel journey (via newsletter) to rediscover the lost art of hanging out, the way people did it during Slate’s birth year of 1996. You can sign up here!

That’s it for us! Thanks so much for reading, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow.

—Patrick

Tens of thousands of people crossed from Morocco into Spanish territory yesterday and today. Almost all of those people have already been sent back, more continue to be returned to their home country, and none have successfully crossed into continental Europe. (We’ll explain this with a map.) Nevertheless, right-wing media is on fire over this story, the president has weighed in, and you’re likely going to hear about it a lot between now and November.

OK, before we get into the politics, could I have just the facts, please?

The right place to start. So, Ceuta is a small slice of Spanish territory that sits on a Mediterranean coastline that is otherwise part of Morocco. This is very relevant to the story, so here is a map:

Starting Thursday morning, more than 50,000 migrants crossed into Ceuta, either by bypassing fences on land or attempting to swim along the coast. Dozens died in the attempt. (A Spanish government spokesperson told Reuters that 57 bodies had been recovered on Spain’s side of the border and that more could be found on the Moroccan side.)

That sounds—and looks—extremely intense. Why did this happen?

It was, by all accounts, a chaotic, confusing, and awful scene—this kind of mass influx of people is not how any of this is supposed to work. That it happened reflects the desperation of many Moroccans to cross the border. However, Spanish law enforcement mobilized a mass-return effort in Ceuta, and by Friday afternoon local time, 48,300 had been sent back to Morocco, according to the Spanish government, with many more en route. Moroccan authorities have since largely halted new crossings into Ceuta. A European Union official said no migrants have gone from Ceuta to mainland Spain or other EU states.

Why is this a big deal in the U.S.?

Because, given what a hot-button issue immigration is here, you’re going to be hearing about it a lot. The conservative consensus is that Spain’s relatively lenient position toward immigrants is to blame for the incident, which they say vindicates Donald Trump’s extremely hostile position toward (nonwhite) migrants. Right-wing media is all over it: I’ll spare you the links, but it’s the lead story on Breitbart. Fox News has a bunch of headlines about it. It’s a top story on the Daily Wire. In fact, Trump has weighed in already: “It looks like an invasion of a country by hundreds of thousands of people … That’s going to be us in three years if the wrong side gets in … If the Democrats get in, you will not live a very good life.” Those sentiments were echoed by a host of MAGA lawmakers and influencers.

Is there precedent for this sort of argument?
You may remember 2018, when, in the lead-up to the midterms in Trump’s first term, Republicans made a massive deal about “migrant caravans” who were supposedly coming from Central America to overrun the U.S. border. This issue has not gone away since: High levels of crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border proved a political liability for the Biden-Harris administration too.

Do they have a point? Is this evidence of a collapse of Spanish sovereignty?

Spain’s leftist governing party oversaw passage of a new policy that allows some unauthorized migrants to apply for legal status, bringing them formally into the workforce of an aging nation. A recent Spanish Supreme Court ruling put some limits on the government’s ability to immediately send back migrants intercepted at sea, though legal experts told Reuters that this does not prevent their eventual expulsion. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said a misinterpretation of the court ruling had spread among migrants and traffickers, leading to the influx.

But is this incident relevant to the immigration issues we face in America?

It’s at least representative of the desperation many migrants feel, and it’s an incredible dramatic visual. So it will keep coming up because anti-immigrant fearmongering is sort of the underpinning of the entire MAGA project, even though the specific dynamics at play on this tiny peninsula have extremely limited relevance to the U.S.

The weekend is upon us, and so we have some great reads for you, a fun quiz, and everything you need to figure out if you should go see one of the year’s biggest movies.

The inspiring tale of a forgotten hero: In 1990, a single dad got fed up with the billboards for cigarettes targeting Chicago’s Black neighborhoods. So he assumed a secret identity and took matters into his own hands. One Year host Josh Levin tells the story of Mandrake the Magician’s one-man fight against Big Tobacco.

Test your news knowledge: Who was brought before a Senate subcommittee this week after pages from his personal diary were released by Sen. Rand Paul? Whom did Maine Democrats choose to replace Graham Platner as their new Senate candidate? See if you can beat a Slate senior editor in this week’s news quiz.

Go deeper on The Odyssey: Whether you’ve seen Christopher Nolan’s epic movie already or you’re considering heading to the theaters to catch it this weekend, you might find something that speaks to you in Slate’s coverage of the film. So far, Slate writers have taken stock of how the right-wing backlash didn’t hurt the movie at the box office; considered how Nolan put his own twist on the ending; spoken to a classics professor about Lupita Nyong’o’s casting as Helen; reflected on how the movie captures the trauma of war; and dug into the question of the best possible format for viewing The Odyssey.

Hold on to July for just a little longer: August is around the corner, but what if it weren’t? Way back in 2001, David Plotz declared August the worst month. It’s the dog days of summer, with beastly heat, no proper holidays, and an abysmal history. Plotz’s bold solution to the tyranny of August? Let’s get rid of it!

That’s it from us. Have a great weekend. We’ll be back Monday.

—Patrick

Donald Trump would very much like the Senate to confirm acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as permanent Attorney General Todd Blanche. Today, though, the president said he might temporarily withdraw Blanche’s nomination. What’s the deal here? It’s unclear what Trump will do next, but even the possibility of the AG nominee stalling in the GOP-controlled Senate is an interesting window into the leverage that Trump—through messes of his own making—has lost over certain members of his party.

OK. Catch me up quickly on Blanche?

After Trump fired former AG Pam Bondi, Blanche—who had already been confirmed as deputy attorney general after serving as Trump’s personal defense attorney—stepped into the role in an acting capacity. He proceeded to even further facilitate Trump’s use of the Justice Department as a branch of the White House dedicated to punishing the president’s political opponents. That fealty was enough for Trump to nominate Blanche to the position permanently. In days gone by, that would have been a done deal: Republicans control the upper chamber responsible for advice and consent on Trump’s nominees and are far from fond of saying no to the president.

What’s different this time?

Two Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has to approve the nomination to get it to the Senate floor, are refusing to support Blanche. The committee’s Democrats are all hard no votes as well, so without the GOP votes, Blanche is stuck. Looking to avoid an embarrassing L, the committee postponed the Blanche vote, which had been scheduled for Thursday.

Who are these Republicans standing up to Trump? And what’s their problem with Blanche?

Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas are the committee holdouts. Both are upset about Trump’s “anti-weaponization fund.”

What’s that?
Real quick: Trump sued the IRS over the 2020 leak of part of his tax returns, and in an extremely shady settlement that was essentially Trump making a deal with himself, the government agreed to create a pool of money to pay people who’d supposedly been victims of the Biden administration’s persecution. In practice, that looks a lot like a slush fund for Trump to funnel taxpayer cash to his friends (including, possibly, Jan. 6 Capitol rioters). Republicans were not eager to be associated with a national “thanks for the insurrection, sorry there were consequences” scheme, and, after much pushback, Blanche told the committee that the plan had been scrapped. Owing to the administration lying a lot, Tillis and Cornyn want more guarantees that the weaponization fund won’t ever happen, and they have some other concerns about the other part Trump’s self-settlement with the IRS, which involves an indefinite non-prosecution deal for the president and his family.

Wow. What admirable commitment to duty from these Republican senators. Should I admire them greatly, or is there some underlying dynamic that reveals this all to be kind of pathetic?

Sigh. Trump ended both Cornyn’s and Tillis’ political careers earlier this year by refusing to back them in their primaries. (Cornyn lost to the mega-MAGA challenger Ken Paxton, Tillis just said To hell with this and retired.) Now that they have no careers to lose, Cornyn and Tillis suddenly find themselves more willing to defy the president.

So what happens now?
As noted, Trump’s plan would be to temporarily pull Blanche’s nomination and then reintroduce it next year, after the Suddenly-Not-So-Timid Twosome have left office. That plan could backfire, however, if Republicans lose the Senate in the midterms, or even if they see their margin get slimmer.

And in the meantime?

For now, Blanche stays on as acting AG, eagerly doing Trump’s bidding. But you can’t be an “acting” official forever. There are a lot of moving parts here, and disagreement about when the clock would really run out on Blanche. But per federal guidelines, Blanche can serve for 210 more days (almost seven months!) after the date of a nomination’s “rejection, return, or withdrawal.” So, the basic answer is that Blanche will be calling the shots for a good long while. After that, it’s up in the air.

So what do I make of all this?
A few things: Our Justice Department, which is supposed to have some modicum of independence from the White House, will continue to be run by someone who sees his job as satisfying Trump’s every whim. And, as my colleague Jim Newell pointed out a few weeks ago, Trump’s ultimate leverage in getting Blanche confirmed is the threat to pick someone even worse. Our Senate, on the other hand, is showing signs of becoming slightly less supine, though so far those are limited to Republicans with nothing left to lose.

OK. Brutal. Did Slate politics by chance publish a really excellent feature today on Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, one so compelling and rich that I could find solace just by reading it?

So glad you asked!

That Michigan Senate piece isn’t the only thing we have for you! My Slate colleagues have put together all the material you need for a great evening online.

A bizarre glimpse into how the Trump admin sees itself: All right, this one isn’t exactly a palate cleanser, but sometimes you’ve got to laugh to keep from crying! And one of Slate’s funniest writers, Christina Cauterucci, took a deep dive into the weirdly knife-heavy videos the Trump administration has been posting on TikTok, so you don’t have to.

Choose your own culinary adventure: The most advanced ordering system in the food industry is the multiple-choice menu that lets you assemble a masterpiece from every filling, topping, and garnish in existence. Right now it’s underutilized, but within that bubble-sheet system is a world of possibility, argues Chason Gordon—so choose wisely.

Soak up some sun … or slather on the sunscreen? The sun has always been a hot topic. Though we’ve lived under it for all of human history, we’ve never quite figured out how much sunlight is actually good for us. As we reach the peak of this summer, listen to the latest Decoder Ring for a fascinating investigation into our changing attitudes toward sun exposure.

Sail the seas with the most hated band of the 1990s: To round us off tonight, we’re bringing back a classic from Slate’s archives, in which Luke Winkie went on a reunion cruise for Creed, once dubbed “the worst band of the 1990s,” and learned how they’ve since become beloved.

Now that you have the sweet chorus of “Can you take me higher?” in your head, our work here is done. Thanks so much for reading, and we’ll see you back here tomorrow.

—Patrick

Sometimes in life, you draw the short straw. Such was the case today for Molly Olmstead. As Slate’s resident expert on conspiracy theories, it fell to Molly to watch this morning’s Senate hearing that pitted Anthony Fauci—who was a top White House adviser on COVID-19 to Presidents Trump and Biden—against a bunch of really angry Republicans, including an extremely fired-up Sen. Rand Paul.

I spent this morning screen-free (five stars, highly recommend), but when I came back to my desk, there was a flood of clips, news alerts, and social media posts about what seems to have been quite the hearing. So I asked Molly to explain what happened this morning, what more broadly is going on with Republicans and COVID-19, and what, if anything, from today’s dustup will matter down the road.

OK Molly. Why is everyone talking about Anthony Fauci and Rand Paul?

After a subpoena from Paul, Fauci appeared this morning before a Senate panel where Republicans were demanding answers about a host of COVID-era controversies. They did not get them, however: Fauci read an opening statement in which he said he’d addressed all these subjects before. From there, he was quiet, invoking the Fifth Amendment in response to literally any question he faced.

How did that go over?

Well, these hearings are usually places for lawmakers to vent their feelings at witnesses in the hopes of creating clips that go viral anyway, so this was sort of the drearier version of that. Republicans kept asking about COVID conspiracy theories and suggesting Fauci had blood on his hands, but Fauci wouldn’t give them anything in the way of material. The spiciest thing that happened was that Paul had Fauci’s lawyer escorted out of the hearing after he tried to respond to lawmakers when Fauci wouldn’t.

Why was Fauci on the HIll to begin with? What was Paul looking to achieve?

“Jail Fauci” is a popular slogan among MAGA and MAHA influencers, and Paul has long used the threat of legal consequences against Fauci to become the congressional face of that movement. This was part of that campaign. It’s also part of a broader effort to get people talking about COVID again ahead of the midterms, where Republicans think it’ll be a winning topic for them.

And why did I hear so much about Fauci’s diary this week?

Paul released excerpts from said diary earlier this week. (Yes, Fauci kept a diary from that time and somehow it got into the hands of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who gave the pages to Paul.) The diary entries were supposed to show that Fauci had lied to the public or in some way acted on improper motivations—though I think they more reflect Fauci’s internal debates over how to communicate things at a time when the science was shifting so quickly. That said, there is some embarrassing stuff in there, suggesting Fauci was enamored with his own celebrity and relished the limelight. Then again, we don’t have the full context of the excerpts, so it’s hard to know for sure what we’re looking at.

What happens next?

Well, Republicans are promising consequences for Fauci for having taken the Fifth, but there is a big hurdle there: On his way out of office, Biden issued Fauci a blanket pardon for his work in government on COVID. That would make prosecuting him extremely difficult.

Lots of hearings happen on Capitol Hill, get one news cycle, and then are forever subducted under the plates of public memory. Will any of today’s hearing matter down the road?

So, I think this was, in a large way, for MAGA and MAHA [Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement] influencers. They’ve been clamoring for jailing Fauci for a long time, and this is lawmakers showing they’re taking action. For the public, I think Republicans will try to use Fauci’s nonanswers as evidence of him being callous toward Americans who suffered under COVID and who are looking for an outlet for those frustrations.

I think the bigger issue is less about Fauci and more about his critics. The pandemic response was far from perfect, and there are tons of legitimate critiques. But today reminded us that this is a party that has given in to conspiracy theories at the most extreme level. You had these unfounded claims of thousands of Americans dying from vaccines, and not a single Republican voice on the committee pushing back. That’s scary.

OK, now you’re safe from watching a multihour Senate hearing. Instead, might we suggest an inspiring essay on democracy, or a fun quiz, or a movie recommendation, or even a series of fun pieces on revenge?

Consider what’s possible. We’ve said it a few times in this newsletter, but sometimes one of the best ways to stop spiraling about the news is to focus on potential solutions. As part of “By the People,” Slate’s series exploring how Americans can reclaim the Constitution and the law, Alexis Romero outlined three possible fixes for an out-of-control Supreme Court.

Put a perfect little movie on your to-watch list. Slate’s movie critic, Dana Stevens, loved Tony, the new biopic about Anthony Bourdain. In advance of its release in August, she explains why it’s one to look forward to.

Test your knowledge of historical trivia. Who was the first graduate of West Point to become the president of the United States? In which decade did Germany print a 100 trillion mark note? If you’re a history buff, you’ll love today’s Slate quiz.

Dive into some juicy tales of revenge. Last summer, we decided to dedicate a whole week to writing about revenge: how it fuels and consumes us, how it succeeds, and how it backfires, from the White House to cheating spouses to that bad boss who totally deserved it. And this collection of pieces is still fascinating one year later!

That’s it for us. Have a great night, and thanks so much for reading.

—Patrick

The best way to understand this Trump administration’s immigration policy is as a giant race to deport as many people as possible. Standing in the way of that goal is a complex series of laws and procedures aimed at adjudicating which asylum seekers (and others) have a legitimate claim to stay. From literally Day 1, this administration has sought to undermine that system with an “everyone* must go” mentality. Today, the administration took another major step toward that goal.

*Unless you’re white; we’ll get to that.

That’s ominous. What is this new policy?

As of today, the administration is making it easier to move asylum seekers’ cases directly into deportation proceedings, the Washington Post reports. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of people (or about one-third of asylum cases pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) could see their applications rerouted to the Justice Department’s immigration courts. For many, this change means a fast track to deportation, as—due to other Trump-era changes—those judges can now dismiss certain cases without a hearing.

How is that different from the previous policy?
Provided they entered the U.S. legally and were not charged with any other immigration violation, anyone seeking asylum is supposed to have the opportunity to make their case to a trained asylum officer. Now, many people, including people who have a legitimate claim to asylum, won’t even get that chance.

Why is the administration doing this?

The stated reason is that there is a “crisis” in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services process, which, a Trump official said, was being flooded by people exploiting a loophole. If that were really the issue, the government could beef up the corps of asylum officers and strengthen the system. It is much more likely that this is simply a way to up the pace of deportations.

When does this change take effect?
Administration policy changes typically require a lengthy internal review period and time for public comment. This one, for reasons I can’t say I fully understand, skipped all that and went into effect immediately—as of today.

Does that timing dovetail with another horrifically cruel immigration policy?
Why yes, yes it does. This week, millions of Haitians lost their temporary protected status, which shielded certain people from deportation on the grounds that they’d be sent back to horrible situations. That certainly applies to Haiti, which is enduring tremendous hardship and instability. I would note that, perhaps not coincidentally, people covered by temporary protected status are often eligible to apply for asylum.

OK, so what about if you are white?

Oh, the Trump administration is actively soliciting white South Africans, who, upon arrival, are being greeted with literal welcome bags.

Wow, so Trump’s team is doing everything they can to make asylum impossible, but also targeting white people to come to the U.S. for resettlement? That sounds really racist.

You said it, not me. But also, I said it: It’s white nationalism in action.

Well that was dark. But things aren’t hopeless, and we’re not powerless. My colleagues have some great content to help you have an inspired and enjoyable evening.

A guiding light in troubled times: When the news has you spiraling, sometimes it helps to consider how ordinary people can make a difference. As part of Amicus and Slate’s “By the People” series—which explores how the American people can reclaim the law from a monarchical Supreme Court—University of Minnesota professor Emmanuel Mauleón wrote an essay about how Minneapolis provided a lesson for the entire country in how to take the Constitution back.

Catch up on a special ICYMI event: Slate’s podcast about online culture teamed up with Club Internet for a live show, featuring creators Josh Lora, Akilah Hughes, Matt Buechele, and Princess Weekes. Watch the recording to catch their lively discussion about how influencers have transformed media, storytelling, and entertainment. (This video is exclusive to Slate Plus members—if you haven’t yet become one, sign up today.)

An immersive Odyssey experience: IMAX 70 mm is considered the best format for viewing Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of The Odyssey. But you can go even further than that. Nadira Goffe argues that watching the film in 4DX—which features, among other things, scents, moving chairs, and sprays of water—is the superior way to experience the epic adventure. Nadira breaks down what you can expect during a multisensory screening.

Party like it’s 1996: Have you noticed that you’re more in touch with your friends than ever before, but you’re not actually as close to them as you wish you were? Do you long for a time before smartphones dominated our lives? Are you sometimes filled with a strange nostalgia for the 1990s (even if you perhaps don’t actually remember the ‘90s that well firsthand)?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, we have a challenge for you! Starting on Aug. 10, longtime Slatester Dan Kois will be taking you on a six-week time-travel journey (via newsletter) to rediscover the lost art of hanging out, the way people did it during Slate’s birth year of 1996. If you sign up before Aug. 14 and complete at least one of the challenges, we’ll mail you some fun stuff! You can sign up here.

OK! That’s all for us. Thanks so much for reading, and we’ll see you tomorrow.

—Patrick

If you expected today’s newsletter to be about Donald Trump’s threats to do a bunch of war crimes in Iran, or perhaps about the president’s petulant rant at the make-up White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, I can’t say I blame you. The former is a huge deal, and the latter is the sort of thing that Trump has successfully used for a decade to keep the conversation on his inane rhetoric rather than his policy failures. But today I want to focus on a story from Friday that would have been a massive scandal under any other administration. In our timeline, it got some pickup last week, but it’s already been largely forgotten.

The Trump administration canceled $7.5 billion in federal funding for clean energy projects in blue states, and it did so simply because those states had voted against Trump in the most recent election.

Wait, hold up. That’s a pretty big claim. How do you expect me to believe it?

Because the administration admitted it in court! In papers filed earlier this month (and highlighted Friday by a pair of New York Times reporters I really admire), the administration confessed to canceling Biden-era funding “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

What’s the backstory here?

In October, the Trump administration clawed back grants the Biden administration (with Congress’ approval) had allocated to support clean energy development. Trump’s team framed its “Actually, yeah, let’s cook the planet” agenda as a strike against wasting taxpayer dollars. That logic was already suspect, as it’s tough to claim that taxpayer dollars are being “wasted” on technologies aimed at keeping the planet suitable for human habitation. But beyond that, the framing was a lie: Barring one exception, the administration admitted in court, the funding was choked off only in states that had voted for Kamala Harris and had two Democratic senators. In red states, the cash continues to flow.

Why are they stating this so plainly in court?

Some of the groups who had their grants canceled sued in an effort to get their funding. The administration divulged this information as part of a deal to avoid having to turn over more evidence about the decisions. The Times writes: “That process could have required federal agencies to hand over more damaging records.”

So, basically, the administration not only nixed investment aimed at fighting climate change, but it did so with the express purpose of punishing states that didn’t vote for Trump.

When you put it like that, it doesn’t sound great.

OK, but you said this would have been a massive scandal in another administration. How do you know?

Because I was there!

Oh, great. Everyone loves it when journalists talk about themselves! What happened?

So glad you asked. The Obama administration was accused of allocating clean-energy funding based on political allegiance, and it became a scandal that dragged on for years, reshaping the public’s perception of the success of Barack Obama’s climate program and becoming a major political liability.

Well, that sucks. Anything else?

In 2011, a solar energy manufacturer named Solyndra declared bankruptcy. The company had been the beneficiary of a federal “loan guarantee” program that aimed to spur investment in experimental technologies that were unproven but could yield huge financial or climate dividends. That didn’t happen to Solyndra, which ended up going under due to foreign competition and other factors.

OK. Businesses fail. Why did this become a scandal?

There were some legitimate failures here: The federal government had guaranteed $535 million in loans to the company, leaving taxpayers on the hook for a significant chunk of change. What’s more, Solyndra was credibly accused of misleading the government about its finances in order to secure backing, leading to the company being raided by the FBI. Finally, inside the Obama administration, concerns were raised about the propriety of Solyndra’s debt plans, but those weren’t properly vetted.

But it was politics, and not the facts of the case, that gave the scandal legs: Republicans had recently taken control of the House (you may remember something about a tea party revolution midway through Obama’s first term), and they were using their oversight powers to try to paint the administration as a wretched hive of scum and villainy. They flogged the Solyndra story relentlessly, claiming that the Obama administration had steered money to the company as a political favor, and calling it symbolic of a broader trend of corruption.

Republicans beat that drum daily, and in a very different era of political media, when scandals were much harder to come by, energy reporters had only one story to focus on. Eventually Solyndra became shorthand for the alleged failures of federal efforts to support technologies that would fight climate change—with Republicans continuing to wail about cronyism all the way through Obama’s 2012 reelection run.

You said you were there. Anything you want to admit to here?

I wrote a daily newsletter about energy policy at the time, and, in my efforts to be at the forefront of the news, I gobbled up those nuggets as well. Looking back, I really regret that I didn’t demand proof of serious wrongdoing before reporting so much on allegations of serious wrongdoing.

Wait, so you all covered the accusations for months. Were the bigger allegations true?

No. Just … no. A four-year federal investigation found that Solyndra misled the government and that the administration could have done a better job overseeing the Solyndra loan guarantee—basically, that the team got duped into backing a bad investment. But the investigation found no evidence of corruption or cronyism in the steering of money to Solyndra, which was the crux of the GOP accusations. The GOP never offered any proof either.

So was the loan guarantee program a huge waste of money?

By 2014, the program as a whole actually had made money for taxpayers, as the losses were outweighed by repaid loans from companies that had found success. Of course, by that time, everyone had moved on.

Back to the present day. If I’m understanding this correctly, the Obama administration was accused of steering $500 million in clean energy loan support based on politics, though that was debunked. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has openly admitted to doing what Obama’s team was accused of, but with more than 10 times as much money—and infinitely more directly. Is this going to be a huge scandal?

I think the chances of that are basically nil, as the news cycle is already moving on. Additionally, this isn’t even the first time the administration has blatantly withheld energy funding for obviously political reasons. In fact, in December, administration officials admitted that different funding was strategically withheld from blue states during the government shutdown. I missed it back then, and I’m guessing you did too.

Well, that was long and sad enough to make one miss Ian. (Just a reminder: I’m filling the seat for a bit while he gets married.) But remember, despair isn’t activism—it’s just another impediment to progress. So, to help you stay motivated, my colleagues have curated some great recommendations to remind you that there’s still wonder and joy to be found in the world.

Learn more about the most overlooked performance in The Odyssey: Let’s take a moment to appreciate the second masterful performance we’ve seen from a puppeteer on the silver screen this year, with Sam Adams’ deep dive on Bill Irwin’s Cyclops.

Enjoy a tasty tomato treat: Summer is the perfect time to enjoy tomato sandwiches—and not just because they’re delicious. When life gets you down, Danny Palumbo opines, nothing is more soothing than eating a meal prepared with love.

Wash down your tomato treat in style: Along with eating a lovingly prepared meal, sipping on an after-work cocktail is a classic way to unwind. But as Americans consume less alcohol than ever, there are still ways to appreciate this ritual without actually imbibing. Leslie Vooris shares some recommendations for elevating your drinking experience by investing in fancy glassware.

Start a new crossword streak: What’s an 11-letter word for a cheesy polyester ’fit? What’s a six-letter word for bringing something back to the land of the living? Ponder these questions and many more as you solve our very satisfying daily crossword.

That’s all from us. Thanks so much for reading, and have a great night.

—Patrick

In last Friday’s newsletter, we told you about a foodborne parasitic outbreak that has sickened thousands of people across several states. Today we’re bringing you an update on a totally different ailment stalking Donald Trump’s America—one that was supposed to have been eliminated decades ago. Measles cases in the U.S. just set a depressing record, making 2026 the worst year for the disease since the Soviet Union collapsed. Here’s what’s behind the surge.

Wait, slow down. What does measles entail, again?

Measles is a highly contagious virus. Most cases are mild and amount to little more than a cough, fever, and runny nose. But severe illness can cause rashes, pneumonia, brain damage, or death, and younger children are at greater risk of hospitalization. Safe and effective vaccines have been widely available since the 1960s; by 2000, the U.S. declared measles eliminated here. But cases have skyrocketed in the past two years.

How bad is the current outbreak?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counts 2,318 confirmed cases across the country so far this year, up from 2,289 in all of 2025—and we still have five months to go. That’s the highest number since 1991, and more cases in just the past two years than in every previous year since the turn of the century combined. Three unvaccinated people in the U.S. died of measles last year, the first known deaths from the disease since 2015.

Not to point fingers, but are the anti-vaxxers to blame?

Recent outbreaks have taken root in places where vaccine hesitancy is common, including among Mennonites in Texas and evangelical Slavs in South Carolina. A 95 percent vaccination rate with the modern, two-dose MMR shot—so named because it also protects against mumps and rubella—is enough to provide herd immunity from measles. But in vaccine-hesitant communities, the share that’s protected can be much lower. Most of this year’s cases have been in people who are unvaccinated by choice (or by their parents’ choice). But people who can’t get the shot, including infants, have also gotten sick.

What’s the Trump administration doing in response?

Childhood vaccination rates nose-dived as vaccine hesitancy rose during COVID. But Trump’s decision to appoint longtime vaccine skeptics like Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. probably hasn’t helped. When measles started circulating last year, Kennedy was slow to endorse the MMR shot and hawked ineffective measles treatments. He also cut funding for research aimed at reducing vaccine hesitancy and is pushing an agency-wide effort to support his claims that vaccines are dangerous. Trump himself has advocated splitting the MMR vaccine into separate shots, which would probably just leave more Americans more vulnerable to more diseases.

How can I avoid getting—and spreading—this?

If you’ve gotten two MMR doses, you’re well protected. But if you were born between 1957 and 1989, you may have gotten a version of the vaccine (or a number of doses) that was less effective. Ask a healthcare provider about whether you should consider a booster.

What happens next?

Cases will probably continue to rise, especially when kids go back to school this fall and as the weather turns colder. If vaccination rates keep sinking and outbreaks become commonplace, measles could once again become endemic. International experts are set to meet later this year to decide whether the U.S. should lose its elimination status. In happier news, rising case counts have jump-started research into drugs that could treat people who do get sick, including antibody and antiviral therapies. But the sad truth is that we’ve had the solution to measles for decades. To adapt the old saw, you can lead a horse to a vaccine but you can’t make it take one.

A peek into the future of restaurant reservations: If you’re making plans for a fancy dinner this weekend, take note: A big “upgrade” is coming to your favorite restaurants—to diners’ detriment. In the A.I. age, Maggie Hennessy asserts, sparring with a grouchy maître d’ over the phone is part of what makes dining out great.

Getting to know the Slatesters behind the mic: Unwind with this casual conversation between What Next: TBD host Lizzie O’Leary and producer Rob Gunther. Lizzie and Rob discuss some strange developments in the world of running—and drop some personal lore, like Rob’s experience at the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. This episode is exclusive to Slate Plus members. If you haven’t yet become one, sign up today.

Listening to a pop icon’s latest album: Charli XCX is back with the follow-up to her stratospheric hit record Brat. Slate music critic Carl Wilson argues that the singer’s new album is a middle finger to the expectations of being an “It Girl.”

A test of your news knowledge: Recap the events of this week by going head-to-head with Slate staff writer Molly Olmstead in our news quiz. She aced it—can you beat her score?

Before I go, some personal news: I’m taking off a week and change to get married, so my illustrious colleagues will have your back until I return. See you next month, and have a great weekend!

—Ian

Atomic weapons are an extinction-level threat, so you’d ideally want a steady hand guiding U.S. nuclear policy. Instead, we have Donald Trump—and boy has he made the past two days tense. Yesterday, the Trump administration signed an accord to give Saudi Arabia a nuclear energy program. This morning, the president promptly threw the whole agreement into doubt. So is there a deal or not? It’s a high-stakes question; the accord could one day help the Saudis make a nuclear bomb, adding more turmoil to an already chaotic region. Today—with the help of Slate’s resident nuclear expert Fred Kaplan—I’ll explain what we know about the potential deal, and what questions remain.

Seeing Trump and nuclear in a sentence makes me nervous. What does this deal actually say?

I can’t blame you. The deal would commit U.S. companies to build nuclear reactors on Saudi soil to generate power. Despite being an oil-rich nation, Saudi Arabia has long sought this kind of deal to diversify its energy sources. The U.S. also has similar agreements with dozens of other countries.

OK, that sounds reassuring. Does this mean the Saudis can’t make a bomb?

If only. As Fred explained this week, this particular agreement is different in a key way: It could eventually let Saudi Arabia enrich its own nuclear fuel—ostensibly for medical research or other specialized purposes, but potentially to make a weapon. The deal also lacks specific provisions for international inspections, something the country reportedly insisted on. If it does make a bomb, a regional arms race could ensue.

Yikes. But why would Saudi Arabia want nukes?

The answer depends on a different Middle Eastern country: Iran. The two nations are sworn enemies, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has vowed for years that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, his country will too. Lately, that prospect has become more real; Trump’s war has arguably given Iran more reasons to pursue a bomb to deter future attacks. If it does, Saudi Arabia probably “has an interest in keeping open the possibility of having some nukes as a deterrent” of its own, Fred says.

You mentioned Trump throwing this all in doubt. What exactly happened?

Iran isn’t the only neighbor Saudi Arabia has tensions with. Israel, currently the region’s only nuclear-armed power, fought Saudi troops decades ago, and the two countries disagree about what should happen to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Given that history, Israel reacted poorly to the news of Trump’s deal with the kingdom. At first, Fred notes, it looked like Trump was indirectly telling Israel to shove it. But then the president took to Truth Social and threw a curveball. He retroactively called the deal “totally subject” to Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, a Trump-negotiated pact that would require it to establish diplomatic ties with Israel. Saudi Arabia has said it won’t do that unless Israel resumes talks to create a Palestinian state, which the current Israeli government very much opposes.

Why’d Trump change course?

Facing blowback, Trump sometimes guts it out. But in this case, our impulsive president seems to have gone back on his word. Asked today by reporters why Trump’s latest demand wasn’t in the original deal, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt looked like a deer in headlights. She gave no explanation for Trump’s last-minute shift and said the administration would “continue to talk” with the Saudis to “get the deal finalized.” Israel’s objections were eminently foreseeable, so maybe the president is just covering his keister; after Trump’s post, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the idea of normalizing relations. But that would require a major Saudi about-face, so Trump might really be trying to sabotage an accord his administration signed less than 24 hours ago. Then again, as Fred told me, he could have another motive entirely: “With Trump’s vacillations, logical inference isn’t always the best approach.”

So will the deal fall apart?

Even if the Saudis agree to Trump’s new demand, the deal would face congressional review before taking effect. With Republicans in control, Congress’ support looks likely, but the deal will only make it to them if Trump doesn’t blow the whole thing up. So we’re all just waiting to see what he’ll do next. It’s a familiar position to be in, but that doesn’t make it any less unpleasant—or any less shocking that the leader of the free world appears to be setting nuclear policy on a whim.

Following the diplomatic back-and-forth about a potentially existential subject could tire anyone out, so spend the rest of your night doing something else! I’d suggest:

Tuning in for some TV takes: Netflix’s binge-drop model disrupted the stodgy rhythms of old-school TV. But now, the streaming service’s ratings are tumbling—and it has only itself to blame. Slate’s Sam Adams explains how Netflix became a bad TV friend. Also, we’ll explain more in tomorrow’s Your Morning Slate, but if you’re looking for a surprisingly good watch from a rival platform, check out HBO’s Stuart Fails to Save the Universe.

Satisfying your curiosity (if not your hunger): We can’t in good conscience suggest eating at Taco Bell during the ongoing cyclosporiasis outbreak. But we can wholeheartedly recommend this dispatch from Slate’s Alexander Sammon, who visited his local Taco Bell to eat chalupas with the brave Americans who aren’t letting the risk of a parasite ruin their appetite.

Listening to a sultry soundtrack: In the mid-1970s, a college radio station launched an evening program called The Quiet Storm. The show grew so popular that it spawned a whole genre of smooth and sexy music, exemplified by artists like Anita Baker and Luther Vandross. On Death, Sex & Money, host Anna Sale chats with 99% Invisible producer Christopher Johnson (formerly of Slate!) about why The Quiet Storm resonated with an ascendent Black middle class.

Ending the day with some wordplay: Revel in the weirdness of the English language with Slate’s newest game, SoundBites! Here’s how it works: Solve each clue to find a sound bite (a letter or set of letters that make a single sound). Then combine your sound bites, pronounced as they appear in the original clue answers, to solve the final mystery word.

And with that, I’ll leave you be until tomorrow. Have a great rest of your evening!

—Ian

Tariffs are back—or at least the threat of them. Yesterday the Trump administration announced an additional 50 percent import duty on Canadian wine, hockey sticks, and other goods. But the tariffs won’t actually take effect for almost a month, which means they might never: Donald Trump has a history of retreating in exchange for minor concessions. So before you get too worked up, here’s what you need to know.

Wait, I thought the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs. How is he allowed to do this?

Good memory. The court threw out Trump’s import duties on many foreign products in February, saying he’d overstepped his authority to enact tariffs (which, with rare exceptions, are Congress’ turf). But the latest tariffs on Canada draw on a different presidential power, which permits “new or additional duties” on any country that “discriminates in fact against the commerce of the United States.” No previous president has used that provision to impose tariffs, though, so these may also face legal challenges.

OK, but why is Trump suddenly tariffing Canada again?

The administration says it’s payback for Canadian duties on American cars, dairy products, and alcohol. “Canada has been very, very tough on us over the years,” Trump told reporters today. But the backstory is important: Earlier this month, the administration decided not to renew the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement. (Trump, a legendary flip-flopper, actually negotiated the trade deal in his first term but has since turned against it.) While the deal remains in force for the next decade, the move could reopen big parts of it to renegotiation. So these latest tariffs may be a bid to jawbone Canada into more favorable terms.

Trump has been pretty aggressive toward Canada. Is there another possible explanation?

The president has repeatedly (and bizarrely) pledged to annex our northern neighbor as America’s 51^st state, and the timing could reflect presidential pique. Over the weekend, he threatened to punish Canada for wildfires that have blanketed U.S. cities in haze, saying, “Maybe they should pay us some damages or something, or we should do some tariffs.” Today Trump, who has ignored the role of climate change in all of this, denied that the tariffs are about the wildfires; as my colleague Nitish Pahwa explains, he might later slap even more tariffs on Canada. But as the saying goes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

If the tariffs do take effect, what would they apply to?

More than 500 Canadian goods are in Trump’s crosshairs, ranging from cheese to cement. In another sign that the tariffs are an effort to force Canada to negotiate, many of the goods in question were shielded from Trump’s earlier duties under the USMCA. But the levies are also relatively limited. They apply to about $20 billion in goods, just 5 percent of what the U.S. imported from Canada last year. Energy, lumber, and other major industries are exempt. And before you get too in the weeds, remember that this might all just be yet another TACO in the making.

Sorry, what’s TACO?

It stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” Coined by a Financial Times commentator last year, the term describes Trump’s tendency to rescind his own tariffs—sometimes within days—after the stock market recoils or the targeted countries agree to superficial changes.

If the tariffs are a bluff, how is Canada responding?

So far, it’s standing firm—while also leaving room to negotiate. Prime Minister Mark Carney criticized the tariffs as a violation of the USMCA. But he also spoke with Trump today and said they’d “agreed to intensify negotiations.” In addition, the U.S. has restarted trade discussions with Mexico, the other country that’s party to the USMCA. Last year, though, Trump repeatedly slapped import duties on both countries. So even if talks continue, these latest tariffs could be just the beginning.

OK, that’s an annoying amount of uncertainty, courtesy of the president. To help you avoid spinning your wheels all night about trade deals, I recommend:

How to fix an out-of-control Supreme Court: One way to stop spiraling about the news is to focus on what you can do about it. Slate’s Jurisprudence team has a new project that offers some hopeful answers about how Americans can reclaim the Constitution—and the law—from nine monarchical justices. Dahlia Lithwick’s stirring opening essay is definitely worth a read.

A treat for trivia fans: Which simple stitch is the basis for all other stitches? Which seafood may be served in a style called Kilpatrick? If you love random facts and want to test your skills, our daily quiz is for you.

(Re)assessing Anne Hathaway: The Odyssey actress has been famous since she was a teenager. She won an Oscar at 30. Yet today she seems perhaps a little underestimated. Isaac Butler (who, fun fact, knew Hathaway in college before her breakout role in The Princess Diaries) reflects on Hathaway’s career, and what we’ve gotten wrong about the star.

Family secrets and sibling drama: A reader is distraught that their siblings threw away their late father’s journals, which held clues about who he really was. Jenée Desmond-Harris offers advice on untangling this knotty disagreement.

Thanks for spending part of your evening with me. Enjoy the rest of your night!

—Ian

The war that Donald Trump started with Iran continues to spiral. After a ceasefire fell apart earlier this month, several U.S. service members were killed over the weekend—the first American fatalities in months—as Iranians continue to die in large numbers. Prospects for peace remain dim and the war is instead spreading, with violence spilling into the rest of the region.

How were the U.S. troops killed?

Two died after an Iranian ballistic missile reportedly struck their housing unit at a U.S. military base in Jordan. On Monday, the Pentagon identified them as 1^st Lt. Tyler James Feehan of Hawaii and Pvt. Isabella Gonzales of Texas. Feehan was 25; Gonzales was 19. A third U.S. service member in Jordan is missing and presumed dead, and a fourth was killed during the detonation of a downed Iranian drone in Iraq on Saturday. The war’s total U.S. death toll is now at least 17. Earlier Iranian attacks also injured hundreds of U.S. service members, some seriously—casualties the Pentagon has been slow to disclose.

Are Iranian civilians dying?

Independent estimates suggest at least 1,700 have been killed since the war began. And that count is likely to climb: Sunday night marked the ninth straight day of attacks on Iran, which the Iranian government says have killed at least 50 people. True to Trump’s threats, we may now be attacking civilian targets. Iran accused the U.S. of destroying roads and bridges late last week, while Iran reportedly damaged water facilities in Kuwait. Some of those strikes could violate international law, which forbids attacking civilian infrastructure.

You said violence is spreading across the region. What does that look like?

The Houthis, an Iran-backed militia based in Yemen, said on Monday that they would block ships from Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, from exiting the Red Sea. That threat could introduce more turmoil into the global economy, as the waterway in question, the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, is an important shipping route for oil and natural gas. Meanwhile, Iran is stepping up attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait, which also host U.S. military bases, and continues to target commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

How bad is this going to get?

Unfortunately, a broader conflict seems to be brewing. Iran’s president said today that his country is already engaged in a “full-scale war.” Trump, meanwhile, is reportedly sending more fighter jets to the region, which isn’t the sort of thing you do if you expect deescalation. “The U.S. is planning for a wider war,” an unnamed U.S. official told the Washington Post today.

Are the prospects for peace totally dead?

Not necessarily. Even as the fighting intensifies, both sides have signaled openness to diplomacy. “The right time to negotiate is exactly when you have achieved reliable battlefield and strategic gains,” Iran’s foreign minister said. Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. is willing to talk but that Iran’s “behavior has to change in order for ours to change.” According to the Wall Street Journal, intermediary countries including Qatar have outlined proposals to revive the ceasefire. Still, another detente doesn’t look imminent. It’s a good reminder that wars are a lot easier to start than they are to end. If only Trump had thought of that before launching this one.

Now that you’re caught up on some heavy news, how about something lighter? For your evening enjoyment, I’d suggest:

How would you react if your spouse suddenly wanted to join a country club? This dilemma has one letter-writer wondering who exactly they married! But Ilyce Glink has some measured, reasonable advice about how to navigate the situation.

Test your knowledge of the English language: How many words can you create with the letters P, Y, C, R, O, and T? Challenge yourself with today’s Pears!

Peel back the layers of The Odyssey: Homer’s epic has been around for millennia, but Christopher Nolan’s adaptation is giving viewers (and Slate writers!) plenty of fresh material to ponder. Nadira Goffe interviewed a classicist about the significance of casting Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy and argues that the controversy over her appearance misses the point. Meanwhile, Sam Adams contemplates the film’s ending, arguing that Nolan’s final plot twist changes the meaning of the whole story.

Say adios to Argentina: For a great number of soccer fans, Argentina evoked the feeling of getting away with something. Throughout the World Cup, the team slithered away from trouble again and again … until the final game. Alex Kirshner recaps the tournament and makes the case that its ending was perfect.

And if you liked these recommendations, you might like Your Morning Slate, a newsletter that gives you three handpicked recommendations bright and early from Slate’s editor in chief, plus highlights from our homepage. You can sign up here.

With that, time for me to take my leave. Enjoy the rest of your night!

—Ian