Hi, and welcome to this week’s edition of News for Normies! Today, let’s take a closer look at why Trump won’t rush a deal with Iran, a huge fraud conviction in Minnesota, and the end of the biggest tech trial in years.

Let’s get your week started with some simple, thoughtful, and unbiased info. Please share with a fellow news-loving friend!

Story 1: Trump Won’t Rush Iran Deal. The Talks to End or Pause War Are Ongoing.

Though talk of a deal circulated all weekend, President Trump said yesterday evening that he’s in no rush to make a deal with Iran to end or pause the war, stressing that they must concede on nuclear disarmament or potentially face more strikes.

Context and Background

Here’s what we know: The agreement being discussed would last 60 days. During that window, Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz—the chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil flows—clear the mines it placed there, and allow ships to pass freely with no tolls. In exchange, the U.S. would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and issue some sanctions waivers so Iran can sell oil again.

Let’s Back Up a Bit

This war started in late February, when the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran. Since then, Iran has effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. has blockaded Iranian ports, and the global economy has taken a beating.

The U.S. blockade alone has redirected more than 100 commercial ships. Meanwhile, gas prices have climbed to a national average of around $4.51 a gallon—up roughly 51% since the war began. That economic pressure, on both sides, is why everyone is at the table.

The Nuclear Issue Remains the Sticking Point

What’s that saying? “There are three sides to every story—each person’s side, then the truth.” That’s kind of where we are with this “deal” right now.

The U.S. version: A U.S. official told reporters Sunday that Iran has agreed in principle to dispose of its highly enriched uranium, but how and when that actually happens is still being negotiated. The deal does not address Iran’s missile stockpile, and there’s no moratorium on enrichment yet; those get pushed to Phase 2. 

Iran currently holds about 970 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. That’s the stockpile that could, with further work, be converted into a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s version: Iran’s state-affiliated news agencies are telling a different story, pushing back on the U.S. framing, and dismissing Trump’s “largely negotiated” announcement as “incomplete and inconsistent with reality.”

They say Tehran has not agreed to hand over its enriched uranium. Three senior Iranian officials, speaking anonymously to the NYT, said the deal as they understood it said nothing about the nuclear program—only that a plan for dealing with it would be negotiated within 30 to 60 days.

Finally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had his own input, acknowledging the apparent gap between the sides: “You can’t do a nuclear thing in 72 hours on the back of a napkin.” He added that the administration is even prepared to accept an interim agreement that wouldn’t even take away Iran’s ability to make nuclear weapons.

Critiques from Both Parties on the Iran Deal

This potential deal is drawing fire from across the political spectrum, which is notable.

Republican senator Ted Cruz expressed serious concerns, saying an Iran deal would essentially erase any progress toward nuclear disarmament, as well as embolden the Islamic regime in power—the theocratic, authoritarian ruling group that’s known for slaughtering its own people. In his words: “If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime—still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’—now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake.”

Cruz’s concerns were echoed by other Republican leaders, including senators Lindsey Graham, Roger Wicker, and Thom Tillis.

On the Democratic side, Senator Cory Booker said Trump was “being played as a fool,” while Senator Chris Van Hollen called it a return to the prewar status quo.

Trump fired back on social media Sunday, calling critics “losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about,” while Speaker Mike Johnson expressed support, saying he was confident the deal would “take care of the nuclear dust”.

Israel is Watching Closely

Netanyahu didn’t issue a public statement until roughly 18 hours after Trump’s announcement, and when he did respond, he said both leaders agreed Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons. But Israel’s concerns run deeper: the deal doesn’t touch Iran’s missile program, doesn’t resolve its issues with Lebanon, and Israel wasn’t a party to the talks.

Meanwhile in Lebanon, the leader the terror group Hezbollah welcomed a potential ceasefire, also calling on Lebanese citizens to take to the streets against their own government for negotiating with Israel. Rubio condemned those remarks as a “reckless call to overthrow Lebanon’s democratically elected government.”

Why Should You Care?

What happens in the Strait of Hormuz hits your wallet. As one of the most consequential shipping lanes on earth, gas gets more expensive when it’s blocked, as well as the cost of basically everything that gets shipped through that area.

Then, there’s the nuclear dimension. Iran is sitting on roughly 970 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%—material that could, with further processing, be converted into nuclear weapons. How the world resolves that question (or fails to) sets a precedent for every other country watching to see what happens when a nation pushes toward a nuclear threshold.

And finally, there’s the geopolitical angle—how this impacts the U.S.’s relationships with countries worldwide. This war has already reshaped alliances, tested the limits of American military power, pulled Israel deeper into a regional war, destabilized Lebanon, and put Gulf Arab states in an extraordinarily precarious position. Whatever deal gets struck will define the balance of power in the Middle East for decades.

What to Follow

• The deal itself: Does a formal memorandum of understanding actually get signed — and do both Trump and Iran’s supreme leader approve it?
• What happens in the Strait: Will Iran follow through on clearing mines and allowing unrestricted shipping without tolls?
• Nuclear talks: How will nuclear negotiations actually unfold during the 60-day window, and what happens if they stall again?
• Impact on Lebanon: What’s the fate of the Lebanon conflict, and does any deal formally include a Hezbollah ceasefire?
• Congress’ response: How does Congress respond, and does it try to assert a role in approving any final agreement?

Story 2: She Stole $250 Million Meant to Feed Kids. Now, She’s Going to Prison for 42 Years.

The woman at the center of the largest pandemic fraud case in American history was sentenced Thursday. Aimee Bock, the founder of a Minnesota nonprofit called Feeding Our Future, got 41.5 years in federal prison and was ordered to pay back $242 million to the federal government.

The judge didn’t mince words, telling Bock, “This is a vortex of fraud, and you were at the epicenter.” Brasel also found that Bock had lied under oath during her own trial, which may have added to her lengthy sentence. Moments before the sentence came down, a tearful Bock told the court: “I don’t have the words to express just how horrible I feel. I know I’m responsible.”

Context and Background

Feeding Our Future—which is now dissolved—was a Minneapolis nonprofit that claimed to be feeding hungry children during the pandemic. It went from receiving $2.9 million in federal funding to more than $197 million in a single year. Almost none of that money went to children. 

Instead, defendants spent taxpayer cash on “cars and luxury properties,” among other things. The scheme, which prosecutors called the largest COVID-era fraud in the country, ultimately saw 79 people charged, with 66 convicted.

When Did This Start?

Investigators say they saw signs of fraud as early as 2020, but the state slowed its scrutiny after Feeding Our Future filed a lawsuit accusing Minnesota of racial discrimination. The organization primarily served minority communities, and at the time, officials worried about the optics of cracking down. 

The state auditor later found that “the threat of legal consequences and negative media attention” affected the state’s decision-making. In other words, the fraud got to continue much longer than it otherwise may have.

Media Response to Fraud Claims in Minnesota

This is where the story behind the story is almost as interesting as the story itself.

In late December 2025, a conservative YouTuber named Nick Shirley posted a 42-minute video visiting Minneapolis daycares that appeared empty despite collecting millions in government funding. It wasn’t about Feeding Our Future, but it was asking the same basic question. Where is the money going? The video racked up over 131 million views on X alone.

Major media outlets responded to the viral video, starting not with the story itself, but rather their own critiques of Shirley’s reporting.

CNN sent a reporter to talk to Shirley, questioning his reporting. They also sent a crew to Quality Learning Center, one of the daycares Shirley featured, and did observe families dropping children off on a Tuesday morning. (The center’s manager said Shirley had filmed during hours the center was scheduled to be closed.)

A state report found that children were present at all but one of the sites named in the video when inspectors arrived. CNN did say it was investigating Shirley’s broader claims and took the fraud concerns seriously.

CBS News similarly reported there was “no evidence of fraud” at the locations Shirley visited—only safety and cleanliness citations. PBS also went on the attack against Shirley, describing him as a “right-wing influencer” making claims “without proof.”

Some of those fact-checks were technically accurate. But technically accurate isn’t the same as telling the whole story. The specific daycares in Shirley’s video weren’t the Feeding Our Future defendants, but revealed a broader pattern of fraud that was hiding in plain sight.

The Bigger Picture

While the Feeding Our Future fraud story and the accusations of fraud in Minnesota daycare centers are separate stories, they have both revived a public interest in asking where all the tax money Americans pay, actually goes. It appears that this renewed interest in “following the money” is resulting in some change.

At least one daycare featured in Shirley’s video was named in federal indictments. Then on April 28, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security executed 22 court-approved search warrants across Minneapolis, targeting businesses linked to an alleged fraud investigation. As for Quality Learning Center—the location that made Shirley famous—it was among the locations raided, but no charges have been filed specifically against it.

Why Should You Care?

Back to the Feeding Our Future fraud. The biggest issue? This money was meant to feed hungry kids.

And the reason the fraud went on for so long matters. Investigators who raised fraud concerns as early as 2014 were labeled as racially biased and their probes were shut down, even though, as one investigator testified to Congress, their targets were selected purely by funding data.

But it doesn’t mean an entire community is to blame. Leaders including Rep. Ilhan Omar have explicitly said that those who committed fraud should be held accountable, while also pushing back on broad characterizations of the Somali community.

But the systemic failure—the combination of legitimate fraud and an environment where raising questions became politically toxic—is something every American should understand.

But also—and this is big, as well as something I’m always talking about—this story is a perfect example of why media literacy matters. More than any other story to date, this story proves that where you get your reporting matters.

While not endorsing either storyline, note that with blockbuster stories like this, it’s never a waste of time to check how “the other side” is covering the story: What are they ignoring? What are they fact-checking (and not fact-checking)? How are they following up on claims made by either side?

What to Follow

• More fraud investigations: The success of this investigation has inspired the feds to go after other potential fraud schemes. The DOJ has launched a West Coast Health Care Fraud Strike Force targeting health care fraud in California, Arizona, and Nevada, directly modeling what was done in Minnesota.
• A California-specific sweep: Vice President Vance has said California will be the next major target for large-scale fraud investigations.
• The political fallout: Career prosecutors in Minnesota have been resigning over concerns about the politicization of the Department of Justice and the immigration crackdown that grew out of this investigation. This raises questions about whether enforcement can stay focused on fraud rather than becoming entangled in immigration politics.

Head to Substack for my breakdown of this week’s third story: Elon Musk took Sam Altman to court, and after three weeks of testimony, the jury came back in under two hours and threw the whole thing out on “statute of limitations” grounds.

See you next week!