The United States and Iran inked a long-awaited provisional ceasefire deal on June 17, 2026. After months of uncertainty, the people of the Gulf region can, potentially, breathe a sigh of relief, and global markets look set to be boosted by the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

What about those who have endured the war’s spillover in Lebanon? After all, the memorandum of understanding signed is not just a peace agreement between the U.S. and Iran alone. Rather, on Tehran’s insistence, the deal is intended to provide a cessation of hostilities on all fronts – including in Lebanon.

President Donald Trump is framing the deal as a win for the U.S. and the closing of the latest chapter in Washington’s Middle East entanglement. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose country was reportedly shut out of the diplomatic process, may have other plans that would challenge Trump’s authority in the region.

After news of the emerging deal broke on June 14, Netanyahu almost immediately announced that Israel will occupy Lebanon “indefinitely.” Israel then followed up with a fresh wave of airstrikes that killed four people in Lebanon.

A clearly displeased Trump publicly criticized those actions and even suggested that Syria could go in and dismantle Hezbollah, the Tehran-backed Lebanese group that has for nearly five decades fought Israel in southern Lebanon.

With Israel continuing to bomb Lebanon and remove Lebanese citizens from their lands – in defiance of Washington’s wishes – the fate of the U.S.-Iran deal in Lebanon remains obscure.

As a scholar of Middle East studies, I fear the agreement leaves more questions about the delicate situation in Lebanon that it solves. Moreover, any split in Israel-U.S. policy aims over Lebanon may have grave implications for Trump’s de-escalation attempts with Iran and also hamper hopes for a peace deal between Lebanon and Israel days before representatives of both countries plan to meet in Washington.

A defiant Israel

History shows that any U.S. failure to rein in Israeli military action north of its border can have disastrous consequences.

A similar scenario happened back in 1982 after Israel launched “Operation Peace for Galilee,” invading Lebanon and imposing a brutal siege on Beirut that killed over 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians and fighters.

In an angry phone call in August 1982, U.S President Ronald Reagan asked Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to stop the heavy bombardments of Beirut. “Menachem, this is a holocaust,” Reagan recalled saying.

But Israel ignored the U.S. demands for a ceasefire. As a result, Reagan sent a an international peacekeeping force into Lebanon. Composed of French, Italian and American troops, this multinational force in Lebanon was tasked to act as a buffer zone between feuding parties and provide port security to Palestinian fighters leaving Lebanon.

Not only did Israel ignore Reagan’s attempts at de-escalation, it also defied the multinational force, harassed its troops and endangered their lives, according to U.S. military leaders.

Ironically, when Israel invaded Beirut in 1982 and threatened the American troops, it did so using weapons supplied by Washington as part of the two countries’ long-standing defense arrangement.

History repeats itself

A similar scenario is unfolding today.

Just like Reagan and Begin’s clash in 1982, Trump and Netanyahu are engaged in what looks like a deadlock. In a recent phone call about Lebanon, Trump was reportedly overheard yelling at Netanyahu, “You’re f–king crazy. You’d be in prison if not for me,” while pressing the Israeli government to scale back its operation in Lebanon.

Today, as in 1982, Israel continues to benefit from U.S. support and arms sales. Congress has even moved to integrate U.S. and Israeli militaries.

Also, just like 1982, the American president is considering sending foreign troops into Lebanon.

But despite the American military and political support, Israel continues to brush aside any U.S policy that aims to place limits on its regional power, effectively showing a glaring limitation of U.S. dominance over the region.

Lebanon as an afterthought

When the U.S. and Iran initially agreed to a two-week ceasefire in April 2026, there was confusion over whether Lebanon was included in that deal. While Iran asserted Lebanon’s inclusion, Israel denied it and continued to bomb the country.

Lebanon became part of the equation because of Hezbollah’s actions after the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran in late February 2026. Similar to how the Tehran-backed group vowed solidarity with Hamas after Israel bombed Gaza in response to Palestinian militants’ attack on Israeli soil on Oct.7, 2023, Hezbollah struck Israel when Iran was hit.

It reignited the simmering Hezbollah-Israeli war. Today, Israel occupies south Lebanon and is threatening to annex it.

The U.S.-released text of the latest Iran peace plan explicitly includes Lebanon.

While that will introduce serious points of friction with Israeli designs on the country, the people in Lebanon, too, will have many questions and concerns.

I believe the deal will be seen as a welcome step but also a potential blow to Lebanon’s sovereignty. While the text aims to protect Lebanon’s “territorial integrity,” it does not reference Israel’s actual withdrawal from these lands, and it is unclear whether this issue will be discussed in future negotiations between Israel and Lebanon or between the U.S and Iran.

Furthermore, the new deal ignores Lebanon’s efforts to free itself from Iran’s influence in the country through its Hezbollah ally.

In an unprecedented move in May, Lebanon filed a formal complaint against Iran at the United Nations Security Council, directly accusing Tehran of violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for interfering in its sovereign decisions and dragging the country into war.

In spite of Hezbollah’s open threats against the Lebanese government, Lebanese representatives held the first of several planned direct negotiations with Israeli counterparts in Washington.

Lebanon, Syria and a rocky path forward

Indeed, the new U.S.-Iran deal can be interpreted as a step back for the strength of an already weak Lebanese state. Indirectly, the deal cements Iran’s control on the country’s politics and, by extension, Hezbollah.

Furthermore, and just like in 1982, the U.S. is proposing a foreign force to enter Lebanon and help end the violence. In fact, Trump has now twice mentioned the possibility of Syria playing a role in Lebanon to enter and execute “a surgical attack on Hezbollah.”

It is unclear whether the U.S. president is using these comments just as a way to pressure Israel over Lebanon or whether there is an actual plan that includes a Syrian role in the country’s future. But just the mention of Syrian intervention evokes that country’s longtime occupation of Lebanon.

In fact, at the end of the Lebanese civil war in 1991, Syria established what amounted to absolute political, military and economic hegemony over Lebanon, during which thousands of Lebanese disappeared.

The assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005 and the Cedar Revolution that followed forced the Syrian troops out of Lebanon.

The fact that the new leadership in Syria is Sunni adds another complication due to Lebanon’s delicate sect-based balance of power. If Damascus interferes in Lebanon, sectarian violence could follow, as the Syrian military presence would likely be interpreted as direct opposition to Hezbollah’s Shiite fighters.

This is particularly true since Ahmed al-Sharaa’s government was accused of violence against religious minorities in Syria, including the Alawites – a religious sect close to Shia Islam – and the Druze.

Whether Syria plays a decisive role in Lebanon going forward, there is little doubt that the future of the U.S.-Iran deal depends on both Iran and Israel’s actions. So far, Israel seems uninterested in following Trump’s leadership in the region and is gearing up to play a spoiler role.

For now, and absent new breakthroughs, Lebanon, with its sovereignty almost entirely eroded, seems destined to remain at the mercy of its larger neighbors in Iran, Israel and Syria – and the erratic involvement of the U.S. abroad.

Mireille Rebeiz is affiliated with the American Red Cross.

Soul Searching is Casper ter Kuile’s new monthly column drawing on ancient wisdom to live a spiritual life in the modern world. Casper is the author of The Power of Ritual, holds master’s degrees in Divinity and Public Policy from Harvard University, and co-founded the podcast Harry Potter and the Sacred Text, and Sacred Design Lab.

I wish I could pray.

For religious friends of mine, prayer seems to open a portal to a world that’s beyond my reach. Like there’s some divine VIP area where you can whisper in God’s ear to plead for what you need. Not exactly a holy vending machine that gives you what you want, but certainly a secret language that can lead to ecstatic mystical union and profound peace.

I’ve tried to trick myself into praying. But I don’t believe in a deity that’s listening to my complaints and desires. And many traditional prayers feel too weighed down by patriarchy for my taste. So getting on my knees for God, or swaying back and forth, let alone prostrating myself — it all feels absurd. 

And I’m not alone. A 2020 Gallup survey found that less than half of Americans belong to a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque. And despite recent headlines pointing to religious revival, a 2025 poll from Pew Research Center suggests otherwise: Only 30 percent of young adults born between 1995 and 2002 say they pray every day.

So, it seems, prayer isn’t for me, or for many of us. 

Or is it?

Starting in the 1990s, Dr. Herbert Benson led a decade-long study on the efficacy of prayer. He was an esteemed cardiologist and the founder of the Institute for Mind Body Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. His rigorous study confirmed what nonbelievers might have expected: Praying for someone who was sick had no positive impact on their recovery. But during his many years of research, he also found that there was an impact on the person doing the praying.

Even though I didn’t grow up religious, I got a taste of that positive impact as a child. When I was around 10 or 11 years old, I’d often stay over at a friend’s house because I liked him and loved his PlayStation. When it was time for bed, his mother would tuck us in. Standing at the door of his bedroom, she’d turn out the light and say:

Goodnight, goodnight

Far flies the light

But still God’s love

Shall flame above

Making all things…

And, together, we would respond, “bright!” 

It felt good to hear those words before falling asleep. And it felt good, too, saying them out loud, just now, all these years later. So if we know that prayer can improve our psychological well-being, but we don’t believe in God, what can we do? 

It starts with telling the truth.

Psychoanalysts Ann and Barry Ulanov describe prayer as “primary speech.” By this, they mean that it is a basic and fundamental way we say who we are, and we do it with total honesty. That might involve expressing longing and love, yes, but also fear, anger, bitterness, and jealousy — the good, the bad, and the ugly of our human experience. Dive into a sacred text like the Psalms of the Hebrew Bible and you will find examples of people berating the divine, confessing that they’ve lost all hope, or even pleading for the death of their enemies. Prayer is unsanitary. It’s messy. It’s real-talk.

The 20th-century Russian Orthodox teacher of prayer Anthony Bloom would agree with this. In his book Beginning to Pray, published more than 50 years ago, he wrote (using religious language, of course), “As long as we are truly ourselves, God can be present and do something with us. But the moment we try to be what we are not, there is nothing left to say or have; we become a fictitious personality, an unreal presence, and this unreal presence cannot be approached by God.”

I’ve found the best way of practicing this kind of honesty without bringing God into it is writing in my journal. Especially in the dark. There’s a level of ugly honesty that can flow from my pen when my eyes can hardly make out the words I’m writing on the page. 

But saying those words out loud? That still feels difficult. 

So, I considered advice offered by the Rev. Alba Onofrio, a queer, feminist pastor — and someone who isn’t afraid of speaking the truth. She co-founded the Sexual Liberation Collective and her work focuses on eradicating shame and reclaiming sexual pleasure as a way of connecting to the divine. In an episode of her podcast, Onofrio advises those just beginning to pray to start with words they already know.

Is there a song or quote you already know every word of? A piece of text that your mind goes to when you are stressed or scared? Or is there something you’d want to learn? 

I’ve found myself reciting poems by Marie Howe and Lucille Clifton as a form of prayer. I go someplace where nobody can hear me, and I say them out loud to get the prayer juices flowing. I’ve tried singing, too.

But this still doesn’t solve the question of who is listening. For that, Onofrio’s advice is simple: “Who do you want to talk to?” Is there someone who’s loved you who has passed away and who you wish was here to listen? A grandparent, a favorite teacher or mentor, even a pet? Onofrio suggests thinking about who you need to hear from. “The point of prayer is just connection…a spiritual digging the mud and silt out of the channel that connects us to the erotic, to God, to creation” she says in her podcast. Perhaps this is why so many religions have saints or lesser deities to pray to; it gives you a phonebook of options to connect with. 

Truth be told, I still struggle with this. When the going gets tough, an imaginary person at the other end of my prayers still feels too abstract to be compelling. 

Not to worry, the Rev. Micah Bucey tells me. We don’t need someone to be listening to benefit from prayer. 

Bucey is the author of the The Book of Tiny Prayer and has been posting his very short prayers on social media since the pandemic began. In an interview, he explained that the only necessary ingredients for his prayers are attention, intention, time, and quiet.

“Every morning, I take a moment to pay attention to my body and then the news,” Bucey told me. “And then, I set an intention for what is mine to do today.” He follows a simple framework to set that intention:

• Naming: Identify the problem, issue, or thing in need of prayer.
• Going in: Reflect on what I might do differently for myself.
• Going out: Look outward to consider what I might change together with others.

I find that the first step — naming — is really where this version of prayer has its impact. Honoring the hurt I feel, or the anger, the shame or the sadness, is what unlocks something deeper than my everyday thinking can reach.  

Do I sometimes wish there was some supreme being that might then make it all okay? Sure, that would be nice. But prayer, for me at least, has been much less about peace and stillness. Prayer is struggle. It’s the discipline of discovering what I really feel. It’s being honest enough to write or say it aloud. And it’s trusting that this practice will help me do what is mine to do in a world with so much pain and suffering.

So, dear reader, will you pray with me? 

Ticks are one of humanity’s most dastardly adversaries: tiny, at times nigh-invisible arthropods that burrow into your skin, leech your blood, and sometimes transfer debilitating disease before they vanish, without you ever knowing they were there. It can be only months or weeks later, when Lyme disease’s harrowing symptoms begin to take hold, that you realize the stealth attack even occurred.

These days, it seems like there are more reasons than ever to fear ticks. Their range is spreading into cities and entirely new geographic regions in the US. Their arsenal extends beyond Lyme disease: alpha-gal syndrome, a condition caused by tick bites that creates alarming allergies to meat, has become a serious concern for public health authorities this year. 

Nearly half a million people are estimated to contract Lyme disease annually — and those numbers will continue growing. This year’s tick season is off to an especially rough start: Tick bites have been sending the residents of the Northeast to the emergency room at a higher rate than they have in almost a decade. The CDC reported an unusually high number of tick-bite ER visits in late April in almost all regions of the US, and they continued to rise through May and into June.

Ticks are, of course, not a new adversary. They have been around much longer than humans. “Ticks bit dinosaurs,” Rick Ostfeld, a disease ecologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies who studies tick-borne diseases, told me. 

They have, unfortunately, been evolutionarily optimized to transmit diseases: they attach themselves to a host for days at a time, emit analgesics that mean bites might not be felt, deploy anti-inflammatories and antihistamines to escape detection, and secrete proteins that prevent the bacteria that they transfer into a host from being detected by the host’s immune system, allowing an infection to fester for a while before there is an immune response. They are also surprisingly hard to kill, capable of going into a state of suspended animation that allows them to survive in, for example, extremely cold conditions.

Something has changed recently, however. “The ticks are on the move. They are spreading,” Ostfeld said. “They’re entering more populous areas outside the regions where they were just 10 or 20 years ago, 30 years ago.” 

Both the black-legged ticks (which primarily transmit Lyme disease) and lone star ticks (which are responsible for alpha-gal) are heading northward. But scientists only partially understand why. Climate change is clearly a factor: As northern climes warm, the ticks are moving in. But they are also heading south — to the Carolinas and Virginia for example — to areas where it was already warm enough for them to thrive. Researchers aren’t totally sure why: This could be the result of the deer population expanding or more land development in forested areas, leading to more encounters between ticks and humans.

The bottom line is that people who’ve never had to worry about ticks before now have to. But there’s good news. This is a fight we can still win — and everyone, from the scientists in the lab to those of us who live in ever-expanding tick country, all have a part to play.

What scientists are cooking up to win the battle against ticks

Scientists are making real progress in developing powerful new vaccines that could prevent tick-borne diseases in the first place, as well as more effective treatments for the people who do contract an infection. 

In March, Pfizer reported the results of its Phase 3 clinical trials for a Lyme disease vaccine. It had a more than 70 percent success rate in reducing the likelihood of developing the disease, both one day after the final dose was administered and a month later. The company planned to submit the data to the federal government for approval, and the experts I spoke to said the shot would be a powerful new tool, especially for the communities where Lyme disease is endemic.

“I think that it should be part of our armament, that it will work for some communities, some areas, some populations,” Ostfeld said.

Other candidates for preventing Lyme disease are also in development: The University of Massachusetts Medical School’s MassBiologics has developed a monoclonal antibody cocktail that could be given to somebody before they are exposed to potentially prevent the disease’s development. That treatment is set to enter clinical trials soon. And for alpha-gal syndrome, researchers are also probing whether existing anti-allergy drugs might be able to stave off its symptoms.

Over the long term, scientists aspire to create a universal anti-tick vaccine that targets the proteins in tick saliva and stops the transmission of any pathogens. The science is hard to crack, given the complexity of tick saliva, but it would represent a genuine breakthrough that could alter our relationship to these creepy-crawlies forever.

“If you want to develop an anti-tick vaccine, that’s the ultimate goal. That’s [stopping] any tick biting you from transmitting anything,” Maria Diuk-Wasser, professor of ecology, evolution, and environmental biology at Columbia University, who studies the ecological and environmental drivers of tick-borne diseases, told me. “The ticks have a very complex saliva, and it’s very difficult to develop that. But I think that’s the ultimate solution.”

New antibody treatments that could treat Lyme disease are also being studied, combining existing drugs to try to find a more potent therapeutic. Scientists are also working to improve our tests for Lyme disease; blood-based tests can be inaccurate, but antigen-based tests that test for proteins — similar to the rapid Covid-19 tests — could allow us to identify Lyme cases sooner and get people antibiotics that prevent the disease’s development. Diagnosis for alpha-gal also continues to improve: Dr. Scott Commins, an allergist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has studied the syndrome for years, told me that a decade ago, it could be as long as seven years before somebody was properly diagnosed; today, the timeline is more like 18 months.

So the future looks brighter — so long as politics don’t get in the way. Ostfeld was optimistic about the prospects for the new Lyme disease vaccine. His only concern was that the current federal health department has been so anti-vaccine.

“I’m concerned that we have a HHS infrastructure that basically fosters conspiracy theories about vaccines and that the willingness of the public to consider vaccines is crumbling, with huge negative health consequences for Americans,” he said. “So I’m worried that even with vaccines that are shown to be safe and effective, that we may not adopt them because of politicians that are undermining public confidence.”

Likewise, further cuts to federal science funding could slow down progress just as researchers seem to be turning the tide against the ticks.

“There’s not a lot of funding for doing basic tick biology. There really isn’t at the federal level,” Ostfeld said. “And now we’re at risk of curtailing that even further because of the recent attempts to destroy American science by choking it off or having politicians decide what science should be done rather than scientists.”

What you can do to protect yourself from ticks

As we wait for those interventions to actually arrive at scale and as more people are being exposed every year to the risks from ticks, better precautions could still allow us to stop infections from ticks the old-fashioned way.

Here are some quick tips on how to manage the risk of tick bites as the weather warms and many of us start spending more time outdoors:

• Know the tick activity in your local area: Local and state health departments often publish warnings or general guidance.
• If you are camping or hiking or otherwise spending a lot of time outdoors, use an EPA-approved insect repellent.
• Avoid high grass and piles of leaves as much as possible.
• Check your clothes, body, and gear for ticks after you come inside.
• Examine your pets closely, checking in nooks and crannies — even between their toes — when they come in.
• Familiarize yourself with how to remove a tick and consider keeping a pair of tweezers or a tick removal device on you when you’re spending time outside.

You could also pre-treat your clothes with permethrin products, which can disable or kill ticks on contact, Diuk-Wasser said. “It’s a really useful product that almost nobody knows that we can use.”

And you should remember that the ticks that you are looking for change over the course of the year. In spring, it’s the full-bodied adults that you probably imagine when you think of a tick. But as we move into the summer, you should be on the lookout for nymphs, which are much smaller and harder to spot.

“Now the nymphs are out, which are the ones that are so tiny most people miss. That creates a lot of misinformation — maybe you’re like, ‘Oh, I don’t find them. There’s not as much of it,’” said Diuk-Wasser. “But really, June is the month where most people get Lyme disease.”

Her team has actually created a free phone app, The Tick App, which people can use to take a picture of a tick and send it in for identification. That lets someone know if they may need to get tested for something like Lyme disease.

And, as always, be your own advocate. If you see Lyme disease’s telltale bullseye rash or have an unusual reaction after eating meat, talk to a doctor as soon as possible. Commins said that in some parts of the country — like Long Island, where alpha-gal is already common — doctors and nurses are practiced at testing for alpha-gal. But in other parts where the syndrome is new, like the South, it might take multiple trips to the emergency room before they think to check for it. So if you are experiencing a new allergic reaction and have any reason to think you may have been bitten by a tick recently, you can ask for an alpha-gal test, he said.

With a few simple precautions, you can do a lot to mitigate the risks from ticks, despite their penchant for sneak attacks. And it’s never too late to start: Commins told me that preliminary evidence suggests that alpha-gal syndrome is not permanent. If a person can avoid further tick bites, the allergy should also dissipate over time.

“Any amount of tick prevention that you do is not wasted time,” Commins said. “The five minutes you spend spraying and taping…is really time well spent.”

And if vaccine and treatment development continues to progress, we may someday be able to defeat the ticks and the frightening pathogens they carry for good.

Part of soccer’s beauty lies in its unpredictability.

Already in World Cup 2026, we have seen Morocco tie with five-time champion Brazil and Australia overturn the odds by beating Turkey. But few surprises will top a Cabo Verde team ranked 67th at the start of the tournament holding Spain – many pundits’ pick for the title – to a 0-0 draw.

But what goes into deciding whether a team wins, draws or loses? Of course, the quality of the players and coaching staff matters. And recent advances in sports analytics, including real-time player geolocation metrics, have led to the adoption of data-driven in-game decisions. Top football teams increasingly rely on big data and predictive algorithms to gain an advantage.

But sports psychology plays a big role, too. And that is where I come in. I have a passion for sports in general and soccer in particular – it is the game I grew up playing in Germany.

Now, as a sport psychologist and director of the Global Sport Leadership Solutions Lab at Drexel University, I study how players and coaches can manage chaos on the pitch to strategically improve performance and win.

Below, I outline several modern psychological principles that are essential to all 48 teams battling it out in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

5 steps for soccer success

Disruption – It is true across all sports, and certainly in modern soccer, that the winning team will benefit from disrupting its opponent. Disruptive tactics can include brute-force tactical fouls, high-speed counterattacks that catch the opposition off balance, deceptive set pieces that create organized chaos, high-pressure tactics that force opponents into errors, and getting under the skin of opposition players.

Disrupting the organization and rhythm of the opposing team is both a mindset and a tactic that can lead to goal-scoring opportunities. A team that can disrupt an opponent’s flow can often overturn a skill disadvantage or demoralize weaker teams.

Attentional fitness – Scoring goals in international soccer is difficult. A great striker is worth his or her weight in gold. They not only possess exceptional dribbling and spectacular one-on-one skills but also strong “attentional fitness,” which requires cognitive efficiency and a work ethic to get into positions to score.

Such players are celebrated for their “coolness” and on-the-ball craft, but it is their psychological intelligence that makes them special. One of the first skills to break under pressure is the ability to focus. The quintessential goal scorer does not freeze.

One could call it “nerves of steel,” but that is just a metaphor for managing multiple sources of attention simultaneously and efficiently. Strikers such as England’s Harry Kane, France’s Kylian Mbappé and Norway’s Erling Haaland maintain attentional control under pressure. They lock into the moment when it matters most and seamlessly shift between tasks.

Controlled mind-wandering – Mind-wandering is a spontaneous zoning out of your immediate surroundings. In sports, mind-wandering is often seen as negative because inattention at a crucial moment can lead to disaster. But it is difficult to maintain focus for 90-plus minutes during a soccer game. And new neuroimaging evidence suggests that in moments of mind-wandering, the brain is not at rest at all. Rather, it is just processing information differently.

As such, controlled mind-wandering, which involves active mental exploration, can be highly beneficial in performance sports – even if only for a few seconds. The best players seem to know when to focus and when to pull back. They sometimes look away from the ball and absorb a broader perspective of the game. Then, when a crucial game-scoring opportunity arises, they lock in their focus and are 100% present.

When researchers examined where Argentine great Lionel Messi looks, they found that his eyes are often off the ball. Common sense in soccer has been to keep your eyes on the ball, but new research suggests that the winner will also mind-wander and look away from the action. Messi’s brain can seemingly do things many of his opponents’ cannot; he appears to have world-class cognitive skills.

Resilience (for referees) - Soccer is one of the most difficult sports to officiate. Not only must referees be in excellent physical condition, they must also be able to manage the game emotionally. This has become increasingly difficult, with professional players routinely simulating injuries and an offside rule that is interpreted to within fractions of an inch.

And then there is one of the most difficult and controversial cognitive decisions in all of sports: the penalty kick, awarded for committing a foul in one’s own penalty box.

With the stakes so high and everyone watching, the modern World Cup referee must have exceptional multitasking, communications and management skills. Referees are part of the fabric of the match whether they want to be or not. Everybody is judging them – even more so in 2026, since referees are wearing cameras on their temples, so the viewing public can see the game from their point of view. The psychological toolbox of the 2026 World Cup referee is complex, but it has to start with a good dose of psychological resiliency.

Tactical creativity - Tactical creativity in soccer is related to finding solutions on the pitch to complex individual or team situations. It almost always relies on divergent thinking and is often surprising and original. Research has shown that creativity is within everyone’s reach, including soccer players, especially if tactical creativity has been part of the training plan. As a result, the evolution of playing styles in elite soccer over the past few decades has shifted away from a structured, defense-heavy, possession-based system toward a modern, data-driven way to play based on pressing the opposing team high up the pitch. This requires players to take on multiple roles on the pitch. It requires a balance of both inspiration – or open-mindedness – and perspiration, or discipline.

Of course, to be creative one has to have the freedom to experiment; “play like children,” U.S. head coach Mauricio Pochettino suggested. Tactical creativity is a key driver of the cognitive skill set that allows players such as Croatia’s Luka Modrić and Belgium’s Kevin De Bruyne to see several moves ahead. These modern soccer stars not only play soccer on a different level, but they also think soccer on a different level.

With the World Cup now underway, sports psychologists like myself – along with fans the globe over – can observe how athletes put some of these principles to work. And with any luck, the tournament will have “wow” moments of creativity that will be remembered for a lifetime.

Eric Zillmer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Every election cycle sees its share of controversial, scandal-plagued candidates running for office. But the 2026 midterm elections will feature two such candidates – one from each party – in two of the highest-profile U.S. Senate races.

In Texas, the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, recently secured the Republican Party’s nomination over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn.

Cornyn and others have insisted that Paxton’s substantial legal and personal baggage – including corruption and bribery accusations that got him impeached by the GOP-led state House of Representatives – might lose Republicans a seat they’ve held for decades.

Democrats in Maine, meanwhile, have nominated Graham Platner, a political novice whose grassroots campaign and brash communication style propelled him to a decisive victory over the state’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, who remained on the ballot but suspended her campaign in April.

This, despite Platner facing a series of personal scandals ranging from alleged sexual misconduct to a tattoo that turned out to be an emblem of Hitler’s paramilitary Schutzstaffel, or SS. Platner has claimed he was unaware of the symbol’s origins and has since covered it up.

Both Paxton and Platner won resounding victories in their primaries over more establishment candidates who were comparatively free of scandal.

As a scholar who studies Congress and elections, and the co-host of a podcast about political scandals, I believe political science offers answers about how Paxton and Platner pulled off victories in their states’ primaries – and why they might win in November.

Historic distance and distaste between the parties

Both Paxton’s and Platner’s flaws were well known prior to primary voting.

Early polling indicates that most of Texas’ Republican voters are likely to back Paxton in November. Polling also shows that Platner will continue to consolidate his party’s support in Maine.

Both parties’ leadership in Congress and beyond have also rallied behind their respective candidates. And both parties have used the opposing candidate’s scandals against them in the campaign, despite propping up flawed candidates themselves.

These actions can coexist thanks to two forces that political science has much to say about, precepts that have been steadily increasing in relevance over the past few decades: party polarization – or the distance between the two parties – and negative partisanship, voters’ tendency to vote based on negative feelings toward the other party.

Democrats and Republicans are far away from each other on policy preferences, issue positions and culture. They are also distant in terms of where they live, whom they support, how they feel and even whom they love.

Political science tells us that this polarized distance has increased feelings of personal animus between members of the two parties. Political psychology says the more different Americans are from each other, the easier it is for them to not just disagree with the other side but to dislike the other side to the point of viewing them as a threat.

These are trends Americans frequently see reflected in public opinion studies, many of which use the “feeling thermometer” to ask respondents to rate their personal feelings toward a person or party on a scale of zero degrees, or coldest/most unfavorable, to 100 degrees, or warmest/most favorable.

In the late 1970s, the average voter in each party was more or less neutral toward the opposing party, with scores hovering just below 50 degrees. By 2024, the average voter sentiment toward the other party had plummeted to 19 degrees.

In 1978, only 9% of Democrats and 7% of Republicans had a very negative opinion of the opposing party. By 2024, vast majorities in both parties – 64% apiece – reported such negative opinions.

Political science also tells us that these negative feelings about the other party are not simply prevalent. They are the driving force behind many voters’ election choices.

In other words, Americans are increasingly making voting decisions based not on who should win elections but rather on who shouldn’t. The opposing party is not just the less preferred option – it’s a threat that must be stopped at all costs.

When feelings about the other side are this negatively polarized, then winning – even with a less-than-ideal candidate as your standard-bearer – becomes more crucial than ever.

In fact, researchers have found that scandals involving candidates in a voter’s own party trigger a “defensive partisanship” that increases their hostility toward the other side. That is, scandals in a voter’s own party can make them more – not less – loyal to their team.

The higher the stakes, the lower the standards

Polarization and negative partisanship are not the only factors at work. The tight competition for control over major political institutions such as Congress and the presidency have raised the stakes of elections higher than ever. And, in the process, it has lowered standards for whom Americans are willing to support.

In her 2016 book, “Insecure Majorities,” political scientist Frances Lee found that partisan control over the federal government is more in question now that it has been in over a century. Lee says that closely fought elections that determine control of government help explain changing governing strategies in Congress.

But Lee’s findings also help explain our choices in elections and how – even in closely fought, high-profile races such as the 2026 Senate contests in Texas and Maine – voters end up nominating such blemished candidates.

In theory, closely fought competition should drive a “race to the top” in terms of candidate selection. Because control over institutions rests constantly on a knife’s edge, Americans might expect both sides to put forward their best, brightest and most electorally compelling candidates to try to win.

But thanks to polarization and negative partisanship, it isn’t always so. Instead, hard-fought elections among a closely divided electorate mean that individual votes matter more; that power hangs by a thread; and as a result, that one’s personal and political enemies are inches away from controlling the government.

Thus, closely divided elections only raise the stakes of one’s vote, along with the cost of defecting from your party’s candidate, however flawed they might be.

The lesser of 2 evils?

Voters constantly report feeling the need to “hold their noses” and vote for the “lesser of two evils.” The alternative – the other party taking power – is too grave to permit a truly principled stand. As a result, the race to the bottom continues, because the other side will always be worse.

These trends can help explain why, for example, Republicans circled the wagons around Donald Trump in 2016 despite his many scandals and serious misgivings within the party. They also illustrate why Democrats rallied around Joe Biden well into 2024, even as serious questions were raised about his physical age and mental fitness for office.

Whether Paxton’s or Platner’s partisan voters end up coalescing around them despite their scandals remains to be seen. Regardless, the reappearance of such imperfect candidates each cycle tells a bitter story about what voters will put up with to win.

Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

State boundaries can be iconic. Many were drawn by human hands, but some of the most recognizable contours were shaped by nature: the boot of southeastern Louisiana, carved by the Mississippi River, or the ocean waves sculpting the hook of Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

For a moment, imagine that there are no state lines. View the United States through its natural contours. As curators at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, we often look at our nation this way, drawing different kinds of maps that trace mountains, watersheds, animal migrations, biomes, ancient seas and so much more.

These kinds of maps show us how connected we all are by nature, since it transcends state boundaries. That idea is central to our new exhibition, “From These Lands: Sharing Our Natural and Cultural Heritage,” now open at our museum to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States. We are co-curators of the show, part of a team of exhibit designers and developers who created the exhibition.

“From These Lands” uses items from the museum’s collections to explore these patterns and ideas, offering a way to see the country’s natural and cultural heritage beyond state lines.

One country, many pine cones

Pine cones can be easy to overlook.

When you’re out for a walk in the woods, you see the forest, maybe even the trees, but not always the cones at your feet. For many people, a pine cone is just a pine cone. But when you look closely, subtle differences in the styles of cones carry clues about the trees that produced them and the places where those trees live.

There are 43 pine species native to the United States, making up nearly a third of the world’s pine tree diversity. Together, they stretch across surprisingly different combinations of climate, terrain, plants and animals, the regions scientists call biomes. Something as simple as the pine cone can let you hold that concept in your hand: soils, fire, rain, birds and rodents all helped shape the tree that made it.

For example, cones from the sand pine can shield seeds for years, only to release them as the heat from low-intensity fires melts their resin and opens their scales. These scrubby and fire-shaped landscapes are one part of the larger temperate evergreen forests that spread through the southeastern U.S.

On the other side of the country, the Coulter pine produces cones that can be more than a foot-and-half long (50 centimeters) and weigh up to 8 pounds (3.5 kilograms). This large cone size helps its seeds to survive fires, allowing small birds and mammals to then disperse them into new areas in the Mediterranean Scrub of Southern California.

A pine cone comes from one tree in one place, but its form reflects a wide set of environmental conditions. Pine cones provide an interesting way to view the different biomes found in the United States and its territories.

An ancient ocean in the middle of the country

The land under your feet can be millions of years old, and it has not always been dry ground.

During the late Mesozoic Era – the time interval made famous by the dinosaurs – a warm, shallow inland sea covered states from North Dakota to Texas. This Western Interior Seaway laid down many of the rocks and sediments that you can see today throughout the Great Plains and Badlands. The sea was also full of life, and the rocks it left behind are full of fossils.

There were familiar characters living on this ancient seafloor: clams, snails and sea stars. But swimming in the waters above were the now-extinct animals called ammonites.

These coiled, shelled relatives of squid and octopuses were abundant predators, hunting in the same waters as fish, turtles, sharks and extinct marine reptiles called plesiosaurs. Ammonites used the chambers in their shells to control buoyancy, much like the modern nautilus.

Ammonite fossils demonstrate that much of the central U.S. was an ancient ocean. They also remind us that the landscapes we know today are just the latest version of those reshaped over and over by the slow work of geologic time.

Unlikely pairing: Shorebirds and horseshoe crabs

Animals move. Some travel only short distances with the seasons, but others travel thousands of miles, crossing not only state lines, but countries, oceans and hemispheres. Animal migration routes might look chaotic on a map, but birds, whales, turtles and more forge these paths for specific reasons.

Timing is a key component of migration. Thanks to a critical refueling stop in Delaware Bay, the ruddy turnstone shorebird manages to migrate thousands of miles each year to its breeding grounds in the high Arctic. These East Coast migrants time their layover with the migration of horseshoe crabs, which come ashore to lay millions of nutrient-packed eggs on beaches. The turnstones gorge themselves on those eggs before continuing their journey north.

It is a strange and wonderful handoff between an ancient marine animal hauling itself out of the ocean and a weary shorebird bound for the Arctic. A single bay brings them together, illustrating how the many migration routes through these lands can hinge on key moments and places.

Salamander country

Topography is more than scenic landscapes. Everything from the flat coastal plains to the ridges, valleys and stream-cut mountainsides helps shape where animals can live and how biodiversity accumulates.

The rugged terrain of the Appalachian Mountains creates cool, wet forests, shaded hollows, caves, ponds and streams. These habitats can differ from each other in elevation, temperature, moisture and water flow – and salamanders take note. More salamander species live in the Appalachian Mountains than anywhere else in the world. It can feel as though every other rock you turn over hides yet another species.

The trio of Plethodon salamanders, the southern gray-cheeked, red-cheeked and red-legged salamanders, were once thought to be regional variations of the same species. But these salamanders live at varying elevations in different mountain ranges, and genetic sequencing confirmed that each was, in fact, its own species. Topography and shifting climates had broken up these populations into different habitats, allowing each to evolve into distinct species.

Following the American shad

Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the U.S., fed by a watershed connecting rivers and drainage basins that reach into six states and the District of Columbia. It’s home to more than 3,600 species, including oysters and blue crabs. But one fish in particular has become strongly intertwined with the lives and cultures of many people around the bay.

The American shad spends much of its adult life in the Atlantic Ocean but returns to the freshwater rivers in the upper reaches of the Chesapeake Bay to spawn. For more than 12,000 years, this herring’s spring migration has been part of Pamunkey Indian Tribe diet and culture.

From 1918 to 2019, to mitigate declining populations of herring, the tribe ran a hatchery to “give back to the river.” The Pamunkey Tribe’s fishing rights date back to their 1677 treaty with the British Crown. Today, only the Pamunkey and citizens of other tribes in Virginia can legally fish for shad in this region.

A single type of fish moving between salt and freshwater, tracing the paths of the watershed, has helped to shape centuries of diet, law, culture and stewardship, highlighting the many connections between nature and culture.

Different ways to map the country

Pine cones, ammonites, shorebirds, salamanders and shad tell more than individual stories about particular places. Together, they point to older and larger patterns: varied forests, vanished seas, seasonal migrations, mountain habitats and rivers that harbor a fantastic diversity of life.

State lines are one way to picture the U.S., but natural history provides another – one that shows the ancient and living connections running across the landscape.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

If you walk into a Costco, Home Depot or Lowe’s and order a countertop for your kitchen renovation, the store will likely contract with a local fabrication shop, instructing them to make one from a material called engineered stone.

Often marketed as “quartz,” engineered stone is a synthetic product that contains up to 95% finely ground quartz mixed with polyester resins and pigments. The ease with which consumers can order it obscures the fact that workers who cut, grind and polish these kitchen countertops risk developing a terrible disease that destroys their lungs.

In California alone, more than 550 workers have been diagnosed with silicosis caused by this engineered stone – a deadly disease that is totally preventable and for which there is no cure. At least 100 of these California workers have undergone or are awaiting a lung transplant, a complicated procedure that extends life but does not provide a long-term cure. At least 30 have died between 2019 and 2026.

We are an epidemiologist and a physician, both specializing in work-related diseases, who have studied the dangers of working with this material. We believe that the surge in silicosis cases is a public health emergency. But the trend is almost invisible outside of California because most states don’t yet track the incidence of the disease.

A fashionable but dangerous material

Engineered stone, introduced just a few decades ago, has become the most popular choice for kitchen countertops. It is more durable but often less expensive than marble.

When workers cut, grind and polish these engineered stone countertops for a home, billions of very small crystalline silica particles coated with resins and pigments are released. The workers inhale these particles, and many develop a severe and rapidly progressive form of silicosis.

Like asbestos, silica causes both respiratory disease and lung cancer. The fabrication workers affected are young – the median age of the California workers is 46 and the median age at death is 52. If they stop working with silica and manage to live a few additional decades, they are more likely to develop lung cancer, kidney disease and various autoimmune diseases than people with no exposure.

An estimated 100,000 workers are employed in countertop fabrication shops in the U.S., and studies suggest that 20% or more of exposed workers develop silicosis. Treating it can cost millions of dollars per person. Most of the medical costs are paid by Medicaid and other public assistance programs funded by American taxpayers.

Unfortunately, many fabrication workers don’t have access to healthcare – let alone specialists trained to diagnose and treat silicosis.

Many big-box stores promote quartz over similar but much safer countertops manufactured from crushed glass; these are made from amorphous silica, which is much less toxic than crystalline silica. Consumers are generally not aware of the availability of this alternative.

Ikea stopped selling engineered stone countertops in 2025. Home Depot, Lowe’s and Costco are still selling crystalline silica products as of June 2026.

Rising cases, emerging lawsuits

In 2016, during the period one of us (David Michaels) served as the assistant secretary of labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, the agency reduced the allowable level of workplace exposure to airborne silica dust.

Complying with the federal OSHA standard is not enough to protect workers from the extreme toxic effects of engineered stone.

In 2019, after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 18 cases of silicosis from working with engineered stone across California, Colorado, Texas and Washington, epidemiologists in California began tracking the disease among fabrication shopworkers. Each year since, the number of cases was higher than the last. It is clear that as long as crystalline silica-containing engineered stone is used to fabricate kitchen countertops, hundreds of young workers will be diagnosed with silicosis every year.

In the U.S., cases of silicosis have been reported in several other states, including Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Florida, Utah, Washington, New Mexico and Colorado. But since most fabrication workers are not tested for silicosis in the U.S., thousands more undiagnosed workers are undoubtedly suffering with it.

Now, hundreds of sick workers across the U.S. are suing manufacturers and distributors of these deadly countertops, as well as the big-box stores that sell them. Some of the early cases were settled out of court. In 2024, in the first case that went to trial, a 36-year-old worker with silicosis who underwent double lung transplantation while on life support was awarded US$52 million.

A growing global epidemic

Outbreaks of silicosis have followed the introduction of engineered stone countertop production across the globe.

Caesarstone, an Israeli company, was one of the first to market it. Between 1997 and 2010, 25 Israeli workers who had worked with its products were referred for lung transplants.

Engineered stone silicosis was next diagnosed in Spain, with 5,900 cases reported between 2007 and 2024. In 2023, the owner of a Spanish company called Cosentino admitted to covering up the dangers from working with the material and received a six-month suspended prison sentence for five counts of serious injury due to gross negligence, according to press reports.

As sales of the new product grew globally, cases of silicosis among countertop fabrication workers appeared in the United States in 2014, Australia in 2015, and more recently in Great Britain, China and Taiwan.

In May 2026, responding to the silicosis deaths of young workers, Britain issued new guidance banning dry cutting of engineered stone products, and announced plans to inspect 1,000 fabrication shops.

In Australia, public health officials began strengthening workplace protection requirements in 2021. When those steps were found to be inadequately effective in controlling exposure to the deadly dust, the national government banned the importation and use of engineered stone products containing more than 1% crystalline silica.

To continue to sell their product in Australia, many manufacturers, including Caesarstone and Cosentino, now market slabs that are made from crushed glass rather than quartz.

Stopping engineered stone silicosis in the US

In 2024, California’s OSHA adopted a workplace standard stronger than the existing federal rules. However, enforcement – both statewide and nationally – is disastrously underresourced. Federal OSHA has enough inspectors to visit every workplace only once every 191 years.

Further, since employers claim that many of these countertop workers are independent contractors, their workplaces are not under OSHA’s jurisdiction.

Following Australia’s example, California’s OSHA has started emergency rulemaking to prohibit the fabrication and installation of engineered stone products that contain more than 1% crystalline silica. The countertop manufacturers are pushing back by promoting national legislation that would ban all lawsuits, allowing them to market engineered stone without incurring any liability.

Until manufacturers stop manufacturing and retailers follow Ikea’s lead and stop selling engineered stone countertops containing crystalline silica in the U.S., thousands of workers will continue to be exposed to deadly dust, and far too many will develop preventable silicosis or cancer.

David Michaels receives funding from the McElhattan Foundation

Robert Harrison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Do you like to smoke marijuana? Do you also enjoy firearms? If so, the Supreme Court has great news for you.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Hemani that the federal government may not categorically forbid an “unlawful user” of marijuana from possessing a gun. Hemani also has fairly broad implications for many drug users. 

As Justice Neil Gorsuch notes in the majority opinion, the federal statute at issue in the case bars unlawful users of any “controlled substance” from possessing firearms. This law, he suggests, is far too broad, because it would rope in relatively innocuous drug users such as “a husband who regularly takes his wife’s prescription Ambien to sleep and a college student who routinely uses a friend’s Adderall to cram for exams.” 

So, under Hemani, it appears that a wide range of people who use prescription medications or other drugs in ways that violate the law may now own guns.

Gorsuch’s majority opinion does suggest that the government may ban some users of some drugs from possessing firearms if it can show that those drug users are likely to behave erratically or to otherwise endanger others. But all nine justices agreed that a categorical ban on gun possession by marijuana users goes too far. The justices split into a few different camps, however, on why the law at issue in Hemani is unconstitutional.

Most notably, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in an opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, calls for her Court to overrule New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), a chaotic decision that, as she writes, “is unworkable,” because it “imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions.’”

Bruen held that courts should determine whether a modern day gun law violates the Second Amendment by asking whether it is “relevantly similar” to a law that existed at the time when the Constitution was written. Lower courts have struggled to apply this framework, which exists only in Second Amendment cases, in large part because the Supreme Court has never articulated just how similar an old law must be to a new one for the new one to survive.

Indeed, the last time the Supreme Court decided a Second Amendment case, in United States v. Rahimi (2024), Jackson quoted a dozen different lower court opinions begging the justices to explain how, exactly, Bruen is supposed to work.

Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Hemani is unlikely to allay these concerns. Instead of clarifying Bruen, Gorsuch writes that “we have not yet had cause to ‘exhaustive[ly] survey’ the features that may render a modern law ‘relevantly similar’ to historical ones.” The historical analysis in his opinion narrowly focuses on laws governing intoxicants, and is unlikely to offer much guidance to judges hearing unrelated Second Amendment cases.

The Court’s entire approach to the Second Amendment remains a train wreck, in other words. But anyone troubled by that reality can now comfort themselves, legally, by squeezing off a few rounds at their local firing range, and then enjoying a nice fat doobie.

The people who wrote the Constitution drank a whole lot

Under Bruen, government lawyers who seek to defend a modern-day gun law must point to an older law that they think is similar to the new one. Judges — who are, again, operating under minimal guidance from the Supreme Court regarding how similar the two laws must be — must then determine if the new law is similar enough to the old law to allow the new law to be upheld.

In the Hemani case, the Justice Department compared the modern law — a categorical ban on gun possession by any “unlawful user” of marijuana — to founding era laws that imposed certain restrictions on “habitual drunkards.” These laws did not actually target gun ownership directly — few early American laws did, as US states did not even have police forces at the founding and thus lacked the ability to disarm people except in limited circumstances. But DOJ argued that, if the framers recognized that people who use intoxicants can be dangerous and need to have their liberties restricted, then modern-day lawmakers can do the same.

But, as Gorsuch persuasively argues, these habitual drunkard laws were much narrower than the modern-day law at issue in Hemani, which applies broadly to a wide range of drug users who are neither dangerous, nor even particularly impaired, because of their drug use.

Gorsuch writes that 18th- and 19th-century habitual drunkard laws applied only to people who drink so often that they become a burden on society and are often unable to manage their own affairs. Among other arguments, Gorsuch quotes Benjamin Rush, a physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence, who said that if he were an habitual drunkard, it would mean that “‘were a keg of rum in one corner of a room, and were a cannon constantly discharging balls between me and it, I could not refrain from passing before that cannon, in order to get at the rum.’” 

Gorsuch also quotes 19th-century laws such as an Arkansas law defining an habitual drunkard as someone who is “incapable of conducting [his] own affairs,” and a Connecticut law that describes these individuals as someone who has “lost the power of self-control.” And he notes that the framers were unlikely to have supported more expansive restrictions on drinkers because many of them consumed copious amounts of alcohol. “Some say James Madison ‘consumed a pint of whiskey daily,’” Gorsuch writes.

An habitual drunkard, in other words, was someone with a very serious addiction that makes them potentially dangerous to themselves and others. That’s quite different from an occasional marijuana user who quietly smokes a joint in the comfort of their own home. As Gorsuch writes, the federal law in Hemani is so broad it may even apply to someone who uses “a mild gummy as a sleep aid a few times a week.”

So the gun law at issue in Hemani is pretty dissimilar to the “habitual drunkard” laws that the government pointed to in order to defend that law. Fair enough.

What Hemani does not do, however, is provide any framework explaining how similar modern-day gun laws generally must be to their 18th- or 19th-century counterparts in order to survive Second Amendment review. Bruen is likely to continue to baffle lower court judges, in large part because every single one of the Court’s Second Amendment cases rely on ad hoc reasoning about whether one law is sufficiently similar to another. There are few broader legal principles to be extracted from the Court’s historical analysis in any of these cases.

That said, Gorsuch’s opinion does contain one sentence that may give lower courts some guidance in future gun cases. Near the end of the opinion, he suggests that historical laws “usually provided some form of process before an individual lost any of his liberties, even temporarily.” So that does suggest that the government must provide individuals with a hearing before they can be stripped of their gun rights. The law at issue in Hemani fails this test, because it purports to remove someone’s right to own a gun the minute they become an illegal user of certain drugs.

This one line aside, however, Hemani contributes little to the broader project of clarifying which gun laws are permissible and which ones are forbidden. It is good news for people who enjoy both guns and marijuana. But it is terrible news for judges struggling to apply Bruen.

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. Subscribe here.

Welcome to The Logoff: We finally have some more details on Donald Trump’s Iran deal, and the reviews are not positive. 

What do we know? The text of the deal, or MOU — memorandum of understanding — was released yesterday through news outlets, following several days of confusion after Trump announced the peace agreement, sans specifics, on Sunday. 

It’s a fairly brisk 14 points ending the immediate conflict everywhere — including Lebanon, which as my colleague Joshua Keating reports, could be an ongoing problem — and setting out a path to continued negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. 

The US, for its part, gets the Strait of Hormuz open again, or at least opening — but after 60 days, Iran’s commitment to let vessels pass through free of charge expires. Once it does, Iran has suggested it may begin charging unspecified fees to traverse the strait. (The US naval blockade on Iran was also lifted on Thursday.) 

Some of the other particulars have not gone over well — including with Republican senators.

Among them: 

• Iran gets at least $300 billion in a fund for “reconstruction and economic development,” possibly as a largely or entirely private sector investment. 
• The US will lift “all types of sanctions” on Iran.
• And Iranian funds abroad will be unfrozen.

The fund and sanctions relief are contingent on a final deal being reached, according to the MOU — but Iran will have new income pouring in sooner than that: The MOU also says that the US will issue export waivers for Iranian oil immediately upon its signing, allowing the country to sell its oil more broadly and at higher prices.

As Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) put it on Thursday, “It’s tough to say that that the agreement is one that leaves Iran in a worse place, and the United States in a better place.”

Also, some bad news for Vice President JD Vance: In remarks Wednesday, Trump joked that “If it works out, I’m going to take the credit. If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD.”

And with that, it’s time to log off…

Hi readers, happy fake Friday! The Logoff will be off tomorrow for Juneteenth, so we’re going to wrap up with one good thing (and one World Cup thing) and send you into the weekend. Today, that’s this terrific speech from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani at the Knicks championship parade in Manhattan. 

Plus, from the world of the World Cup: Merlin the duck, who’s cheering for Mexico.

Have a great long weekend, and we’ll see you back here on Monday!