Among the slew of decisions being released in the days before the United States Supreme Court adjourns for the summer, two focus on the key issue of presidential or executive power.

Each ruling relates specifically to a U.S. president’s ability to remove officeholders in agencies established under acts of Congress. In Trump v. Slaughter, the court ruled 6-3 that the president can fire at will the heads or staff of independent regulatory agencies (in this case, the Federal Trade Commission). In Trump v. Cook, however, the court determined 5-4 that the president could not fire a governor of the Federal Reserve Board without cause or due process.

On the surface, the two rulings seem to be in opposition to each other. Yet both underscore a defining characteristic of American democracy – the delicate yet shifting equilibrium among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches that underpins the business of governing. Such balancing acts play out regularly in Washington, in state capitals, and – with less fanfare, perhaps – at county and city levels, as well as within local school boards and civic organizations.

The Federal Trade Commission ruling affirmed presidents’ authority to appoint and alter executive teams so they include members who support their policy priorities, much the same way private sector CEOs form their management teams. The ruling aligns with what’s known as “unitary executive theory,” a concept gaining ground among jurists and policymakers since the 1980s. In this view, the U.S. Constitution gives the president “complete power over the executive branch, including ... domestic and foreign policy, [and] the ability to unilaterally remove government officials,” as a recent Monitor article explained.

But when it comes to the Fed, the court indicated this agency holds a distinct place in the regulatory pantheon. The decision acknowledges the Fed’s unique and outsize role in steadying not just the U.S. economy, but also global markets. The procedural ruling was that the president could not block Fed Governor Lisa Cook from continuing to serve while she pursues a legal case against her August 2025 ouster. (No Fed governors have been fired in its 111-year existence.)

The majority’s written opinion went beyond the specific ruling to refer to “our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, referring to this as a “special arrangement sanctioned by history.”

“The Founders,” he noted, “knew from experience the calamities that could arise from even the ‘suspicion’ of political manipulation of monetary policy.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Scott Alvarez, former general counsel for the Fed, told The New York Times that this ruling “helped to reinforce the court as a guardrail for Fed independence.” But, as he and other analysts pointed out, it does not entirely insulate the central bank from further executive actions under the current or future presidents.

That might be left to another day, if and when Congress steps in to adjust legislation. At that time, what may once again appear to be an antagonistic push and pull among elected representatives, appointed officials, and legislating bodies will be better viewed as the robust give-and-take that reflects politics and democracy at work.

GPT-5.3-Codex, 5.5 Pro, and 5.6 Family. Gemini 3.1 Family and 3.5 Flash. DeepSeek-V4-Pro and Flash. Claude Opus 4.8, Fable 5, and Mythos 5. Voxtral TTS and Realtime ...

This hodgepodge of names and numbers captures only some of the many new or upgraded artificial intelligence models released in the first six months of 2026. (Online sources indicate 12 such iterations dropped during a single week in March.)

The technology, it’s clear, is moving by leaps and bounds.

In parallel, AI firms are taking smaller but arguably just as significant steps to incorporate core principles of ethics and moral and religious reasoning into model development. Some companies are embedding in-house “philosophers” to help with complex questions surrounding design ethics at the human-AI interface. Google DeepMind reportedly has 10 such individuals on staff, hiring two from Cambridge and Carnegie Mellon universities this year. And Anthropic’s Amanda Askell has been featured in multiple media reports.

But the scope of AI creators’ inquiry is expanding beyond the humanities and human philosophizing to deeper spiritual questions of what differentiates wisdom from intelligence or factual knowledge from how character is molded. In May, Anthropic reported on “first conversations ... with people from religious, philosophical, and cultural communities that have a long tradition of thinking about virtue, character, and what it means to live a good life.” What the company is after, it said, “is careful, accumulated thinking on how good character actually forms.”

“The more powerful the technology, the greater the need for discipline and discernment,” according to John Dyer, a Dallas Theological Seminary professor and technology creator. “It can be tempting to see these statistical models as having true wisdom,” but they are just useful tools, “mere blocks of silicon,” he cautioned in a January post on the website AI and Faith, a consulting firm.

The executive director of that firm, Greg Cootsona, was among 15 Christian leaders with business and academic backgrounds who attended a two-day workshop hosted by Anthropic in March. Several participants told The Washington Post that they were impressed with the sincerity and humility of the AI firm’s staff in discussing both ethical and spiritual implications.

“[They] realize that they don’t have it all figured out,” wrote Dr. Cootsona, who taught religion and humanities before his current role. The tone of the discussion, he wrote on a blog in April, expressed a prevailing “feeling ... that an entirely secular framework reaches points of insufficiency as it tries to respond to the depth of questions raised.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

DeepMind co-founder and chemistry Nobel laureate Demis Hassabis has repeatedly called for a societal and spiritual reckoning with AI, especially when it comes to questions of purpose and meaning in life. Describing himself as “a cautious optimist,” he told The Guardian last year, “I think we’ll get this right,” through “human ingenuity” and adaptability.

But for Professor Dyer, the deeper demand is “to be faithful stewards of this time and with these technologies,” And that, he has written, is a task “we cannot do ... without the wisdom of God’s word.”

Moscow’s faltering war in Ukraine has taken a striking turn, from attempts to simply take land toward an original goal of the 2022 invasion: reclaiming Ukraine as an “inalienable” part of Russia’s “spiritual space.” On the night of June 15, a Russian drone directly hit the most venerated site for Ukraine’s majority Orthodox Christians, and indeed for much of Eastern Christendom.

The attack destroyed most of the roof of the Dormition Cathedral, first built in the 11th century and part of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra – the Monastery of the Caves, according to Ukrainian officials. The complex in the capital, Kyiv, is the origin point for the early Christianization of first Ukraine and later Russia.

Many Ukrainians saw the strike as the boldest attempt yet by Russian President Vladimir Putin to erase Ukrainian identity, especially its spiritual heritage. The shock was like the 9/11 attacks for Americans and the burning of Notre-Dame for the French. Indeed, “many Russians will be shocked that their leadership would set fire to a thousand-year-old sacred edifice,” wrote former United States diplomat E. Wayne Merry in The National Interest. 

Yet if the attack was meant to demoralize Ukraine’s faithful, it has so far failed. In fact, it is widely viewed as an act of desperation by Mr. Putin. “Most Ukrainians understand perfectly well that attacks on heritage spaces are ... a key component of Russian strategy,” wrote Mercedes Sapuppo at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

During more than four years of war, Ukrainians have shown that a small country with strong morale, spiritual strength, and creative innovation can hold a larger adversary at bay. After the strike, Bishop Avraamii, abbot of the cathedral under the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, wrote on Facebook: 

“We believe that even in the most difficult times, the spiritual heritage, faith and unity of the people remain the foundations that cannot be destroyed by any force.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Much of the world has taken notice. The United Nations Security Council discussed the attack in a June 22 session. Several countries, such as Greece, Switzerland, Britain, and Estonia, moved quickly to help in restoring the religious site. The restoration work has already begun. 

“Russia strikes not only at residential buildings, but also at our memory, culture, spirituality, and everything that shapes Ukrainian identity,” said Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko. “But even after the heaviest blows, we will stand firm. We will rebuild what was destroyed, preserve what is priceless to us, and not allow the enemy to erase our history.”

The impact of Wednesday’s powerful earthquakes in Venezuela is, understandably, testing the courage and resilience of hundreds of thousands of citizens and their government. After years of economic decline and mismanagement, basic emergency response resources are sorely lacking. Fortunately, many countries – including the United States – have been quick with offers of materials and expertise to support rescue and relief efforts.

But, as with similar emergencies around the world, ordinary civilians have been even quicker to step in and aid each other. Amid the dust and debris, Venezuelans helped older neighbors walk down rickety stairways, pulled people and pets to safety, and passed buckets of rubble hand to hand in the search for survivors.

While physical infrastructure or capital might crumble, the human capital of caring is not easily destroyed. Rather, the innate spirit of selflessness prevails during times of dire need or apparent disaster – whether it’s amid floods in North Carolina or northern Pakistan, famine and civil war in Sudan, or hurricanes in the Caribbean.

Individual civilian efforts do not release governments from their obligation to restore public safety and rebuild infrastructure with speed and transparency. But they do underscore that the qualities of generosity, reliability, and neighborly help hold essential and enduring value among humanity.

And this is showing itself in the reemergence of volunteerism around the world, although in new forms. In the U.S., continuing inflation is still constraining citizens’ ability to donate money to charitable causes. But, according to a 2026 Gallup report, “Volunteering has rebounded and now exceeds pandemic levels, suggesting that Americans are moving toward expressing civic commitment through time rather than dollars.” And earlier research found that 51% of Americans over age 16 “informally” volunteered and helped neighbors, while 23% volunteered formally through an organization.

Noting that “all forms of volunteering matter,” the United Nations has dubbed 2026 the International Year of Volunteers. Digital communications and connections are evolving new ways to contribute, the U.N. notes, but “whether formal or informal, in-person or digital, ... every act of volunteering counts.”

Expanding channels for doing good can redefine volunteering for the future. “The more anybody can do to make it easier to volunteer, to reduce friction, the better,” Professor Nathan Dietz, of the University of Maryland’s Do Good Institute, told the news site Reasons To Be Cheerful.

One citizen initiative in France – l’Heure Civique (Civic Hour) – has innovated a flexible, somewhat minimalist approach to do just that. So far, 24,000 volunteers in some 250 municipalities have stepped up to serve for just one hour a month in their communities. If all 24 hours in a day are counted, that works out to 12,000 days of volunteer time in just one year.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“People want to help, they want to feel useful,” l’Heure Civique founder Atanase Périfan told Reasons To Be Cheerful recently, observing, “Generosity is a renewable energy.”

As outside aid flows in to help Venezuela rebuild, the people of that country can also know their individual inclination to generosity and care will be reliable resources, too.

For the past couple of years, American politicians on the left and right have competed to define a political buzzword: affordability. Does it mean increasing individual resources to meet everyday costs? Or raising the output of goods and services to lower prices? Or both?

On Tuesday, Congress did the country a favor by passing a bill – in a rare case of broad bipartisanship – that helps give common meaning to the word. The measure puts a stamp of approval on an often unescapable law: that supply will rise to meet demand when free to do so.

The bill, which still awaits the president’s approval, mandates a range of initiatives aimed mainly at raising the nation’s housing stock. It would reduce production bottlenecks rather than raise subsidies for home purchases.

The number of parts in the legislation itself reflects how much lawmakers endorse a supply-positive approach. Through artful political compromise in Congress, the bill compiles nearly 50 initiatives from dozens of proposals offered by both sides of the aisle. It would, for example, greatly reduce the cost of factory-built homes, speed up environmental permitting, and provide federal incentives to reform restrictive local zoning laws.

“It’s reaffirming at a time of real polarization that you can still see Democrats and Republicans coming together ... and passing common-sense legislation that should be a help to most Americans,” San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, the incoming president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, told The Boston Globe.

While the actual impact of the federal measure on local housing remains to be seen, Congress has nonetheless passed its largest housing bill in decades while also partly clarifying the public debate over affordability.

“Housing affordability starts with supply, and this bill makes meaningful progress toward building more homes and lowering costs for American families,” said House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill, a Republican from Arkansas. His point was endorsed by the panel’s ranking Democratic member, Maxine Waters of California.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

With its focus on widening the pipeline for new homes, the bill represents a “paradigm shift in federal housing policy,” Dennis Shea of the Bipartisan Policy Center told Bloomberg.

And, he added in speaking to The New York Times, that shift “would give members of Congress of both political parties an opportunity to talk about what they’ve done, and what they’re trying to achieve.”

The off-again, on-again hostilities and opening of the Strait of Hormuz are prompting more creative and proactive thinking about global diplomacy and global markets. Governments are using the lulls to rev up stalled economic activities. And the key fossil fuel-producing nations of the Gulf are working quickly to establish alternative infrastructures of cooperation – as well as of concrete and steel.

Already, Iraq – which has had tense relations with Syria for years – has been exporting its oil overland via tanker trucks to Syrian ports. And many Gulf states have pivoted to importing tons of timber, cement, and agricultural and consumer goods through those same ports. There are efforts to collaborate on new pipelines, storage facilities, and even a multicountry rail project. As the Monitor reported last week, these moves are “already reshaping regional trade and cementing new Mideast alliances” among countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, and Syria. 

Diplomacy and dealmaking are gradually replacing decades of sectarian differences and political power plays, as Arab nations – small and large – reconfigure their regional role and relationships. This process, according to Chatham House, the London-based think tank, could ultimately lead to “a unified, proactive ... Gulf architecture” that reduces vulnerability to the decisions of other nations. 

Other analysts view this moment – in the aftermath of the war launched by the United States and Israel on Iran, and its spillover attacks in the Gulf – as an opportunity to establish a “Westphalia-type” compact. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended decades of war among Spanish, Dutch, and German rulers, established lasting norms around national sovereignty, balance of power, and interstate alliances.

Like Europe did, the Middle East today is realizing it can help prevent conflict “through its own internal alliances,” according to War on the Rocks, an online platform focused on defense and foreign affairs. “The alignments we witness today are ... the region’s effort to find its own center of gravity.”

Amid ongoing and uncertain global realignments, any moves toward greater regional stability and interconnectedness offer hope for economic and peace dividends. In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that if the ceasefire holds, the war in the Gulf will reduce global growth rates only slightly, from an expected 3.4% to 3.1%. On the plus side, it cited new trade partnerships, regional agreements, and a greater impetus for renewables in import-dependent nations as a way to “improve energy security, and support the climate transition.”

Or, as the World Economic Forum put it this month, the conflict has catalyzed “a profound shift in how we conceive of the energy transition. What was once framed primarily as a climate imperative is now equally a matter of strategic sovereignty.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Refreshed views of international relations as well as natural and national resources can spur diplomatic and technical innovations that help avert or better navigate future conflicts.

While the world might “become more multipolar, it need not become more fragmented,” according to the IMF. In fact, as the eight-decade-old institution points out, the IMF itself was “forged in the aftermath of war and great destruction, to advance economic and financial cooperation and integration for the benefit of all. Today, those principles are more vital than ever.”

This month has seen two tightly contested runoff elections in South America. The results from Peru’s poll, held more than two weeks ago, are still not official – but indicate a razor-thin margin of 35,000 to 40,000 votes for the conservative candidate. The count of Sunday’s vote in Colombia has been much quicker, showing a win for right-wing political outsider Abelardo de la Espriella, by a 1% margin over his rival.

In the wake of highly polarizing campaign rhetoric, some observers might see the results as confirmation of a deep, irreconcilable divide within the electorate. But, viewed through a different lens, the results point to the virtually equal desire among citizens for safety and rule of law – as well as policies that offer pathways out of poverty and high economic inequality.

Both domestically and regionally, recent years have seen a growth in drug trafficking and organized crime, linked to transnational networks and flows of financing and armaments. In this context, election rhetoric promising a militarized approach to establishing public security has resonance, in countries from El Salvador to Ecuador to Chile.

However, as Luis Carlos Villegas, a former Colombian government official and ambassador, has pointed out, “Security cannot be restored by giving an order.”

It requires “time and knowledge, ... as well as international cooperation, which in turn derives from a political context that must be rebuilt,” he wrote for the Atlantic Council recently. And, he noted, it cannot be divorced from social or economic issues that are also “highly urgent, complex, and costly.”

That seems to be a lesson being learned by other leaders, such as Chile’s right-wing president, José Antonio Kast, who took office in 2025. His actions have been much more measured than his campaign messages of a large-scale security crackdown, including mass arrests and deportations of unauthorized immigrants.

“Governing ... means taking responsibility for reality, especially when it’s difficult,” Mr. Kast said in a public address earlier this month. “I’m proceeding step by step because this isn’t something that happens overnight.”

As Mr. de la Espriella himself acknowledged to Americas Quarterly earlier this year, “It is not a matter of labels like left or right, but what common sense dictates.”

Colombians are likely to appreciate both common sense and a willingness to rebuild trust in their national institutions. As one analyst told Monitor contributor Manuel Rueda a few days ago, “There’s a lot of mistrust in the political establishment.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“Colombia is not alone in this trend,” observed Juan Manuel Santos, the country’s former president who negotiated an accord with a long-running rebel insurgency in 2016. Increasingly, in political campaigns around the world, “moderation is squeezed ... and democratic politics becomes less about solving problems than defeating enemies,” he wrote in The Economist last week.

Ultimately, he noted, the new president – whose party has a minority in Congress – will be obligated to forge agreements and consensus. “Agreements require trust,” Mr. Santos observed. And history will remember a leader who has “the courage, humility and greatness” to rebuild such trust.

From the gas pump to the produce aisle, Americans are seeking respite from high prices. They now have a new champion. On Wednesday, Kevin Warsh made his debut as head of the Federal Reserve, easily the world’s most influential economic institution. The central bank chief told reporters the many ways he would change the Fed to rein in inflation. Yet, after being in office for only about three weeks, he also noted his own surprise at one immediate change.

“I was just incredibly impressed” about how much the Fed’s colleagues have been “very open about changes,” he said.

The comment is noteworthy because Mr. Warsh believes that “genuine” deliberation among experts – relying on patient inquiry, respectful listening, and civil attentiveness to alternative views and data – is key to controlling the nation’s money supply and interest rates. He calls it the “special sauce” to help the Fed make “optimal” decisions that can influence the global financial system.

Guaranteeing freedom for the Fed’s economists to advance even half-baked ideas – in confidence and out of public view – is essential for “truth-seeking,” as he calls it, or forming a consensus on the state of the economy and what needs fixing.

Genuine deliberation, he wrote for the Hoover Institution Press in 2016, is “the process by which participants not only share information, but also learn from and influence one [another].”

How the Fed reasons its way to agreements is as important as the agreements. “Asking questions, probing for deeper explanations, and showing patience when participants explain their positions are all identified as evidence of active listening and are found in well-designed decision-making processes,” he stated.

To make good on this approach, Mr. Warsh plans to set up task forces, using a mix of Fed staff and external experts, to come up with changes in several areas – from how the Fed communicates to financial markets to the use of alternative data sources to the impact of artificial intelligence.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

He says he is “pretty open-minded” about the outcomes. Such intellectual humility might be a new marker for the Fed, especially as it misjudged the inflationary pressures during the pandemic. “What we’ve given markets is a new chapter for the central bank,” Mr. Warsh said Wednesday.

And Chapter 1 is all about collegiality in deliberations. Or as a Wall Street Journal reporter put it, “more courtship than chain saw.”

In a society where a woman’s status is still largely viewed as subordinate to that of a man, a recent ruling by India’s Supreme Court spotlights the significant, and largely unacknowledged, contributions of women to both individual households and the national economy.

In dry legalese, the June 11 verdict establishes a monetary value for “loss of domestic care” in a compensation case for a 2001 vehicle crash that claimed the life of a young wife and mother of three. The court granted the woman’s family a sum of 6.3 million rupees (about $66,000) – more than 25 times the initial award offered in 2003. And the judges also set a minimum estimate for domestic “homemaker” duties at 30,000 rupees ($317) per month – which is about 10 times the amount previously used.

Arriving at the current award and the benchmark for future compensation is about much more than numbers, however. The legal process points to a slow shift in views of the innate value and potential of India’s girls and women, in both family and civic life.

The justices used their ruling to counter prevalent perceptions of women – especially wives who are not employed outside the home – as economically unproductive or dependent. Homemakers are “‘nation builders’ and they ought to be recognised as such,” they wrote. At the same time, they acknowledged that an individual’s worth cannot be reduced only to monetary terms: The homemaker’s contributions are “neither entirely” economic nor non-economic.

“It is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependent when, in reality, the household’s functioning depends substantially on the homemaker,” read another excerpt. By serving as household manager and “first teacher” for children, the homemaker makes it possible for a spouse to focus on paid employment outside the home. 

Home to the world’s largest population and democracy, India aims to become a global economic powerhouse. But, while 77.6% of Indian men participate in the formal labor force, barely 33% of women do so. Successive administrations have sought to raise women’s status and expand their options, through widening educational, economic, and political opportunities. A 2023 constitutional amendment set aside 33% of state and national legislative seats for women, once the current census count is completed.

But even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi pushes for “women-led development,” traditional attitudes run deep. On the one hand, a Pew Research Center poll a few years ago found that 80% of Indians believed it “very important for women to have the same rights as men.” Yet, the same percentage felt that men should receive hiring preference when jobs are limited, and more than 60% agreed that wives should “obey” their husbands.

Legislation and legal verdicts, it appears, are important – but insufficient for real change.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“The Supreme Court has set the ball rolling, by recognising a woman’s worth,” wrote Indian rights advocate Shobha Shukla in the Eurasia Review last week. But, she noted, it’s only when limited perceptions are questioned that “change begins.”

As India’s citizens continue to shift views of themselves and society, not just women but the entire country stands to benefit.

Of all the reasons that the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has ceased, leading to a tentative deal, at least one had a common thread: Each nation seemed to worry more about internal political ruptures than about winning the war.

In each country, then, a desire to keep hold of national cohesion might have helped silence the guns – and could influence the difficult negotiations still to come.

In Israel, for example, a newly released poll showed some 55% of the public sees internal political polarization as the most dangerous threat to the country’s existence – far more than threats of violence from Iran. That widespread concern over domestic friction also carries some hope for national unity.

“It is possible to cultivate a space of agreement in Israeli society, but it requires a practical action plan aimed at that, and not at defeating the identity-based rival,” Yedidia Stern, president of the Jewish People Policy Institute that conducted the survey, told The Jerusalem Post.

In Iran, where a majority of people already disapprove of theocratic rule, the war as well as the compromises with the United States has exposed rifts among high-level power factions.

The divisions became so alarming that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, was forced to intervene. On May 28, he issued a message for lawmakers to avoid “absurd differences” and focus on solving the severe economic challenges. “More than ever, unity must be protected,” he wrote.

On June 1, Iran’s politically besieged president, Masoud Pezeshkian, held a Cabinet meeting in which he pleaded to stay in office, while asking the public to endure more energy blackouts. In addition, as the war was ending, protests sprang up in many cities, driven largely by complaints over meeting daily needs.

In the U.S., meanwhile, President Donald Trump felt public pressure over the war beyond complaints about high gasoline prices. According to polls, more Americans across the political spectrum are worried about polarization itself. In December, a Gallup poll found Americans are most pessimistic about political cooperation. About three-quarters see politically motivated violence as a major problem, according to a poll last June. Less than half see Iran as a major threat to the U.S. A foreign war like the one with Iran – which had weak support – only adds to rising concerns over political divisions.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“Americans may disagree deeply about leadership and policy,” wrote civic data watcher Sarah Stamper on Substack, but for many, “there is a conviction underneath it all: it does not have to be this way.”

For now, the task of avoiding more conflict with Iran might depend on how well each of these three countries achieves greater political harmony. A society at peace with itself usually doesn’t draw enemy fire.

It’s been more than 100 days since the United States and Israel launched their first wave of attacks against Iran. With Iran and the U.S. now agreeing to sign a memorandum of understanding on Friday, it will likely be another 60 days before a conclusive end to the war is in sight.

Given the thorny issues between the two countries – especially the still-unsettled matter of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program – finalizing a peace deal in the 60-day ceasefire window is a considerable challenge.

If the envisioned ceasefire holds, and oil shipments move smoothly through the Strait of Hormuz, a longer period to work out all the details might not be a bad thing for what one analyst described as “the slow institutional work of conflict transformation.”

Such work requires building sufficient trust among those who represent opposing national interests – as well as the mediators bringing them together – so they can hammer out concessions and agreements that have staying power. This may require reconciling different understandings of peace, ranging from the absence of conflict to a more robust coexistence, if not respect, among former warring parties.

Pakistan, the key intermediary that has helped bring the U.S. and Iran together in Geneva this week, is uniquely positioned – geographically, diplomatically, and culturally – to continue supporting this process. In doing so, it’s following a path set by other middle powers in the region that have also served as interlocutors for the U.S. with Iran, such as Oman and Qatar.

“Diplomatic access, not military power,” is the key to mediation, according to Saima Afzal, a researcher at Justus Liebig University in Germany. “States with relationships across competing camps increasingly find opportunities to influence outcomes that larger powers struggle to manage directly,” she wrote last week in Asia Times. 

Pakistan and the Gulf states – as well as Iran – also share an approach to conflict resolution rooted in their common cultural and Islamic heritage. It’s a view that “emphasizes reconciliation and restoration of relationships,” according to Nickolay Mladenov, an experienced coordinator for Mideast peace issues. 

“In contrast to the more Western focus on swiftly identifying problems and executing interventions, the Gulf approach significantly emphasizes the slow and careful building of trust and rapport,” he wrote in a 2024 analysis for the Washington Institute. 

A detailed guide to incorporating Islamic principles into peacemaking, published in 2024 by the London School of Economics, highlights the duty to hold widespread consultations and accept treaties as binding. Diversity of opinions is seen as “a blessing, rather than a negative characteristic,” it noted, and the concept of justice is “comprehensive and non-discriminatory, akin to Western notions of fairness or equity.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“The need for more nuanced forms of peacemaking has, if anything, become more urgent,” the report said.

With its network of regional and international relationships, Pakistan is showing how a relatively modest geopolitical power can apply soft power to peacemaking.

The lapsed authorization Friday night of a key national security surveillance provision that aims to prevent terrorist acts underscores the complex role of government in protecting the lives of U.S. citizens – and their constitutional right to privacy.

Although the Senate and the House recently voted down a third short-term extension of the provision, Americans need not worry that national security or their individual safety has been massively compromised. Earlier this year, a specialized federal court renewed the annual certification of the tool – Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) – until March 2027. So, standard intelligence-gathering will not stop.

However, some members of Congress, as well as political analysts, indicate that they’re ready for partisan wrangling and division around this issue to stop.

For some months, members of both parties have discussed a concern over FISA: the ability of the FBI or other agencies to search a vast database of communications between foreign targets and Americans, and to do so without a warrant. Describing the program as a dragnet picking up vast amounts of information, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said, “When you go to this massive database and ask about a U.S. person, that’s a Fourth Amendment event that requires some process, some scrutiny.”

Legislators were reportedly leaning toward granting another extension this month. But the administration’s June 2 nomination of housing mortgage chief Bill Pulte to serve as acting director of national intelligence was seen as a new hurdle. Almost all Democrats, and a vocal minority of Republicans, questioned Mr. Pulte’s fitness for such a sensitive role, citing his lack of any experience in national security matters.

On Thursday evening, President Donald Trump named Jay Clayton, a New York prosecutor and former Securities and Exchange Commission chief, to serve full time in this post. This would remove a major stumbling block for Democrats. And Senate leaders have said they will move to approve Mr. Clayton’s nomination as soon as Wednesday, before Mr. Pulte is due to step into the acting role.

However, the deeper issue remains: how best to balance national security-related investigations and probes with respect for the Fourth Amendment and protection for Americans, whose data is often scooped up in the process of monitoring global electronic communications.

The Trump administration is not the only one seeking reauthorization of Section 702. So did Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama. During a 2009 speech on the rule of law and security, Mr. Obama spoke of the need for a balanced, calibrated approach.

“The American people are not absolutist,” he said. “They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Legal scholar Benjamin Wittes has long argued for an even more nuanced view that goes beyond juggling in order to balance two competing values to seeing that “the relationship between surveillance and liberty is symbiotic.”

“Liberty and security,” according to him, “are better understood as necessary preconditions for one another than in some sort of standoff.”

Even if you can’t tell a layup from a laces drive, it’s unlikely you’ve escaped the buzz and anticipation around two major sporting events this week – the championship series of the National Basketball Association and the opening matches of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Right now, it’s fair to say that American sports fans are less focused on “the beautiful game” and more intent on the matchup between the New York Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs. Devoted fans, as well as casual observers, have been impressed by the athleticism and on-court skills of players from both teams. But, throughout the season, they’ve also been touched by something more: the consistent qualities of character that the players express, such as unity, determination, humility, and care for others.

The Knicks, for instance, do “not fit the caricature of New Yorkers ... as self-obsessed, grasping, indifferent,” The Economist observes. Instead, they are being “celebrated for some less-recognised qualities of New Yorkers ... decency, playfulness and generosity towards each other.”

In the Big Apple, thousands of residents and visitors have congregated around big screens in pubs, parks, and streets for community watch parties. Many shared with the media their sense of joy and inclusion at these events. “Everyone is just happy. ... There’s so much love,” in the words of one.

“It feels like the transformation of the world’s greatest city into the world’s greatest small town,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani commented to The Athletic. “We [are] all thinking about the same thing” – a longed-for championship for the Knicks, who last won in 1973.

The series heads to San Antonio for Game 5 on Saturday, with the Knicks leading 3-1. Whatever the outcome, that city’s 1.5 million residents might also enjoy a similar small-town sense of community spirit and cohesion. That’s because both teams express “uplifting ... behaviors and attitudes,” according to Jeremi Suri, a basketball fan and professor of politics at the University of Texas at Austin.

In a recent Substack post, “The Knicks and Spurs Show Us a Better America,” Dr. Suri wrote that the athletes show they “care about something larger than themselves.”

At a time when many Americans feel socially disconnected and cynical, he continued, the players are “needed role models. ... Young men with purpose, with healthy relationships, with belief in themselves and others.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Of course, these highly paid professional athletes are also highly competitive. They play to win. So, things might get heated on court, with some trash talk and fouls. Still, whether through charitable work (New York’s Jalen Brunson), a proclivity for quiet introspection (San Antonio’s Victor Wembanyama), or religious observance (New York’s Karl-Anthony Towns), they also teach fans about wins beyond the scoreboard.

At this point, it seems right to cheer: Go Knicks! Go Spurs!