The Free Press

For decades, the fight for gender equality has squarely focused on lifting up women—in the workplace, politics, and beyond.

But according to Richard Reeves, president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, it’s the men who now need support.

From childhood, boys are falling behind in school. Men are trailing women in college completion by an even wide…

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, returns to School of War to discuss the newly released memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran. What does the deal actually say? What are its biggest strategic implications? And is it comparable to the JCPOA—or something worse?

Could Syria take out Hezbollah?

It’s a serious question now that negotiations on an agreement to end the war are about to begin between the United States and Iran. President Donald Trump’s patience with Israel’s military operations in southern Lebanon against the terrorist proxy group already was wearing thin when he said at the G7 summit in Paris, “Frankly, I think Syria would do a better job.”

In early June, Trump told Benjamin Netanyahu that the Israeli prime minister was “fucking crazy” after Israel struck Hezbollah targets, resulting in an Iranian threat to walk away from the negotiating table, according to Axios. Last weekend, Trump told NBC News, “I’d like to see Lebanon have a better life. I’d like to see a more surgical attack on Hezbollah.”

Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former al-Qaeda fighter who became Syria’s president in January 2025 after the fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad, has said that any suggestion that planning is underway for such a “surgical attack” is unfounded.

I asked Ahmad Sharawi, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, how realistic it is for Syria to go after Hezbollah and what that would mean for the Middle East, Israel, and the U.S.’s presence in the region. His responses have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Tanner Nau: Two years ago, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad regime was a close ally of Hezbollah. Now, President Trump is pitching the idea that Syria will take over Israel’s fight against Hezbollah. How did we get here?

Ahmad Sharawi: Bashar al-Assad was a close Hezbollah ally at its peak in 2017. Hezbollah maintained about 10,000 fighters inside Syria. But with the fall of the regime in December 2024, that military entrenchment disappeared. And Hezbollah had to withdraw from Syria, because they lost a key ally in Assad. Since Ahmad al-Sharaa’s government has taken over, there has been severe degradation in Hezbollah’s ability to use Syria as a corridor for its weapons. But that is still operational to a lesser extent, using local actors and remnants of the regime.

The Syrian government has thwarted multiple plots to attack targets within Syria and also Israel from using Syrian territory by Hezbollah. Hezbollah has tried to continue destabilizing Syria, mainly for the goal of reestablishing that corridor so they can rearm with Iranian weapons. This new al-Sharaa government is no ally of Hezbollah. They’ve stopped multiple shipments from going through. And I think that’s a basis for why President Trump is advocating for this position. He’s trying to find a creative way to solve the Hezbollah issue.

TN: Do you think what Trump is calling for is realistic?

Vice President J.D. Vance emerged this week as the White House surrogate in chief to sell the agreement with Iran to end the war. In a slew of television and podcast appearances, Vance has explained how a war President Donald Trump once promised would end only with Iran’s “unconditional surrender” will now be settled through negotiations. Vance has his work cut out for him.

For many mainstream Republicans, the new memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and Iran is nothing more than American surrender. Sharp-tongued Louisiana Republican senator John Kennedy summed up this sentiment on Tuesday when asked if he believed Iran’s regime would abandon its nuclear ambitions during the 60-day negotiation period that starts Friday. “Unless you were homeschooled by a day drinker, no one’s confident that Iran is going to do anything,” Kennedy replied.

To Vance, though, the doubters have it all wrong. The vice president argued that America wins either way with the agreement. “Either they get nothing, we’ve destroyed their nuclear program, and the Strait of Hormuz is open,” he told Fox News on Tuesday. “Or they fundamentally transform themselves, and that’s a big win, too.”

The world caught its first glimpse on Wednesday at the terms that could end the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, and Free Press writers are evaluating the deal. Earlier, Niall Ferguson made the case for cautious optimism about the agreement, suggesting that watching Iran closely and enforcing the deal carefully could help the Trump administration achieve its aims. Below, Douglas Murray offers a more skeptical take in his first essay since returning to The Free Press as a columnist this week. He analyzes the deal’s terms and the history behind it—and he finds little reason for optimism.
—The Editors

It is often said that international agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. Fortunately, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that the U.S. is reportedly signing with the revolutionary Islamic regime in Iran is, fittingly, a virtual document, and has so far been signed electronically.

At present the Trump administration seems to have united its critics from left and right, foreign and domestic, over the deal to end current hostilities.

Three aspects of the deal symbolize the problem.

Heading into the midterms, almost every American politician asked about Israel faces the same question: Should the United States continue aid to Israel? Or should it be cut, conditioned, or used as leverage to advance American priorities?

This question comes amid rumors that a forthcoming U.S.-Israel memorandum of understanding will curb U.S. aid to Israel.

No matter where you fall on this issue, almost everyone seems to agree on the premise that American support for Israel is a donation, and that the only remaining question is how generous the benefactor should be.

But that premise is wrong. It has been wrong for a long time. And because it is wrong, the debate built on top of it misrepresents to the American people what their money has actually been doing for the past half-century.

I served as Israel’s minister of defense during the most difficult period in our modern history: the seven-front war that began on October 7, 2023. In that first year of war, I sat across the table from American counterparts to discuss our relationship. And I watched, on the battlefield, what American and Israeli capabilities look like when they are combined against a common enemy.

Here is what the U.S.-Israel relationship actually is—and what it is not.

On Wednesday, a senior Trump administration official announced the 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreed to between the United States and Iran to end the war. The MOU, which outlines a 60-day period of negotiations, a lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on Iran, and U.S. financing of Iran’s economic development, among other provisions, has been criticized by figures on both ends of America’s political spectrum as a form of capitulation in a war that the U.S. initiated more than 100 days ago.

As questions continue to swirl, we turned to historian and Free Press columnist Niall Ferguson to help us understand just what we should make of this agreement. Is the deal really “surrender,” as some in Washington have claimed this week? And what will it mean for the U.S., Iran, and the balance of power in the Middle East? Read Niall’s piece to find out. —The Editors

In January 1918, President Woodrow Wilson published his 14 Points, which were designed not merely to end World War I but also to serve as a blueprint for an enduring global peace. Delivered as an address to Congress, they are perhaps the most ambitious peace proposals the world has ever seen.

Wilson called for an entirely new international order based not on the old secret diplomacy but on “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” (Point 1). He envisioned “absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas” (2). He proposed global free trade (3)—“the removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations”—and general disarmament (4). There should also be “impartial adjustment” of all colonial claims, taking account of the wishes of the colonized (5); no interference in the Russian Civil War then raging (6); the liberation of German-occupied Belgium and northern France (7 and 8); national self-determination for ethnic minorities in Italy (9) and Austria-Hungary (10); an end to military occupations in the Balkans (11); autonomous development for the non-Turkish peoples of the Ottoman Empire (12); and Polish independence (13).

As part of our celebration of America at 250, we’ve started a weekly newsletter by historian Jonathan Horn. Learn what happened this week in American history, why it matters, and what else you should see and read in The Free Press and beyond. This week, Jonathan looks at an infamous plot against George Washington and his army. To get this newsletter in your inbox every week, sign up here. —The Editors

No amount of document dumps will ever put to rest the conspiracy theories surrounding what happened in places such as Dallas, Texas, in November 1963 and Butler, Pennsylvania, in July 2024. To that list can be added New York City in June 1776.

Two hundred fifty years ago this week, New York investigators uncovered a plot against George Washington and the Continental Army. At the center of the conspiracy were members of an elite unit that served as the American Revolution’s version of the Secret Service: Washington’s “life guard.”

The guard had formed only months earlier when Washington had issued orders for each of his regimental commanders to send him four of their best soldiers. From this group, he had chosen the members of a new unit charged with protecting himself and his most prized possession: the personal papers that he believed would determine his place in history. Although “sobriety, honesty, and good behavior” would serve as the baseline for candidates, Washington explained that it would take more to make the final cut: Members had to look the part. “The commander in chief. . . wishes them to be from five feet, eight inches high to five feet, ten inches,” read his orders. “And as there is nothing in his eyes more desirable than cleanliness in a soldier, he desires that particular attention may be made in the choice of such men as are neat and spruce.”

It’s Wednesday, June 17. This is The Front Page, your daily window into the world of The Free Press—and our take on the world at large. Today: Karim Sadjadpour on how Iran out-maneuvered Trump. River Page on how a Libertarian could hand Texas to the Dems. Brad Wilcox delivers the good and bad news about fatherhood today. And much more.

But first: Meet the new tech elite.

SpaceX’s massive IPO last week did more than make Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire. It also minted 4,000 new millionaires. Anthropic and OpenAI are on track to go public later this year, and will no doubt create many more millionaires in the process.

This brings us to the big and obvious question. No, not what the rise of these tech juggernauts means for the future of the economy. How are these people going to spend all that cash?

Thankfully, the one and only Suzy Weiss has the answer. “My phone has been ringing off the hook since these IPO filings started dropping,” one big-time Bay Area real estate agent told her. “The liquidity event hasn’t fully hit yet and I’m already seeing the demand shift.”

Every boom is different, and this one is just getting started. But in a country where wealth inequality has become a major political concern, plenty of the new AI rich folk want to live quietly and safely while giving away vast sums. Yes, they want the pied-à-terre in Paris. But they also don’t want a lot of attention while embarking on projects like fighting hunger, or helping people who are set to lose their jobs to AI.

And, naturally enough, they also want to invest in their hobbies and passions. “I’m obsessed with expanding volleyball as a sport and expanding my role in it,” one member of the AI set told Suzy. “I wouldn’t have done this without OpenAI. It’s a YOLO play.”

Read Suzy’s in-depth look at America’s burgeoning tech elite and how they plan on spending their money. And, as such, a view into the future. The money being made by the AI.

—The Editors

With America’s 250th birthday just a few weeks away, we’re honoring some of the Great Americans who made their mark on these United States. Today, former California congressman and SEC chair Christopher Cox remembers suffragist Alice Paul, without whom the Nineteenth Amendment would have taken years longer to pass. She silently picketed the White House, was force-fed in prison at 60 pounds, and was essential to giving women the right to vote. Read Cox’s piece to find out how one tenacious woman’s nonviolent protests shifted public opinion so dramatically that Woodrow Wilson reversed his opposition and endorsed the amendment before Congress.

• The agreement to end the Iran war will end oil sanctions on the Islamic Republic immediately, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. So far, at least one Iranian tanker carrying crude oil has left port and made it past the U.S. naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz—the first such journey to take place since the U.S. placed its ships there in April.

• An Idaho judge ruled yesterday that the state cannot enforce its law criminalizing using a restroom that does not match one’s biological sex. The law, federal judge Amanda Brailsford rules, is unconstitutional on the grounds that it requires law enforcement personnel to subjectively evaluate a person’s sex on the scene to decide whether or not a criminal offense has been committed.

• A group of people who allegedly planned to attack this weekend’s UFC fight on the White House lawn using drones, snipers, and explosives were arrested and charged this week, law enforcement officials said yesterday. The plot was discovered, according to court documents, by the concerned mother of a 19-year-old suspect who was incensed about the government’s handling of the Epstein files.

• Federal prosecutors have charged 15 Minnesotans with conspiracy to violently oppose immigration enforcement during last year’s “surge.” U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Daniel Rosen claimed those charged conspired to interfere “by force,” while critics claimed the cases against the 15 were based “on false testimony.”

• Apple is planning to debut camera-equipped AirPods and a foldable iPhone in 2027, the year of the smartphone’s 20th anniversary, Bloomberg reported yesterday. The new AirPods are meant to be the company’s first AI-focused wearable product.

• A top Southern Poverty Law Center official has been accused of directing $1.2 million in donations to an informant placed inside a white supremacist group who was also allegedly her lover, the New York Post reported yesterday. The report follows a recent superseding indictment filed by the Department of Justice against the SPLC accusing the nonprofit of redirecting donor money to the alleged hate groups they purported to be fighting.

• Samuel Adams announced that its Boston Taproom depleted its entire stock of Boston Lager over the weekend, attributing the shortage to a surge of Scottish soccer fans. According to the brewer, consumption between Thursday and Sunday was roughly four times what it typically sees during a major four-day holiday weekend such as the Fourth of July, forcing the company to arrange an emergency resupply on Saturday morning.

Over the past several years, American Jews have watched as prejudice against their community has risen precipitously. In 2025, a string of violent events began to unfold: In April, someone tried to set fire to Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro’s home. In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were gunned down by a …