The Free Press

With many Angelenos frustrated by the current state of their city, former reality star Spencer Pratt has become the unlikely voice for LA’s discontented. Running an upstart campaign for mayor of Los Angeles, Pratt has tapped into a nerve, inspiring a grassroots movement and filling Angelenos’ social media feed with fan-created AI content.

From animated music videos set to Latin beats to superhero videos featuring Pratt as the city’s savior, these creations are popping up faster than ever, and helped ensure his second-place finish in the primary.

But who’s behind all of this? Video reporter Austyn Jeffs spent a day with AI creator Alex Leibow, who has helped make Pratt’s campaign messaging go viral. Leibow originally moved to LA for a career in the traditional TV and film industry, but after his Pacific Palisades home burned down, he found himself pulled into politics by Pratt. Now he spends his days trying to help Pratt turn the city around.

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 writes about Richard Henry Lee and his resolution declaring the colonies free and independent states. To get this newsletter in your inbox every week, sign up here. 
—The Editors

With all the buildup to the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it’s easy to forget that the real suspense in Philadelphia 250 years ago was not over whether the Continental Congress would approve the document drafted by Thomas Jefferson but over whether the delegates would approve a resolution written by another Virginian, Richard Henry Lee.

Though Massachusetts delegate John Adams believed Congress had essentially declared independence in mid-May when it narrowly approved the statement that he had written calling for the authority of King George III to “be totally suppressed” in all 13 colonies (see our newsletter from two weeks ago), there was still considerable resistance to making independence official. It was Lee who forced the issue on June 7, 1776, when he introduced the following resolution: “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.”

Born just weeks before George Washington in the same Virginia county (Westmoreland), Lee belonged to one of colonial America’s most powerful families. John Adams would remember the Lees as “that band of brothers—intrepid and unchangeable—who like the Greeks at Thermopylae, stood in the gap, in defense of their country, from the first glimmering in the Revolution, in the horizon—through all its rising light, to its perfect day.”

Five of Lee’s brothers reached adulthood, and four found their way into leadership roles in the American Revolution. Younger brother Francis Lightfoot Lee served with Richard Henry in the Continental Congress (they’d both eventually sign the Declaration of Independence). Baby brothers William Lee and Arthur Lee carried out diplomacy in Europe. Meanwhile, older brother Thomas Ludwell Lee led the way in Williamsburg at the Virginia Convention, when it voted on May 15, 1776, to instruct its delegates to the Continental Congress to propose a resolution of independence. It was in obedience to those instructions that Richard Henry Lee introduced his resolution.

It’s Wednesday, June 3. This is The Front Page, your daily window into the world of The Free Press—and our take on the world at large. Today: Peter Savodnik on the California primaries. Spencer Klavan on how a 20-year-old’s cheap horror film dethroned the latest Star Wars movie at the box office. Joe Nocera on the brilliance of Louis Armstrong. Plus much more.

But first: Niall Ferguson on the unseen perils of artificial intelligence.

Is artificial intelligence a blessing or a curse? It may be the defining question of the 21st century. The technology promises extraordinary benefits, from medical breakthroughs to unprecedented economic growth. But it also poses profound risks to how we live—and perhaps even to the future of humanity.

One thing we know is that the momentum behind more advanced AI is only building: On Monday, Anthropic—the company behind the popular Claude model—filed plans for an initial public offering that could value the company at nearly $1 trillion. Other AI giants are expected to follow suit.

Meanwhile, President Trump yesterday signed an executive order asking AI companies to voluntarily submit powerful new models for government review just 30 days before public release—a significantly watered-down version of the policy he was set to impose last month, which he reportedly rejected hours beforehand, saying it would “get in the way” of America’s competition with China.

Such are the stakes of the AI race: the promise and peril of unprecedented economic disruption, a winner-takes-all tussle for geopolitical supremacy.

With so much on the line, things could go very wrong, very fast. That’s the argument historian and Free Press columnist Niall Ferguson lays out in his essay for us today.

“The unfolding history of artificial intelligence has now arrived at what may be its most dangerous moment,” he writes. “We may be hurtling toward the most dangerous arms race in history.” And we are doing so, argues Niall, when “the leadership of the competitors in this race is, to say the least, of mixed quality”:

The chief executives of the most important companies include at least one with a record of duplicity, and at least two egomaniacs. Meanwhile, the president of the United States is a former real estate developer and reality TV star, roughly half of whose public utterances are mere bluffs, and the leader of the People’s Republic of China is a Marxist-Leninist who aspires to eclipse Mao Zedong as a dictator.

What could possibly go wrong? For an answer to that question, read Niall’s essay.

—Jillian Lederman

Last night, Californians took to the polls in the state’s “jungle primary” elections, teeing up an explosive one-on-one gubernatorial race and an exciting Los Angeles mayoral contest. At the time of writing, with 56 percent of votes counted in the Golden State, Republican challenger Steve Hilton leads the Gubernatorial race with 28 percent of the vote. In Los Angeles, with 63 percent of the votes counted, incumbent Karen Bass leads with 35 percent and former reality star Spencer Pratt is at 30 percent. Stay tuned for the thoughts of our man in Los Angeles, Peter Savodnik, on the final results later today. And while you wait, catch up with Peter’s live coverage in The Free Press Forum last night.

For the latest installment of our new Great Americans series, Joe Nocera pays tribute to jazz legend Louis Armstrong. Rising from the slums of New Orleans, Armstrong became “the first black entertainer to be truly embraced by Americans, whether white or black. Indeed, at the height of his fame, he was the most beloved entertainer in the world.” But beyond that, what made the self-taught “Satchmo” a key figure in 20th-century life, what drove his genius, and how did he become an unlikely Cold Warrior? Read Joe’s gorgeous piece. You won’t be disappointed.

• President Trump tapped Bill Pulte, the current chief of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to serve as acting Director of National Intelligence. Pulte is one of Trump’s closest allies, sending criminal referrals to the Justice Department for Trump critics and leading the charge against former Fed chair Jerome Powell. Pulte will serve in both capacities simultaneously, according to the president. (Read Bethany McLean’s terrific profile of Pulte, “The Man Behind Trump’s Attack on the Fed.”)

• The Department of Justice is officially scrapping the $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” after intense pushback from Republican allies in Congress. “We are not moving forward with the fund. Period,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday. (Read Tanner Nau’s reporting about January 6 rioters who want money from the fund, “They Stormed the Capitol. Now They Want Millions.”)

• A large barrage of Russian missiles and drones killed at least 22 people in Kyiv, Ukraine, late Monday night. The attack included 650 drones and more than 70 cruise missiles, according to the Ukrainian air force, damaging dozens of residential buildings and medical facilities. President Volodymyr Zelensky wrote to President Trump last week, warning that the country is running low on American missile defense interceptors.

• The rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Dinner will be held on July 24, according to the association’s president, CBS News’ Weija Jang. The dinner will be held a day after the three-month mark of the assassination attempt at the Washington Hilton hotel, this time at the Waldorf Astoria hotel. Trump called the rescheduling a “sign of strength and fortitude.”

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio was peppered with questions while testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, his first public hearing since the beginning of the Iran war in February. Rubio said negotiations with Iran are ongoing during the current pause of hostilities, and that “there is the prospect” that Iran would negotiate the future of its nuclear program.

• Embattled Maine Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner met with high-ranking Senate Democrats in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday afternoon. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was tight-lipped after the meeting, but told reporters, “We’re going to beat [Maine Republican senator] Susan Collins and take back the Senate.” Schumer initially backed Governor Janet Mills for the Democratic nomination; she suspended her primary bid in April.

• A wild bear injured four people in Fukushima, Japan, after it rampaged through two factories on Tuesday afternoon. It’s the latest in a rising trend of bear attacks in the country, with authorities reporting 13 deaths in more than 230 attacks by bears in 2025. Last year, the Japanese army was dispatched to the city of Akita after 60 people were attacked by bears.

Is artificial intelligence a blessing or a curse? It may be one of the defining questions of the 21st century. AI promises extraordinary benefits, from medical breakthroughs to unprecedented economic growth. But its development also carries profound risks for the financial and geopolitical landscape—and shows no signs of slowing down. On Monday, Anthropic filed plans for an initial public offering, a move that could value the company at nearly $1 trillion. Other major AI companies are already looking to follow suit.

Against this backdrop, President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order asking some AI companies to allow the government to review powerful new models 30 days before releasing them to the public—a scaled-back version of an order originally scheduled for last month.

Today, historian and Free Press columnist Niall Ferguson argues that for all its potential for good, the rapid and largely unregulated growth of AI doesn’t just threaten to render us obsolete; it has sparked the most dangerous arms race in history between the U.S. and China. And, like the nuclear arms race before it, he warns, the dangers it poses will not expire of their own volition. —The Editors

In 1957, Henry Kissinger published Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. The book clearly identified the central problem of the nuclear age: that any strategy of brinkmanship based on the threat to use strategic nuclear weapons created such a high risk of Armageddon that it lacked credibility. Though flawed in the eyes of its many critics, it was a seminal work that established his reputation as a strategic thinker at a time of public uncertainty as the Cold War escalated.

Seven decades later, at another moment of uncertainty and escalation, we desperately need someone like Kissinger to write Artificial Intelligence and Global Security.

The unfolding history of artificial intelligence has now arrived at what may be its most dangerous moment. There are two barely controlled AI races, one between around five American companies—Anthropic, Google, Meta, OpenAI, and xAI lead the field—and the other between the two geopolitical superpowers: the United States and China, with its own competing companies.

The leadership of the competitors in this race is, to say the least, of mixed quality. The chief executives of the most important companies include at least one with a record of duplicity, and at least two egomaniacs. Meanwhile, the president of the United States is a former real estate developer and reality TV star, roughly half of whose public utterances are mere bluffs, and the leader of the People’s Republic of China is a Marxist-Leninist who aspires to eclipse Mao Zedong as a dictator.

Welcome back to Great Americans, a countdown to our country’s 250th birthday. We’re bringing you a writer we love on an American they love, every weekday between now and July 4. Previously, Joseph Epstein wrote about Sandy Koufax, the star pitcher whose athletic prowess was as rare as his modesty. Today, Joe Nocera remembers Louis Armstrong, the father of that most American of art forms: jazz. —The Editors

It would be hard to come up with a more quintessentially American figure than Louis Armstrong. Growing up dirt-poor in a section of New Orleans—Storyville—largely populated by prostitutes, he became the first black entertainer to be truly embraced by Americans, whether white or black. Indeed, at the height of his fame, he was the most beloved entertainer in the world. A self-taught trumpet player, he practically single-handedly transformed jazz, as the critic Gary Giddins once wrote, into a music whose “undeniable splendor projects an equally undeniable spirit of freedom.” His voice—”a bruising, teasing, gravel-throated everyman” (Giddins again)—could not have been more different from contemporaries like Frank Sinatra or Ella Fitzgerald. Yet in 1964, his recording of “Hello, Dolly” knocked the Beatles’ “Can’t Buy Me Love” from the top of the charts.

Satchmo, as everybody called him, was a complete original. He believed in “the curative power of pot,” as one writer put it, which he smoked daily. He was never not himself, always ready with a joke or funny remark—some blue, some not—with a casual, unfiltered style that people couldn’t help but warm to. Once, during a concert in England, he dedicated a song to King George V with the words, “This one’s for you, Rex.”

He loved America—why else would he claim to have been born on July 4th? (he wasn’t)—but he didn’t shy from criticizing it when he felt it was important to do so. In 1957, for instance, when Arkansas governor Orval Faubus had the National Guard block nine black students from entering a white high school, Armstrong spurned a planned State Department–sponsored tour of the Soviet Union to protest the federal government’s laggard response. “The way they are treating my people in the South,” he said, “the government can go to hell.”

The investigation closes in on a German immigrant carpenter from the Bronx. When a chunk of the ransom money is discovered at his home, investigators think they’ve found a “smoking gun.” But is the evidence as airtight as it seems? Or is it a sign of a wider conspiracy that was never fully exposed?

This weekend saw the first big movie news of the summer: the triumph of a horror film, Backrooms, over the latest Star Wars spin-off, The Mandalorian and Grogu.

The latter was supposed to be a full season of streaming television on Disney+; it became, instead, a disorganized jumble of spare plot parts that landed with a clatter in theaters over Memorial Day weekend. Meanwhile, Backrooms, a small-budget picture by a young internet creator, has done handsomely. The movie earned $81.5 million domestically at its opening last weekend—eight times what it cost to make, which, astonishingly, was one-sixteenth of what The Mandalorian and Grogu cost.

So, is the age of the spin-off dead? It’s deader than dead, in fact: It’s soulless, empty-eyed, and ripe with the stench of decay, stumbling along like some hideous monster assembled from the chewed-up corpses of beloved ’80s and ’90s classics. Nostalgia has its time and place, but the public is clearly a bit glutted with comic book and sci-fi retreads. One night of reheated leftovers can be fun; a steady diet of recycled meat loaf gristle has got to be unhealthy. At the Mandalorian and Grogu screening I went to, the trailers were 30 minutes of advertisement for yet more retreads. There was something unbearably sad about sitting in a sparsely populated theater on a Friday night amid other aging millennials, panning the shallow dregs of our collective childhood for one last nugget of movie magic.

So it’s exciting to see 20-year-old YouTube sensation Kane Parsons find success with a commentary on remake culture itself. The genius of Backrooms is in its dark satire of the compulsive repetitions and reboots that have dominated theaters since he was a child. The monster at the heart of the movie is the literal embodiment of all those childhood keepsakes, hoarded mementos, and worn-out tropes that we feel tempted to redigest and mush together time and again. Parsons has turned an online legend into a metaphor for our zombified age.

Most Americans have not heard the name Henry Nowak. He was an 18-year-old British student who was stabbed to death by Vickrum Digwa in Southampton, England, last December. But his case—and the police bodycam footage that was released last night—could hardly be more disturbing. Police who attended the scene did not initially arrest the attacker—who was found guilty of murder last week. Instead, they handcuffed Nowak as he lay dying. All because he had been accused of racism. As the new footage reveals, Nowak uttered grimly familiar words as he was being arrested: “I can’t breathe.” In our Big Read today, Konstantin Kisin draws a direct line from the racial reckoning that started with those same words in Minneapolis in 2020 to the death of Henry Nowak. —The Editors

Cast your mind back exactly six years. It is the summer of 2020 and Britain is undergoing what its commentariat breathlessly described as a “reckoning.” The murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, thousands of miles away, sent hundreds of thousands of British people into the streets. As American cities burned, across the pond, statues were toppled. Multinational corporations issued groveling statements. Police officers—British police officers, in British cities, policing British people—took a knee before British protesters. So did Keir Starmer, then leader of the opposition and now prime minister. So did every major soccer team in the country. People were fired, companies changed, a new code of acceptable behavior was drawn up. Life in Britain changed, if not quite as much as it did across the Atlantic.

The message that was repeated endlessly by politicians, journalists, and institutions of every stripe was unambiguous: Racism kills, and we will do whatever it takes to make sure it never happens again.

Five years later, last December, an 18-year-old student named Henry Nowak was stabbed five times on a Southampton street after an altercation with a British Sikh man. As he lay bleeding, he told police officers who arrived at the scene exactly what had happened: He had been stabbed. Vickrum Digwa, who was standing nearby, and his brother told the officers something else: that Digwa had been the victim of a racist attack.

On the call to police, Digwa’s brother, Gurpreet, said to the dispatcher, “We’ve just been attacked by . . .”, paused, then finished, “someone racially.”

In the final months of the 2024 presidential campaign, the pro-life movement felt that Donald Trump was drifting.

Alarmed by Trump’s public flirtation with supporting a Florida abortion-rights ballot measure, Live Action founder Lila Rose traveled to the president’s Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club in September 2024 for a private intervention. During a sit-down that lasted more than two hours, Rose tried to persuade the president to adopt a stronger pro-life position on the campaign trail. She showed Trump videos narrated by former abortion doctors explaining how procedures are performed in graphic detail, hoping to convince him not to abandon a social-conservative movement that had stood by him for three presidential campaigns. But his response unsettled her.

“He expressed deep revulsion to late-term abortion,” she recalled in a wide-ranging interview with The Free Press. But she left the conversation feeling Trump’s understanding of the issue differed fundamentally from her own. “It seemed that his opposition was based on the disgusting aspects of abortion, which is not necessarily the reason that millions of Americans want to stop abortion,” she said. “They want to stop it because it ends human life, and he seemed to have this misunderstanding about why abortion was so deeply wrong.”

Even more concerning, in her view, was the sympathy Trump expressed for some first-trimester abortions, especially those that involve young women who aren’t ready to have children, are in college, or are at the start of their careers. According to Rose, he also suggested that he wouldn’t restrict access to mifepristone, the chemical abortion pill that has become the newest front in the abortion wars during Trump’s second term.

Should we regret marijuana legalization? By one recent count, 24 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use since 2012. Seven additional states have decriminalized it to varying degrees, and the Trump administration, in April, moved state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

But I hardly know anyone who is happy with how this has turned out, and if I do, they may be too busy inhaling pot to express their opinions to me.

A Pew Research Center survey in January showed that 55 percent of Americans support legal weed for medical and recreational use, but that’s down from a peak of 60 percent in 2021. I’m among that slice of people who have reconsidered whether legalizing would go well. Initially, I had the core libertarian intuition that consenting adults should be able to do with their own bodies as they wish. I have stayed at that point, but my intuition that this process would go smoothly has taken a real battering.

If you walk through major American cities such as New York or San Francisco, you (and your kid) may smell pot frequently. Yet it was never the intent of the law to have usage so plainly evident in public spaces. Instead, many of us were hoping for a libertarian paradise where everything would be tucked away at home, hidden from public view. That is not what we got, as it seems large numbers of people want to go around smoking marijuana.