Listen to Podcast Episode

When I started reading about the Lindsay Clancy case, I thought there was almost no way she could prevail on an insanity defense. I couldn’t see how a mother could methodically kill three children and then persuade a jury that she didn’t understand what she was doing.

She arranged for her husband to leave the house. She then strangled the kids with an exercise band in the basement of her home. And then she tried to kill herself. She had carried out a sequence of actions that, on the surface, looked deliberate and purposeful.

Subscribe now

My first reaction was the one I suspect many people had: How could someone do all of that and NOT understand what she was doing?

And I have covered many similar cases for different nuances, take the Renato Seabra case in New York or the recent high-profile case of Hollywood’s son Nick Reiner.

After testimony and evidence presented at the five-weeks long trial, I now actually believe there is a very compelling case that she is NOT criminally responsible.

That does not mean I know what happened inside Lindsay Clancy’s mind on January 24, 2023, but I no longer think the answer is obvious.

The Question Isn’t Whether She Killed Her Children

There is remarkably little dispute about the central physical fact of this case. Lindsay Clancy killed her three children: five-year-old Cora, three-year-old Dawson and eight-month-old Callan.

Her defense has never been, I didn’t do it, so the question before the jury is much more difficult: Was she ‘criminally responsible’ for what she did?

Unlike states like New York and California - which strictly follow variations of the 1843 English M’Naghten Rule focusing solely on whether a defendant knew right from wrong -, Massachusetts applies a broader standard. Under Commonwealth law, jurors evaluate not only whether mental disease left a defendant unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct, but also whether it left her completely unable to control her actions.

Another particularity of Massachusetts is that the burden rests on prosecutors to prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a defendant was sane, rather than forcing the defense to prove insanity.

So this is not a simple horrific story about a mother who killed her children, but rather a profoundly complicated story about the human mind and the limits of legal accountability.

I came into this case thinking Clancy’s organization was the problem. How could someone experiencing psychosis plan? How could she send her husband out? How could she communicate normally? How could she care for her children? How could she execute a sequence of actions and then attempt suicide?

And obviously, the prosecution has leaned heavily into those questions. They did not contest that Lindsay Clancy was deeply depressed, suicidal, and overwhelmed, but their core theory throughout the trial has been that depression is not psychosis.

The prosecution’s argument is essentially that she remained capable of understanding and controlling her actions. During the trial, the state attorneys contend that she made a deliberate choice to kill her children while her husband was away and actively questioned the nature of her subsequent jump from a second-story window (which left her paralyzed and in a wheelchair) - arguing that her hesitation and self-inflicted injuries (superficially cutting her wrists and neck) showed self-preservation, rather than an unguided psychotic murder-suicide.

There are also serious questions surrounding Clancy’s account of a male voice commanding her to kill the children. Prosecutors and their experts challenged the credibility and timing of that account, including the fact that there was no earlier medical documentation of such a voice.

No doubt that those are problems for the defense, but the psychiatric evidence is quite significant - something that was absent in the Seabra case, for instance.

1. The Paper Trail of Medication: In the three months leading up to the tragedy, Clancy was prescribed a cocktail of at least 13 different psychiatric medications, including sedatives, anti-anxiety drugs, and antidepressants. Defense experts argued that this aggressive cycling caused severe akathisia (an uncontrollable inner restlessness), depersonalization (a profound detachment from body and mind), and heightened psychotic risk.

2. The Clinical Diagnosis: Multiple psychiatric experts retained by the defense concluded she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis with delusional thinking - a rare condition affecting roughly 1 to 2 per 1,000 postpartum American women, where a mother loses total contact with reality. Though prosecution experts strongly disagreed.

3. The Absence of Prior Malice: Before committing the killings on January 24, 2023, there was no documented history of abuse, neglect, or hostility toward her children. Friends, family, and healthcare colleagues consistently described her as a devoted, loving mother whose journals reflected a desperate struggle to find help for her deteriorating state.

Defining Psychosis

And there is something else that I want you to consider: psychosis does not necessarily look like psychosis.

We tend to imagine psychosis as obvious: someone who is incoherent, hallucinating openly, someone who cannot hold a conversation and looks completely disconnected from reality. But, according to experts, that is not necessarily what psychosis looks like. A person experiencing psychosis can sometimes appear organized such as communicate, perform familiar tasks, make plans. They can even behave in ways that look rational, because they are behaving rationally inside a reality that has become profoundly distorted.

The fact that Lindsay Clancy was capable of organizing her actions - like checking delivery times or sending her husband out for food - does not, by itself, answer the question of whether she understood the reality or wrongfulness of those actions. While it shows that she was capable of organizing behavior, it does not necessarily tell us what was happening in her mind.

Then There Was Patrick

For me, Lindsay’s now former husband, Patrick Clancy, was one of the most consequential testimonies of this trial. He knew the defendant probably better than anyone else.

His testimony did not paint a picture of a marriage collapsing under resentment, hostility or hatred - a pattern in so many domestic homicide cases we have seen before. Patrick painted a picture of a family struggling with a woman whose mental health was deteriorating. He described a loving mother who was deeply involved in the lives of her children. He knew she was struggling, about the suicidal thoughts, and he even knew about disturbing thoughts involving the children. Patrick understood those thoughts as something she was horrified by, but not as an intention to act on them.

In the months leading up to the tragedy, Lindsay had sought psychiatric treatment, voluntarily checking herself into McLean Hospital, one of the top psychiatric hospitals in the U.S..

And when she returned home after being discharged from the hospital, less than three weeks before the killings, Patrick believed she was getting better.

And while Patrick testified for the prosecution, just days after the tragedy three years ago, he had released a widely publicized statement asking the public to forgive her, framing her actions as the result of a severe, uncontrollable illness rather than a conscious crime.

The Evidence the Jury has Asked for So Far

On the second day of deliberations, the jury asked to see two pieces of evidence that had not initially been sent into the jury room after they began deliberating last week: the knife used in Clancy’s suicide attempt and bags containing prescription medication bottles.

It is said in popular legal culture in the U.S. that reading the jurors’ notes during deliberations is like trying to read tea leaves, and I personally always need to force myself to pause before trying to interpret what’s going on in jurors’ minds.

However, it is interesting that the two categories of evidence sit at the center of the case. While the knife points to the sequence of the killings and the suicide attempt, the medication speaks to the months of psychiatric treatment and the question of what was happening to Clancy’s mental state before the deaths.

During closing arguments, the defense emphasized the medication history and questioned whether Clancy’s psychiatric treatment had actually helped her, or whether the treatment itself may have contributed to her deterioration.

The judge also instructed jurors that they could consider the effects of prescription medication on Clancy’s mental state.

The jury could be simply reviewing the evidence carefully or perhaps they are trying to reconcile contradictory testimony. Perhaps the objects mean nothing beyond that. Again, tea leaves.

The Uncomfortable Lesson

We assume that a mother who loves her children could not possibly kill them. That instinct is understandable and it is also what makes postpartum psychosis so terrifying. It is also what spurred a movement, led overwhelmingly by women, that has gathered hundreds outside the courthouse to protest against a healthcare system that failed Lindsay Clancy.

A woman can love her children deeply and still, during a psychotic episode, become convinced of something that is completely incompatible with that love.

That does not make the deaths less horrific, it does not erase the suffering of Patrick Clancy or the families who lost those children, and it certainly does not mean every defendant who claims psychosis should be acquitted. In fact, it is a persistent misconception that insanity is an easy or frequent defense: juries in America rarely accept it, even in cases involving documented, severe mental illness.

Now, we wait. The 12 jurors - nine women and three men - are in their fourth day of deliberations, spending roughly 20 hours weighing five weeks of harrowing evidence and testimony from more than 80 witnesses. That nine-woman majority is not a footnote. In a trial centered on maternal distress, postpartum health, and caregiving, the human composition of this panel carries an undeniable weight, but a unanimous decision is required.

Their extended time in the room comes as no surprise because they have a lot to consider and it has now brought the trial to a critical standoff. Shortly after resuming their work this morning at Plymouth Superior Court, in Massachusetts, the jury informed the judge that they are deadlocked. But as is standard procedure when a jury reaches an early impasse, the judge declined to declare a mistrial and instead instructed them to return to work - meant to encourage jurors to re-examine their positions before any mistrial could be considered.

There are six possible outcomes from this trial: not guilty (Clancy is immediately released); not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility (committing her to a state psychiatric facility); first-degree murder (punishable by a mandatory life sentence); second-degree murder (life sentence with the possibility of parole); manslaughter (which carries a maximum of 20 years in prison); a mistrial, should the deadlock prove unbreakable, which leaves the charges active and Clancy in custody while state prosecutors decide whether to retry the case.

Subscribe now

When I first started following the Lindsay Clancy trial, I didn’t believe she could successfully argue that she was not criminally responsible for killing her three children.

The facts appeared, at least on the surface, to show an organized sequence of deliberate actions. How could someone plan, communicate normally, send her husband out of the house and then carry out such an unimaginable act without understanding what she was doing?

But after following five weeks of testimony and evidence, I changed my mind.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, I examine the evidence that forced me to reconsider my initial reaction - and the difficult question now facing the jury: what does it actually mean to be criminally responsible for an act when severe mental illness may have fundamentally altered a person’s perception of reality?

I explore:

• Why the Lindsay Clancy case is not fundamentally about whether she killed her children

• The legal standard for criminal responsibility in Massachusetts

• The prosecution’s argument that depression and suicidality do not necessarily equal psychosis

• The psychiatric evidence presented by the defense

• Why psychosis does not necessarily look the way we imagine it does

• Whether a person can appear organized while experiencing a profoundly distorted reality

• The powerful testimony of Lindsay Clancy’s former husband, Patrick

• Why the jury asked to review prescription medication bottles and evidence connected to Clancy’s suicide attempt

• And the uncomfortable question at the heart of this case: Does organized behavior necessarily mean a person was sane?

This is an examination of how, and why, the evidence in this case changed my own mind.

As the jury deliberates, one thing has become increasingly clear to me: the most difficult question in this trial isn’t what Lindsay Clancy did, but rather whether any of us can truly reconstruct what was happening inside her mind at one precise and catastrophic moment in time.

A mind can appear organized from the outside while reality has already collapsed within it.

This week, a federal judge in New York said “no.”

In this episode of Atlantic Lens, I examine Judge Paul Engelmayer’s 67-page ruling rejecting Maxwell’s latest effort to overturn her conviction, and what the decision tells us about the difference between new information and legally meaningful new evidence.

Maxwell sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, pointing to material from the newly released Epstein records in an effort to reopen several issues, including:

• the controversy surrounding Juror 50 and his failure to disclose his history of childhood sexual abuse;

• Jeffrey Epstein’s 2007–08 Florida non-prosecution agreement and whether it protected alleged co-conspirators;

• alleged prosecutorial misconduct and discovery violations;

• and a newly surfaced 2006 Palm Beach grand jury transcript involving Detective Gregory Parkinson and a massage table seized from Epstein’s home.

The ruling is particularly interesting because the court did not simply ask whether information was newly public. It asked whether that information was actually new, legally usable, credible, and capable of changing the outcome.

And in several instances, the court concluded that material Maxwell presented as supporting her case actually pointed in the opposite direction.

There is also a personal connection for me.

In January 2022, after covering Ghislaine Maxwell’s New York trial for Fox News, I reported an exclusive about Juror 50, who had answered “no” and lied when asked during jury selection whether he had ever been the victim of sexual abuse, sexual assault or sexual harassment - only to acknowledge after the verdict that he had been sexually abused as a child.

That controversy led to a hearing, a judicial finding and an appeal. More than four years later, Maxwell tried to resurrect the issue using material that had subsequently become public.

The court rejected that effort. So what does this latest ruling actually tell us about the Epstein files?

And what happens when an enormous volume of newly released information collides with the much narrower legal standards governing a post-conviction challenge?

That’s what I examine in this episode.

Listen to the full episode of Atlantic Lens with Marta Dhanis.

You can also read the companion analysis on Substack.

Listen/Podcast Format

On January 6, 2022, I reported an exclusive for Fox News that would become one of the most consequential controversies surrounding Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction.

A juror who had helped convict Maxwell had answered “no” on a questionnaire asking whether he had ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse or sexual assault. After the verdict, the juror publicly acknowledged that he had been sexually abused as a child.

Subscribe now

The question was obvious: How could someone who had failed to disclose that history during jury selection have been allowed to sit on a jury in one of the most sensitive sex-abuse trials in the country? More than four years later, that episode is back in the record, but this time as part of a much larger legal battle.

Late on Monday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) rejected Maxwell’s latest attempt to overturn her conviction and 20-year sentence. His 67-page opinion is not only a procedural denial, but also a detailed dismantling of Maxwell’s attempt to use the massive release of Epstein-related government records as a basis for reopening arguments she had already lost. And the judge’s message is clear: the Epstein files did not produce the exculpatory evidence Maxwell needed.

Maxwell filed her petition under a federal statute known as ‘28 U.S.C. §2255’, which allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence on constitutional or other serious legal grounds. But it is not a substitute for a direct appeal. By the time Maxwell filed it, her conviction had already been upheld by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court had declined to hear her challenge to the 2008 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that Jeffrey Epstein had reached with federal prosecutors in Florida.

Then came the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Between late 2025 and the beginning of this year, the Justice Department released over 3 million pages, more than 180,000 images and 2,000 videos relating to Epstein and Maxwell. Unsurprisingly, Maxwell seized on those records, arguing that they contained new evidence supporting claims ranging from juror misconduct to prosecutorial misconduct and an alleged violation of the 2008 Epstein’s NPA.

Judge Engelmayer gave her an opportunity to supplement her petition with material from the release, but his conclusion just published was devastating to Maxwell’s strategy.

The court divided her ten principal claims into three groups: arguments she had already raised and lost on appeal; arguments she could have raised on appeal but did not; and one claim involving evidence that genuinely became available only after her appeal - the 2006 grand-jury testimony of a Palm Beach detective concerning Epstein’s green massage table.

The Juror Controversy Revisited

The facts underlying my 2022 reporting are now laid out in the federal court’s opinion. Juror 50 answered “no” to three questions concerning whether he, a friend or a family member had ever been the victim of a crime, sexual harassment, sexual abuse or sexual assault, or had been accused of such conduct. After Maxwell was convicted, he gave interviews in which he identified himself as a survivor of child sexual abuse and Maxwell immediately sought a new trial.

At a March 2022 hearing, the juror testified under a grant of immunity that his answers had been inaccurate, but that the mistake was inadvertent. Judge Alison Nathan (who oversaw her case and trial) found him credible. She concluded that he had not deliberately concealed his history, that he had not been biased against Maxwell and that he would not have been removed for cause even if he had answered the questionnaire accurately. The Second Circuit later affirmed that ruling.

But Epstein’s former partner tried to resurrect the issue in her new petition, arguing that later reporting demonstrated that Juror 50 had actually been biased. Judge Engelmayer rejected the argument and pointed out that some of the material Maxwell cited was not new at all. It had been available before her direct appeal. Other material published later largely repeated information that had already been available to her lawyers.

The federal judge goes as far as saying that some of the reporting Maxwell relied upon actually cut against her argument. In his ruling, Engelmayer points to accounts in which Juror 50 said that he entered the trial believing Maxwell was innocent and only reached a conclusion after hearing the evidence. Another account described his insistence on the presumption of innocence.

In other words, Maxwell presented the reporting as evidence of bias. However, the judge saw evidence supporting the opposite conclusion.

The Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement

Maxwell ran into the exact same issue with Epstein’s 2008 NDA. She argued that newly released DOJ records showed that the agreement provided broader immunity than prosecutors had previously acknowledged, potentially protecting her from prosecution in New York. However, the judge found that Maxwell was reading the documents selectively.

One of the records she cited involved an interview with former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. Maxwell portrayed it as evidence that the agreement granted “blanket immunity” to Epstein’s co-conspirators.

But, as the judge noted, Acosta did not actually characterize the agreement that way. And on the very next page - a page Maxwell had not included - Acosta emphasized that the agreement was limited to the Southern District of Florida.

Engelmayer’s opinion also highlights that the DOJ’s own Office of Professional Responsibility report on the Epstein agreement supported the conclusion that it was not a nationwide immunity deal. One Florida prosecutor told investigators that the agreement was not a “global resolution” and that other U.S. Attorney’s Offices could prosecute other co-conspirators. Another said prosecutors had viewed Epstein as the “top of the food chain” and were not interested at the time in prosecuting the other people they knew about.

Meaning, according to the federal judge, some of the material Maxwell presented as ‘newly exculpatory evidence’ actually reinforces the government’s longstanding position.

The One Genuinely New Piece of Evidence

In her petition, Maxwell argued that prosecutors had failed to disclose a 2006 Palm Beach grand-jury transcript from Detective Gregory Parkinson, who later testified at her trial about the green massage table seized from Epstein’s home.

Before Maxwell’s trial, the government had been told that the grand-jury recording was “unplayable” and that no transcript existed. In 2024, after Maxwell’s direct appeal, the transcript surfaced when a Florida state court released grand-jury records.

That piece was new, but the judge concluded that it didn’t help Maxwell.

She argued that Parkinson’s earlier testimony contradicted his trial testimony about where the massage table had been found. The judge examined the transcript and found that Parkinson had referred to a bathroom without actually identifying which of Epstein’s two adjoining master bathrooms he meant. There was therefore no demonstrated contradiction. And even if there had been a discrepancy, the judge found it would not have changed the outcome.

The search video independently showed the table outside the south bathroom. Other testimony corroborated its location. And the judge noted an almost counterintuitive point: if the table had instead been in the north bathroom, that room contained Maxwell’s photograph, personalized stationery and a portrait of her, potentially making the evidence more incriminating, not less.

The same applies to Maxwell’s claim that the massage table was the government’s only evidence of interstate commerce. Except that it wasn’t. Victim testimony and FedEx records provided independent evidence, including records showing packages being sent from Epstein’s office using an account bearing Maxwell’s name.

The Broader Argument: “A Patsy”

Maxwell also argued that she had been selectively prosecuted - essentially, that after Epstein’s death the government needed someone to blame and chose her. The judge rejected that too.

Federal prosecutors have broad discretion over whom to prosecute, but a selective-prosecution claim requires evidence that similarly situated people were treated differently for an impermissible reason.

Maxwell, the judge concluded, could not identify another participant who was similarly situated to her.

The opinion describes her as Epstein’s “indispensable recruiter and groomer in chief” and emphasizes that she had not identified anyone who participated in his scheme “in this manner or to this degree.”

That goes to the heart of the government’s case against Maxwell: the prosecution was never simply about being in Epstein’s social circle, but rather about what the jury found Maxwell herself did. And that is ultimately why the judge refused to reopen the conviction.

No New Trial. No Evidentiary Hearing. No Appeal

Maxwell also asked Judge Engelmayer for an evidentiary hearing, but he refused. The judge found that her petition did not identify a genuine factual dispute that could potentially change the outcome. Instead, he characterized the claims as relying broadly on speculation, distortions and falsehoods, against what he described as overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence from the original trial.

The final ruling is therefore unequivocal and Maxwell’s petition is denied. The judge concluded that she had not made the substantial showing of a constitutional violation required for further appellate review and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

For Maxwell, this ruling is significant because it means that the unprecedented release of the Epstein files - material that might have appeared to offer a new route back into the case - did not give her the legal opening she was looking for.

Last Friday, Luigi Mangione pleaded guilty to two federal stalking charges connected to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. He also admitted, in open court, what he had previously denied: that he shot Thompson in Manhattan in December 2024 and acknowledged the consequence of his intentional act: that Thompson died.

In a statement in court, Mangione said: “I shot Mr. Thompson and he died. I knew that what I was doing was illegal.”

So why isn’t his legal battle over? Because Mangione is also facing another case in New York state, just across the street in lower Manhattan, and there’s a strategy behind his move. In fact, within hours of the federal plea, Mangione’s lawyers filed a motion asking a New York judge to dismiss the state murder case on double-jeopardy grounds.

UPDATE: Since this article was originally prepared, there has been a significant development: Mangione’s New York state murder trial, scheduled to begin September 8, has now been adjourned ‘sine die’ while the judge considers his lawyers’ motion to dismiss the case on double-jeopardy grounds. Manhattan prosecutors have until October 9 to respond, with the next court appearance scheduled for December 10.

His New York trial was scheduled within weeks but now the question has become whether New York will get the chance to try him at all. That makes his guilty plea considerably more interesting than a straightforward admission of guilt - and shows a sharp defense who likely convinced their client that, given all the evidence in the case, it would be extremely difficult to win any of the cases at trial.

The current federal charges did not carry the death penalty, and New York state abolished the capital punishment a long time ago. Though the Department of Justice initially charged him with murder through use of a firearm, a capital-eligible offense, and the Trump administration had authorized prosecutors to seek the death penalty, in January, a federal judge dismissed the murder and firearms counts, finding that the federal stalking charges could not legally support the separate murder and firearms counts.

What remained were two federal stalking counts resulting in death, with each carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Mangione has now pleaded guilty to both and is scheduled to be sentenced in federal court on December 18. So the plea does not mean he is walking away from prison, quite the opposite.

The Double-Jeopardy Argument

Most people know double jeopardy as the constitutional rule that prevents the government from prosecuting someone twice for the same offense, but there is a complication here: in the U.S., the federal government and the states are separate sovereigns.

The Supreme Court’s “dual sovereignty” doctrine generally allows the federal government and a state to bring separate prosecutions arising from the same underlying conduct. That is why simply saying “he already pleaded guilty federally” does not automatically end the New York case. But New York state has gone further.

Its own Criminal Procedure Law generally prohibits successive prosecutions based on the same act or criminal transaction, subject to specific exceptions. The statute asks, among other things, whether the offenses contain different elements and whether the laws are designed to prevent “very different kinds of harm or evil.” That’s exactly what’s at the center of Mangione’s new motion.

The federal government prosecuted him for stalking Thompson across state lines and through interstate facilities, with death resulting. New York is prosecuting him for the intentional killing itself, along with weapons charges. The state prosecution can therefore argue that these are legally distinct offenses with different elements and different governmental interests.

The defense says the underlying reality is much simpler: one man, one victim, one killing, one criminal transaction, and now there is a federal conviction based on that conduct.

Ironically, that argument has precedent which I covered. Enter President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort, and his then lawyer Todd Blanche. In 2019, Paul Manafort faced a New York prosecution after already being convicted federally on financial crimes (and later pardoned by Trump).

Manafort’s defense argued that New York’s case was barred by the state’s statutory double-jeopardy protections. Manafort’s lead counsel was Todd Blanche - yes, the same Todd Blanche who was just confirmed as Trump’s U.S. Attorney General.

In 2020, New York’s Appellate Division, First Department unanimously upheld the dismissal of Manafort’s state indictment. The court found that the federal charges involved the same fraud and the same victims as the New York case, and concluded that the statutory differences were not enough to satisfy New York’s requirement that the offenses prevent “very different kinds of harm or evil.”

The circumstances are obviously very different. Manafort involved financial fraud; Mangione involves murder and stalking, but the legal connection is intriguing.

The same New York statutory protection that Blanche successfully invoked on behalf of Manafort is now being invoked by Mangione’s lawyers.

The Manafort case does not guarantee Mangione will win, but it certainly gives his lawyers something much more substantial than an abstract constitutional argument: a New York appellate precedent applying this very statute to stop a second prosecution after a federal conviction.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office intends to oppose the dismissal and proceed with the state case and prosecutors still have a serious argument: stalking and murder are not the same crime.

The state murder charge requires proof that Mangione intentionally caused Thompson’s death. The federal stalking counts require proof of different conduct, including the interstate component. A judge will have to decide whether those distinctions are enough under New York’s statute.

So, what happens next? For now, the trial is hanging in the balance and the immediate battle is over the motion to dismiss the state case. If Mangione wins, the New York murder prosecution could be thrown out. If he loses, the defense can appeal, potentially turning this into a significant New York appellate case about the limits of successive federal and state prosecutions. And if the state case survives, Mangione still faces a second-degree murder charge that carries a potential sentence of 25 years to life.

Meanwhile, his federal sentencing is set for December, where prosecutors are seeking a life sentence on the stalking convictions. So the guilty plea did not end Luigi Mangione’s legal battle.

The American justice system allows federal and state governments to pursue the same underlying conduct in circumstances that can look, to the public, like two prosecutions for the same crime. New York, however, has imposed its own limits and now Mangione is testing them.

The irony is that one of the most relevant precedents was built by a lawyer who once used those same protections to shield Paul Manafort from a second prosecution. Todd Blanche is now on the other side of the criminal-justice system, at the top of the federal government.

Manuel spent five nights sleeping in his car because he didn’t know whether he would have a home to return to.

A resident of El Tiemblo, Ávila, in Spain’s Castile and León region about 90 minutes northwest of Madrid, he received repeated emergency alerts ordering residents to evacuate as flames advanced toward his neighborhood. He said he wasn’t afraid for himself, but was worried about leaving behind everything he had built.

“We’ve never seen anything like this,” Manuel said. “We’ve had wildfires before, but they were always under control. There are no words for what’s happening now.”

By the time I met him, the fire had already transformed the landscape around his community. Days later, when residents were finally allowed to return, many found blackened hillsides just beyond their front doors.

Manuel was one of more than 100,000 people evacuated or confined as Spain battled one of its worst wildfire outbreaks in years.

Subscribe now

Heavy machinery may have sparked the Ávila blaze, but it was heatwave and drought that turned Southern Europe into a tinderbox, allowing fires to ignite and instantly explode across multiple fronts. Spanish authorities say that, so far this year, more than 170,000 hectares (420,000 acres) have burned, roughly six times the area scorched during the same period last year. And the Mediterranean fire season is far from over.

Across the border in southwestern France, the Gironde region has also been ravaged by wildfires, forcing more than 220,000 residents to evacuate.

Covering the fires for ABC News in Spain, I watched an international response take shape. Portugal deployed a FOCON (Joint Operational Forces Command) team to Ávila, bringing specialized firefighting equipment and Falcon drones capable of detecting hidden hotspots beneath smoke and vegetation through thermal imaging. Those drones allowed crews to identify fires invisible from the ground and direct suppression efforts with greater precision.

I also witnessed a striking difference from covering natural disasters in the United States. Spanish authorities, led by regional commands of the Guardia Civil, maintained exceptionally strict control over media access, preventing journalists from approaching active fire zones. While intended to protect public safety and avoid interfering with emergency operations, the restrictions often left reporters unable to document the destruction where it was unfolding.

Chapu Apaolaza - reporting for Spain’s national newspaper ABC España (unrelated to the U.S. network) - found an alternative, far riskier way on his own. Reaching the devastated community of Encinar del Alberche via rural tracks on a trail motorcycle, he documented scenes that few journalists were able to witness: neighborhoods reduced to ash less than an hour from the center of Madrid.

@abc.esEl apocalipsis a 50 minutos de Madrid. ABC recorre la zona cero del incendio que arrasa el suroeste de la Comunidad, un escenario de guerra, de cenizas, árboles y casas quemadas en el que no queda nadie. Un poco más allá, amenazan las llamas que desalojan a miles de personas en una angustia muy particular. Informa Chapu Apaolaza La noticia al completo en ABC.es #incendios #fuego #españaarde #comunidademadrid

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

The contrast is notable. In the U.S., and often in Portugal and France, journalists are frequently granted controlled access closer to disaster zones, allowing the public to better understand both the scale of the emergency and the work of firefighters on the ground. As I reminded my family when I got the call that I was deploying: when people run away from danger, journalists run toward the danger alongside first responders.

But Spain and France are far from alone in the brazen flames. This summer, southern Europe has been battling simultaneous wildfires stretching from the Iberian Peninsula to the eastern Mediterranean. Portugal continues to battle multiple outbreaks under extreme heat. Greece and Turkey have again faced fast-moving blazes fueled by high temperatures, drought and strong winds. What once felt like isolated national emergencies is increasingly becoming a single European fire season.

According to European fire monitoring data, wildfires across the European Union have become larger and more frequent over the past two decades, peaking in 2025 with a record-breaking one million hectares (roughly 2.47 million acres) burned.

As intense heat and dry winds hold across Southern Europe, emergency services face a dangerous tipping point. Simultaneous multi-country blazes are stretching regional aircraft, firefighters, and resources past their limits.

For families like Manuel’s, the statistics are deeply personal. For Europe as a whole, it raises a crucial question: whether the continent is truly ready for wildfire seasons that are no longer isolated, but continuous and transnational.

The idea sounds almost too improbable to take seriously. According to an exclusive report published Tuesday by the tabloid New York Post, President Donald Trump wants FIFA president Gianni Infantino to succeed António Guterres as the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.

But there is nothing official about the proposal. On Thursday, the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt dodged the question by saying she has no information about whether there is any truth to the report, but emphasized the president “has a lot of respect for Gianni and what he has done with FIFA.”

FIFA has not commented and Infantino himself has not responded publicly. The report relies primarily on anonymous sources described as being “close” to the president.

The only person willing to speak on the record is Paolo Zampolli, Trump’s Special Envoy for Global Partnerships and a former ambassador of Dominica to the United Nations. Interestingly, Zampolli is the former modeling executive who introduced Donald Trump to Melania Knauss in 1998. Zampolli is also a longtime friend of Infantino. He even told the Post that he had not discussed the idea with the FIFA president and only learned about it through the newspaper’s reporting.

Whether this is a genuine trial balloon, a conversation inside Trump’s circle, or simply an idea being floated through a friendly outlet remains impossible to verify.

Subscribe now

Why the New York Post?

Whenever an exclusive like this appears, the first question should be: why is this story appearing here, and why now?

The New York Post - owned by Rupert Murdoch, also my boss during my many years at Fox News - has long functioned as an influential outlet within Republican politics and remains one of the outlets most closely read by Trump’s political orbit. Over the years it has frequently published stories based on conversations with people close to the president before those stories appear elsewhere. That does not automatically make the reporting wrong, but it suggests that someone with access to Trump’s thinking wanted the idea out there.

Washington has a long tradition of using favored media outlets to float proposals, test political reactions, or shape public discussion before making formal decisions. Sometimes those ideas become policy and other times they disappear within days - unclear yet which category this one belongs to.

An Unconventional Candidate

On paper, Infantino would be one of the least conventional candidates ever considered for the job. Modern Secretaries-General have generally emerged from diplomacy or national politics. They have served as prime ministers, foreign ministers, senior diplomats or leaders of international institutions closely tied to governments.

Infantino’s résumé is obviously different: he runs one of the world’s largest international organizations, oversees more than 200 member associations, manages complex geopolitical disputes inside global sport, and has transformed FIFA into an increasingly centralized and commercially powerful institution. Although he does have real management skills, they are very different from the diplomatic leadership the UN demands.

The Secretary-General has remarkably little formal authority. The office depends less on executive power than on persuasion, quiet diplomacy and the ability to maintain the confidence of governments that often disagree fundamentally with one another.

Share

How a UN Secretary-General Is Actually Chosen

Even if Trump genuinely wanted Infantino for the job, the biggest obstacle would not be convincing the rest of the world, but rather the Security Council.

Importantly, the Secretary-General is not elected through a public campaign. Candidates spend months quietly courting governments and the process unfolds largely behind closed doors. Before the General Assembly ever votes, the Secretary-General must first receive the recommendation of the 15-member Security Council, where any of the five permanent members (P-5) - the U.S., China, Russia, France or the United Kingdom - can block a candidate with a veto.

As a result, every serious candidate is, ultimately, a compromise candidate. The position is not awarded to the most charismatic international figure or the most successful administrator. It usually goes to the person whom none of the major powers finds unacceptable.

What This Says About Trump

The more interesting question than if Infantino will ever become a serious contender is why Trump would reportedly see him as an attractive choice. Throughout both of his presidencies, Trump has consistently favored leaders whom he views as people who produce visible results, centralize decision-making and project authority.

In that sense, Infantino may fit the part and his relationship with Trump also became noticeably closer during this World Cup, culminating in frequent joint appearances and public praise between the two men. And let’s not forget that Infantino, after unsuccessfully lobbying for Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded him FIFA’s first ever “Peace Prize” last December.

The Bigger Story

António Guterres leaves office on December 31 at one of the most turbulent moments in the United Nations’ history. Wars in Europe and the Middle East, increasing rivalry between the U.S. and China, and growing skepticism toward multilateral institutions have all raised fundamental questions about what kind of Secretary-General the world needs next.

One personal note here: for more than a decade, I’ve reported on the UN and international diplomacy, including Guterres’ rise to the top post. That experience, and in particular the pivotal moment the institution now faces, has led me to spend much of the past year developing an international documentary on the erosion of global diplomacy through the office of the UN Secretary-General.

Against that grim global backdrop, this unconfirmed report illustrates a deeper debate already underway: should global institutions continue to be led by consensus-building diplomats, or by high-profile executives who promise to manage them differently?

Who Is Actually Running?

Although no official shortlist exists yet, several names have consistently appeared in diplomatic discussions over the past months.

Among them are:

• Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Her extensive international experience makes her one of the best-known contenders, although her socialist political profile could prove divisive for some governments, particularly for the U.S. right now. Again, remember the power of veto of the P-5.

• Rafael Grossi, the Argentine diplomat who currently heads the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Grossi has become one of the world’s most visible international civil servants through his work on Iran and Ukraine, and is widely regarded as one of the strongest candidates.

• Several current and former prime ministers, foreign ministers and senior UN officials are also being discussed in diplomatic circles, but few have formally declared their interest.

Although there is no formal rule requiring regional rotation, many diplomats believe this is Latin America or Caribbean’s turn, since Guterres is Portuguese/European. Internally, there’s also a big push for appointing the organization’s first female Secretary-General, and most are indeed female contenders (consult the current six candidates here). Then again, that was also the case a decade ago before Guterres ultimately emerged as the consensus candidate in 2016.

Unlike presidential elections in most democracies, Secretary-General races often change dramatically in the final months. Candidates who appear to be front-runners early on frequently lose support once governments begin negotiating behind closed doors. That is why diplomats often say the real contest begins only once the Security Council starts its informal “straw polls,” which begin next week.

The Relevance of This Succession

Every Secretary-General inherits crises, but few inherit a world order under as much strain as the one António Guterres will leave behind. The next Secretary-General will not have the power to resolve those crises, but the office still matters because it can convene adversaries, shape diplomatic agendas, mobilize humanitarian responses and, at critical moments, provide political space for negotiations that might otherwise never even begin.

In that sense, member states must decide what kind of leadership the UN needs in an era when the institution itself is increasingly being questioned.

There are few places Americans expect to see Supreme Court (SCOTUS) justices: the courtroom, of course; law schools, occasionally; and the annual State of the Union, seated silently in the front row. Congress is not one of them. So when Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan appeared before lawmakers on Tuesday, the hearing itself was news. The last time Supreme Court justices testified before Congress was in 2019.

Despite representing opposite ideological wings of today’s Court, Barrett (Trump appointee) and Kagan (Obama appointee) arrived with remarkably similar concerns. The hearing was not about the Court’s controversial rulings, but about their safety.

For one, Barrett described having to explain to her twelve-year-old son why she needed to wear a bulletproof vest. Kagan warned that threats against the Court are expected to increase by nearly 40 percent this year. Both spoke of a climate in which intimidation is becoming part of the job.

That is perhaps a rare bipartisan message that is relevant. For years, public debate around the Supreme Court has centered on legitimacy. Liberals questioned the Court after Dobbs. Conservatives accused lower courts of obstructing President Trump’s agenda. Ethics controversies involving luxury travel and undisclosed gifts further eroded confidence. Every major ruling now seems to reinforce the perception that Americans increasingly judge SCOTUS not by whether they agree with the outcome.

Subscribe now

But when trust in institutions erodes, the consequences eventually become physical. The attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh (Trump appointee) in 2022 marked a turning point. Since then, federal judges have faced a growing wave of threats, “swatting” incidents, and harassment directed not only at themselves but also at their families - and, according to law enforcement, threats against members of the federal judiciary continue to rise.

This week’s testimony reflected that grim reality. Perhaps the most striking thing was the absence of disagreement between Barrett and Kagan. The two justices differed, as expected, on whether the Supreme Court’s ethics code should eventually include an enforcement mechanism. Kagan believes it should; Barrett remains unconvinced that such a system is workable. However, overcoming those institutional disagreements, on security, there was no ideological divide.

Both argued that judges cannot perform their constitutional role if they fear becoming targets simply for issuing unpopular decisions. That should not be a partisan statement, but rather a democratic one. The fact that it now needs to be said so explicitly is itself a telling reflection of this moment.

Independent courts depend not only on constitutional protections but also on public acceptance that judges resolve disputes through law rather than intimidation. Once violence, or the credible threat of it, becomes part of the equation, judicial independence becomes harder to preserve, regardless of who occupies the bench.

Obviously, healthy democracy depends on vigorous scrutiny of judicial decisions, but there is a meaningful distinction between criticizing a ruling and creating an environment in which judges must think about their personal safety before issuing one.

What Blanche’s Confirmation as AG will mean for Epstein Case

Meanwhile, another pillar of the American justice system is entering a new chapter. Assuming the Senate confirms Todd Blanche as Attorney General after this week’s confirmation hearings, President Trump’s former personal defense attorney will officially take the Justice Department’s most powerful position. I wrote in April about what Blanche’s nomination signaled for the evolving relationship between the White House and the Department of Justice.

His confirmation also comes as questions surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have returned to the political spotlight. Last month, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed Blanche was overseeing the review of the remaining Epstein files, placing him at the center of one of the administration’s most politically sensitive cases almost immediately.

If Bondi’s account is accurate, Blanche’s confirmation suggests continuity rather than change. Those hoping a new AG could produce greater transparency on the Epstein files may find little basis for that expectation. In fact, that skepticism is already evident among Epstein’s survivors, several of whom have publicly opposed Blanche’s nomination, including through a video campaign and a petition urging the Senate to reject his confirmation.

The Supreme Court is asking Congress for protection from intimidation. The Justice Department is preparing to be led, in part, by the president’s former personal lawyer while facing intense political pressure over a case that refuses to disappear.

Taken together, these stories offer a revealing snapshot of American democracy in 2026: institutions that once projected distance from politics are now increasingly forced to confront it directly - not only in the cases they decide, but in the conditions under which they operate.

Subscribe now

This Fourth of July, the United States celebrates 250 years since declaring its independence. It’s a milestone that underscores the remarkable longevity of its constitutional experiment. There will be fireworks, ceremonies and speeches across America and, this year, celebrations far beyond its borders, including in Portugal, where the U.S. Embassy is marking the occasion with unusual significance.

Anniversaries invite nostalgia and this one demands reflection.

On July 4, 1776, fifty-six delegates approved the Declaration of Independence, asserting that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” It was a radical proposition at the time. Two and a half centuries later, Americans are still debating what those words mean in practice.

In fact, the United States turns 250 at a moment when Americans themselves cannot agree on some of the most fundamental questions about the country: Who belongs? What powers should government have? Where should authority lie? What does equality under the Constitution really mean? These debates shape elections, courtrooms, classrooms and dinner tables across the country, in a nation of 50 states.

For many outside observers, this may seem like evidence of a nation in decline, but history suggests something more complex. America has always been a work in progress.

From the very beginning, the country was built on ideals it struggled to fulfill. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all men are created equal while slavery remained deeply embedded in American society. Expansion brought opportunity for millions while devastating Indigenous communities. Each generation has inherited contradictions from the last, forcing Americans to renegotiate the meaning of liberty, citizenship and equality.

Conflict is not an interruption of the American story, it is the American story.

That does not mean today’s divisions should be minimized. Political polarization has reached extraordinary levels. Trust in institutions continues to erode. Public confidence in government, Congress, the media and even elections has fallen sharply over the past two decades. Americans increasingly inhabit different information ecosystems, making consensus more difficult than at any point in recent memory.

Yet it is worth remembering that the U.S. has endured crises that once appeared existential. A civil war that nearly destroyed the Union. Economic collapse during the Great Depression. Two world wars. The struggle for civil rights. The attacks of September 11. Financial crises. Political scandals that shook public confidence.

Each era produced predictions that America’s best days were behind it. Each generation believed, at least for a time, that the country’s divisions had become irreparable.

The nation survived because its institutions, however imperfectly, continued to evolve under immense pressure and that resilience is being tested again.

This year’s Supreme Court term illustrates why. While public attention understandably focused on headline-grabbing cases involving transgender athletes and immigration, namely this week, the broader picture is one of an increasingly influential judiciary shaping some of the country’s most consequential political questions. At a time when Congress often struggles to legislate and executive power continues to expand, the courts have become one of the principal arenas where America’s constitutional debates are fought.

These disputes reflect competing visions of what America should be. Perhaps that is why this 250th anniversary feels different.

Previous milestone celebrations largely looked backward. This one feels equally concerned with the future.

All my years living and reporting in the United States have reinforced something I came to appreciate. Having covered America through the Obama, Trump and Biden years, I’ve learned that America’s deepest divisions often coexist with a powerful drive for renewal. Europeans often view America through its crises; Americans, by contrast, tend to see their country through the possibility of reinvention. Neither perspective is entirely wrong.

From abroad, America’s political dysfunction can appear overwhelming. From within, there remains a deeply rooted belief that the country is capable of correcting its own course, even if history suggests that the process is rarely smooth or quick. Perhaps that optimism is one of America’s defining characteristics.

This week, President Donald Trump recorded a message for Independence Day celebrations hosted by the U.S. Embassy in Lisbon, joking that Ambassador John Arrigo - whom he described as “a very good friend” who had made his fortune in the automotive industry - chose Portugal “perhaps because of your magnificent golf courses.” It was a lighthearted moment, but they also served as a reminder of a relationship that predates the modern American presidency itself.

Portugal was the first neutral nation to establish diplomatic relations with the newly independent United States. In 1783, Queen Maria I recognized American independence before the Treaty of Paris formally ended the Revolutionary War. Soon afterward, America’s first President George Washington prioritized an American diplomatic presence in the Azores, creating what remains the oldest continuously operating U.S. consular post anywhere in the world.

For many countries such as Portugal, America has long been more than an ally. It has been a destination for generations of emigrants, a strategic partner through NATO, an economic and cultural influence and, increasingly, a country whose political choices reverberate across the Atlantic.

At 250, the United States remains one of history’s most ambitious political experiments: a nation defined by a constitutional promise. Whether it succeeds over the next 250 years will depend on whether we continue believing that those disagreements are best resolved through institutions rather than force, through law rather than vengeance, and through the difficult work of democracy rather than the certainty of tribalism.

As someone fortunate enough to call the United States home, I have spent much of my career trying to explain America - to Europeans, to Portuguese audiences, and even to Americans themselves. America’s greatest strength has never been perfection. It has been its capacity to question itself, to argue with itself, and to reinvent itself.

Happy 250th Birthday, America.

Yours Proudly,

Marta

After over a month in New York, I was reminded that no city can match its sheer, infectious energy. It’s still a second ‘home’ for me. I built most of my career there and, every time I return, I find myself reflecting on the million reasons that make New York so special, namely how it continues to command the world’s attention. This time, the answer was impossible to miss.

The New York Knicks were on the verge of something the city had been waiting fifty three years to experience. You could see the ‘Knicks fever’ everywhere you’d look and it dominated the daily conversations.

Sports, of course, are rarely just sports in New York. Success becomes a shared obsession, and strangers, who have nothing else in common, suddenly find themselves speaking the same language. The hunger for a moment of collective belief was palpable.

Subscribe now

I had never seen anything quite like it in all my years in the city. At a time when politics, media and technology seem increasingly designed to fragment attention, New Yorkers were focusing on one story together.

During my stay, I spent several days at the Tribeca Film Festival, another cultural institution that reflects New York at its best: ambitious, noisy, creative and constantly reinventing itself.

One of the most relevant screenings was Born Melo, a documentary about hometown hero Carmelo Anthony, shown on the eve of Game 5 of the NBA finals.

The timing of the screening was accidental, but the symbolism was enormous. Anthony carried the franchise through an earlier era, although never won a title. He remains one of the most important figures in modern Knicks history and one of basketball’s greatest scorers, yet his candor about legacy was poignant. Speaking on stage after the screening, Anthony reflected on the reality that every athlete eventually confronts: the game moves on, a new generation arrives, and the challenge becomes learning how to pass knowledge forward.

“A lot of times, we want to get our story out there as athletes but we don’t know how to. And, for me, I had to get myself out of it and implement ‘Kiy’ into the story,” Anthony said, referencing his son, who currently plays for college team Syracuse. “Most people want that story for themselves... but for me, I couldn’t play 19 years in the NBA without him being part of the story.”

It was incredibly grounding to hear a superstar speak less about achievements and more about succession and the responsibilities of mentorship. In a world fixated on personal branding and individual accomplishment, it was an important reminder that your legacy is actually defined by what you leave behind.

Share

The Born Melo audience included one of the Knicks’ most recognizable superfans, actor Ben Stiller, whose courtside presence has become almost as familiar as the team itself (Stiller, we now know, is making a documentary series about the team).

Earlier that evening, Tribeca co-founder Jane Rosenthal welcomed the crowd and reflected on the festival’s continued mission to bring storytellers together. Twenty-five years after its founding - born to revitalize downtown Manhattan after the September 11 attacks - Tribeca remains a clear example of New York’s remarkable ability to transform local stories into global conversations.

“There is no better place or time for this film to premiere than right here in New York City during Knicks’ best season in recent history,” Rosenthal said.

The next day, the team Anthony helped define would finally become champions. But I wasn’t in Manhattan when it happened. I was boarding a flight back to Lisboa, feeling just as crushed as everyone else at that JFK terminal to be leaving at the climax. I ended up watching part of the game on a stranger’s phone. As we sat a row away and took off shortly before 11 p.m., I looked out the window and could see the city below dressed in orange and blue lights. Once we were airborne, Knicks fans scattered throughout the cabin kept refreshing score pages whenever the Wi-Fi connection allowed. Then came the cheers, mine included. It was an epic New York departure.

That New York influence increasingly extends beyond the city itself. In December, Tribeca returns to Portugal for its third edition, bringing another bridge between New York and Lisbon. Among the expected guests is Alec Baldwin, who will visit the country for the first time.

“This Festival has a special meaning to me, not only because of Bob [Robert DeNiro] and Jane, who are people I admire greatly and how hard they’ve worked, it was its birth right after 9/11 here in New York,” Baldwin told me in an interview.

As I left New York, another major sporting story had begun. The FIFA World Cup had arrived in the United States just two days prior. For many Americans, soccer still occupies a different cultural space than basketball, football or baseball. Yet the tournament represents another step in a long-term transformation as it now belongs in the global football conversation - and their win against Paraguay proved it. Australia comes next.

Back in Portugal, where football remains woven into everyday life, that contrast is impossible not to notice. This Wednesday, Portugal opened its campaign with a draw against Congo. In sports, things almost never go the way we think they will…

But whether in Lisboa or New York, sports continue to offer something increasingly rare: a shared emotional experience.

For years, many have predicted New York’s decline: the city is too expensive, too crowded, too unequal, too chaotic. Yet New York remains one of the few places capable of generating global cultural moments in real time. A basketball playoff run becomes a citywide event. A documentary premiere becomes a conversation about legacy. A film festival becomes an international gathering point.

As I landed in Lisboa, I was still proudly wearing my captain’s No. 11 Knicks jersey, carrying with me the weight of being a ‘New Yorker.’ Another Knicks fan spotted it, walked over and hugged me. No introduction was needed.

Today, as millions of those same fans fill lower Broadway, drowning the streets in blue, orange, and tons of shredded ticker-tape, I watch from an ocean away. I might not be standing on the sidewalk in Manhattan this morning, but I can still feel the echo of that shared joy.

For all its flaws, New York still knows how to dream collectively.

The U.S. Justice Department has reportedly opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll - the writer and former magazine columnist who successfully sued Donald Trump for sexual abuse and defamation, winning jury verdicts totaling more than $88 million.

To some Americans, this is shocking. To others, this is simply the latest chapter in America’s endless Trump-era legal warfare.

The larger question is not whether Carroll knowingly made a false statement under oath but why federal prosecutors are now devoting criminal investigative resources to a matter that had already been litigated, examined and challenged in civil court. Most importantly, the real significance is what that says about the increasingly blurred line between presidential grievance and prosecutorial power in modern America. So, this is really more than just about E. Jean Carroll.

Who Is E. Jean Carroll?

Carroll, now 82, was a longtime advice columnist for Elle magazine who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the dressing room of the luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan in the mid-1990s.

Trump denied the allegation repeatedly and aggressively. He claimed Carroll fabricated the story to sell books, said she was “not my type,” and portrayed the accusations as politically motivated. And Carroll sued him for defamation in 2019.

Then, in 2022, after New York temporarily changed state law to allow adult survivors of sexual assault to bring otherwise expired civil claims, Carroll filed a second lawsuit directly related to the alleged assault itself.

I covered those proceedings and her trial in federal court in Manhattan, and also the broader Trump-related court battles in New York. These cases became cultural events as much as legal proceedings.

In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages. In early 2024, another jury awarded Carroll an additional $83.3 million for defamation tied to Trump’s continued attacks against her after the first verdict.

Trump is still appealing both cases and, earlier this month, an appeals court agreed to defer Trump’s payment of the $83 million defamation award while the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to hear his appeal.

Now, however, the focus has shifted dramatically. The Justice Department is reportedly investigating whether Carroll committed perjury during sworn testimony connected to the lawsuits.

Because acting Attorney General Todd Blanche previously served as Trump’s personal defense attorney - actively fighting in separate cases - he has officially recused himself from the matter. To maintain a layer of institutional distance, senior DOJ officials bypassed Washington and New York entirely, referring the perjury probe to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago. The administrative justification is that a non-profit organization tied to Carroll’s funding is based in Illinois, though the choice of venue conveniently allows the administration to run the politically explosive inquiry far away from the highly scrutinized legal corridors of Manhattan and D.C..

The issue centers on a 2022 deposition in which Carroll reportedly said nobody else was funding her litigation. It later emerged that billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman helped cover some legal expenses through a nonprofit organization.

Trump’s lawyers seized on the discrepancy at the time, accusing Carroll’s legal team of concealing politically connected financial backing.

But there is a critical detail on Trump’s/DOJ’s argument: this issue was already raised during the original civil proceedings. At the time, the trial judge, Lewis Kaplan, allowed Trump’s lawyers to conduct additional questioning on the matter but ultimately concluded it was not central to Carroll’s credibility before the jury. So, he barred the defense from introducing the funding issue during trial. Plus, in 2024, a federal appeals court panel in New York also looked at this specific funding disclosure dispute and dismissed the Trump team’s claim that Carroll had lied.

That does not necessarily mean a criminal inquiry lacks legal basis. Perjury investigations are legitimate tools when prosecutors believe someone intentionally made materially false statements under oath, but not every disputed statement becomes a federal criminal case. Prosecutors also decide which matters warrant that level of scrutiny.

The Power Of Prosecutorial Discretion

Every day in the U.S., prosecutors decline to pursue technically possible cases for practical, evidentiary or institutional reasons. The American justice system depends heavily on discretion: deciding which matters deserve the immense weight of federal criminal investigation and which do not. So why now and why this?

Why elevate a disputed statement tied to litigation funding into a federal criminal matter after the issue was already aired in civil court?

Obviously, these questions do not arise in a vacuum, given Donald Trump’s extensive and highly public history of demanding investigations into personal enemies and perceived humiliations.

Throughout his political career, Trump has framed legal conflict in deeply personal terms: critics become adversaries and investigations become political weapons.

The Carroll verdicts represented something particularly damaging for Trump because they carried not only financial consequences but symbolic humiliation. Two juries validated Carroll’s claims over Trump’s denials. The cases also reinforced one of the most politically dangerous narratives surrounding him: allegations of sexual misconduct.

In that context, even the existence of a criminal investigation into Carroll creates a form of narrative reversal as the accused becomes the investigated. And in modern times, the investigation itself often becomes the punishment.

America Has Seen This Before

There is a tendency in modern political discourse to treat every controversy as historically unprecedented. But not necessarily. American presidents have long been accused of trying to weaponize institutions against rivals.

Richard Nixon notoriously maintained what became known as an “enemies list” during the Watergate era, targeting journalists, activists and political adversaries through federal pressure and surveillance tactics. Decades later, the Bill Clinton years saw fierce battles over the expanding power of independent counsels, culminating in investigations that many critics argued drifted far beyond their original mandate.

But the Trump era has accelerated something different: the public normalization of openly personalized prosecutorial rhetoric. “Lock her up” became a campaign chant. Political opponents were routinely described as criminals. Institutional independence increasingly became viewed through partisan lenses.

What feels new now is how explicit, public and culturally accepted it has become and the danger becomes the erosion of public trust in whether justice institutions can operate independently at all.

The Chilling Effect

There is another dimension to this story that extends beyond Trump himself.

Civil litigation, particularly sexual misconduct litigation involving powerful public figures, already requires enormous personal, financial and reputational risk. If plaintiffs begin believing that inconsistencies discovered during years of hostile litigation could later expose them to criminal scrutiny from a future administration, the chilling effect could be profound.

That does not mean witnesses or litigants should be immune from accountability if they lie under oath, but democracies also rely on confidence that prosecutorial systems are not selectively activated against politically inconvenient figures.

This is why the Carroll investigation is relevant beyond partisan politics. It touches a deeper institutional question facing America: whether the machinery of legal scrutiny itself is increasingly becoming another arena for political combat.

This is an investigation fundamentally lacking in legal substance, effectively dead on arrival in any traditional courtroom. But this is entirely about the message, not a conviction.

Share Atlantic Lens by Marta Dhanis

When Stephen Colbert signed off ‘The Late Show’ for the last time on Thursday night, it felt like more than the end of a late-night show. It felt like the end of a very specific American era.

For years, late-night television was one of the few remaining places where Americans still gathered together around the same conversation for reassurance, outrage, catharsis, or simply the comfort of hearing someone make sense of the chaos.

During the Trump years especially, hosts like Colbert stopped being just comedians. They became interpreters of the news cycle. Every night, millions tuned in to process what had happened that day in American politics. That role gave late-night television an influence that went far beyond ratings and into ‘soft power.’

And it wasn’t just an American phenomenon as clips from American late-night shows have circulated in newsrooms, diplomatic circles, university campuses, WhatsApp groups and social media feeds across Europe, people watched Colbert, Stewart, Kimmel or John Oliver almost as an extension of political coverage itself. For many abroad, these shows became part of how America explained itself to the world.

That may sound strange, but it speaks to the enormous cultural reach of American television. The U.S. exported more than movies and music. It exported tone, irony, and political humor. In many countries, local formats borrowed from that model: the mix of comedy, commentary and moral positioning that became central to American late-night television in the Trump era.

But there are also limits to that format. Donald Trump was uniquely suited for late-night television: provocative and impossible to ignore, even an obsession. He gave comedians endless material but, over time, the cycle became repetitive and emotionally exhausting, even for audiences who opposed him. Night after night, politics turned into spectacle, and satire increasingly struggled to stay ahead of reality.

Traditional political comedy depends on certain assumptions, namely that institutions still hold enough credibility to make satire effective and the Trump-era politics changed that. In fact, comedians became part of the political ecosystem itself.

Share

At the same time, the television world around them was falling apart. The end of Colbert also reflects the death of the old American monoculture: the era when millions of people consumed the same media, at the same time, and shared the same cultural references the next morning.

Today, audiences are fragmented across podcasts, TikTok, YouTube, streaming platforms and political influencers. Attention is scattered and the old network television model no longer carries the same authority it once did. When America stops watching itself together, the rest of the world also loses a common American reference point.

That may ultimately be what Colbert’s departure represents: not simply the end of a successful television host, but the fading of an America that once gathered nightly to laugh at itself together and, through that ritual, tried to understand its own contradictions before exporting them to the rest of the world. So long.

Share Atlantic Lens by Marta Dhanis

At a polished transatlantic forum in Lisbon at FLAD (Luso-American Development Foundation) recently, Matthew Whitaker did not sound like a traditional American NATO ambassador, but rather like a man sent to collect on a debt.

The setting itself still carried the familiar rituals of the Atlantic alliance: diplomatic pleasantries, references to shared values, praise for unity and cooperation, but underneath the language of partnership was something colder and unmistakably Trumpian.

Whitaker, who is on a continental tour, sent a simple message to Europe: the era of sentimental Atlanticism is over.

“What you’re seeing in the United States of America is a calculation, a recalculation, of the value of the NATO alliance,” said Whitaker.

Then added: “We see some allies that it’s just a one-way street. They want security. They want the United States, but when we go to receive our part of the bargain, we don’t receive it. So, do I believe Atlanticism is dead? No. Do I think we are going to have to work together to make sure this works? Yes.”

The United States is recalculating NATO in transactional terms, and Europe is being told to prove its value.

“If we have dependents, then you get into that value calculation. (..) The United States wants capable allies. We want friends, but we want them to be very capable and strong together with us.”

Again and again, Whitaker returned to the same idea: reciprocity. The alliance, he argued, can no longer function as a “one-way street” in which European allies rely on American protection while failing to deliver strategically when Washington needs them.

Subscribe now

The “Epic Fury” Litmus Test

The most revealing moment came when he referenced “Operation Epic Fury”, the recent U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran. Without fully elaborating publicly, Whitaker complained that some NATO allies were either “slow” or unwilling to provide access, basing rights or overflight permissions during the operation. He specifically mentioned Spain and the United Kingdom.

Senior American officials do not casually criticize key allies from a stage in Europe. Certainly not Britain and certainly not while discussing an ongoing geopolitical confrontation involving Iran, Gulf security and U.S. military projection.

What Whitaker effectively revealed is that the Trump administration now evaluates alliances through operational usefulness rather than institutional loyalty. They way of thinking is: can you provide airspace? can you spend real money? can you fight?

If not, Washington’s “calculation,” as Whitaker repeatedly put it, changes, and this is certainly a doctrinal shift.

For decades, NATO operated on an almost theological assumption that the United States would remain permanently committed to Europe because the alliance itself was considered inherently valuable. But Trumpism rejects that premise. In the Trump worldview, alliances are not moral achievements. They are contracts that must produce returns, and Whitaker articulated that worldview with unusual bluntness.

Strategic Autonomy as Threat

At one point, he dismissed Europe’s long-running conversation about “strategic autonomy” almost contemptuously.

“I don’t think you can be an Atlanticist and believe in strategic autonomy... it’s code for Europe being a jump ball...where Europe is capable and ready and able to defend itself, and then can align with whoever it wants,” he said.

That sentence alone should reverberate across Brussels. For years, European leaders - particularly France’s Emmanuel Macron - have argued that Europe must eventually develop greater military and geopolitical independence from Washington. Previous U.S. administrations often treated those conversations with cautious diplomacy, but Whitaker did not. To him, strategic autonomy is not complementary to NATO, but rather a threat to it.

Even more striking was the contradiction embedded in his argument. The Trump administration wants Europe to massively increase defense spending, assume greater responsibility for conventional defense and militarize rapidly, while simultaneously discouraging Europe from becoming strategically independent.

In other words: Washington wants a stronger Europe, but not a more autonomous one. That may become the defining fracture inside the alliance over the next decade.

From 2% to “Equalization”

Whitaker repeatedly praised Germany’s accelerated remilitarization and spoke approvingly of Europe moving toward the new NATO spending benchmark agreed at The Hague: 5% of GDP on defense and defense-related investment. But he framed this not as “burden sharing,” the traditional NATO phrase, but as “equalizing” with the U.S..

“Burden sharing” implies solidarity, while “equalizing” implies imbalance correction. This is more than America asking Europe to contribute more, it is America warning Europe that the old subsidy model (of 2%) is ending. Whitaker even quantified the expectation: “hundreds of billions of additional dollars” annually from European allies. That would amount to one of the largest military expansions in modern European history.

And yet, while demanding Europe spend more, Whitaker also openly criticized the European Union’s efforts to privilege European defense manufacturing through “Buy European” provisions tied to EU defense financing. Here again, the underlying doctrine became visible.

From Overregulation to Loyalty Tests

Europe is being encouraged to rearm, but preferably with American weapons. Whitaker promoted the F-35 fighter jet repeatedly and renewed the administration’s push for Portugal to purchase it, calling it “the best possible investment” for both national defense and NATO deterrence. This wasn’t just a sales pitch, but a loyalty test. In sum, Europe may be expected to spend far more on defense, but Washington still wants a major share of the contracts.

He also attacked Brussels bureaucracy and E.U. regulation in a way that is atypical in diplomatic conferences. At one point, he launched into an extended complaint about E.U. bottle-cap regulations, contrasting European caution with Elon Musk-style risk-taking and innovation.

“You don’t have innovation. You don’t have progress. You don’t have entrepreneurs taking risk if you’re regulating everything.” (..) Instead of an Elon Musk model, where you just start firing rockets into space, and some blow up, and some finally make it, and you have SpaceX…”

Whitaker was describing a broader civilizational divide as the Trump movement sees it: America as dynamic, entrepreneurial and militarily decisive; Europe as bureaucratic, overregulated and strategically complacent.

NATO as a Premium Subscription

And while Europe is respected as a civilization, it is increasingly distrusted as a power. And yet, despite the hard edges of Whitaker’s message, there was no indication that the Trump administration wants to abandon NATO, quite the opposite.

Whitaker explicitly said the United States is “stronger with strong allies.” He reaffirmed the American nuclear umbrella and repeatedly insisted Washington remains committed to leading the alliance. Whitaker’s background as a prosecutor and Attorney General was showing. He views the Atlantic Alliance not as a “family of values,” but as a contractual obligation.

This is certainly a different kind of leadership from the post-Cold War era. Atlanticism isn’t dead, but the discount is over. The old NATO bargain was based on historical memory and shared identity, the emerging Trump-era bargain is based on performance.

Can Europe become militarily relevant fast enough to satisfy Washington before political trust erodes further? That is now the central transatlantic question, and beneath all the diplomatic language in Lisbon, everyone in the room seemed to understand it.

Whether this approach ultimately strengthens NATO or accelerates transatlantic fragmentation remains an open question.

Share Atlantic Lens by Marta Dhanis

In Atlantic Lens’ recent sit-down with MIT’s international security expert Jim Walsh, we focused on the technical “nuclear backfire” with the war in Iran. But away from the centrifuges and enrichment percentages, there is a psychological war unfolding that could be even more dangerous.

Walsh, who has spent twenty years sitting across the table from Iranian leadership, highlighted a fundamental U.S. miscalculation: the threat to “Persian civilization.”

1. The “Cake” Delusion

While President Donald Trump and some Washington strategists framed the current conflict as a necessary surgical strike to “obliterate” a nuclear program, Walsh describes the mindset behind it as a “fever dream.”

“(Trump) wanted it. He thought it was going to be cake. He did it, and now he finds himself in a hole,” said Walsh.

This “cake” theory assumed that “Shock and Awe” would lead to a white flag and a quick regime collapse. Instead, it triggered a “war of wills” - a contest of who can absorb the most suffering.

2. The Enrichment Trap

But if the goal of a “war of wills” is to force a settlement, the question remains: What terms are actually left on the table?

Atlantic Lens also reached out to Michael O’Hanlon, Director of Foreign Policy Research at the Brookings Institution and an expert in U.S. defense strategy, to look past the military volatility and into the current strategic “trajectory”.

While the U.S. uses military pressure to strengthen its hand, O’Hanlon notes that the success of this strategy is entirely dependent on the specific demands made during talks. When asked if the current pressure is strengthening deterrence or increasing the risk of a catastrophic miscalculation, O’Hanlon’s answer was precise:

“It depends on what terms we’ll demand on matters like uranium enrichment.”

This suggests that the “red lines” haven’t disappeared, they’ve just become more expensive. If Washington demands zero enrichment, the pressure creates a deadlock. If they demand a suspension (as Walsh suggested), there is a path out.

3. The Civilizational Trigger

The biggest strategic “own-goal” may have been the rhetoric. By threatening Iranian civilian infrastructure and the civilization itself, the U.S. touched a historical “third rail.”

As Walsh explains, Iran is a “fractious polity” full of internal rivalries and competing camps. Normally, these divisions are a vulnerability. But when you threaten a culture that views itself as the inheritor of a great ancient dynasty, those divisions vanish.

“Differences are suppressed in an effort to beat the threatening adversary,” says Walsh.

Subscribe now

4. Indefinite Attrition?

In Washington, politicians talk about “forcing Iran to the table”, but Walsh points out the paradox: You can’t attack a people and expect the “doves” to win the argument, meaning, by killing political leadership and threatening the state, the U.S. has effectively handed the keys to the Iranian hawks and the Revolutionary Guard.

O’Hanlon also refused to predict a quick end to the war. When asked if we are heading toward a durable settlement or a period of “controlled” but indefinite attrition, he noted:

“I don’t have a prediction, but you are right to raise both those possibilities.”

The Atlantic Lens Takeaway

Between Walsh’s “fever dreams” and O’Hanlon’s “enrichment terms,” it’s clear that America is using a blunt military instrument to achieve a highly delicate diplomatic result. Washington is looking for a fast resolution, while Tehran is playing for survival.

As Walsh put it, the U.S. navy cannot stay in the Persian Gulf forever with gas prices climbing and internal political pressure mounting. Iran knows this. They are betting they can outlast a “fever dream” with a civilizational reality.

As the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) Review Conference continues in New York, the world is watching to see if the U.S. can transition from “tolerating the pain” of a blockade to actually offering an exit ramp that Tehran can accept without appearing to surrender.

The war involving Iran is entering a more dangerous, and more unpredictable, phase. What may look like escalation is, in reality, something more complex: a test of endurance, strategy, and limits.

Share

In this wide-ranging conversation episode of Atlantic Lens podcast, MIT’s nuclear weapons expert Jim Walsh - one of the few Westerners to sit across the table from Iranian leadership every single year for the last two decades - joins Marta Dhanis to pull back the curtain on the internal mechanics of Tehran’s decision-making.

In this episode:

• The “Ricochet” Effect: Why military strikes are reinforcing, rather than extinguishing, Iran’s drive for a nuclear deterrent.

• The Death of the Doves: How the current conflict has decimated the voices for diplomacy in Tehran and handed total power to the Revolutionary Guard.

• The “Amateur” Problem: Walsh’s blunt assessment of the current U.S. negotiating team and why a “fast resolution” is a “fever dream.”

• Persian Civilization vs. Global Pressure: Why threatening a “civilization” (rather than a regime) was the biggest strategic blunder of the year.

• What to watch now: negotiations, collapse, or something in between

• The Mystery of the Scientists: Jim weighs in on the series of disappearances and deaths currently rocking the nuclear physics community.

Key Quotes:

“You can blow up a bunch of buildings, but you can’t bomb the knowledge and experience of Iranian engineers out of their heads.”

“Once the horse is out of the barn, you have to persuade it to come back in, you can’t force it. Right now, we are reinforcing the exact reasons why they would want the bomb in the first place.”

Resources:

• Read the companion article here

• Watch the full interview and subscribe to the YouTube Channel

In a rare and unusually detailed assessment, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and federal prosecutors from Boston say it now understand, at least in part, why a Portuguese-born gunman carried out a mass shooting in the United States at Brown University and, days later, murdered an MIT scientist.

The answer is not ideological, nor geopolitical, and not part of any coordinated targeting of scientists. Investigators actually point to a long-term accumulation of personal grievances that transformed institutions and individuals into symbolic targets.

“The FBI assesses [he] was driven by an accumulation of grievances that he collected throughout his life.”

That line is the closest thing to a “why” in a case that, until now, in this case has been defined more by speculation than clarity.

Furthermore, the FBI believes the shooter experienced a “failure to thrive, long-standing suicidality, and his current situation was incongruent to where he felt he should be at this stage in his life.”

Not a conspiracy, but a constructed meaning

In recent weeks, the killings - particularly the murder of MIT professor Nuno Loureiro - have circulated in online spaces alongside broader claims about “disappearing” or targeted U.S.-based scientists. The FBI’s findings cut directly against that narrative.

There is no evidence of coordination, targeting networks, or external actors in this case. Investigators concluded the attacker acted alone, planned the violence over several years, and selected his targets based on what they represented to him, not because of who they were in any strategic sense.

This doesn’t resolve other cases or claims involving American scientists. But for this case, the theory of deliberate targeting of physicists does no longer hold under the weight of evidence.

Subscribe now

“Symbolic victims”

The most revealing part of the FBI’s assessment is this:

“Based on analysis of the information and evidence gathered throughout the investigation, the FBI assesses Neves Valente’s victims were symbolic in nature”, the report states.

According to investigators, both Brown University and Loureiro himself came to represent the gunman’s perceived failures, missed potential, and accumulated sense of injustice.

“By attacking them, Neves Valente was likely able to overcome his shame and envy by using violence to punish those communities that he perceived contributed to his downfall”, they added.

So clearly, this was not: a personal dispute in the traditional sense, nor a politically motivated attack - there was “no nexus to terrorism.”

It was violence directed at meaning: at institutions and individuals that, in the attacker’s mind, embodied everything he believed had gone wrong in his life.

A slow build, not a breaking point

The FBI says the attack was not triggered by a single event.

It unfolded over years. Planning began as early as 2022. Weapons were acquired and stored across state lines. The attacker operated in isolation, with a transient lifestyle. He left behind more than 1,300 audio recordings and hundreds of videos, including confessions.

And yet, despite that volume of material, investigators say he never articulated a clear, coherent motive. What comes across is a pattern of growing resentment, deepening isolation, and a widening gap between perceived potential and lived reality.

“The shooter’s inflated sense of self contributed to interpersonal conflicts in his life and led him to believe he was being treated unjustly, preventing him from reaching his perceived full potential.”

Investigators stress that his “failures outweighed successes, his paranoia increased, compounding his continued inability to thrive, leading to him being mentally unwell and committed to dying.”

More than mental health but less than ideology

The FBI is explicit on one point that often gets blurred in public discussion:

“Mental health stressors alone cannot fully explain the attacks.”

Their assessment describes a man who:

• struggled with a sense of failure

• developed paranoia

• exhibited what they call an “inflated sense of self”

• and became increasingly disconnected from any stabilizing social structure

But none of that, on its own, explains the leap to violence. What does explain it, according to the Bureau, is the interaction between psychological decline and accumulated grievance, left unchecked over time.

The Invisibility Problem

A grim conclusion is that there was “little to no opportunity” for others to detect and interpret warning signs and stop Cláudio Valente.

“The shooter lacked traditional support, such as family, peers, and authority figures, who would have been able to observe any potential warning signs and contact law enforcement.”

While he was invisible then, Cláudio Valente is visible now. Authorities state he was born in Torres Novas, Portugal, and was 48 years old. He arrived in the United States in August 2000 on a student visa at Brown University after completing a physics program at Instituto Superior Tecnico in Portugal. That fall, Valente enrolled in a doctoral program at Brown University but subsequently withdrew in May 2001 and left the United States. In 2017, Valente obtained lawful permanent residency while living in Miami, Florida, and briefly worked as a rideshare driver.

“At the time of the shootings, Neves Valente was unemployed and had no criminal record or prior documented contacts with law enforcement.”

The two 9mm pistols recovered in New Hampshire with the body of Valente were legally purchased by him from a pawn shop in Florida. The first firearm, a Glock 34 9mm, was purchased in July, 2020, and was used in the Brown University shooting, that left two students dead and several others injured. The second, a Glock 26 9mm, purchased in 2022, is positively correlated with the murder of Nuno Loureiro.

What Changes Now

These conclusions are the result of what investigators describe as a comprehensive effort: 112 pieces of evidence, more than 490 leads, thousands of hours of footage, and extensive analysis of the attacker’s own recordings, and conducting more than 260 interviews, with support from the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit.

The release of this assessment does not answer every question. The FBI itself acknowledges that only the attacker knew his true motive, but it does close the space for certain explanations: this was not a coordinated attack on scientists.

Instead, it was a slow build of grievance that was eventually projected onto “symbolic” targets.

Share

For decades, the goal of U.S. pressure on Tehran was to keep the “horse in the barn.” This kept Iran operating in a position experts call “latency” - maintaining the technical capacity to build a weapon without ever crossing the line. For over 50 years, that “basic bargain” was anchored by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the bedrock of global security currently under a five-year review that began this week in New York.

But according to Jim Walsh, a leading nuclear weapons expert at MIT, the current war has achieved the exact opposite. By threatening the very existence of Persian civilization, the U.S. has triggered a conflict that is pushing Iran to abandon its strategic ambiguity and finally reach for the one thing that ensures survival: the bomb.

As Walsh puts it, Iran today is “the thresholdiest state of the threshold states… they need only inch across, and they will have crossed the line to nuclear weapons.” While the risk of a breakout was real a decade ago, Walsh warns that the facts on the ground in 2026 have shifted the math.

“That was true in 2013,” Walsh says. “It’s certainly too true in 2026, but in spades.”

The concern is no longer just how close Iran is, but how its calculus is changing under the weight of current military pressure.

“Military force, you can use it to threaten and get countries to try to agree, but it’s a weird way to achieve an objective, because you’re making them feel vulnerable, which makes them want to have the bomb,” Walsh tells Atlantic Lens about the current strategy. “It reinforces the reason why they would want it in the first place.”

Subscribe now

There is NO military solution

Having spent two decades in direct dialogue with Iranian leaders, Walsh offers a rare window into how Tehran is thinking at a moment of maximum pressure.

If pressure is the strategy, its limits are already visible.

“There’s no military answer here,” Walsh says plainly.

The reason is structural:

“You can blow up a bunch of buildings, but you can’t bomb the knowledge and experience of Iranian engineers and technicians out of their heads.”

After decades of development, Iran’s nuclear program is no longer just physical infrastructure, it’s human capital. That makes it resilient in ways airstrikes can’t undo.

🚨 Full conversation with Jim Walsh: Podcast +YouTube Channel

“Inflection Point”: This War Is Different

The war involving Iran has entered a phase that is no longer defined by escalation alone, but by something more enduring: a test of limits, strategy, and resolve. What is unfolding is not simply another chapter in a long history of U.S.-Iran confrontation. It may be the moment that breaks from it. After two decades of direct engagement with Tehran’s leadership, Jim Walsh sees a fundamental shift underway, one that could reshape not only Iran’s posture in the region, but the logic of deterrence itself.

“We’ve reached an inflection point… it’s hard to imagine Iran returns to the pre-war country… I think we’ll look back on this as the point in which everything changed in the region.”

This is a “war of wills”

At the center of this shift is what Walsh describes as a “war of wills,” or a confrontation less about battlefield gains than about endurance and political thresholds:

“We’ve cycled through five different justifications... and none of them have held up. It’s a war of wills because it’s a question of who can put up with the punishment and the suffering more… who will give in first.”

That framing is echoed in Washington’s most influential policy circles. As Michael O’Hanlon, Director of Foreign Policy Research at the Brookings Institution and a leading authority on U.S. defense strategy, told Atlantic Lens, the current confrontation has devolved into a raw test of endurance:

“Whose blockade can be more effective, and who can better tolerate the pain the other inflicts?”

This points to something more structural: both sides are now testing not just each other’s capabilities, but their capacity to absorb pressure over time. From Washington, the strategy leans on sustained military coercion. From Tehran, the response appears to be one of consolidation and resistance, even amid internal strain.

In this environment, the very definition of “victory” has decoupled from reality. As Walsh points out, there is a dangerous gap in perception: “Iran thinks it has already won.” By surviving the “shock and awe” phase without collapsing, Tehran has validated its own strategy of resistance.

The risk now is that a dynamic designed to force concessions is instead hardening positions in ways that are far more difficult to unwind.

Why Tehran is in State of Survival

If this is a war of wills, then Tehran is thinking in terms of survival, and that changes everything.

“There’s nothing worse you can do to a country than threaten the existence of the state,” Walsh says. “When states are in fights for survival, they’re all in.”

That pressure tends to unify. Internal divisions, long a feature of Iran’s political system, don’t disappear, but they get suppressed. The system closes ranks.

Still, the fractures haven’t vanished. “Iran is one of the more fractious polities,” Walsh notes, pointing to competing factions now operating without a fully consolidated leadership structure. The result is a system that is both unified in purpose and unstable beneath the surface.

In that environment, the balance shifts. “You don’t attack people and then expect the doves to win the argument at the table,” he says. Diplomacy doesn’t disappear, but it weakens. Hawks gain ground, even as the need for a deal remains.

And that’s the contradiction: Iran is both more resistant and more constrained. It can absorb pressure, but not indefinitely. “They need some sort of agreement,” Walsh says. The question is on whose terms, and when.

Share

The War Endgame

At some point, this ends. The question is how.

“There are two ways this thing ends,” Walsh says. “Either it ends with an agreement, or it ends where the U.S. just walks away.”

Neither path is clean. An agreement would likely be partial, improvised, and politically fragile. Walking away would leave the underlying conflict unresolved.

In both cases, time matters. “While they wait… the costs will continue to increase day by day,” he says.

Which is why, ultimately, the signal to watch isn’t the next strike or incident, but whether talks resume in a meaningful way.

“They’ll do it eventually,” Walsh says.

The uncertainty is how much the world changes before they get there.

Listen to the podcast with my full conversation with Jim Walsh or watch the video version on the ‘Atlantic Lens’ YouTube Channel.

Prefer to Liston to Podcast?

It was a regular late fall evening at Loureiro’s home in Brookline, a quiet and upscale residential neighborhood outside Boston. Inside, two of Nuno Loureiro’s daughters were playing cards in the living room, while a third was away at her boyfriend's house. His wife had just returned from a dance session, and Loureiro had joined her in the kitchen to keep her company while she prepared dinner.

It had been a productive Monday. Loureiro had left for Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) around his usual time of 8:15 AM, commuting by bicycle as he did most days. After a full day of research and administration at the Plasma Science and Fusion Center (PSFC), he returned home around 6:00 PM and spent the early evening watching a movie with his eldest daughter.

At approximately 8:30 PM, the doorbell rang.

According to a 96-page police report obtained by Atlantic Lens, the figure on the other side of the door was the culmination of a day of meticulous, documented preparation.

The Ruse: A “Delivery Man” at the Door

When the doorbell rang, Loureiro’s 12-year-old daughter - the youngest of three - was the first to answer. Through the glass, she saw a man in his mid-30s wearing a yellow reflective safety vest over blue clothing and a hat - whom she believed to be of Indian descent. He was holding a cardboard box roughly the size of a dictionary, complete with a visible barcode - a calculated detail intended to project the legitimacy of a late-evening delivery. Notably, he was not wearing gloves.

In a final, instinctive act of protection, Professor Loureiro stepped in front of his daughter and told her to go back inside. Seconds later, the silence of the residential street was interrupted by six gunshots and Loureiro’s screaming. When she ran back to the entry foyer seconds later, she found him lying on the ground.

She then saw the “delivery man” running to a vehicle parked across the street and getting into the driver’s seat. She noted the engine “revving” as the car fled.

Investigators later recovered six spent 9mm shell casings from the floor of the building lobby - only three of which struck him - underscoring the physical chaos and intensity of the struggle at close range.

Cláudio Valente’s “Preoperational Surveillance”

The most striking revelations in the police files concern the level of planning now attributed to the suspect, Cláudio Valente. Investigative reports indicate that this was not an impulsive act, but rather a targeted execution preceded by what police termed “preoperational surveillance.” While the public initially viewed the crime as a sudden tragedy, the files reveal a chilling parallel timeline: for over 12 hours on December 15, 2025, while the Loureiro family was living through a routine Monday, Valente was already there.

Digital evidence preserved from neighborhood security systems and private dash cams reconstructed his day:

• 08:00 AM: As the day began, Valente’s vehicle - a gray Nissan - was recorded parked in a spot on a nearby street. He remained in his car and in the area for hours.

• 01:25 PM: While Loureiro was likely at his office at MIT, Valente was seen walking along a main commercial artery, just blocks from the residence, scouting restaurants. He then entered a Vietnamese restaurant Pho Viet, he observed the place beforing placing his order. He was wearing a dark blue coat, eyeglasses, a mask, and black gloves - a significant detail for police to avoid leaving fingerprints. He paid in cash for his sandwich and left on foot.

• 03:04 PM: Surveillance captured the Nissan pulling alongside a car parked directly in front of Loureiro’s home, idling for four minutes before “accelerating away rapidly.”

• 08:23 PM: Ten minutes before the shooting, a neighbor’s camera captured Valente walking on the sidewalk toward the house, wearing a dark hooded sweatshirt, dark pants, and a “dark mask or face covering.”

The official police assessment concludes that Valente’s actions constituted a “probable mapping of routes including entry and exit points” and gathering intelligence on the family’s routines. The calculation did not end with the shots. As he fled the scene, a Yankee bus dashboard camera captured his vehicle speeding away with its “headlights and taillights off,” a deliberate tactic to avoid identification in the dark.

Subscribe now

A Growing Obsession

The report, combined with subsequent investigative findings, paints a picture of an obsession that spanned years and U.S. state lines. Valente did not just spend twelve hours in Brookline. He left videos admitting he had been planning the killings, which included the Loureiro homicide and a double-homicide at Brown University days before, for three years.

The investigation has indicated that Valente traveled from Miami, where he had been living, to Boston at least four times in the months preceding the attack specifically for surveillance.

The Final Minutes: Loureiro Was Still Conscious

Despite being struck three times - in the upper left chest, upper abdomen, and right thigh, with an additional graze wound on his left thigh - the report reveals a detail previously unknown: Nuno Loureiro was in “distress”, but still conscious and “partially alert” when the first officers arrived on scene two minutes later.

The scene in the foyer was one of desperate urgency. Loureiro’s mother-in-law, a trained nurse visiting from Portugal for the Christmas holiday, was already attempting to assist him. His wife was also there, frantically trying to stop the bleeding.

Responding officers applied two tourniquets and maintained pressure on his wounds until he could be transported to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, a nearby trauma center. He was pronounced dead just hours later at 05:50 am, on December 16.

His death left a profound void not only in his family but in a global scientific community that looked to him as a pioneer of the future.

A Career of Vision, A Life of No “Red Flags”

As detectives moved their investigation to MIT’s PSFC, they searched for a motive that might explain such a calculated attack. Loureiro was a world-renowned physicist who had been at the institution since 2016, taking over as director of the center in May 2024, a role involving “strategic vision and fundraising” for the future of fusion energy.

The investigative interviews yielded a consistent portrait: a man deeply respected by students and staff, “excelling” in his role, and a mentor who oversaw dozens of researchers without a single recorded grievance or professional conflict.

According to the report Atlantic Lens reviewed, an MIT colleague of Loureiro, when questioned about the nature of his work, noted he held “research contracts” with the U.S. Department of Energy, though she was unaware of any “Top Secret” clearance or sensitive work for the Department of Defense.

Detectives looked for “red flags” such as financial trouble, professional jealousies, or personal scandals such as extramarital affairs. They found none.

The Lisbon Connection

What neither the police nor the family knew in the immediate aftermath was that the roots of the crime stretched back three decades to Lisbon. Between 1995 and 2000, Loureiro and his future killer, Cláudio Valente, had been classmates at the Instituto Superior Técnico, one of the most competitive scientific schools in their native Portugal.

While Loureiro’s career followed a global, prestigious arc, Valente’s had fractured. Described by former peers as one of the brightest minds in their class, Valente never finished his PhD at Brown University, in Providence, Rhode Island. He cycled through low-skilled technical jobs in Portugal before returning to the U.S. on a lottery visa.

As Loureiro became a visionary in the field of nuclear fusion (the energy of the stars), investigators have suggested off the record that they believe Valente’s grievances grew into an obsession with his former classmate’s success.

The Salem Storage Unit

The manhunt ended in a nondescript storage facility in Salem, New Hampshire, about 45 minutes north of the crime scene. On December 16, the day after the shooting, Valente committed suicide inside a unit he had rented.

Police discovered his body two days later, on December 18. Inside the unit, investigators found the remnants of a life consumed by a violent purpose.

The 11th Scientist: A Federal Escalation

While authorities’ files focus on the tragic intersection of two former classmates, the scope of the investigation has recently shifted to the highest levels of government. Last week, the White House announced a formal review into the cases of at least 11 missing or deceased researchers, investigating potential links between high-level scientists targeted on U.S. soil since 2022.

Nuno Loureiro has been identified as one of the scientists on this review.

The FBI revealed to Atlantic Lens that it is now ‘spearheading’ a massive inter-agency effort “to look for connections into the missing and deceased scientists.” The scope of this review, aimed to “find answers,” includes the Department of Energy, the Department of War (Defense), and with state and local law enforcement partners.

The federal interest raises a chilling new question: was Cláudio Valente’s years-long obsession a purely personal vendetta, or could it after all represent a new, predatory pattern targeting the minds behind America’s most sensitive scientific advancements? As a leader in fusion energy - a field central to future national security and energy independence - Loureiro’s death is now being viewed through a lens far wider than a neighborhood homicide.

The Investigation Continues

The collection of evidence - from recovered ballistics to digital footprints - paint a picture of a brilliant life interrupted by an adversary who used the tools of a modern, open society to commit an act of singular violence.

While the initial response was led by local police, the investigation eventually expanded to include federal authorities. Because the violence spanned state lines - linking the Massachusetts homicide to a double-killing at Brown University in Rhode Island - the FBI took the leading role in unraveling Valente’s three-year plot.

Federal investigators continue to pore over the evidence and locations linked to the suspect, looking for a definitive answer as to why a decades-old academic grievance translated into such clinical, cross-country bloodshed.

For the scientific community, the loss of Nuno Loureiro is a profound setback for the future of clean energy. For his family, it remains the memory of a night when a routine card game was shattered by a tragedy that, as the police files now show, left absolutely nothing to chance.

Prefer to Listen to Podcast?

Era uma noite normal de final de outono na casa de Loureiro, em Brookline, um bairro residencial tranquilo e de classe alta nos arredores de Boston, no estado de Massachusetts. Lá dentro, duas das filhas de Nuno Loureiro jogavam às cartas na sala de estar, enquanto outra das filhas tinha ido para casa do namorado. A sua esposa acabara de chegar de uma aula de dança e Loureiro juntara-se a ela na cozinha para lhe fazer companhia enquanto ela preparava o jantar.

Tinha sido uma segunda-feira produtiva. Loureiro saíra para o Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) por volta da sua hora habitual, às 08:15, deslocando-se de bicicleta como fazia na maioria dos dias. Após um dia completo de investigação e administração no Plasma Science and Fusion Center - o laboratório de investigação universitária mais avançado do mundo no que toca à fusão nuclear (a energia das estrelas) e que o português liderava -, regressou a casa por volta das 18:00 e passou o início da noite a ver um filme com a sua filha mais velha.

A campainha tocou aproximadamente às 20:30.

De acordo com um relatório policial de 96 páginas obtido pelo Atlantic Lens, a figura do outro lado da porta era o culminar de um dia de preparação meticulosa e documentada.

A Estratégia: Um “Estafeta” à Porta

Quando a campainha tocou, a filha de 12 anos de Nuno Loureiro - a mais nova de três - foi a primeira a atender. Através do vidro, viu um homem na casa dos 30 anos, que vestia um colete reflector amarelo sobre roupa azul e um chapéu. Descreveu-o inicialmente como sendo, no seu entender, de origem indiana. Segurava uma caixa de cartão, aproximadamente do tamanho de um dicionário, completa com um código de barras visível, um detalhe calculado para projetar a legitimidade de uma entrega ao final da noite. Notavelmente, não usava quaisquer luvas.

Num ato final e instintivo de proteção, o professor do MIT disse-lhe que voltasse para dentro e que iria ele à porta. Segundos depois, o silêncio daquele bairro residencial foi interrompido por seis tiros e pelos gritos de Loureiro. Quando a filha correu de volta para o átrio de entrada, segundos depois, encontrou-o caído no chão.

A filha mais nova viu o “estafeta” a correr para um veículo estacionado do outro lado da rua e a entrar no lugar do condutor. Pôde ouvir o barulho do motor a “acelerar” enquanto o suspeito fugia.

Os investigadores recuperaram mais tarde seis invólucros de balas de 9mm no chão do átrio do edifício - apenas 3 balas atingiram Nuno Loureiro - o que reflete o caos físico e a intensidade do confronto a curta distância.

A “Vigilância Pré-operacional” de Cláudio Valente

As revelações mais impressionantes nos ficheiros policiais dizem respeito ao nível de planeamento agora atribuído ao suspeito, Cláudio Valente. Os relatórios de investigação indicam que este não foi um ato impulsivo, mas sim uma execução deliberada precedida pelo que a polícia designou como “vigilância pré-operacional”.

Embora o público tenha inicialmente visto o crime como uma tragédia súbita, os ficheiros revelam uma linha temporal paralela arrepiante: durante mais de 12 horas, no dia 15 de dezembro de 2025, enquanto a família Loureiro vivia uma segunda-feira rotineira, Valente já lá estava.

Foram as provas digitais preservadas de sistemas de segurança do bairro e câmaras de tablier privadas que permitiram aos investigadores reconstruírem o dia de Cláudio Valente:

• 08:00: Ao início do dia, o veículo do suspeito - o Nissan cinzento - estava estacionado num lugar numa rua próxima. Valente permaneceu dentro do carro e na zona durante horas.

• 13:25: Enquanto Loureiro estaria provavelmente no seu gabinete no MIT, Valente foi visto a caminhar numa zona comercial a poucos quarteirões da residência, entrando pouco depois no restaurante vietnamita Pho Viet. Observou cuidadosamente o espaço antes de fazer o pedido. Vestia um casaco azul escuro, usava óculos, máscara cirúrgica e luvas pretas - um detalhe que a polícia considera significativo para evitar a recolha de impressões digitais. Pagou pela sandes em dinheiro e abandonou o local a pé.

• 15:04: A vigilância captou o Nissan a encostar ao lado de um carro estacionado diretamente em frente à casa de Loureiro, parado em marcha lenta durante quatro minutos antes de “arrancar rapidamente”.

• 20:23: Dez minutos antes de atingir Loureiro, a câmara de um vizinho captou o suspeito a caminhar no passeio em direção à casa, vestindo uma camisola com capuz escura, calças escuras e uma “máscara ou cobertura facial escura”.

A avaliação policial oficial conclui que Valente estaria a realizar um “provável mapeamento de rotas, incluindo pontos de entrada e saída” e a recolher informações sobre as rotinas da família. O cálculo não terminou com os disparos. Enquanto fugia do local, a câmara de tablier de um autocarro da Yankee captou o seu veículo a alta velocidade com os “faróis e luzes traseiras apagados”, uma tática deliberada para evitar a identificação na escuridão.

Uma Obsessão de Anos

O relatório, combinado com descobertas investigativas subsequentes, traça o cenário de uma obsessão que durou anos e atravessou fronteiras estaduais nos EUA. Valente não passou apenas doze horas em Brookline. Deixou vídeos a admitir que planeava os assassínios - que incluíram o homicídio de Loureiro e um duplo homicídio na Universidade de Brown dias antes - durante três anos.

A investigação sugere que Valente viajou de Miami, onde estava a viver, para Boston pelo menos quatro vezes nos meses que antecederam o ataque, especificamente para vigilância dos seus alvos.

Os Minutos Finais: Loureiro Permaneceu Consciente

Apesar de ter sido atingido três vezes - na parte superior esquerda do peito, na parte superior do abdómen e na coxa direita, além de um ferimento de raspão na coxa esquerda - o relatório revela um detalhe até agora desconhecido: Nuno Loureiro estava em sofrimento, mas ainda consciente e “parcialmente alerta” quando os primeiros agentes chegaram ao local, dois minutos depois.

A cena no átrio era de urgência desesperada. A sogra de Loureiro, uma enfermeira qualificada que tinha vindo visitar a família de Portugal para as férias de Natal, tentava assisti-lo. A sua esposa também lá estava, tentando estancar as hemorragias.

Os agentes da polícia que primeiro chegaram ao local do crime aplicaram dois torniquetes e mantiveram a pressão nos ferimentos até que ele pudesse ser transportado para o Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, um centro de trauma próximo. O óbito foi declarado algumas horas depois, às 05:50 da manhã de 16 de dezembro.

A sua morte deixou um vazio profundo não só na sua família, mas numa comunidade científica global que o via como um pioneiro do futuro.

Uma Carreira de Visão, Uma Vida sem “Sinais de Alerta”

À medida que os detetives moviam a investigação para o centro de fusão nuclear do MIT, procuravam um motivo que pudesse explicar um ataque tão calculado. Loureiro era um físico de renome mundial que estava na instituição desde 2016, tendo assumido o cargo de diretor do Centro em maio de 2024, um papel que envolvia “visão estratégica e angariação de fundos” para o futuro da energia de fusão.

Um retrato consistente transpareceu das entrevistas feitas pelos investigadores: um homem profundamente respeitado por estudantes e funcionários, que “excedia expectativas” no seu cargo, e um mentor que supervisionava dezenas de investigadores sem uma única queixa registada ou conflito profissional.

De acordo com o relatório analisado pelo Atlantic Lens, uma colega de Loureiro no MIT, quando questionada sobre a natureza do seu trabalho, referiu que ele tinha “contratos de investigação” com o Departamento de Energia do governo norte-americano, embora desconhecesse se ele tinha acesso a “Segredos de Estado” ou se trabalhava com o Departamento de Defesa.

Os detetives procuraram sinais de alerta, tais como problemas financeiros, ciúmes profissionais ou escândalos pessoais. Nada encontraram.

A Ligação de Lisboa

O que nem a polícia nem a família sabiam no rescaldo imediato era que as raízes do crime remontavam a três décadas atrás, em Lisboa. Entre 1995 e 2000, Loureiro e o seu futuro assassino, Cláudio Valente, foram colegas de turma no Instituto Superior Técnico (IST), uma das escolas científicas mais competitivas de Portugal.

Enquanto a carreira de Loureiro seguiu uma trajetória global e prestigiada, a de Valente fracturou-se. Descrito por antigos colegas como uma das mentes mais brilhantes da sua turma, Valente nunca terminou o seu doutoramento na Universidade de Brown, em Providence, no estado de Rhode Island. Teve alguns empregos de baixa qualificação técnica em Portugal antes de regressar aos EUA depois de ter conseguido um visto através de uma lotaria.

À medida que Loureiro se tornava um visionário no campo da fusão nuclear, investigadores confidenciaram em 'off' que o ressentimento de Valente cresceu, transformando-se numa obsessão pelo sucesso do seu antigo colega.

O Armazém de Salem

A caça ao homem terminou num armazém banal em Salem, New Hampshire, a cerca de 45 minutos a norte do local do crime. No dia 16 de dezembro, o dia seguinte ao tiroteio, Valente cometeu suicídio dentro de uma unidade que tinha alugado.

A polícia encontrou o seu corpo dois dias depois, a 18 de dezembro. Dentro da unidade, os investigadores encontraram sinais de uma vida consumida por um propósito violento.

O 11º Cientista: Uma Investigação Federal

Embora os ficheiros das autoridades se foquem na trágica interseção de dois antigos colegas de turma, o âmbito da investigação mudou recentemente para os níveis mais altos do governo. Na semana passada, a Casa Branca anunciou uma revisão formal dos casos de vários investigadores desaparecidos ou mortos, investigando possíveis ligações entre cientistas de alto nível visados em solo americano.

Nuno Loureiro foi identificado como uma das pessoas que faz parte desta lista de cientistas.

O FBI revelou ao Atlantic Lens que está agora a liderar uma investigação interinstitucional massiva “para procurar ligações entre os cientistas desaparecidos e falecidos”. O âmbito desta reavaliação, que visa “encontrar respostas”, inclui o Departamento de Energia, o Departamento de Guerra (Defesa) e parceiros estaduais e locais dos EUA.

O interesse federal levanta uma questão arrepiante: terá a obsessão de pelo menos três anos de Cláudio Valente sido apenas uma vingança pessoal ou poderá afinal representar um novo padrão predatório visando as mentes por trás dos avanços científicos mais sensíveis da América? Sendo um líder na energia de fusão - um campo central para a futura segurança nacional e independência energética - a morte de Loureiro é agora vista através de uma lente muito mais ampla do que um homicídio de bairro.

A Investigação Continua

A recolha de provas - desde a balística recuperada até às pegadas digitais - traça o quadro de uma vida brilhante interrompida por um adversário que utilizou as ferramentas de uma sociedade moderna e aberta para cometer um ato de particular violência.

Embora a resposta inicial tenha sido liderada pela polícia local, a investigação acabou por se expandir para as autoridades federais. Como a violência atravessou fronteiras estaduais - ligando o homicídio em Massachusetts ao tiroteio na universidade em Rhode Island - o FBI assumiu o papel principal da investigação.

Os investigadores federais continuam a analisar as provas e os locais ligados ao suspeito, procurando uma resposta definitiva sobre o porquê de um ressentimento académico por décadas se ter traduzido em violência.

Para a comunidade científica, a perda de Nuno Loureiro é um retrocesso profundo para o futuro da energia limpa. Para a sua família, resta a memória de uma noite rotineira foi estilhaçada por uma tragédia que, como mostram agora os arquivos policiais, não deixou absolutamente nada ao acaso.

A 96-page police report obtained by Atlantic Lens reveals the final hours of MIT physicist Nuno Loureiro, a leading figure in nuclear fusion research, who was shot and killed outside his home in the outskirts of Boston.

In this episode of Atlantic Lens Podcast, journalist Marta Dhanis reconstructs the timeline of the attack - from hours of surveillance to the moment a man posing as a delivery worker rang the doorbell.

The report details how the suspect, Cláudio Valente, mapped the area, tracked the family’s routine, and carried out the shooting in seconds.

Loureiro was still conscious when first responders arrived.

The two men had known each other decades earlier as students in their native Portugal. Authorities now believe the attack was planned over several years.

This episode examines what the police files confirm - and what remains unresolved - in a case that has drawn federal attention and raised broader questions about the vulnerability of scientists working in critical fields like fusion energy.