Following an all-time underdog World Cup performance, Cape Verde’s Vozinha has become a household name overnight. Now, the United States is trying to make the goalkeeper feel more at home by bringing his mother to the country to watch him play. Josimar José Évora Dias, who simply goes by Vozinha, shocked the world Monday afternoon with a clean sheet against the global soccer powerhouse Spain. In a game where many expected the tournament-favorite Spanish national team to demolish Cape Verde, the 40-year-old had seven saves in the all-time performance as Cape Verde tied Spain 0-0.  Immediately after the game, an emotional Vozinha brought up how his mother could not watch his rise into superstardom in person. “My mom, she didn’t manage to be here because of the visa,” Vozinha told reporters. “The money you had to pay for the visa, we didn’t manage [to get it] on time, and I would like [her] to be here.” The goalkeeper was referring to the bond, which can be up to $15,000, that Cape Verde and 49 other countries’ citizens are required to pay due to high rates of overstaying their visas once they acquire it. But it appears that neither Vozinha nor his mother realized the Trump administration waived the bond for “athletes and team members — including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives,” which is clearly stated on the U.S. State Department’s travel web page. The State Department said it has no record of Vozinha’s mother, Ana Candida Évora, applying for the visa.  As of Wednesday morning, however, it seems like Évora will be able to see her son put on for his country. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) put out a press release on Wednesday, explaining how he will be actively working with the State Department to bring together mother and son. “No mother should miss the chance to see her child make history. Upon learning of this development, I spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and asked the State Department to do everything in their power to ensure that his mother can attend Cabo Verde’s next match,” Jeffries stated.  “It is a privilege to announce that Vozinha’s mom will be able to secure a visa in time to attend their game this Sunday against Uruguay,” he added. “All fees have been waived consistent with official policy. Travel arrangements are now being made for mother and son to reunite in Miami.” Vozinha’s World Cup story will not soon be forgotten by any of the 530,000 Cape Verdeans. He now looks to turn the performance into an unthinkable run with his mother in the crowd as Cape Verde takes on Uruguay on Sunday.

Entitlement reform is about to become a hot-button issue, again, due to imminent fiscal shortfalls. And right now the politics don’t look great for Americans under 40. According to recent polling by the Cato Institute, 89% of senior citizens would support raising taxes on younger workers in order to maintain their Social Security benefits. Now consider that the median primary voter is 65 years old. Gen Z votes at much lower rates than older Americans, especially in midterms. Worse, many Zoomers don’t even know how Social Security works. Half think their payroll taxes are either saved for them in a personal account or invested in a trust fund on their behalf. In reality, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. That means today’s beneficiaries are funded through taxes paid by younger workers, today. While retirees say they “paid in,” those dollars were spent long ago. Social Security’s mythology has obscured the economic trade-offs it requires: between the incomes of younger workers and the retirement lifestyles of seniors. For decades, Social Security spending has gone in one direction: up, up, and up, on autopilot. As a result, it now accounts for over 22% of the federal budget, costing nearly $1.6 trillion per year. That makes it the single biggest item in America’s federal budget, and it’s not close. If you add up all spending on seniors in the federal budget, it’s about $2.7 trillion annually. We spend six times as much on senior citizens, the wealthiest demographic, as we do on children and young adults. Congress has made no major changes to Social Security since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan signed a bipartisan bill that saved it from imminent collapse. Contrary to today’s facile notion that entitlement reform is “a third rail,” Reagan signed bipartisan legislation that cut Social Security and Medicare spending in 1983, in addition to raising taxes. He won 49 states the very next year (when the economy jumps 7% in a single year, they let you do it). Since Reagan, no president has been able to change the course of Social Security. Bush and Obama both talked about it. Neither got it done. Something must change. The Social Security Trust Fund (technically it’s the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund) is projected to run out in late 2032. That’s just six years from now. It means senators elected or re-elected in the November 2026 midterms will confront this crisis within their upcoming terms. And that’s not the only crisis on the horizon. Medicare Hospital Insurance is projected to run out in 2033. Chinese President Xi Jinping has directed the Chinese military to be able to strike Taiwan by 2027, though this does not necessarily mean China will attack then. And the United States has been so occupied with transferring wealth to senior citizens that it forgot to match its defense production to its national security strategy. And that means significant production shortages of ships, missiles, and drones. America faces a rapidly complicated geopolitical situation, yet is maintaining historically low defense spending. Making this all more intractable is America’s demographic collapse. We have fewer and fewer younger Americans supporting more and more older Americans. And this will get worse, impacting America’s ability to fund its entitlement programs — the fertility rate is falling faster than the Social Security Trustees seem to think. This will all come to a head, and soon. The U.S. must either significantly cut the growth trajectory of Social Security and Medicare spending or dramatically raise taxes. (Or some combination of benefit cuts and tax hikes). There is no way to finesse our way out of this. It’s far too late to “privatize” Social Security, and any such plan would dramatically raise the national debt, making America’s fiscal problem worse, not better. And while AI promises to accelerate economic growth, excessive government regulation, grassroots backlash, and early demands for Universal Basic Income all cast doubt on the notion that AI will save us from the consequences of our own government spending. By law, when the Social Security and Medicare trust funds run out, the programs’ spending will be cut significantly (by over 20% for Social Security and over 10% for Medicare Part A). But Congress is unlikely to allow these cuts to happen, given the political realities we have discussed. American senior citizens know what they want: retirement benefits that keep going up forever, paid for by younger workers. Meanwhile, younger people don’t even know their own interests. Or what threatens them. Even among Americans under 30, 47% would protect current retirees’ benefits even if that means higher taxes on younger workers like them. Expect more of the same. At least until America’s fundamental imbalance, between elderly power and youthful ignorance, changes. America did not begin as a gerontocracy. Thomas Jefferson was just 33 years old when he drafted the Declaration of Independence. Alexander Hamilton was around 20 in July 1776, but he was up north serving as a captain in a New York artillery company. With respect to America’s founders, however, if taxation without genuine political representation was a problem back in 1776, it is a much larger problem now. *** Russ Greene is Executive Director of the Prime Mover Institute and the coiner of the term “Total Boomer Luxury Communism.”

One of the suspects accused of planning an attack on the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House hoped to target trillionaire Elon Musk, according to the group’s messages. The alleged plotters hoped to carry out the attack by detonating explosive-carrying drones over the event last Sunday before conducting a sinister secondary strike with snipers on those evacuating. In a Signal chat dubbed “Hunters,” a user with the moniker “Shepherd” posted his plans and gave orders to others around June 11, according to a criminal complaint. Investigators later identified “Shepherd” as 31-year-old Omaha resident Abraham Alvarez, who is reportedly not a U.S. citizen. Law enforcement nabbed Alvarez Sunday at an old church in Western, Nebraska, according to NBC’s Omaha, Nebraska, affiliate WOWT. Screenshot from Alvarez’s alleged Signal messages. “i. Targets confirmed ii. 1. 2. VP 3. N 4. Musk,” the message read. While reports last week indicated that Musk would attend the UFC event at the White House, it does not appear that he made the trip. Alvarez also appeared to assign roles within the group, classifying them as “Sniper 1,” “Sniper 2,” “Sniper 3,” and “Drone Operator,” adding that he was “working” on drones “as we speak.” Investigators believed that the targets identified by Alvarez included President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Musk. Alvarez allegedly identified a “fall back location” for the group to meet at an old church in Nebraska. “They can grow the camp, and make a training ground we have the go ahead from the owner,” he allegedly wrote in the chat, adding, “grow your numbers, I will build your teams.” “Train them, fall back location is NE in an old church,” he wrote, according to the complaint. Screenshot: Justice Department complaint Tycen Proper, 19, who was also arrested as part of the alleged plot, told authorities that he learned of “an anti-government protest in Washington, D.C.” through a TikTok posted by a user who also went by “Shepherd,” according to the complaint. It is not clear whether that was also Alvarez, who used the nickname on Signal. Proper also identified “Shepherd” as “the primary individual involved with planning” and “directly stated that Shepherd was the leader of the group and described him as aggressive in tactical planning,” according to the complaint. The radicalized teen allegedly wrote in one of the chats on or about May 13 that he “got a possible target Marsha Blackburn is senator for Tennessee,” saying the group should go after her for taking “money from the Israel pro Israel lobby.” He also allegedly sent messages on May 31 saying, “These are people we’re going to focus on,” before sharing photos of Senator Jim Justice (R-WV), Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV), and Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV). The four images appeared to have been taken from the website “TrackAIPAC.com,” which shows how much money each lawmaker received “from pro-Israel PACS.” Authorities arrested five individuals, including Alvarez and Proper, for their alleged involvement in the plot. Some of the alleged attack planners were said to have “expressed ultra-religious and antigovernment sentiments, specifically citing grievances about government corruption, the handling of the Epstein files, data centers taking up all the water in communities, and other government actions.”

WASHINGTON— The text of the agreement between the United States and Iran has finally been shared with reporters.  After days of intense scrutiny and debate over the deal, a senior Trump administration official read the “memorandum of understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran” to reporters on a Wednesday afternoon call.  The text of the memorandum, according to that official, reads thus: “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly agreed in good faith on such and such a date on the following.”  Paragraph 1 The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. Paragraph 2 The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. Paragraph 3 The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent. Paragraph 4 Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal. “What we’re saying is that after 30 days, or within 30 days after the final deal—meaning assuming we get to the final deal, we may not—but assuming we get to the final deal, then we will return our force posture in the region to that which existed before the conflict started,” the senior administration official noted. “That’s what that paragraph effectively provides.”  Paragraph 5 Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be reinstated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services of the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. The senior administration official made particular note that the MOU says “the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge” for the first 60 days. “It says that Iran will work not just with Oman, but with the Gulf States to set up a broader agreement, a longer-term agreement on the Strait of Hormuz,” the official explained. “And of course, I’m sure the Iranians will assert their rights as aggressively as they can, but fundamentally toll-free passage of the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days, and that will continue because the Persian Gulf States will never agree to an arrangement that doesn’t permit toll-free access to the Strait of Hormuz for themselves and their industries.”  The senior administration official also emphasized that on Tuesday, Iran did not fire at any vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.  “So fundamentally, even before the formal signing ceremony on Friday, we see Iran actually ceasing its efforts to cut off traffic from the Strait of Hormuz,” the official noted. “This is one of the reasons why Brent crude is hovering around $79 and West Texas crude is even lower.”  Paragraph 6 The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan, which could reach $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The definitive implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America. This paragraph, the senior administration official pointed out, is probably one of the most controversial paragraphs in the deal.  “Note that it doesn’t require us to do anything,” the official said. “Number one, to ever pay a cent of money to the Iranians, to ever contribute money to this reconstruction fund. What it says is that if we get to a final deal and if the Iranians behave, we will permit the sanctions relief that would allow, for example, the Emiratis to build a power plant in Iran.” “That’s all it says,” he emphasized. “If they do what they have to do, we will permit the investment in the reconstruction of their country, which of course, if they do what they say they’re going to do and they change their behaviors as a country, that would be great for everybody.” Paragraph 7 The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against Islamic Republic of Iran, including United Nations Security Council resolutions, i.e., IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them. Paragraph 8 The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven with a minimum methodology to be downblending on site under the supervision of the IAEA.  The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs based on a satisfactory framework to be agreed upon in the final deal. Final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them. On this point, the senior administration official emphasized that while the Iranian media has claimed that there will be no mention of nuclear issues in this MOU, the agreement doesn’t just say that they will discuss the nuclear question. “It sets a minimum standard where at a minimum, the enriched stockpile will be destroyed by downblending,” the official explained. “Of course, that’s the floor, and we will push for more than that, but the fact that they’re conceding to that is a major, major win for the United States of America. They’re saying, ‘We will destroy the enriched stockpile and this is how we’re going to do it, at a minimum.’”  Points seven and eight play off one another, the senior administration official said.  “So when I see the media saying that they’re going to get all their sanctions relief, the sanctions relief in seven is tied to the nuclear settlement in eight, and in fact, we use the exact same language to finalize both of those paragraphs,” the official explained. “We’re saying the sanctions relief and the nuclear issues are connected, and to the extent that you perform on the nuclear questions, you’ll get the sanctions relief.” Paragraph 9 In the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region. Paragraph 10 The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the determination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc. The senior administration official here pointed out that when the U.S. was sanctioning Iranian oil, the U.S. was actually giving China a “massive discount on the purchases of petroleum.” “Regardless of whether we had had efficacy, regardless of whether we lift a single other sanction, the President of the United States and the entire team agreed that it’s absurd to sanction Iranian oil in such a way that they are still allowed to sell that oil, we just give China a big fat discount. We stop that process, and of course, it’s part of the broader agreement.” Paragraph 11 The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designed by the Central Bank—excuse me—ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly. Iran will get access to the restricted funds and assets upon the implementation of this MOU, the senior administration official explained.  “So assuming we reach the agreement and implement the terms of this MOU, assuming we get to a final deal, then they will have access to these assets,” that official noted. “And indeed, what we’ve contemplated is that if they engage in good behavior, for example, they give us the nuclear dust while we’re engaged in this final negotiation, then we will release some frozen assets in response to that.”  The official emphasized a point that he believes will be misreported.  “What Iran wanted was restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the signing of this MOU,” the senior administration official said. “And what they eventually conceded is that they wouldn’t get any money unless they perform good behavior, even though of course it’s their own money, just in frozen assets, which is why we structured it the way that we do. If they implement the MOU, they then get access to some of their frozen assets.”  Paragraph 12 The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal. Paragraph 13 After signing this MOU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs. Paragraph 14 The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UN Security Council resolution and then there’s the signature page and that is it.

President Trump’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Iran avoids the obvious question: why trade away unprecedented leverage after unprecedented military success? Over the past three years, the United States and Israel have inflicted more nuclear, economic, and military damage on the Islamic Republic and its terror proxies than at any point since the regime seized power in 1979. The regime that stood at the height of its regional power on October 7, 2023, when its Hamas proxy unleashed a bestial massacre in Israel, now finds itself weaker and more vulnerable than at any time in its history. A combination of economic pressure, military force, intelligence operations, and the extraordinary performance of American and Israeli servicemen, intelligence officers, and policymakers brought the regime to its knees. Americans are therefore entitled to ask whether the Trump administration is about to surrender a significant portion of its leverage before the hardest phase of negotiations has even begun. A decade ago, the Obama administration bet that sanctions relief and diplomatic engagement could moderate the Islamic Republic. Instead, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) delivered massive sanctions relief while putting Iran on a pathway to nuclear weapons as restrictions expired. Tehran used the windfall to expand its missile and drone programs, strengthen its terrorist proxies, and threaten the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, two waterways key to the free flow of energy. President Trump withdrew from that fatally flawed agreement and, working with Israel, built unprecedented leverage against the regime. Even when Tehran played the Hormuz card at its weakest moment, the U.S. military began quietly reopening the strait and moved millions of barrels of oil per day. Saudi and Emirati overland pipelines moved millions more. That’s why the emerging details of the new MOU are so troubling. The agreement may allow Iran to immediately increase energy sales while potentially receiving relief from the banking and transportation sanctions that facilitate those transactions. If so, the administration would be trading away one of America’s most effective sources of pressure before final negotiations — intended to strip Iran of its remaining nuclear weapon capabilities — even begin. The MOU could amount to a $25 billion toll payment to Tehran from oil sales, to keep the Strait of Hormuz open through the midterm elections. The administration may argue that such relief is limited, reversible, and necessary to stabilize global energy markets. Yet the burning questions remain. How much of that money can be repatriated? How can the regime use those funds? What restrictions remain on financial transactions? Will the administration stop enforcing existing sanctions? Most importantly, how much damage will be done to the sanctions architecture that took years to build? Tehran could also gain access to tens of billions of dollars in additional oil revenue and portions of the roughly $100 billion in Iranian funds frozen abroad. That would be a massive windfall. If the MOU includes broad waivers covering banking and transportation transactions, that would represent far more than a narrow licensing arrangement. It would fracture the core architecture of American oil and financial sanctions. Once the United States normalizes Iranian oil exports to major buyers such as China, India, and the United Arab Emirates, alongside the repatriation of oil revenues back to Tehran, the damage becomes difficult to reverse. If companies, traders, insurers, shipping firms, banks, and governments become accustomed to doing business with Iran again, restoring today’s pressure campaign would take years, not weeks — precisely why sanctions relief should come at the end of successful negotiations, not at the beginning. And prematurely weakening this leverage will make it even more difficult to secure the final nuclear agreement with Iran that the MOU is supposedly designed to deliver. The regime has played this game successfully against multiple American presidents. Indeed, the only arena in which the Islamic Republic has consistently defeated the United States is at the negotiating table. President Trump argued he still retains the military option. But leverage erodes. Deployments end, Washington’s attention shifts, and Tehran may simply pocket economic concessions while waiting for pressure to dissipate or for a next president not willing to stop Iran. If negotiations fail — as they likely will — the administration should be prepared immediately to restore maximum economic pressure, return to military operations including in Hormuz, and suffocate the regime’s remaining sources of power. There is one final instrument that every administration has neglected. The Iranian people. Economic pressure and military power can weaken the regime. Only the Iranian people can ultimately end it. Nothing can match the power of tens of millions of Iranians who despise the regime that rules them. No one has sacrificed more to challenge the Islamic Republic. Despite enduring killings, incarceration, torture, corruption, and economic ruin, they continue to resist. The truly decisive question is not how long the United States can pressure this regime. It is whether America is finally prepared to help Iranians finish the job themselves. President Trump should immediately instruct his intelligence services to build a plan. Call it Operation People’s Fury. And have it ready for when Iranians courageously return to the streets, as they have done repeatedly for decades. *** Mark Dubowitz is chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the presenter of “The Iran Breakdown” podcast.