What Caught My Eye (no. 57)

Some interesting articles and podcasts that caught my eye this week

Here’s this week’s edition of articles I thought worth reading and sharing. Don’t hesitate to recommend your own reads; I may include some as well.

• Charles Homans, “America Is Used to Hiding Its Wars. Trump Is Doing the Opposite,” New York Times, April 4, 2026. Homans argues that Trump is breaking with an American tradition that has largely insulated the public from the real costs of war and kept military action outside the spotlight. Instead, the administration is celebrating the war against Iran on its social media channels. For decades, the American public has become accustomed to endless wars protected from political consequences by professionalized forces, hidden financing, and the use of drones.

• Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz, “Sam Altman May Control Our Future—Can He Be Trusted?,” The New Yorker, April 6, 2026. In this investigative piece, Farrow and Marantz uncover serious concerns about Sam Altman and the governance of OpenAI. They find that concerns about Altman’s candor and manipulation were longstanding and drove the 2023 board revolt, raising concerns over whether he should be leading one of the country’s most advanced AI companies. OpenAI’s original safety-first nonprofit ideal has steadily been undermined to prioritize capital, scale, and founder control.

• Martin Wolf, “Freedom itself is at stake in Hungary,” Financial Times, April 8, 2026. Wolf, Chief Economics Commentator for the Financial Times, argues that Sunday’s election matters far beyond Hungary because Viktor Orbán has built one of the clearest contemporary models of illiberal democracy through the slow capture of courts, media, civil society, and electoral rules. Orbán has become a hero to many on the authoritarian right, especially in the United States. Péter Magyar may have a real chance to win, but removing Orbán would only mark the beginning of the fight to disband the entrenched networks of patronage and power he created.

• Eric Cortellessa, “Inside Trump’s Search for a Way Out of the Iran War,” TIME, April 2, 2026. Cortellessa’s central point is that President Trump wants an off-ramp from the war without accepting the appearance of retreat, a balance that is proving harder to strike as the economic and political costs mount. The administration’s initial theory of the conflict, that overwhelming force would produce limited retaliation, collapsed once Iran attacked US allies across the region and closed the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is torn between two incompatible aims: ending the war quickly and achieving a decisive strategic outcome that can be sold as victory. As gas prices keep rising and the midterms approach, the military and diplomatic objectives will become even more difficult to achieve.

• Sergey Radchenko, “I had poked the bear right in the eye: my fight to renounce my Russian citizenship,” The Guardian, April 9, 2026. Radchenko, Professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, shares his reflections on what it means to be a Russian citizen following the invasion of Ukraine. In this essay, he shares his reflections on guilt, responsibility, and political belonging, while recounting the difficult journey he undertook to renounce his Russian citizenship. Renouncing citizenship becomes, in his view, less a symbolic gesture than a deliberate refusal of the Kremlin’s claim that Russianness entails loyalty to the Russian state.

• Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, “How Trump Took the U.S. to War With Iran,” New York Times, April 7, 2026. Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, both White House reporters for The New York Times, depict the decision to go to war with Iran as the result of a concentrated campaign of persuasion by Netanyahu, who painted a picture of swift success and manageable risk. Several senior figures, including Vice President Vance, were skeptical, but Trump was swayed by the more expansive interpretation of what force could accomplish.

• “America’s war on Iran has changed the Middle East—for the worse,” The Economist, April 9, 2026. This Economist briefing suggests the war has left the region less secure, more economically exposed, and strategically more unstable than before it began. The Iranian regime survived, its coercive capacity was damaged but not broken, and its ability to leverage the Strait of Hormuz has moved from a hypothetical to a demonstrated fact. For the Gulf states, the war exposed both the fragility of their trading system and the limits of their long-standing reliance on American protection.

Finally, below are links to some of the things I did and wrote this week.

• I joined Bloomberg This Weekend on NATO’s 77-year anniversary to argue that the alliance faces the gravest crisis in its history.

• NATO and Secretary General Rutte’s meeting with Trump were major topics of interviews I did this week on CNN with Brianna Keilor, CNN with Audie Cornish, and MS NOW.

• I spoke to EuroNews about the ceasefire, arguing Iran now has the upper hand. I also joined John Byrne on Raw America to discuss the strategic consequences of the ceasefire.

• I joined Jim Acosta to share my initial reactions to the ceasefire and Rutte’s meeting with Trump.

• Finally, this week’s World Review also focused on the fragile ceasefire and President Trump’s threats to pull out of NATO.

Happy reading, watching, and listening! Stay safe.