Articles & Videos

The 6-3 ruling means that the 14th Amendment protection of citizenship rights for children born in the US remains.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld West Virginia and Idaho state laws banning transgender athletes from competing on teams that align with their gender, further restricting trans rights in the U.S.This is the court’s first ruling on laws regarding trans athletes, and follows last year’s decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti allowing states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors.The ruling contributes to an increasingly bleak legal landscape for trans people in the U.S. Both petitioners argued that the state bans are discriminatory, and violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. One argued that the restrictions are also a violation of Title IX, which prohibits discrimination in schools on the basis of sex.All three liberal justices dissented in the decision, noting that they would have sent the case back for further factual findings on the equal protection claim.Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a partial dissent, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.“States do have some room to legislate around issues when there exists significant, and genuine, scientific debate,” Sotomayor wrote. “At this point, however, neither the District Court nor the Fourth Circuit has passed upon any of the available evidence or made the necessary factual findings about the state of the scientific debate.“The majority’s opinion ends by reciting the many wonderful ways in which playing sports can be valuable to young people. It can help build resilience, tenacity, leadership, and discipline. It can lead to life-long friendships, community, and a sense of belonging. It can bring joy and the thrill of victory, along with all the lessons one learns from experiencing defeat. The benefits are immense,” Sotomayor continued. “Because of the Court’s decision today, West Virginia, and any other state actor, can deny B. P. J. and others like her these experiences simply because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”“A transgender woman penalized for being perceived as aggressive has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’ just as much as a cisgender woman has, no matter that the transgender woman’s behavior matches expectations of her sex assigned at birth,” Justice Jackson wrote in an additional dissent. “Either way, the institution has imposed its gender-based expectations upon her. And either way, the institution may have violated Title IX.”The majority decision will have national repercussions on transgender athletes competing in youth and college sports. The number of trans athletes participating in these activities is already very slim.Rachel Kahn contributed reporting to this story.

The Supreme Court has tossed another one of the president’s efforts to kill birthright citizenship. In a 6–3 decision filed Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the 1868 constitutional clause, which entitles any person born on U.S. soil to an American passport, further safeguarding the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment from the Trump administration.Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, writing that “citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.” Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voted with the majority but wrote a dissenting opinion disagreeing in part with the court’s ruling.Altogether, two Donald Trump appointees—Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett—ruled against the executive order, marking the third such time in recent memory that the president’s Supreme Court appointments have turned against him.Trump has tried and failed multiple times over the last year and a half to strip the constitutionally enshrined right. Mere hours after he was sworn into office, Trump signed an executive order stating that children born to immigrants on temporary visas or who are in the country illegally are not entitled to birthright status. That order was blocked by several judges in different court circuits over the last year.In December, the nation’s highest judiciary agreed to hear another one of the administration’s birthright challenges, this time pertaining to a case out of New Hampshire. The executive branch argued in the case that language included in the Fourteenth Amendment—specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction of”—required applicable children not only to be present in the country at the time of the birth but also to confer their allegiance to the United States. The argument appeared thin at best, considering the administration did not clarify how it expected people who had just been born to declare their allegiance.Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in legal arguments filed at the time that the naturalized citizenship pathway had become “pervasive” with “destructive consequences.”During arguments in May 2025, justices on both ideological sides of the court flamed the Trump administration’s efforts to rewrite birthright citizenship through America’s courts, questioning why the government’s attorneys would even bring the case to the judiciary’s doorstep when “every court has ruled against” the administration on birthright citizenship.At the time, Kavanaugh pressed Sauer into a corner, forcing the solicitor general to admit that the Trump administration doesn’t even know how it would enforce its birthright citizenship order. Sauer managed to appall Barrett by arguing that Trump has the “right” to disregard legal opinions that he doesn’t personally agree with.In Tuesday’s case syllabus, the Supreme Court noted, “If Congress intended to limit American citizenship to the children of those domiciled in the United States, nothing in the succinct language of the Citizenship Clause conveyed that design; words appearing frequently in the Executive Order—‘mother,’ ‘father,’ ‘lawful,’ ‘temporary’—are absent from the Clause.”This story has been updated.

In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS sided with GOP states and ruled that their blanket bans on trans student athletes do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The high court’s ruling effectively endorses the unitary executive theory, greatly expanding the power of the president.

This is a lightly edited transcript of the June 29 edition of Right Now With Perry Bacon. You can watch the video here or by following this show on YouTube or Substack. Perry Bacon: Welcome, everybody. This the New Republic show Right Now. I’m your host, Perry Bacon. I’ve done a lot of episodes on this show about the media, but most of them have been very critical—bemoaning layoffs, the decline of local news to some extent, news organizations trying to placate Trump in ways that worry me. The mergers have been troublesome.But I’m excited today because we have a positive story about the news and a positive story about journalism. So I have Steve Sachs. He’s the managing director of The Guardian US. You probably have heard of The Guardian—it’s a well-known British paper. But they actually have a very strong U.S.-focused edition and website that has great news about what’s happening in Washington and the country. So I want to talk about what The Guardian is doing here and what other places can learn from it. Steve, welcome.Steve Sachs: Thank you, Perry. Great to be here.Bacon: So let me start from the beginning here. Tell people about the history. The Guardian started having a U.S. operation a couple of decades ago. So talk about how that started and what the goal was initially.Sachs: At The Guardian, we’ve always had an editorial team here. But we started a little more than 15 years ago saying, Let’s expand into having an audience here and a business here. That was part of a strategy at The Guardian, especially over the last 10 years, where we expanded in two key ways. One was expanding outside the U.K., and the second was committing to being no-paywall and asking our audience to support us. Those were important strategic decisions, and expanding in the U.S. was part of that overall strategy.Bacon: Let’s talk about pre-Trump. As The Guardian opens in the U.S., you have staffers in New York and in D.C. and a little bit elsewhere. How big was the initial operation?Sachs: We started with a team here—New York, D.C., and California were our three main places originally. We were first in northern California. We then moved the bureau to southern California, to L.A.And honestly, Perry, in the first five or six years it was tough going. We lost a lot of money. We tried to figure out what our unique value is here, and it took us a while to figure out. It wasn’t a straight line up. The news here—there’s lots of great players. It’s a crowded market.For The Guardian to come in and figure out what our value is overall—what’s our, in business speak, unique value proposition—it took us a little while. Our business model took us a little while to figure out as well.So we started there, but over the past six or seven years, we really started to focus and understand what our opportunity is here. As a result, we have grown significantly. We are now, typically, in any given month, between 40 and 50 million uniques on our website and in our app. That makes us bigger than The Wall Street Journal in the U.S.Over the past five months, for the first time, we have more page views and more unique visitors in the U.S. than The Washington Post does. We have grown significantly as a result of the work that we’ve done. I could talk a little bit more about what exactly—Bacon: We’ll come back to that.Sachs: But the headline is that we’re doing well, and more and more Americans are coming to us as their first choice for all kinds of news and journalism.Bacon: Let me jump back. Why did The Guardian decide to have more staff in the U.S.? What was the initial impetus to start a U.S. edition, or really focus on the U.S. in the first place? Was it part of a worldwide expansion, or was there a specific need you all felt back in 2007?Sachs: So ten years ago—a little bit more than 10 years ago—we were losing a lot of money at The Guardian globally.People forget, with the great success of The New York Times—I have so much respect for what they’ve done—people forget also that 15 years ago, The New York Times was financially not on strong footing. They had to take a loan from a Mexican billionaire, a high-interest loan, in order to really help them shore up their financials.The Guardian was similar. We were losing about £100 million a year. That’s about, in today’s dollars, $135 million. We only had £700 million in an endowment. So that meant we basically had seven years to live.So what did we do? At the time, we were the seventh-largest newspaper in the U.K. We decided that in order to change our economics and to also focus on a broader mission, we would target becoming one of the largest news organizations globally. The U.S. expansion was an important part of that.The headline on that is that we are now, in 2026, the fifth-largest news organization globally by audience.Bacon: CNN, New York Times, Guardian—Sachs: So we have achieved our goal. New York Times, CNN, BBC, Guardian. We’ve grown from the seventh-largest news organization in the U.K. to the fifth-largest news organization globally by audience.We’ve also changed our economics. Ten years ago, only 8 percent of our revenue was from outside the U.K. Now 41 percent of our revenue is from outside the U.K. Just in 10 years, we successfully changed that. We are also now operating very well financially. That big loss that we had, we’ve changed as well.Bacon: So I’m a journalist—I want to talk about journalism and the stories themselves for a little bit. What I found was, in 2017, during that first Trump period, the reason I started reading The Guardian more was, one, I liked the perspective that was international. It wasn’t so grounded in the U.S., and it helped me see the world a little bit broader, the way you all covered it. And two, I felt like there was a little more directness about what Trump was doing. Sometimes I worried that NPR, the Times, the Post, would do a both-sides, and not honestly say what he was actually doing and the alarming radicalism. How do you see that? How did the Trump era affect what you all did when he was first in office?Sachs: It’s really interesting to hear, back in 2017, what you found valuable for us. I would summarize what you said as: We have more of a global perspective, whereas many news organizations in the U.S. have more of an American filter. Also what you said was, we can report as is—so that’s really more of an independent view. And that’s exactly right.A few years ago, when Betsy Reed, our editor, and I started—we both started three and a half years ago, within about a month of each other—one of the first things we did is, we wanted to understand what our value proposition is in the U.S. There was a lot of debate at the time about what it might be. We commissioned research. We did very sophisticated research with over 3,000 people in the US. Quantitative research. They all took a 45-minute in-depth survey. Those 3,000 people represent that there are about 200 million people in the US who come to digital news every month.We wanted to understand what The Guardian’s value proposition was to those 200 million people, and clarify it for us and for the team overall. And you got two of the three right. You figured it out in 2017. We didn’t figure it out until 2024. The answer is that people come to us for the combination of global perspective, independent, and the other important one is no paywall.Global, independent, and free is what’s unique about us. No one else in the U.S. is doing that. So we are focused on that overall, and that helps us, whether it is what’s happening in D.C., what’s happening in climate, or what’s happening in soccer, the World Cup, which is going on right now—my colleagues in the U.K. would call it football.There are all kinds of stories that you want to be able to report for an audience that’s looking for a broader global perspective, and independent—not having the conflicts of a corporate structure that has many different goals, or a billionaire owner that may have personal interests. And we make it all available on our site without any cost. We ask people to support us, which we’re very successful in doing. But that’s what we did back then, and even more, that’s what we do now: global perspective that’s independent, without cost.Bacon: Let me probe all three of those ideas. Let me start with the paywall. The news industry—it was probably a mistake to give everything away for free at the beginning of the internet. But that said, now when I do my stories and try to look for links and look for facts, I can’t read anything, because everything is behind a paywall. I love journalism. I can’t subscribe to every newspaper in every state, and the paywalls are very intense right now. My worry is a lot of the best-quality news—Wall Street Journal, Reuters, Bloomberg—is all behind a paywall.I understand the virtue in having a paywall, but how does that work economically for you all? How do you make money? Just the core question. Everyone wants to have more access, but how do we make that work financially?Sachs: You’re exactly right, even more so over the past couple of years, when CNN has started a paywall, the BBC has started a paywall in the U.S. Others have tightened their paywall and made it [so] you get less for free before you hit the paywall.Part of it is our mission. Let me tell you a little bit about it, and then I’ll circle back to the exact part of what you were talking about—how we make the economics work. But part of it is our mission, and it’s a mission that comes from the way we are owned and operated.So The Guardian is owned by a trust in the U.K., and the trust has only one mandate, which is to secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity.Bacon: And the trust is not run by one person or one family?Sachs: No, it’s not.Bacon: OK, that’s important to say.Sachs: We are effectively a nonprofit organization. If we were headquartered in the U.S., we would reincorporate as a 501(c)(3). There’s no such thing as a 501(c)(3) in the U.K., but that’s effectively what we are. They operate us for mission. They operate us for longevity. We have a very large endowment, like a nonprofit news organization or a nonprofit here would have. We have a … £1.5 billion, $2 billion, approximately, endowment. And that allows us to do the things that we’ve talked about. It allows us to operate independently.… We are like ProPublica, where we have a board that operates us, governs us in a way that we are reporting and building and being sustainable for the long term. It does not get involved in journalistic decisions overall.The fact that we don’t have a paywall is part of our overall mission to make high-quality journalism, like the other news organizations that you named. The Guardian also has over 1,000 journalists globally now. We’re one of the only news organizations that has grown our newsroom over the past few years. In the U.S., when I started, we had about 75 journalists. In the U.S. right now, we have 150.We’ve doubled in the last three years. So we’re one of the few news organizations in the U.S. that’s actually growing our newsroom too. The reason why we can do it is we don’t have to report earnings quarterly. We report them voluntarily, publicly.We can draw down a small amount off of our endowment like a nonprofit would here. But we use that to invest for the future. So all the investment that we’ve done in the U.S. is as a result of being able to draw down a couple of percent off of our endowment every year. That endowment is still growing, because we’re so conservatively drawing down on it.So the big picture on it is that The Guardian is different and has an advantage in serving an audience because of the way we’re set up, and because of the way we’re now funded and we’re in a strong financial position.So what does that translate into? If we’re going to make all our information available for free on our website, how do we actually make money? The answer is that 10 years ago, we started what we call a reader revenue program. We should really rename it now, because we’re much more than reading. It’s really an audience revenue or supporter revenue program. When people come, we ask them to support us, in much the same way that, say, NPR asks people to support. We’ve become very good at it.Last year we broke $80 million of revenue in the U.S. About two-thirds of that comes from voluntary contributions that people don’t have to make, but they do. So that’s $58 million last year. Over 700,000 people in the U.S. and Canada combined made a contribution. About 500,000 of those are actually on a recurring basis, either every month or every year, automatically on a credit card. Two-thirds of our revenue in the U.S., $58 million last year and growing—the real revenue was up 35 percent last year versus the year before, so we’re growing—is as a result of people coming to our site or our app and really appreciating what’s there and saying, This is a different perspective, and I really appreciate it, and it’s made available for free, and I’m going to support it.Bacon: Make sure I’m understanding this right. So half a million people are contributing to The Guardian in the U.S., even though they could get it for free. That’s an important statistic.Sachs: It’s even more than that. It’s 700,000. The way we look at it is … we call it North America, so U.S. and Canada. But the vast majority is U.S. Over 700,000 people did that. Of that, 500,000 are on a recurring basis—effectively a subscription.The other 200,000 made a one-time contribution. We’ve got 700,000 people in the U.S. and Canada—North America—that are contributing even though they don’t have to, because they really appreciate what it is that we do and find it really valuable.Bacon: As a person in that group, part of what I find valuable is other people can read the stories. I can send the story to someone, and they can read it without me having to do a bunch of gymnastics and passwords. That’s a very important thing.Sachs: That’s right. There’s that benefit. We do a lot of research to understand, Why do people support us? And interestingly, more than half the people that support us aren’t coming regularly.We track how often somebody comes to our site or our app. Do they come every day? Do they come a couple times a week? Do they come once every 30 days? Have we not seen them in the past 30 days? What’s really interesting is, of the 700,000 people in the US that made a contribution in the last year, over half of them come less than once a month. So you would say, Why are they making a contribution then? They’re not actually coming.The answer is—we do a lot of research on this—as there are fewer and fewer news organizations that can report independently, that have the global perspective we have and make the information available for free, they appreciate that and want to support that, even if they’re not coming. It’s not just that they can share with others, it’s also that they feel it’s important to have independent journalism in the U.S. that is well funded, and they’re willing to kick in 50 bucks, or 15 dollars a month, or whatever it is they can afford, in order to have The Guardian exist and be strong and growing.It’s really counterintuitive that somebody would give us 15 dollars a month when they don’t come to our site or they don’t come to our app, but they do.Bacon: That’s amazing. I didn’t realize that.Sachs: They do that because of the value that we have overall and the importance of that that people feel, for America and the world.Bacon: Let me drill in on “independent.” That’s a tricky word, in that everybody who works in this industry says, We’re independent. I perceive you all as being more liberal—not in a high-taxes way, but in a sort of for-freedom, for-equality way. There are some values. How do you see your values? My guess is a lot of those 700,000 people, most of them voted for Harris—I don’t know if you want to say that or not. But when you say “independent,” you mean not owned by a billionaire. What are the values of The Guardian?Let me put it that way, in terms of journalism.Sachs: “Independent” is a really important one. And what we mean by “independent” is, in our news report, we are reporting the facts.There’s not a both-sides to it that comes into our report. We do opinion, of course. Our opinion is left of center, for sure. We’ve got great opinion writers, Robert Reich and Margaret Sullivan and others—Medhi Hasan—who contribute. Our opinion’s left of center, but our news report is independent and is reporting facts without a bias to it.Bacon: And you want Republicans reading—you want everybody to read it.Sachs: Sometimes we look at Democrat versus Republican, but what we find more helpful is asking people how they define themselves on a liberal-versus-conservative scale.When we look at our audience and ask them to define themselves as either very liberal, liberal moderate, conservative, or very conservative—only about 40 percent of people define themselves as either liberal or very liberal. Another 35 percent define themselves as moderate. And 25 percent define themselves as conservative or very conservative.Bacon: I would not have guessed it. That’s interesting. I’m glad you told me that. That’s good to know.Sachs: So that, by the way, is different in the U.S. than it is in other parts of the world. People didn’t grow up with The Guardian here. In the U.K., people grew up with it and have a very clear view of what it is. Here, people are still discovering it. They come and they see our news report, and they see us being global, independent, and free.They don’t read into, Well, this is X. This is either very conservative, very liberal, whatever. We get a broader audience because of that, and that is something that we’re really thrilled about, There’s so much polarization in the U.S. when it comes to media, and so we would like to be able to reach a broader audience overall. It’s just part of our mission.Bacon: Are the readers you’re getting people who also read the Times and NPR or CNN? Are they people who don’t? Are you a lot of people’s second read, or their first—maybe they also have a second read? I’m not trying to diminish you. But is it people who read a lot of media, or people who just read one thing? That’s what I’m asking.Sachs: It’s a great question. The same research I was just referring to, where we figured out our value proposition, and we also asked about how people self-define, liberal versus conservative—we asked about this question because we always had this question of second read versus first read. And it’s really interesting. The whole idea of a first read and second read is actually kind of an outdated idea. It’s an idea of when a newspaper was thrown up on your driveway, and you would go out and get it—or if you were in an apartment in New York, dropped off at your front door or the front desk.People now read—or watch or listen—really broadly. They come to your podcast, they come to The Guardian, they go to The New York Times, they might go to Axios, et cetera. When you look at what The Guardian is, we are part of the mix, in the same way that others are as well.When you look at something like CNN or The New York Times, most people would say, Oh, that could be the first thing they turn to. Based off of our research, less than 20 percent of the people that, say, go to the New York Times consider it their primary read or view of the world. Because you’re discovering in your social feed, or you’re getting a newsletter or whatever, so you’re pretty broad here. We’re now part of that mix as well—which is part of the advantage that we’ve had here, and why it is that we’ve been able to grow our audience while others are not growing their audience. A lot of news organizations have really had their audiences shrink in the last five years. It actually is an advantage that people are sampling so much, because they might discover us on Apple News. They may not have known about us before that, and then they discover us through that.Bacon: “Global” is the third word you use. You might be using the word “global” meaning you all are based in Britain; you cover the world a lot. The other reason I think of you as global is different. It’s that—and I’m not trying to throw shade—when I read a story in the Journal, The New York Times, Axios, about politics, it often reflects a D.C.-centric view of how politics works. I read you all’s stories, and it’s the broader picture. Sometimes the stories are like, Sources close to so-and-so say X. And you all’s stories tend to be more, Here’s where this issue works, here’s how this thing is working. It’s written so my mom, my brother, and everybody else I know can read the story without having to need a translator. And that’s helpful—the domestic stories are written for everybody as opposed to written for the inside-D.C. crowd. That’s what I perceive. That comes from also not being based in the U.S.Sachs: You’re exactly right about that. When I talk about global—what our audience says and what we have adopted as part of our value proposition—is global perspective.So what does global perspective mean? It means two things. Number one, it means that we do cover the world. We now have over 1,000 journalists globally, of which by the end of this year, a couple hundred will be in the U.S. It means more than 800 in other parts of the world. That means we just have really great coverage of what’s happening all over the world in ways that other news organizations don’t.So that is part of what people come to us for. About half of the stories that Americans read or listen to at The Guardian in any given day or month are created outside the U.S.But the part that you’re focused on is exactly right, which is the other side of global perspective—when we’re covering the U.S., we cover it with what people call an outside perspective. That is valuable, because what it means is two things. Number one, when we cover a story that others do also, we cover it with a different view. And number two, we frequently cover stories that others don’t.So let me give you an example on the first one. Last month we published a series called “The Slow Lane,” which looks at how Americans’ love of cars caused our public transportation system to fall way behind other global cities or other countries. So if you look at Sydney or Barcelona or Hong Kong—we cover public transportation here with an outside view, more of a global view, while covering what’s happening in the U.S. That’s an example of something that’s different as well.When we cover gun violence, or our broken health care system, or the death penalty, we cover them not as impossible-to-solve problems—they’re not—but rather as issues that could be addressed if Americans look beyond their borders at how other countries have tackled them better. That’s part of what you’re talking about, the unique value that you get from The Guardian, and that’s what our audience does too.Bacon: Last question, just because of who I am and where I’ve come from. I worked at The Washington Post until about a year ago. Jeff Bezos wanted the opinion section to move to the right, and so it ended up making more sense to work at The New Republic now, and I’ve had a great opportunity here.But I wanted to ask you—did the Washington Post and the L.A. Times decisions to cancel endorsements and signal a different direction, maybe even CBS—have some of those changes at other places … you all have had a big audience growth. Is some of that driven from those other places maybe making mistakes, or is that more organic? Talk about how the other media’s moves have affected what you all are doing.Sachs: I don’t want to comment on specific companies or people, but I can say that more and more people are discovering The Guardian as they’re looking for other alternatives. The Post does some great journalism.Bacon: I agree.Sachs: They do some fantastic journalism. They have a much smaller team than they used to, but I have a lot of respect for the journalism they do, and others as well. The news audience is very tuned in.And as decisions are made, they say, I really want to look at other options. Over the past few years, more people have looked around, and we’ve benefited as a result. We’ve seen our audience grow. As I said, a year ago we were smaller than The Washington Post in audience—in uniques and in page views on the site—and now we’re bigger.That’s because we’ve grown. They’ve shrunk as well. And they do great journalism, but people are making choices.One thing that’s interesting about The Guardian, also—and this points to opportunity in the U.S.—is that there’s a lot more opportunity to grow here. We’re at 40 to 50 million uniques a month now. But in our research, only about 59 percent of people in the U.S. who use digital news have ever heard of The Guardian. That number in the U.K. is 85 percent.Bacon: And I’m sure The Washington Post number is up in the 80s or something like that—much higher.Sachs: Exactly.Bacon: You would assume.Sachs: There’s another 20-plus points of people in the U.S. that still have never heard of us. That will help us as they continue to look around, as we continue to grow what we do. We’ve recently launched new kinds of coverage. We invested heavily in soccer and covering soccer in the U.S. for the World Cup, so we’ve had huge audiences for that over the past few weeks.We’ve increased our D.C. team. We used to do mostly breaking news. We now do enterprise and investigations out of D.C. also. As we have more for people to discover, and as people look around, I think The Guardian will continue to do well in the U.S. Others do great work. Also, I think the audience is frequently now saying, Let me see what else is out there.Bacon: Last question. I worry about this Trump bump. You saw from 2017 to 2020, news organizations had a big audience, then it declined. How are you going to make sure you sustain this audience and this growth? Trump’s not going to be president anymore after two years or so, obviously. How do you make sure you keep this audience and keep the growth and keep the momentum going after that?Sachs: There’s no doubt that we’ve had some wind in our sails over the past 18 months. People are coming to us for much more than Trump. We’re among the best in the world in covering climate, one of the most important, maybe the defining issue of our time. People come for health-related, health-equity-related issues.We are investing heavily outside of hard news, so that when people come, and when the news cycle is less intense than what it is, people know and come to us for other areas.I mentioned soccer. We now have one of the largest teams in the U.S. covering soccer, plus all the people we have in the U.K. covering soccer. Soccer has become much more popular in the U.S. Even after the World Cup’s over, people are going to be wanting to come to that. They’ll come to the Guardian for that.We started a heavily researched reviews site called The Filter—our version of consumer journalism, doing reviews like Wirecutter does, or Strategist, or others. We started that a year ago. That’s doing really well. We launched wellness coverage a couple of years ago, with what we call “Well Actually,” which is a realistic view on wellness. So much of wellness is really about perfection. That’s not about us at all.We’re investing heavily outside of hard news, so that both when people come, there’s more to go to, and also when the news cycle is less frenetic, people will continue to come to us for other reasons.Bacon: With that, Steve Sachs—I love the idea of global, independent, and free. Those are three great words to use. Steve Sachs is the managing director for The Guardian US. I highly recommend The Guardian US as a product. If you’re reading the Times, the Post, CNN—you should definitely add The Guardian to your reading list if you haven’t already. Obviously, read The New Republic too, but The Guardian is doing some really great work. So Steve, congrats on that, and thank you for joining me.Sachs: Perry, thanks so much. I really enjoyed it.Bacon: Good to see you.

AI might just be useful once we get through the huckster phase.

Peace negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are once again inching along, days after the two countries exchanged strikes. But even top Trump officials aren’t confident in the burgeoning truce.State Secretary Marco Rubio reportedly told lawmakers during a briefing Monday that the new peace deal wasn’t of the same caliber as the Obama administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.California Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove recounted Rubio’s admission while speaking with MeidasTouch’s Pablo Manríquez outside of the Capitol, claiming that Rubio had said the Obama administration’s setup was a “real agreement with criteria and benchmarks and thresholds.”“This [memorandum of understanding] is just a signed piece of paper saying we’re going to continue to talk about talking,” Kamlager-Dove said. “So you should ask yourself, a hundred-and-something billion dollars later, ‘What are these people doing with our money and our national security?’”Kamlager-Dove on Rubio Iran Briefing: I have to say, the highlight—or lowlight—for me was when Secretary Rubio was asked about the difference between this MOU and the JCPOA. And Marco Rubio essentially said the JCPOA, Obama’s nuclear deal, was a real agreement with criteria,… pic.twitter.com/lwrulT9Hma— Acyn (@Acyn) June 30, 2026The unpopular war has so far cost American taxpayers more than $1 billion per day (the current total is estimated at more than $113.3 billion). It has also sparked a political rejection of MAGA ideology across the U.S. as the American public becomes more and more disillusioned with its increasingly infirm, unstable, and volatile president.The country’s strained economy has also become a political talking point ahead of a contentious midterm season. The projected military expenses don’t encompass the heightened day-to-day costs for the average American. Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi told CBS News Monday that it’s likely every U.S. household has spent roughly $1,000 more in heightened fuel and food costs since the war began in late February.But those additional expenses have apparently not affected the White House. Donald Trump has been remarkably cavalier about the peace negotiations. As the U.S. and Iran prepared Monday to send delegations to Qatar, the president said that the meeting in Doha would be “perhaps important, perhaps not.” “We’re going to find out, but we’re winning militarily. It’s almost won militarily, I would say,” Trump said.The envoys include special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Vice President JD Vance is leading the operation, though he is not expected to attend the upcoming talks.