News for Normies: Vol. 37
Back-and-forth with Iran; is the DSA really on the rise in America; and drug deaths are down, but why?
Hi, and welcome to this week’s edition of News for Normies!
If you’re new here, this is what you’ll find in News for Normies, the serious part of this otherwise-lighthearted space.
News for Normies comes every Monday and is a post on three important news stories, served up with context, insight and some things to follow in the coming week.
Who are you? A normal person who has a whole life to live, and not a lot of time to read or watch news.
What is this? Your go-to newsletter that highlights a few big stories to keep you a little more informed in an ever-saturated news world.
So if you want to know what’s happening in the world but don’t have the time to monitor the headlines, you’re in the right place.
This week—more back and forth with Iran; is the DSA really on the rise in America; and drug deaths are down, but what’s the real reason?
Let’s get your week started with some simple, thoughtful, and unbiased info. Please share with a fellow news-loving friend!
STORY 1: The U.S. and Iran are talking, but Nobody Agrees on What Winning Looks Like
This weekend, American and Iranian negotiators sat across from each other at a luxury resort overlooking Lake Lucerne in Switzerland, trying to prevent a war from reigniting while also trying to figure out what peace actually looks like.
Vice President JD Vance arrived in Switzerland early Sunday to lead the US delegation. Iran’s team, led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, was already there. Pakistan and Qatar are mediating.
The first round of four-party talks lasted about 80 minutes and focused entirely on Lebanon—not Iran’s nuclear program, which is the bigger issue and was set aside for later.
Vance called the talks “historic” and said the US had already made “great progress.” Here’s the catch: Iran’s foreign minister was in the room when Vance spoke to reporters, but refused to stand beside him for a photo or join his statement.
According to Axios, Iranian state media reported that Iran rejected a US request for a joint photo-op and public handshake. That small detail says a lot about where things actually stand.
Context and Background
Let’s back up. How did we get here?
On February 28, the US and Israel launched massive joint strikes targeting Iranian military, government, and infrastructure sites—the start of a three-month war. The conflict effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil flowed before the war—sending energy prices soaring and rattling global markets.
After months of fighting and a failed round of talks in Islamabad in April, the U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) last week. It’s a preliminary agreement that establishes a 60-day ceasefire, setting the stage for negotiations toward a final deal.
The MOU’s key terms? The U.S. ends its naval blockade of Iranian ports; Iran lets shipping flow freely through the Strait of Hormuz; both sides commit to a permanent end to military operations “on all fronts, including Lebanon”; and the U.S. and regional partners commit to developing a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran (though Trump later said the U.S. government itself would not contribute to it).
Why Lebanon keeps blowing everything up
Lebanon is the wild card in these negotiations. The U.S. and Israel are aligned allies in this conflict, just as Iran and Hezbollah (the Iran-backed militant group operating in Lebanon) are aligned. But neither Israel nor Hezbollah signed the MOU, meaning they’re not technically bound by its terms.
So while the U.S. and Iran are talking in Switzerland, their respective allies are still fighting in Lebanon, and every flare-up threatens to blow the whole thing up. The U.S. government designates Hezbollah as a foreign terrorist organization.
On Friday, a new Lebanon ceasefire was announced. Within hours it broke down, after Hezbollah killed five Israeli soldiers killed and Israel responded by hitting over 300 targets in Lebanon in retaliation.
By Sunday, fighting in Lebanon appeared to ease after Israel directed its military to restrict itself to defensive actions, but Israel’s defense minister made clear there is “no restriction on IDF soldiers to act to eliminate threats.”
Even as Vance was calling the talks “historic” in Switzerland, Trump posted on Truth Social: “Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!”
What’s actually being negotiated
The nuclear issue—the biggest question of the entire conflict—wasn’t even on the table in Sunday’s first session. Sunday’s talks focused on the Lebanon ceasefire, Iran’s ability to sell oil under U.S. sanctions waivers, and Iran’s frozen funds. The U.S. would like this round to end with Iran inviting UN inspectors back into its nuclear sites. (The last visit was June 2025.) In exchange, the U.S. is prepared to give Iran access to $6 billion in frozen funds held in Qatar for humanitarian purchases.
On the nuclear question, the U.S. is demanding Iran suspend all uranium enrichment for at least 20 years. Iran has countered with approximately 10 years. Iran’s President Pezeshkian said Sunday that Iran will “never back down” from its right to enrich uranium and that the U.S. “will ultimately have to accept this.” Vance responded that “the Obama deal allowed the Iranians to enrich uranium. This deal will not.”
The Netanyahu factor
Israel is not at the table and not bound by this deal. Netanyahu said Sunday that “whatever the diplomatic developments may be, I will not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons,” and vowed to keep Israeli forces in southern Lebanon “for as long as it takes.”
In roughly 60 days, when the negotiating window closes, Israel faces a national election, giving Netanyahu powerful domestic incentives to keep up military pressure regardless of what the U.S. and Iran agree to. Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said he was originally opposed to the deal and only relented after receiving guarantees that Iran’s Middle East allies would be protected.
The Republican divide
Back home, the deal is dividing Trump’s own party. Republican hawks are calling it a giveaway:
Senator Bill Cassidy called it the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades”
Senator Roger Wicker said it appears “out of step” with the goals of the military campaign
Senator Ted Cruz questioned the concessions
Former Republican governor Nikki Haley criticized the reconstruction proposals
And former VP Mike Pence called the deal a potential “lifeline” for the Iranian regime that “smacks of appeasement,” per Fox News.
Trump allies counter that the military campaign crippled Iran’s ability to project power and brought the regime to the table without a large-scale deployment of American ground troops — and that critics are defining victory too narrowly. Senator Lindsey Graham added that if diplomacy fails entirely, Trump will “take the Strait of Hormuz over by force.”
What to Follow
Whether talks continue: The first session lasted 80 minutes and then broke. It was not immediately clear whether the two sides would return to the table Sunday. By the time you read this the situation may have changed.
The Strait of Hormuz: Iran says it’s closed; the US says it’s open; shipping website Lloyd’s List says traffic is limited. Oil prices are the fastest real-time indicator of what’s actually happening.
UN inspectors and the $6 billion: Whether Iran invites inspectors back and whether the U.S. releases frozen funds is another near-term test of whether this round produces anything concrete.
Lebanon/Hezbollah: Every Hezbollah rocket and Israeli airstrike is a potential deal-killer. Watch whether Sunday’s relative calm holds into the week.
The Republican response: The deal is already fracturing Trump’s own coalition. Watch what congressional Republicans continue to say.
Story 2: The Socialists are Coming, but Is It a Movement or a Moment?
The Democratic Socialists of America just had their biggest year ever. And they’re not done.
Last year, Zohran Mamdani—a card-carrying DSA member and former New York State assemblyman—won the New York City mayoral race in what most people considered an upset.
Now the DSA is trying to turn that momentum into something bigger—a national political force. This month, DSA-backed candidates are running for Congress and state legislature seats across New York City, with primaries on June 23rd. If they win, the number of self-identified socialists in the US House of Representatives could double from two to four.
That’s a small number. But it’s the direction of travel that has people paying attention.
Context and Background
What is the DSA, and what do they actually believe?
The Democratic Socialists of America is the largest socialist organization in the United States, with membership that has grown from roughly 6,000 in 2015 to more than 100,000 today. Their platform calls for an economy run democratically in the interest of workers rather than corporations. Think universal healthcare, free public college, stronger unions, and public ownership of major industries.
On the political spectrum, they sit well to the left of the mainstream Democratic Party. The DSA’s platform calls for replacing the current constitutional structure with a single federal legislature and placing the largest corporations under public ownership and democratic control. DSA members vary widely in how far they want to take these ideas.
Why the surge?
The DSA’s membership has grown in three waves, according to In These Times. First, after Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign introduced democratic socialism to a mass audience. Second, after Trump’s election and the Women’s March. And third, after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 primary upset.
Mamdani’s 2025 mayoral win triggered yet another surge. Since the DSA endorsed Mamdani in October 2024, the NYC chapter’s membership has more than doubled, from 5,900 to 14,000. Since Mamdani’s endorsements, the group has been adding roughly 1,000 volunteers a week, according to the DSA’s NYC co-chair.
Who’s embracing these candidates?
It’s hard to say exactly, but we can see the trends, and that is white and educated. For example, the congressional district where Claire Valdez is running has shifted significantly over the past decade. According to a New York Times analysis, the white population there grew from 30 percent in 2014 to 40 percent in 2024, while Hispanic and Asian populations saw substantial declines. Nearly half the district’s population now has at least a bachelor’s degree, placing it among the top six most educated districts in New York State, up from the middle of the pack a decade ago.
Critics of DSA candidates have seized on those demographics. Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso said at a June 8th candidate forum that he didn’t feel comfortable “meeting regularly with a population that is not representative of the entire district,” claiming the DSA’s base was “mostly white male.”
Outside New York, DSA-backed candidates are running for mayor in several cities across the country. It’s unclear whether voters are gravitating toward the DSA’s economic vision, their anti-Trump stance, or simply their promise of better government services.
Real trend or NYC fluke?
Let’s take a look at both options here. First, the case for the DSA representing a real trend in politics. A few things support this belief: The party has been building for a decade; Mamdani’s win was broad and diverse; membership is growing nationally; and DSA-aligned candidates are advancing in mayoral races from coast to coast.
Sociologist Fabian Holt argues the group is more of a movement than a political party, adding that it’s not a left-leaning phenomenon either—the Tea Party, which paved the way for Donald Trump’s win in 2016 is cited as a right-leaning example.
Now, the case for the DSA’s popularity being more of a fluke. The DSA has seen momentum in the past and fumbled it. After winning five state legislative seats in New York in 2020, the organization failed to capitalize on that momentum in 2022, losing several races it had expected to win. Whether 2026 breaks that pattern is the question.
Then there’s the question of its staying power due to the dichotomy between members’ stated beliefs and the lives they actually live: A 2021 survey found that 28% of self-identified DSA’ers made more than $100,000 a year, 56% have white-collar jobs; and are majority white.
What could DSA policies mean for you?
This depends heavily on which DSA policies you’re talking about, and how far they’d actually get. The DSA’s own platform calls for guaranteed basic needs and public ownership of the largest corporations, arguing this would benefit working people over the capitalist class.
Critics point to a substantial body of economic research on one of the left’s preferred housing tools—rent control. A Stanford economist’s analysis of San Francisco’s rent control expansion, published via the Brookings Institution, found that while existing tenants benefited in the short run, the policy led to a 15 percentage point decline in rental housing supply over the long run—ultimately fueling gentrification rather than preventing it.
Supporters of the DSA’s broader platform argue that public ownership of housing and corporations, not rent control alone, is the actual solution they’re proposing. Because DSA candidates run at every level of government—from city council and state legislature to Congress—the reach of these policies would depend entirely on which offices they win, and what those offices actually control.
Who to Follow
Darializa Avila Chevalier: A first-time candidate and pro-Palestinian activist, she’s challenging five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat in upper Manhattan, backed by Mayor Mamdani and Justice Democrats, a progressive group. Polling is split: A pro-Espaillat survey had him leading 35-27; a Justice Democrats poll (with a sample size of just 319 likely voters) had Chevalier ahead 39-35. Her now-deleted social media posts—in which she criticized Democratic leaders, the police, Israel, private property, and interracial relationships—have taken center stage in her opponents’ ads. Primaries are June 23rd.
Claire Valdez: A state assemblywoman running for Congress in a Brooklyn-Queens district, Valdez is also backed by Mayor Mamdani and running against Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and City Council member Julie Won. A PIX11 survey released May 21st showed Valdez and Reynoso neck-and-neck, with Won far behind in third place.
Conrad Blackburn: A public defender running for State Assembly in Central Harlem against incumbent Jordan Wright, Blackburn has faced pointed “outsider” criticism from the Wright family, whose father is the chairman of the Manhattan Democratic Party. At a recent campaign event, Assemblyman Wright said: “There’s people in this community who voted for my grandfather, my father, my uncle and myself,” adding of Blackburn, “I don’t know how long he’s been here”—the implication being, these DSA candidates don’t reflect their district.
Already in office: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI) are the only current members of Congress who identify as DSA members.
What to Follow
June 23rd results: The NYC primaries are the clearest near-term test of whether the Mamdani effect can travel. Watch whether Avila Chevalier and Valdez win, and by what margin.
Turnout among young voters: The DSA held an emergency meeting this week after sluggish early turnout, particularly among younger voters. If that doesn’t recover, it could complicate their math.
How incumbents respond: Hakeem Jeffries, the House Democratic minority leader, made two campaign appearances for Rep. Espaillat in a single day. Watch whether Democratic leadership continues to treat the DSA as a threat worth mobilizing against, or decides co-opting them is the smarter play.
What happens in other cities: DSA-aligned mayoral candidates are running across the country. Their results will help answer whether this is a New York story or a national one.
The 2028 question: Some on the left are already speculating about an AOC presidential run if the DSA has a strong 2026. Watch whether that speculation picks up after the primaries.
Story 3: Overdose Deaths Drop Drastically. Why It’s Happening is a Whole Other Debate
Something remarkable happened in America last year, and it barely made the news.
Drug overdose deaths fell by more than 26% in 2024—the largest single-year decline ever recorded, according to final data released in January by the CDC. In raw numbers: 79,384 people died of overdoses in 2024, compared to more than 110,000 in 2023. That’s roughly 30,000 lives. The drop was the biggest one-year decline the CDC has ever recorded.
It’s certainly good news, but here’s where it gets complicated: Nobody agrees on why.
Context and Background
Let’s back up a bit. How bad did it get?
Drug overdose deaths climbed for nearly a decade straight, driven largely by fentanyl—a synthetic opioid so potent that a few milligrams can kill. Deaths peaked in 2022 at more than 32 per 100,000 Americans. The crisis hit every state, every demographic, and every income level. Even in a “good” year, 79,000 deaths is a staggering number, and the CDC notes overdoses remain the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 44.
So what changed?
Experts genuinely disagree on the reason behind the drop in deaths, and (as is often the case with news stories), the reason behind it depends on your politics and where you get your news.
On the right: Fox News and some law enforcement voices point to border enforcement. Joseph Giacalone, a retired NYPD sergeant and adjunct criminal justice professor, told Fox News the decline coincides directly with the Trump administration’s border crackdown.
“Securing the borders has a lot to do with the drop,” he said. “Less chance for drug dealers and their mules to bring drugs into the country.” Notably, the CDC itself did not assign a cause for the decline.
The libertarian Cato Institute pushes back on that explanation directly, arguing the evidence points elsewhere. Researcher Jeffrey Singer writes that nothing in the data supports crediting border enforcement or the drug war. Instead, Cato points to three other factors—things like wider availability of naloxone (the overdose-reversing drug also known as Narcan); a documented shift among drug users from injecting fentanyl to smoking it, which carries a lower overdose risk; and declining drug use among younger Americans, with federally funded surveys showing Gen Z is drinking, smoking, and using illicit drugs less than previous generations.
On the left: PBS NewsHour/AP reporting echoes the Cato view on naloxone and treatment access, and quotes experts acknowledging they don’t yet fully understand what drove the reduction. Multiple factors, they say, are probably at play.
Why should you care?
Because this crisis has likely touched someone you know. And because the debate over why deaths are falling isn’t just academic; it determines where the money and policy go next.
If border enforcement deserves the credit, the argument is to double down on it. If naloxone and harm reduction are the real drivers, the argument is to fund more of that. Right now, some of those programs are facing proposed federal budget cuts. The progress is real, but fragile.
What to Follow
Whether the trend continues: 2024’s decline was historic. Watch 2025 final data when released to see if improvement holds. Early provisional CDC data for 2025 shows continued declines, but the final picture isn’t in yet.
Federal funding for treatment and naloxone: Some substance abuse programs are facing proposed cuts. Watch whether Congress funds or reduces them, and what effect that has on the trend line.
The border enforcement debate: If fentanyl seizures at the border continue rising while overdose deaths fall, border enforcement advocates will point to that as evidence.
Which states are still struggling: The national picture improved, but Arizona saw a nearly 18% increase in overdose deaths in the same period, so clearly the crisis is not over everywhere.
Gen Z drug use trends: If younger Americans are genuinely using drugs less, there’s a question of if the crisis may recede naturally over time. Groups like Monitoring the Future are a good source to follow.
Please consider forwarding this newsletter to a friend who wants to be a little more informed, without losing their sanity.
Every Monday I drop into your inbox with three news stories—that’s it—to make you smarter, more informed, and more able to engage in conversation about what’s happening in the world.
If the mission of simple, unbiased news appeals to you, I’m grateful for a forward to a friend, a click on the heart icon below, or anything else. Thanks so much for helping me to grow this community.
Appreciate this free post and want to say thanks? You can buy me a cappuccino here. Thanks in advance!
