In honor of NYC’s least favorite week, we are joined by Brett D. Schaefer to analyze the ongoing United Nations General Assembly meeting. How the hell is this institution serving American interests? Together with Brett, we discuss the President’s address, weird US shenanigans, the threats to American interests posed by international governance, and the importance of U.S. oversight. The United Nations needs significant reform, but how the hell can the White House make that happen?

Brett D. Schaefer is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on multilateral treaties, peacekeeping, and the United Nations and international organizations. Before joining AEI, Mr. Schaefer was the Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, a member of the United Nations Committee on Contributions and an expert on the UN Task Force for the United States Institute of Peace. His work has been published in Fox News, The Hill, National Review, and National Security Journal, CNN, and CNBC, and more.

What the hell is happening with U.S. defense technology? Chris Brose, the President and Chief Strategy Officer of defense tech firm Anduril joins us to talk about how private defense companies are innovating and revolutionizing American national security, America’s lousy defense acquisition habits, and what we can learn from Ukraine and the war with Iran. The traditional US defense industrial base is slowly cranking out exquisite and outdated weapons. If things don’t change, we risk losing a war to China. We discuss the crucial shift towards technological advancement, what the Pentagon and Congress must do, and what this means long term for the safety and security of the American people.

Chris Brose is President and Chief Strategy Officer of Anduril Industries, a venture-backed defense technology company. He is the author of The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare (2020) and formerly a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From 2014-2018, he was the staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting then Chairman John McCain. From 2009-2014, Mr. Brose served as senior policy advisor to Senator John McCain, and from 2008-2009, he was senior editor of Foreign Policy. From 2005-2008, he served as policy advisor and chief speechwriter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and began his career in government as a speechwriter for Secretary of State Colin Powell from 2004-2005.

On the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, we hosted a live recording of the podcast, What the Hell Is Going On?, featuring former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and former Deputy National Security Adviser J. D. Crouch II. Both Mr. Hadley and Dr. Crouch were serving in the Bush administration on that terrible day. Together, we discuss the attacks, the global war on terror, the state of America’s fight against Islamist extremism, and the United States’ safety and security one quarter century on.

Stephen Hadley is a principal of Rice, Hadley, Gates & Manuel LLC, an international strategic consulting firm founded with Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and Anja Manuel. He is an executive vice chair of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council and is also the former board chair of the United States Institute of Peace, where he continues to serve on the Board of Directors.

In our back-to-school episode, we welcome the return to D.C. by diving straight into the upcoming midterm elections. Who the hell is running? What the hell do they believe in? Where the hell are the particularly crucial races? Between the Iran War, heightening antisemitism, the increasingly popular DSA, and a possible AI bubble, American voters have no shortage of issues to weigh at the polls. We are pleased to host Josh for a discussion on what November might bring, and its implications for broader American policy in the future.

Josh Kraushaar is the editor-in-chief of Jewish Insider and is a political analyst for Fox News Radio. With a track record of identifying election trends before they become conventional wisdom, Kraushaar is one of Washington’s leading political analysts. Josh will soon be publishing a weekly column analyzing the latest political developments for JI and is also the author of Axios’ weekly Sunday Sneak Peek newsletter, which focuses on the big-picture forces driving American politics.

What the hell is Beijing doing to seduce Washington? Join us for the last in our summer book series for a discussion with Dr. Audrye Wong for a conversation about her new book, Subversion and Seduction: China’s Economic Statecraft. How the hell has Beijing gained influence inside the United States? What the hell are their carrots and sticks? We debrief the state of China’s seduction campaign and Audrye’s policy suggestions to counter Beijing.

Audrye Wong is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where her work focuses on China’s foreign policy, economic statecraft, propaganda and disinformation campaigns, and foreign influence operations. Previously, Dr. Wong was a professor at the University of Southern California and postdoctoral fellow at the Grand Strategy, Security, and Statecraft joint program of the Harvard Kennedy School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program. She has also held affiliations with Harvard’s Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, the Wilson Center, the Brookings Institution, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She is fluent in Mandarin. Dr. Wong holds a PhD, MA and AB from Princeton.

In the third part of our What The Hell summer reading series, Judge Roy Altman joins us for a discussion on the questions posed in his book, “Israel on Trial: Examining the History, the Evidence, and the Law.” What the hell are the charges? Who the hell are the plaintiffs? Altman applies his legal and ethical training to put Israel on trial. Together, we analyze the ultimate question: guilty or not guilty?

After being confirmed to a seat on the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2019, Judge Roy K. Altman, at 36, became the youngest federal district court judge in the country—and the youngest federal judge ever appointed in the Southern District of Florida. He received his JD from Yale Law School, where he was projects editor of the Yale Law Journal. Altman clerked on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for the Honorable Stanley Marcus and was appointed a federal prosecutor at the US Attorney’s Office in Miami, where he twice received the Director of the Executive Office of US Attorneys’ Award for Superior Performance by a federal prosecutor. Altman was named a partner at the Miami law firm Podhurst Orseck, where he represented the victims of airplane crashes and bank fraud conspiracies. He received a BA from Columbia University, where he played quarterback on the football team and pitched for the baseball team.

Kicking off our annual What the Hell summer book series, Hussain Abdul-Hussain discusses his new book, “The Arab Case for Israel: And Other Essays from a Distant Conflict”. Having grown up in Beirut and in Baghdad surrounded by anti-Israel rhetoric, Hussain recounts his journey from accepting the region’s conventional wisdom to concluding that normalization with Israel is one of the Arab world’s greatest strategic opportunities. He argues that economic cooperation, not perpetual conflict, offers the best path to a more prosperous and stable Middle East, and that the Abraham Accords demonstrated what is possible when governments prioritize the future over a mythical past. WTH is preventing more countries from following that path? And can the promise of the Abraham Accords still be realized?

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the author of the book The Arab Case for Israel (Wicked Son/Post Hill Press 2026). He champions immediate, unconditional, and comprehensive peace between every Arab nation and the Jewish state. Hussain’s research focuses on Arab affairs, spanning Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan. His career launched as a reporter, and later managing editor, at Beirut’s The Daily Star. In Washington, he helped launch and manage the congressionally funded Arabic satellite network Alhurra Iraq before leading the Washington bureau of the Kuwaiti daily Alrai. He has also served as a Visiting Fellow at London’s Chatham House. His latest book is The Arab Case for Israel and Other Essays from a Distant Conflict (2026).

Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again dealings with the Iranians have hit another flashpoint this week as exchanges of fire on commercial shipping and US military bases in the region stymied negotiations before their 60-day deadline. Although large-scale combat has subsided, the conflict between the United States and Iran is far from over.

Nick Carl argues that Tehran has emerged from the war with a new strategic objective: establishing de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz and using it as a tool of coercion against the international community after its traditional sources of deterrence fell short. He also examines the regime’s evolving leadership following Ali Khamenei’s death, the continued discontent between Iran’s rulers and its people, and why Tehran believes it can outlast the United States politically despite suffering major military setbacks. While conventional wisdom suggests Iranian weakness (as discussed in our many conversations with General Jack Keane), Tehran is nonetheless negotiating from a position of confidence. Does the United States remain committed to denying Iran control of the Strait? Can diplomacy succeed without rewarding Iranian aggression? And ultimately, who has the greater will to persist? Will President Trump accept a bad agreement or abandon his deal-making desires in pursuit of a more decisive outcome?

President Trump has publicly speculated that resuming military operations against Iran could trigger an economic catastrophe, warning of soaring gas prices and even a global depression. It is rumored that senior officials within the administration are driving this narrative in an effort to steer Trump away from finishing the conflict, as fears of Iranian long term impact on global oil markets appear to be exaggerated. Economist Glenn Hubbard argues that while energy markets and inflation deserve consideration, the role of economists is to analyze tradeoffs and identify ways to mitigate the economic costs of national security decisions; to inform policy, not determine it. On balance, he contends that the long-term costs of failed deterrence outweigh the short-term economic risks. So, as the administration weighs whether to return to combat or settle for an unacceptable status quo, is the greater economic and national security risk resuming the fight or leaving Iran’s threats unresolved? And what price does America pay for failing to finish the job?

Glenn Hubbard is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work is focused on a wide range of economic issues, including health care, poverty, public, corporate, and international finance, and financial markets and institutions. A former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers at the White House, Dr. Hubbard concurrently serves as dean emeritus and Russell L. Carson Professor of Economics and Finance at Columbia Business School. He has also served as a deputy assistant secretary at the US Treasury Department and as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, among other positions.

While the world’s attention has been fixed on the war in Iran, the battlefield in Ukraine has largely shifted in Kyiv’s favor. ISW’s George Barros joins us to explain how Ukrainian innovations in drone warfare, logistics, and battlefield technology have slowed Russia’s advance, increased Russian casualties, and created new opportunities for Ukrainian counterattacks. These developments are especially meaningful for future peace negotiations, as Russia’s strategy is showing signs of severe strain. Putin’s wartime claims and demands have become even more ridiculous as Ukraine strikes deeper into Russian territory. Ukraine’s wartime innovations are already helping protect American forces around the world as they reshape the future of warfare in real time. Free democracies like Ukraine tend to outpace their adversaries in innovation, and the United States should do more to friend-shore critical industries and pursue military industrial cooperation to our mutual benefit.

George Barros is the Director of Innovation and Open Source Tradecraft at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), previously led ISW’s Russia Team and founded ISW GEOINT Team and has served as a policy advisor on Ukraine and Russia for a U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee member. His analyses and interviews have appeared in outlets including The Hill, Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, Voice of America, and more.

In his relentless pursuit of a deal with Iran, Donald Trump has now returned to military escalation, resuming combat operations and warning that the United States will seize Iran’s key oil export hub on Kharg Island. This so-called moderate ceasefire signals a renewed campaign of punishing strikes on Iran until it agrees to terms set by the administration’s negotiating team. As Miad explains, however, Iran’s hardline is not the “leverage” Tehran believes it to be, because Iran ultimately must reopen the Strait of Hormuz for its own economic survival. But at this moment, Donald Trump has no viable partner for peace, and Iran will likely never offer such an option. As Marc and Dany point out, there is no Iranian Delcy Rodríguez, and these kinds of arrangements have expiration dates, particularly as 2028 approaches. As long as the sole measure of success in Iran is a negotiated deal, the Iranians hold the power to decide whether victory is possible. It is up to Trump to decide whether that’s acceptable.

Miad Maleki is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), former senior U.S. sanctions strategist and national security leader, and former associate director for the Treasury’s Office of Global Targeting at the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Miad played a central role in marshalling the Treasury Department’s sanctions campaigns against the Iranian regime and its proxy groups: Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi Shiite militias, and the Houthis. He is also a U.S. Air Force Veteran.

We’re now in the eighth week of a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The Trump Administration is stuck in a holding pattern as Iranian negotiators continue to ignore US redlines and both sides insist on their own superior leverage. The unfortunate reality is that many in the Trump Administration are being fed a false calculus and discredit the ability of the US military to maintain the blockade, open the Strait, and destroy and extract nuclear material. To entertain such Iranian wishes as a billion-dollar reconstruction fund ignores the fact that CENTCOM Commander Bradley Cooper has confirmed: it would take 10-14 days to accomplish the full breadth of our military objectives in Iran. Yet, the Trump Administration is committed to making a deal, with Secretary Rubio echoing the same commitment to the negotiation seesaw. But Iran is an inherently bad faith actor. And it is using the upcoming midterms to its advantage. What now? How will we break the cycle? Thankfully we have General Jack Keane, who provides a clear-eyed strategy for victory against Iran.

General Keane is widely recognized as one of America’s most respected authorities on foreign policy and national security. He is a retired four-star Army general, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army having served our nation in uniform for 37 years. He is Fox News senior strategic analyst and is the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War.

With the 2030 Census fast approaching, battles over redistricting and congressional apportionment continue to take shape. As population shifts continue, driven by migration from blue states to red states and the influx of illegal immigrants into sanctuary cities, both parties are looking to secure a larger share of political representation in the decade ahead. At the center of the debate is the Democratic Party’s reliance on a strict, constructivist reading of Article I’s “Free Persons Clause” to justify counting illegal immigrants in reapportionment and redistricting. Critics argue that the lack of legal basis hinder our ability to police the practice and contend that the voting power of American citizens are effectively diluted. Howard proposes an alternative approach: a citizenship initiative focused on those here legally and eligible to naturalize, rather than creating what he describes as modern-day “rotten boroughs”, districts with inflated populations but disproportionate influence in federal elections. Would the Democratic Party support such an effort? Or will they continue to double down on their outrageously unpopular embrace of high illegal immigration?

Howard Husock is a senior fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on municipal government, urban housing policy, civil society, and philanthropy. Before joining AEI, Mr. Husock was vice president for research and publications at the Manhattan Institute. He has also been a director of case studies in public policy and management at the Harvard Kennedy School, a member of the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and a journalist and Emmy-winning documentary filmmaker.

Last week, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map in a 6–3 decision tied to a 1986 amendment to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. As Sarah Isgur explains, “What the Supreme Court has said now for 25 years, whether it’s affirmative action or voting rights, is we’re going to stop discriminating on the basis of race, whether you think it’s good discrimination or bad discrimination or whatever else in-between, but you will not take race into account. Not when it comes to admissions to universities and not when it comes to voting.” At the heart of the debate is an ongoing misunderstanding of equality of opportunity vs equity of outcome. With both parties seeking political advantage in a zero-sum game, disentangling racial and partisan lines in congressional districting becomes nearly impossible, especially within the framework of constitutional fealty. Thus, we arrive at our regular theme: “Congress do your job!” Instead of judicial activism, can lawmakers create a neutral redistricting framework that truly separates race from politics and regulates partisan gerrymandering?

Sarah Isgur is a senior editor at The Dispatch and is based in northern Virginia. She is the host of Advisory Opinions and the editor of SCOTUSblog. Prior to joining the company in 2019, she worked in every branch of the federal government and on three presidential campaigns. She’s also an ABC News contributor and the author of Last Branch Standing, a deep dive into the inner workings of the Supreme Court.