Dire Strait

Plus: A federal flip-flop on AI innovation, the beauty of America as seen through World Cup tourists' eyes, and more...

After a series of attacks that targeted civilian ships and military bases over the weekend, the U.S. and Iran may have reached yet another (possible, maybe) deal to stop fighting. Iran struck commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday and Saturday. After the U.S. retaliated, Iranian drones targeted American bases in the region. In the early hours of Monday, however, an unnamed American official told The New York Times that a new agreement to stop the fighting was in place.

Later, President Donald Trump announced a new round of peace talks that will begin Tuesday in Qatar.

The latest clashes are being blamed on some deliberately vague language in the ceasefire deal that the two countries inked earlier this month. "The memorandum that the two sides agreed to calls for Iran to 'make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels' through the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days. Crucially, it leaves 'arrangements' and 'best efforts' undefined," reports The New York Times.

Adding to the ambiguity, the country of Oman (which lies on the opposite bank of the strait) has been working with the International Maritime Organization to open a new shipping channel near its shores. But Iran believes the ceasefire deal gives it the power to determine the "arrangements" for vessels to transit the strait, so it fired upon a ship using the Oman-adjacent channel.

This disagreement may turn out to involve time as well as space. The ceasefire deal requires that Iran not charge tolls to ships passing through Hormuz for 60 days, but the U.S. seems determined on a permanent restoration of free navigation—the condition that existed before the war began.

If the early reports of a renewed ceasefire deal prove to be true, that's good news. But it is clear that, unlike the geography of the strait itself, the two sides remain far apart in long-term peace talks.

So the war continues to drag along, despite being deeply unpopular, facing increasing congressional pushback, and resulting in few if any actual accomplishments.

FedGPT. The government is asserting the power to decide who gets to use the newest versions of some advanced AI platforms.

"ChatGPT-maker OpenAI said Friday that the U.S. government would initially approve who gets access to its latest new release while AI companies and the administration work out a longer-term plan for regulation on the sector," The Washington Post reports. "Hours later, the Commerce Department sent a letter to rival AI developer Anthropic, telling the company it would be allowed to provide its own latest AI model, Mythos 5, only to a restricted list of U.S.-based companies."

In a statement, OpenAI said it didn't "believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default. It keeps the best tools from users, developers, enterprises, cyber defenders, and global partners who need them." But the company says it is complying with the government's request while rolling out its new Sol, Tera, and Luna models.

After initially taking a relatively hands-off approach to A.I. development, the Trump administration seems to be reversing course.

In a matter of weeks, U.S. federal AI policy has gone from implausibly libertarian to increasingly draconian and opaque. Today, over 35 distinct observations, I analyze how we got here and offer the most succinct statement I can about what exactly I propose we should do next. pic.twitter.com/9CPLCZJXY4

— Dean W. Ball (@deanwball) June 26, 2026

---

Scenes from Minneapolis: I just spent several days in the Twin Cities for a friend's wedding (which was lovely). While the national political conversation has moved on from the ugly scenes that played out there last winter, it is clear that many residents and businesses still feel under siege. In some neighborhoods, it seems like every bar, shop, and restaurant is displaying some version of "everyone is welcome here, except the feds."

Eric Boehm

Eric Boehm

Some of this, surely, is virtue signaling. But as someone who believes that most political problems could be solved with a robust application of property rights, it's also encouraging. And when the feds come knocking, it's necessary. I applaud Minnesotans who know their rights and broadcast that fact.

---

QUICK HITS

• Feed every single anecdote from this Peggy Noonan piece about the World Cup directly into my veins. A sample: "Second, when you live inside something—a country, a way of life—you inevitably stop seeing it. Walk by the same work of art for 30 years, you won't really 'see' it each day. The young European arriving at a Dallas Costco or a California In-N-Out Burger sees a small marvel of organization, scale, of possibility. For you it's just Tuesday. You're used to it. They made us see it again."
• The White House and (for some reason) Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy tried to get Libertarian candidates to drop out of congressional races in Iowa.
• The Supreme Court will release more opinions today, possibly including the high-profile case challenging the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship and a case testing the limits of executive power over federal appointees.
• TV host Bill Maher accepted the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor and encouraged people to avoid "groupthink."
• "Pregnancy meant my commitment to biohacking was about to get more intense—even as the tools available were about to get less useful. I had become someone else's sensory deprivation tank," writes Sarah Rose Siskind.
• No comment:

"I think I'd be the greatest communist in history," Trump jokes, saying everyone could get free housing and food.

"The problem is after two or three years, the country is a disaster area. The country fails, they always do."

— Kathryn Watson (@kathrynw5) June 26, 2026