Honestly with Bari Weiss

Yesterday, in broad daylight, in front of a crowd of 3,000 people at Utah Valley University, Charlie Kirk was shot dead. Kirk was not just a husband, not just a father, and not just one of the most prominent young conservative voices in the country. He made his name doing something so fundamental to the American project: disagreeing out loud. He famously said, “When people stop talking, bad stuff happens.” And so his thing was going to campuses, setting up a tent, and asking people to change his mind. People on campuses lined up to challenge him, often fiercely debating—and that was the point. He was a living embodiment of our First Amendment. As Matthew Continetti wrote in our pages: “The attack didn’t just deprive a family of its center. It struck at the ties that hold a free society together: open assembly, civil debate, viewpoint diversity. Like every terrorist act, the shooting was meant to instill fear—in this case, fear of speaking out, of exposure, of making a difference.” And as shocking and tragic as murder is the response to it: the people online celebrating—yes, celebrating his death simply because they disagreed with his politics. Today Bari sits down with Ben Shapiro, Senator Mark Kelly, Matt Continetti, Katherine Boyle, Konstantin Kisin, and The Free Press’s own Eli Lake and Maya Sulkin to reflect on Kirk’s life and this awful moment in American history—and to consider how we can begin to look forward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the Supreme Court, she was in some ways an unlikely choice. She was living in South Bend, Indiana, not New York or D.C. She went to Notre Dame Law School, making her the only justice that didn’t go to Harvard or Yale. She’s the mother of seven kids. And, at the time of her appointment, she’d largely spent her career as a professor, with just under three years on a federal appeals court. To put it bluntly, Amy Coney Barrett was an outsider. But people close to President Donald Trump saw something: She was an originalist. A former clerk for Antonin Scalia. A devout Catholic with real intellectual bona fides. And a rising star in the conservative legal movement. In short, she was the ideal jurist to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After her 2020 nomination, the left called her inexperienced and a religious zealot. They said her confirmation hearing was rushed, and that she would undermine trust in the Supreme Court. But with a 52–48 vote, just six weeks before the 2020 presidential election, Barrett was confirmed—without one Democratic vote. She took her seat at the highest court at just 48 years old, and became only the fifth woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court. Considering how our nation’s most powerful people stick around into their 80s, she’ll likely have a major impact on American law and life for decades to come. We’re now five years into her time on the bench. And in a turn of events, CNN ran a piece last year titled “The Last Best Hope for Supreme Court Liberals: Amy Coney Barrett.” Newsweek ran “Amy Coney Barrett Is Liberal Justices’ ‘Best Chance’: SCOTUS Analyst ” and The New York Times ran “How Amy Coney Barrett Is Confounding the Right and the Left.” How did we get from “dangerous, religious zealot” to “last best hope”? On one hand, Barrett has done what one would expect of a Republican appointee: voting to overrule Roe v. Wade; voting to outlaw affirmative action; and voting against the administrative state. At the same time, she has voted with liberal justices in some of the most pivotal cases—and in Trump-related cases, she is the member of the conservative supermajority who has sided in Trump’s favor the least. In short, Barrett surprises. She just wrote a new book called Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, where she makes the simple but salient points: Her job is not to like all of her decisions, nor is it to please the media or a president. It’s to follow the text of the Constitution, full stop. On Thursday night Bari sat down for a rare conversation with Justice Barrett at Lincoln Center’s Alice Tully Hall in New York City. Bari also asks her about key cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the birthright citizenship case, nationwide injunctions, the shadow docket, transgender minors getting medical treatment, her willingness to dissent with liberal justices, her response to people who call her an “evil DEI hire,” and so much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Everyone wants the war in Gaza to end. The reason the war is not over is because about 50 people are still being held hostage by Hamas. Twenty of them are alive, but on the brink of death. About 30 of them have already been killed, and their bodies remain in Hamas captivity. There are differing opinions on the best way to bring them home: continue the ground war in Gaza, or take the partial deal put forward by Qatar and Egypt—which includes a 60-day ceasefire and the release of 10 living hostages and 18 bodies in exchange for hundreds of security prisoners. This war is one where everyone has an opinion. But in our view, no opinion matters more than those of the families whose loved ones, including their children, are living in Hamas terror tunnels. These families are in a collective debate about the best way to bring their loved ones home. So we want to play a really special episode from Conversations with Coleman that illuminates these differences, and showcases arguably the largest debate in Israeli society today. Coleman Hughes sat down with three hostage families: Tzvika Mor, the father of Eitan Mor, a 23-year-old security guard at the Nova Music Festival taken by Hamas; Talik Gvili, the mother of Ran Gvili, who on October 7 leaped into action and fought Hamas terrorists in Kibbutz Alumim;and Dalia Cusnir, the sister-in-law of brothers Iair and Eitan Horn. Iair Horn was released, and Eitan Horn remains in Hamas custody. Today, their families tell their stories and explain what they think is the best way to bring their family members home. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever travel to Europe in the summer and suddenly feel very “ra ra ra” about America? It’s not because of American culture, or food, or architecture. The thing people miss first and foremost is AC. Yes, air-conditioning. It’s an American treasure and of course, fodder for many dad jokes. But beyond the jokes, this invention has been politically and culturally transformational. AC allowed factories to operate through the summer—creating more productivity, prosperity, wealth, and American dynamism. It’s allowed Americans to live in the most uninviting places in the country—ever been to Arizona or Texas in the summer? And this very flexibility to live in places like Phoenix and Austin has shifted migration, demographics, and even our political map. So today we want to bring you podcasts from another show in The Free Press podcast network—Breaking History. Eli Lake and his producer Poppy Damon speak with Salvatore Basile, the author of Cool: How Air Conditioning Changed Everything, about how air-conditioning—once called “comfort cooling” and “refrigeration systems”—evolved from a bespoke invention to a household status symbol and a political force. The episode is so interesting because it highlights inflection points that propelled this technology. If you’re listening with your AC on high, you won’t want to miss it. If you want to hear more from Eli Lake on Breaking History, follow here. Header 6: The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You might have heard of the new term: “woke right.” It’s the idea that the illiberalism that has swallowed the progressive left—what we often refer to as “wokeness”—has come for the right. Here’s how we think about the dynamic: Over the past two decades the woke left said: “Everything is taboo”—our Founding Fathers, the idea that men and women are different, the idea that wearing hoop earrings is verboten because it’s cultural appropriation, and on and on. Naturally, people got fed up. Including people like Bari. Then some on the right exploited that anger, and said: “Nothing is taboo”—not words like “gay” or “retarded,” but also not “Holocaust revisionism” or “white nationalism.” Some of this dynamic is playing out in the headlines: The woke left changed Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Then the White House changed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America—the Trump administration even temporarily banned the Associated Press from the White House press room after it continued to publish “the Gulf of Mexico.” When the woke left tried to change the character of our nation’s founding and take down statues of Winston Churchill and George Washington, the right took down a description of Jackie Robinson’s military service that was on the Department of Defense website because it was too DEI-coded. On that note, the White House also recently said they would conduct a review of Smithsonian exhibitions to make sure they align with American ideals. And when the woke left said trans, disabled, people of color are the most oppressed class in America, the woke right says white, Christian men are actually at the bottom of the totem pole—creating a new form of identity politics, in right-wing language. It’s a fascinating and alarming dynamic. The same phenomenon on each side of the political spectrum. We would argue wokeness on the left went totally mainstream. Rod Dreher is one of the rare voices calling attention to the illiberalism on the right—and the danger it poses. He says the right has a unique opportunity to stop this woke impulse before it metastasizes. Rod is a contributing editor at The American Conservative. He’s the author of many books including his new bestseller, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents. And he most recently wrote in our pages “The Radical Right Is Coming for Your Sons.” Bari recently sat down with him to discuss why the woke right tolerates antisemitism and white nationalism, why this movement is appealing to men specifically, if it is fair to equate the woke right with the woke left, why he himself is not even comfortable with the term woke right—we’ll get into that in the conversation—and what happens if this impulse on the right goes mainstream. This interview was originally a Free Press subscriber-only livestream, and we’re planning to do more of these. If you want to come to one, all you need to do is become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On November 1, 2007, a man named Rudy Guede broke into a random home in Perugia, Italy, then raped and killed Meredith Kercher—a 21-year-old exchange student from the University of Leeds. You might not even remember the names Rudy Guede and Meredith Kercher. But one name you will remember is Meredith’s roommate, Amanda Knox, a 20-year-old exchange student from Seattle. In the weeks and years after Kercher’s murder, the media and the prosecution concocted a narrative that Amanda, her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and Guede had played a violent sex game leading to Kercher’s murder. Amanda was portrayed as a deviant sex fiend, a slut, a killer, and a psychopath. The problem is that none of it was true. Amanda had only been dating Sollecito a week. She had never met Guede. And most importantly, she was not playing a sex game that led to Kercher’s death. Amanda would end up spending a total of eight years on trial and four years in prison for a murder she did not commit. And Kercher’s real murderer—Guede—would never be charged with killing Kercher alone. He’d spend only 13 years behind bars for this crime. And after his release in 2021, he would be accused of committing a similar crime again. Here’s the part of the story most people don’t know: On the morning of November 5, 2007, Amanda Knox was taken into custody in Italy. She wasn’t given a lawyer or a translator. She wasn’t told that she was a suspect. She was questioned for 53 hours. She was struck by a police officer, gaslit, and pressured into signing a confession. Now, 18 years since she was taken into custody, she has released a memoir called Free: My Search for Meaning to tell the full story of what happened in Perugia, how she fought for vindication, how the tabloids and credible news organizations villainized her, and what her life has been like since she was exonerated in 2015. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Amanda Knox how she survived in prison, how she reintegrated into society, why she returned to Italy to confront the judge who put her behind bars, why she chooses forgiveness, and what it means to be truly free. Go to ⁠groundnews.com/Honestly ⁠to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The question of who represents the working class is probably the hottest debate in American politics. Is it Republicans? Democrats? Or socialists like Zohran Mamdani? Pundits can debate that question all they want, but the undeniable test is: Who do the unions believe stand for working people? For a century, unions were undeniably Democratic. And in 2021, Biden tried to carry on that tradition. He went as far as to say: “I intend to be the most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history.” Then in 2023, he became the first sitting president to walk a picket line, joining United Auto Workers in their strike against General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis. But as the Democratic Party went left, and then further left, many union members—who were reliable Democratic voters—broke the mold and voted for Trump—nearly half of union households, to be exact. Was it Trump’s hatred of NAFTA? His promise to bring manufacturing back? His unbridled vibrato? Or was it the left’s preoccupation with boutique issues? The shift was palpable when Teamsters president Sean O’Brien spoke at the 2024 RNC despite being a lifelong Democrat. It felt like a new era. We’ve reported extensively on how the Democratic Party lost the working class. But now, six months into Trump’s second term, are working-class Trump voters happy with their choice? And how has Trump been for labor in America? Sean O’Brien—the voice you heard at the RNC—is the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, representing 1.3 million union workers. It’s one of the biggest unions in the country. As Sean puts it, “They represent airline pilots to zookeepers and everyone in between.” That “in between” includes truck drivers, warehouse workers, mechanics, baggage handlers, construction workers, and UPS drivers—UPS is their largest employer. Basically, Teamsters have organized workers in every occupation imaginable. And more than his role as Teamsters president, Sean himself is a fourth-generation union member, having joined the Local 25 at 18 as a heavy-equipment driver in Boston. He’s spent 34 years in the union and has a unique vantage point from which he sees American labor. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Sean: Why did he speak at the RNC? How has Trump been for labor—given his coziness to Elon Musk, DOGE, and his new big, beautiful bill? Can Democrats win union workers back? And can unions find their footing again? How does he plan to organize Amazon—he has some choice words for Jeff Bezos. And how do we ensure more American workers have access to middle-class wages, quality healthcare, and strong pensions? Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Visit chevron.com/America to learn more about how Chevron is building a stronger future powered by American energy, Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Here’s one fun question to ask at a dinner party: What is your favorite conspiracy theory? There’s the idea that the CIA killed John F. Kennedy. The moon landing was fake, and 9/11 was an inside job. Covid was designed by the Gates Foundation to control the world—and the Covid vaccine had a microchip. There’s the deep state. Chemtrails. QAnon. The Illuminati. Reptilian overlords. Pizzagate—which says that high-ranking Democrats were running a child sex-trafficking ring out of a D.C. pizzeria. That one, Pizzagate, is rivaled only by the idea that there is a group of Satan-worshipping globalists and Hollywood celebrities who traffic children in order to harvest adrenochrome, a chemical which, in this scenario, is extracted from their blood. Why? It’s obvious: They inject it in order to stay young. It’s easy to joke about these theories. It’s much harder to reckon with the fact that many Americans believe them sincerely—and their justification is grounded in the fact that some conspiracy theories turn out to not be theories, but fact. The government was poisoning alcohol during Prohibition. The FBI was illegally spying on civil-rights activists like MLK. The U.S. government did let some few hundred black men with syphilis go untreated to study the effects. And Covid likely came from a lab in Wuhan, China. The question is how to tolerate and even encourage healthy speculation and investigation? How do we allow for skepticism of received wisdom, which may actually be wrong, without it leading to reptilian Jewish overlords? In the past few weeks, the speculation surrounding Jeffrey Epstein’s life and death is a perfect example of this conundrum. It’s a story filled with smoke and unanswered questions: How did Epstein get so rich in the first place? Was his wealth connected to his crimes? Was he acting alone? Was there a client list—and if so, who was on it? Why did he get such a sweetheart deal? And on and on. And then things get more far-fetched: Was Epstein’s suicide faked? Who could have killed him? Was he connected to foreign intelligence? And my favorite: Was he running a Jewish cabal? To help us understand why conspiracy theories are so compelling—and how we might better engage with those who believe them—is Ross Douthat. Ross Douthat is an opinion columnist at The New York Times and host of the Interesting Times podcast. He has been covering conspiratorial thinking—how to understand it, and what to do about it—for years. In 2020, he wrote: “It’s a mistake to believe most conspiracy theories, but it’s also a mistake to assume that they bear no relation to reality. Some are just insane emanations or deliberate misinformation. But others exaggerate and misread important trends rather than denying them, or offer implausible explanations for mysteries that nonetheless linger unexplained.” Which we thought perfectly encapsulated the conundrum of handling conspiracy theories today. So today on Honestly, Bari asks Ross: What is the state of conspiracy theories in America? How do we dispel conspiracy theories that are clearly false—without relying on establishment sources the public no longer trusts? And what are the consequences when these theories go unchecked? Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rahm Emanuel is giving every indication that he’s running for president in 2028—including by coming on Honestly yesterday. Emanuel, now 65 years old, has spent decades making a name for himself as one of the Democratic Party’s fiercest and most effective partisans—a true knife fighter, and you’ll see that spiciness in this interview. But can the dealmaker, the guy so adept at pulling the levers of power behind the scenes, really become the front man? And as the party continues to pull leftward, is there really room for an old-school moderate liberal like Rahm to be the standard-bearer? And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, does he have the bedside manner to be president? Or will people love his blunt nature and find it refreshing? He certainly has a résumé to run on. While still in his early 30s, he became a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, and before he was 40, his career was already the stuff of legend, thanks to stunts like sending a dead fish to a Democratic pollster who had upset him. And after Clinton won the White House in 1992, when staffers met around a picnic table to celebrate their accomplishments, Rahm instead picked up a knife and began listing Democrats he felt were insufficiently supportive of the campaign. “Dead man!” he yelled after each name, jabbing the knife into the table. His nickname—“Rahm-bo,” after Sylvester Stallone’s fearsome commando—became so pervasive that even his mom started calling him that. Meanwhile, in Hollywood, Rahm became the inspiration for a leading character on The West Wing, Josh Lyman. He spent five years as a top White House aide following Clinton’s victory. Rahm then returned to his native Illinois and was elected to Congress in 2002. In 2006, he was the mastermind of the Democratic Party’s wildly successful effort to retake the House of Representatives, making Nancy Pelosi speaker. In 2008, Barack Obama made Rahm his first White House chief of staff. He guided the new president through his tumultuous first two years in office, a period when Obama signed Dodd-Frank, a massive stimulus package, and the Affordable Care Act, into law. Then, in 2011, Rahm was elected to the first of his two terms as Chicago’s mayor. And when Joe Biden won the White House, he made Rahm his ambassador to Japan, giving the maybe–presidential contender direct foreign policy experience in what some would argue is America’s most important ally. Now the question is whether a man who ran Chicago and served every living Democratic president is too conservative for Democrats. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Rahm how moderates on the left and the right can get elected, about free trade, China, Israel, Iran, Trump, Biden, Obama, Zohran Mamdani, and the American dream—and what his party needs to do to win back Congress in the midterms next year, and the White House in 2028. And more deeply, if the Democrats can ever win a national election again after losing the trust of the American people. It’s a fascinating conversation with one of the most unique, knowledgeable, and—dare we say—zesty figures in politics today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Depending on who you ask, some would call the ultrarich “shameless”; others might say “aspirational.” For example: Mukesh Ambani, the Indian centibillionaire, has a room of snow in the Indian tropics—to say nothing of his skyscraper home, 168-car garage, and 600-person-staff. And celebrations for his kids’ weddings featured Rihanna and Beyoncé. This is nothing new. Aristotle Onassis had whales’ teeth carved into pornographic scenes from The Odyssey, and stools upholstered in whale foreskins which he kept aboard his yacht—because where else would you keep that? And one hedge-fund billionaire—whose name you won’t even know—bought a 14-foot shark preserved in formaldehyde. Why? Why not? These opulent displays of wealth just scratch the surface. There are blood boys, Basquiats, and bunkers, many of them in New Zealand for the end of the world. From the Kochs to the Kardashians—most of us cannot look away. But one question remains: Do Americans loathe or love the ultrarich? That’s one of the questions raised by Evan Osnos’s new book, The Haves and the Have-Yachts. Evan is a staff writer at The New Yorker and an author—several times over. In his newest book, he investigates how this class of people—the “Have-Yachts”—got their money, how they spend it, and how they fight to keep it. It all paints a fascinating picture not just about America and capitalism, but about human nature and the status games we play. The book feels eerily relevant in this moment of social and political breakdown, fueled—perhaps above all—by rage at the economic picture and economic inequality. As Zohran Mamdani—the self-proclaimed socialist and likely future mayor of New York City—says, “Billionaires should not exist.” And anti-elite sentiment grows on the right, too—through voices like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Today on Honestly, Bari asks Evan Osnos what this level of income inequality means for America, if a revolt or a revolution is in our future, and how AI is going to supercharge an already precarious status quo. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Just two weeks ago, New Yorkers voted en masse for a self-proclaimed socialist—someone who once called for “seizing the means of production.” This is, of course, Zohran Mamdani, who dominated in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor with a definitive victory over Andrew Cuomo. He has called for rent freezes, free buses, and even government-run grocery stores. He won 56 percent of the vote in a campaign fueled by young, highly educated, wealthy people—many of whom believe in reviving socialism here in America, in 2025. According to a Cato Institute poll from May: 62 percent of Americans age 18 to 29 say they hold a “favorable view” of socialism. And 34 percent had a positive view of communism. Polls by Emerson and Marist from May and June had shown Mamdani leading with voters under 45 by as much as a 2:1 ratio against the former governor. This phenomenon has left many people wondering: Why are so many young people embracing a failed economic system? Is it their university education? Is it the influence of social media? Is it just “cool”? Is it a desperate call for anything to fix wealth inequality? Or is it something else? Here to help us understand are Tyler Cowen and Kyla Scanlon. Tyler Cowen is an economist and Free Press columnist who just wrote an important essay for us called “Why Won’t Socialism Die?” Kyla Scanlon is a writer, economic commentator, and educator—and, importantly for this conversation, a member of Gen Z. She is 28, and her new book is In This Economy? How Money & Markets Really Work. This conversation was originally a Free Press livestream—and you’ll hear throughout this conversation that I take lots of questions from people who joined us live. To make sure that you never miss one of these in the future, you can become a paid subscriber today. Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Love him or hate him, many consider Elon Musk to be a modern-day genius. He co-founded PayPal, which transformed how people purchase things. He became the CEO of Tesla, which revolutionized electric vehicles—and made it cool to drive them. He founded SpaceX, accomplishing what only superpower nation-states have previously. And he is working to make our species interplanetary—maybe in a few years, we’ll be doing this podcast on Mars. To many, these acts make Elon Musk a genius, perhaps the most important genius in history. But it’s worth asking: What exactly makes him a genius? Is it a particular set of qualities, or is Elon Musk just particularly adept at playing the role of genius? Or at least what we’ve come to expect of geniuses? Is his offensive behavior excused by his genius, or the result of it? And why do human beings value genius, even to the point of deifying it? All of these questions are raised in Helen Lewis’s new book, The Genius Myth. And not just with regard to Musk, but to so many of the figures our culture venerates as geniuses: Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, William Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Pablo Picasso, Albert Einstein, and Steve Jobs. Lewis asks: Were these people actually geniuses? Or was their genius based on a myth? And more importantly, how does our perception of “genius” confuse and distort our understanding of success—and how we value, or don’t value, other human beings? Today on Honestly, Bari asks Helen Lewis if some people belong to a special and superior class, what it means to be a genius, and if she believes in geniuses at all. Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

America is turning 250. And we’re throwing a yearlong celebration of the greatest country on Earth. The greatest? Yes. The greatest. We realize that’s not a popular thing to say these days. Americans have a way of taking this country for granted: a Gallup poll released earlier this week shows that American pride has reached a new low. And the world at large, which is wealthier and freer than it has ever been in history thanks to American power and largesse, often resents us. We get it. As journalists, we spend most of our time finding problems and exposing them. It’s what the job calls for. But if you only focus on the negatives, you get a distorted view of reality. As America hits this milestone birthday, it’s worthwhile to take a moment to step back and look closely at where we actually are—and the reality of life in America today compared to other times and places. That reality is pretty spectacular. Could Thomas Jefferson and the men gathered in Philadelphia who wrote down the words that made our world—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—ever have imagined what their Declaration of Independence would bring? The Constitution. The end of slavery—and the defeat of Hitler. Astonishing wealth and medical breakthroughs. Silicon Valley. The most powerful military in the world. The moon landing. Hollywood. The Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty (a gift from France). Actual liberation (a thing we gave France). Humphrey Bogart and Tom Hanks. Josephine Baker and Beyoncé. Hot dogs. Corn dogs. American Chinese food. American Italian food. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys. The Barrymores and the Fondas. Winston Churchill (his mom was from Brooklyn). The Marshall Plan and Thurgood Marshall. Star Wars. Missile-defense shields. Baseball. Football. The military-industrial complex. Freedom of religion. UFO cults. Television. The internet. The Pill. The Pope. The automobile, the airplane, and AI. Jazz and the blues. The polio vaccine and GLP-1s, the UFC and Dolly Parton. The list goes on because it’s really, truly endless. Ours is a country where you can hear 800 languages spoken in Queens, drive two hours and end up among the Amish in Pennsylvania. We are 330 million people, from California to New York Island, gathered together as one. Each of those 330 million will tell you that ours is not a perfect country. But we suspect most of them would agree that their lives would not be possible without it. So for the next 12 months, we’re going to toast to our freedoms on the page, on this podcast and in real life. And we’re doing it the Free Press way: by delving into all of it—the bad and the good and the great, the strange and the wonderful and the wild. And today—on America’s 249th birthday—we’re kicking off this yearlong event with none other than Akhil Reed Amar. Akhil has a unique understanding of this country—and our Constitution. Akhil is a Democrat who testified on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh, is a member of The Federalist Society, who is pro-choice but also anti-Roe—and these seeming contradictions make him perfectly suited to answer questions about the political and legal polarization we find ourselves in today. Akhil is a constitutional law professor at Yale and the author of the brilliant book The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840. He also hosts the podcast Amarica's Constitution, and you might recognize his name from his work in The Atlantic. I ask him about the unique history that created our founding document, the state of the country, our political polarization, the American legal system, and what this country means to him. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When we last recorded Saturday night, the U.S. had just announced its strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U.S. had entered the war. The restrainers had seemingly lost. In the following hours, President Donald Trump said the mission was a “spectacular military success.” And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the program “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites. But there’s much more to that story than meets the eye. As Jay Solomon wrote in our pages: Before the U.S. struck, 16 cargo trucks entered the fortified mountain complex and moved unidentified equipment to another location. Are the sites destroyed or merely damaged? Was enriched uranium smuggled out? It all remains unclear. Now the war is heating up. Israel has expanded its bombing campaign beyond nuclear facilities to hit regime targets. Qatar has closed its airspace. And just as we write this, Iran has reportedly fired toward Qatar and Iraq. It all begs the question: Was the strike on Iran’s Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant the end of this war—or just the beginning? And what comes next? To understand the state of the nuclear facilities and the state of the war, we’ve brought together three of the most well-read experts: Michael Oren, Jay Solomon, and Matti Friedman. Oren is the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. He served from 2009 to 2013. He is also a former Knesset member. He is the author of many books, including Ally: My Journey Across the American-Israeli Divide. Solomon is an investigative journalist who has covered Iran and the region for decades. He just published an explosive piece for The Free Press titled “Did Iran Just Sneak Out Critical Nuclear Material from Fordow?” And, Friedman is our Jerusalem-based columnist, and the author of four books, including his latest, Who by Fire: Leonard Cohen in the Sinai. He just wrote “After the Bombs: American B-2s Just Changed the Middle East. Now It’s Time to Return the Region to the Humans Who Live Here” for our pages. We’ll note we recorded this Monday morning, starting around 11 a.m. ET, as a Free Press Live event. To join these, you just need to do one thing—and that’s become a Free Press subscriber. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Saturday night at 7:50 pm ET, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. had entered the war against Iran when he posted: “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” In the minutes after this historic announcement we assembled six of the top experts on this issue: Haviv Rettig Gur, Michael Doran, Mark Dubowitz, Amit Segal, Eli Lake, and Matt Continetti. We discussed it all: what we actually know about the strikes; what it means for Iran’s nuclear capabilities, how Iran might respond; why Trump struck now; what this means for the Middle East; and what Trump’s national address signalled to the American public, to Israel, and most importantly to Iran. We'll note we recorded this Saturday night starting at 8:30 pm ET as a Free Press live event, and we will be hosting more in days to come. Go to groundnews.com/Honestly to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today’s biggest news stories. Beekeeper’s Naturals is offering you an exclusive offer: Go to beekeepersnaturals.com/BARI to get 20% off your order. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s the fourth day in the war between Iran and Israel. Many questions hang in the air. Chief among them: Will Israel be able to fulfill its main goal in the war—to end Iran’s nuclear program? Will it put troops on the ground to do so, specifically to blow up Iran’s most important nuclear site? Or will the U.S. get involved? Will Trump provide the bunker-busting bombs necessary to destroy the facility at Fordow? Will the regime fall—and if so, what will come next? How does this struggle fit into the much, much larger geopolitical conflict between the U.S. and China? So today, I have two experts to break it all down: Niall Ferguson and Dexter Filkins. Niall Ferguson is a historian and Free Press columnist who just wrote in our pages, “Israel’s attack restores the credibility of the West.” Dexter Filkins is a longtime foreign correspondent who has reported from Iran. He is a contributor at The New Yorker, has covered this topic for years, and is the author of The Forever War. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As we taped this episode of Honestly, it was 3 a.m. in Israel. Sirens wailed across the country as Iranian missiles rained down on Israeli towns. At the same time, Israel was striking military and nuclear sites inside Iran, and oil fields were aflame. Meanwhile in Washington, reports were emerging of a heated debate inside the White House over whether the U.S. should get involved in the war. It’s hard to overstate the magnitude of this story—or how uncertain the outcome is for Israel. There’s no one better to help us make sense of this war than Michael Doran—senior fellow and director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East. This has been his story not just for the past few days—for the last decade, no one has written more, and more brilliantly, about Iran’s nuclear aspirations and Washington’s posture toward Iran than Mike. And he just wrote for The Free Press “The Ultimate Deception: How Trump and Bibi Outfoxed Iran.” We recorded this interview Saturday evening at 6 p.m. as a Free Press subscriber livestream. We’re doing more of these given the speed of the news. To attend one live and ask your own questions, become a Free Press subscriber. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the early hours of Friday morning, Israel pulled off a historic strike on Iran. As I record these lines, Iran is reporting a “massive explosion” in Isfahan, in a province that is home to several nuclear facilities. In Israel, where Shabbat has begun, the government has ordered all synagogues to shut down—and for citizens to remain close to bomb shelters as they brace for a retaliatory strike. It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this operation. Israel has taken out much of Iran’s military leadership and some of its top nuclear scientists and hit nuclear facilities across the country. And it is still going. Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to do whatever it takes in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust. Meanwhile, the X account for Iran’s military has threatened that “our response will be lethal.” And the country’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, has tweeted: “The Zionist regime has prepared for itself a bitter, painful fate, which it will definitely see.” Donald Trump, for his part, is using this as an opening to push Iran into a nuclear deal. This is a historic juncture for the region—not just for the state of Israel, but for the West. So last night, just as the news of these attacks broke, I sat down with former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren and former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett to discuss all of it: the strikes, what they accomplished, how Israel defied conventional wisdom and seemed to pull off the impossible, what we can expect in the days ahead, and—perhaps most importantly to many of our listeners—whether or not America is supporting Israel in its efforts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

There are people who have résumés we might call “diverse” or “wide-ranging.” And then there are people like Mike Huckabee who, at age 69, has seemingly crammed several lifetimes’ worth of careers into one. He was a televangelist. He was governor of Arkansas for over a decade. He ran for president and won the Iowa caucuses. He hosted his own show on Fox News for seven years. He’s written books on everything from Christmas to weight loss. And now he’s America’s ambassador to Israel. And he’s filling that post at a moment when the longtime status quo in the region is being completely upended. Israel is inching closer to eradicating Hamas in Gaza—but the day-after plan is unclear. Iran is feared to be on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons, and Trump and Steve Witkoff are working hard on a renewed Iran nuclear deal. Arab countries like Saudi Arabia, and even Syria, could normalize relations with Israel. But Islamist terror groups are trying to derail any attempts at lasting peace. And American adversaries like China and Russia are trying to take advantage of any instability in the region. Suffice it to say, it’s a time of great uncertainty. Meanwhile, Huckabee is in some way redefining what it means to be Israel’s ambassador. He’s been outspoken in criticizing inaccurate press accounts about the conflict, and he’s been ardent in his support of the Jewish state. And while most ambassadors exist behind the scenes, Mike Huckabee has been in front of the cameras, making the case for Israel and its war with Hamas directly to Americans. It could even be argued that he’s making a better case for Israel than the Israeli government itself. So today on Honestly, Ambassador Huckabee and I discuss all of that and more—the rise of antisemitism in the U.S. and the West more broadly, the future of America’s involvement in the Middle East, and the fight between doves and hawks in Trump’s 2.0 presidency. One final note: This interview ended abruptly. The ambassador took a call from Israel, and at 10 p.m., the rocket sirens blared and he had 90 seconds to get to the shelter. It’s something normalized in Israeli life. Talk to any parents, and they’ll talk about having to wake their kids up several times a week because of these sirens. But it also serves as a constant reminder of the persistent threat Israel faces—and not just from Hamas. There were so many other great things I wanted to ask him about—particularly the right’s antisemitism. But we’ll have to have him back. The conversation is thought-provoking and timely, and I think you’ll really enjoy it. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the past few weeks, Qatar has been all over the news with flashy headlines of a $400 million luxury jet that the country gifted to President Donald Trump. It symbolized their opulence and eagerness to please the U.S. But 40 years ago, Qatar was a country with a gross domestic product (GDP) of a few billion dollars. Since the 19th century, it has been run by the Al Thani family, which can trace its roots in the region back thousands of years. Qatar was long considered a backwater. The main industries were fishing and pearls. It was impoverished for the vast majority of its history. Its royal family was dwarfed by rivals in Saudi Arabia. Then everything changed. It turned out that the largest liquified natural gas field was sitting just off the coast of Qatar. And with the help of American energy giants like ExxonMobil, Qatar began exporting LNG in 1997. In a few decades, Qatar’s GDP grew exponentially. Today it’s over $200 billion. Qatar hosts the main air base for American forces in the Middle East. It hosted the World Cup in 2022. And it’s embarking on a series of business and military deals with the U.S.—earmarked at $1.2 trillion. There are a lot of petro-states in the region. Some, like Saudi Arabia, exceed Qatar’s wealth by hundreds of billions. But what Qatar has chosen to do with its money—morality aside—is farsighted. Qatar has chosen to focus a huge amount of money and resources on influence. In the past 15 years, Qatar has developed a sophisticated apparatus to embed itself into American society in a way that would shock most Americans. They’ve done it by investing in our politicians, universities, newsrooms, think tanks, lobbying firms, and corporations—all on an unprecedented scale. In all, the tiny Gulf nation has spent almost $100 billion to establish this influence. So what’s the problem? Well, Qatar’s push to buy influence has made their connection to the Muslim Brotherhood ever more alarming and apparent. Frannie Block and Jay Solomon published a massive investigative report on Qatar’s seismic influence strategy for The Free Press. It’s called “How Qatar Bought America.” Today on Honestly, I ask Jay and Frannie how Qatar built this ecosystem, what they want in return, and what it has already gotten them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices