Semua Kabar

What Have the U.S. and Israel Accomplished in Iran?

On Monday night, forty-eight hours after PresidentDonald Trumpordered a series of strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, he announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Earlier that day, Iran had fired missiles at an American airbase in Qatar, an attack that came with advance warning and resulted in no casualties. The Trump Administration had initially signalled a reluctance to formally get involved in Israel’s campaign to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, but, sincethe strikes on Saturday, Trump had publicly mused about the possibility of regime change. Even after his Monday announcement that he’d helped broker a pause in hostilities, Iran and Israel continued to exchange missile attacks, each side accusing the other of breaking the terms of the ceasefire. On Tuesday morning, Trump told reporters at the White House, “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

Nicole Grajewski is a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program, and the author of the book “Russia and Iran.” (On Monday, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, met in Moscow with his country’s most powerful ally, Vladimir Putin, who had criticized the American strike.) Grajewski and I spoke just prior to the ceasefire announcement, and followed up after Trump’s declaration. Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below. In it, we discuss why a ceasefire may be difficult to sustain, what Russia’s relationships with both Iran and Israel may portend for the region, and why a war meant to end Iran’s nuclear program may instead have delivered prolonged uncertainty.

What are your concerns about a ceasefire holding in the short, medium, and long term?

In the short term, I think my primary concern is accidental escalation. Whether that’s Iranian proxy groups in Iraq launching something against Israel and Israel responding, or because of a response to statements from Israel or Iran. In the medium to long term, my concern has to do with the acrimonious relationship between Iran and Israel which would likely continue. This ceasefire is not going to eradicate years of shadow war that Iran and Israel are locked into. And the nuclear issue continues to loom.

On Monday, the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Iranian parliament approved an outline of a bill that would suspend Iran’s coöperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That would curtail efforts at identifying, or at least accounting for, Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and access to these nuclear sites. So there may be momentum within Iran that seems to be pushing against international oversight on its nuclear program.

Netanyahu has also been very aggressive lately—could you see him giving Trump a victory on a short-term ceasefire, as he did with Gaza, and then wanting to re-start the war?

It’s very foreseeable that Israel takes the opportunity again to go in and eliminate certain facilities or leadership. I think a lot of the escalatory dynamics probably hinge on what is left of the Iranian nuclear program and how close they are to reconstituting. Some of the uranium metal facilities have been destroyed, so that’s actually a pretty good stopgap for some of the weaponization work. But we don’t know where the highly enriched uranium that Iran had is. And then Iran has a lot of components of centrifuges, and these haven’t been under I.A.E.A. inspection since 2021. So, on the long-term side of it, you could see Iran developing a covert program. Moreover, because you did see Israel assassinating Iranian scientists in the past, Iran created a pretty robust community of nuclear scientists, nuclear engineers, nuclear physicists, so that continuity of knowledge would be maintained. So it’s not like the knowledge is eradicated either. And I think one thing that’s going to happen as a result of the mass intelligence penetration that really curtailed Iran’s military response and led to this destruction of their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (I.R.G.C.) leadership, is that there’s going to be a higher-surveillance state, a higher clampdown at a societal level, and, I think, a far more secretive program.

What internal and external dynamics do you see within Iran right now?

There is a domestic audience to whom the Iranian leadership wants to convey a semblance of stability and a semblance of strength. But this is also about signalling to the United States that Iran is not weak and that, despite these massive hits when it comes to their military facilities, when it comes to their conventional power they still reserve a right to respond. But it seems that there was some warning or signalling to America and/or Qatar before this Qatar military-base attack. Iran likely doesn’t want to get involved in a war of attrition with the United States, even if they are preparing for one.

So the signalling is just to make clear that a prolonged war is not what Iran wants?

Yeah, and there’s obviously now this concern about regime change and internal stability. And so that’s going to be something, I think, that Iranian strategists are thinking about as well, because the continuation of this war for them also increases their vulnerability when it comes to the kind of control that they have at home. Israel on Monday targeted some of the organs of repression within Iran, such as the so-called Basij force, for example, and other parts of their internal security services.

Can you talk a little bit about how the regime is structured and operates?

The regime functions on repression, and terror to an extent. That’s how it was formed in this revolutionary context and then after the Iran-Iraq War. But it’s heavily bureaucratized and also institutionalized. And the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is one aspect of this. And one part of that is the Basij, which is their internal clamp on power. But they also have major conglomerates of economic interests that are really predicated on corruption. And it is factionalized. There are certain factions where you have the clergy and that emphasis in just certain parts of the country. So in Qom, for example, that’s a pretty large concentration of power when it comes to the clergy. And so you see that in discussions of the Guardian Council, which oversees elections and approves legislation, or even with succession talk. But then there’s also these hard-liners who are very much entrenched in this ideology of confrontation with the United States and Israel. And this also includes a very strong emphasis on maintaining at least this kind of threshold nuclear status and also projecting its power throughout the region.

So Iran functions as somewhat of a kleptocracy, but also a heavily ideological one. And, of course, this is all driven by an acute sense of vulnerability to any kind of internal or external upheaval that might threaten the very existence of the regime. And, of course, there’s a Supreme Leader, and he is the ultimate arbitrator within Iran, but there’s a cadre of élites around him.

I have seen you warn about the consequences of regime change. What about this regime’s structure that you have just broadly defined makes you concerned specifically?

One problem with the discussion of Iranian regime change in the United States is that it’s a goal within itself, but there is nothing with what happens after. The experience of Iraq is a good example of this. But with Iran, I think what’s worrisome is that there are such strong and also militarized factions that could potentially mount somewhat of a countercoup. The Iranian people mostly don’t support the current regime, and many Iranian people don’t support a revolutionary theocracy. But there are also the people who are actually in charge of this massive repression apparatus. And so one of my concerns is also that we pursue a policy of regime change, and what actually happens domestically in Iran is far greater repression and far more insecurity to the extent that the civilians are the ones who suffer the most. Regime change is ultimately up to the Iranian people. One would hope that this regime does fall at some point and some democratic government rises. But, you know, that’s not always how international relations play out.

How do you think the weakening or removal of Iran’s allies, whether Hezbollah after the Israeli campaign against it, or Syria after Assad’s fall, has changed Iran’s calculations?

The changing regional dynamics and the loss of Iran’s forward-defense doctrine, which is what they called it, which had provided them with strategic depth, will probably influence the response a lot. For instance, this is why Iran has so far been reliant on its missile force to serve as a deterrent or at least its retaliatory capability toward Israel. But it also, I think, ultimately shows, if you look at the debates within Iran, a failure of what they thought their defense strategy was over the years. They invested so much money in these groups that in some cases eventually turned out to succumb to almost overnight collapse. And then, of course, Assad in Syria as well. Among the so-called reformists, you would hear criticism of all this spending, especially around the time of the Syrian war. You had parliamentarians questioning why Iran is investing so much in these wars abroad when there’s endemic problems at home. But I think Iran’s retaliation shows the failure of that strategy. But if Hezbollah was stronger and Assad was there, they probably would have been able to mount a much more devastating response or a much more damaging response than they were able to.

How did the regime adjust its behavior after the nuclear deal, before Trump pulled out of it?

The nuclear issue was really about Iran’s fissile material, about its work with advanced centrifuges and the ability for Iran to potentially break out with a nuclear weapon. So I wouldn’t say the deal fundamentally changed the regime’s behavior. You saw Iran quite active in Syria at the time. That’s really when they increased a lot of their support for the Assad regime, after the nuclear agreement, and you saw Iranians supporting non-state actors throughout the region with targeted assassinations. So I wouldn’t say that the nuclear deal transformed the regime or even really prompted that much of a shift. Perhaps it pushed things underground. I think there was actually somewhat of an effort by the leadership to portray themselves as behaving on the international stage. But it didn’t shift their calculus about their security and it didn’t really shift the internal dynamics because you saw the same level of repression, you saw the same level of support for these groups. And it didn’t eradicate the discourse about Iran being a perpetual enemy to Israel and a perpetual enemy to the United States. It was really about the nuclear program. Maybe we had illusions about whether that would change the calculus of the regime. But, in reality, I think that the nuclear deal was helpful because at least we had greater transparency about what they were doing. And now this is going to be all shrouded in secrecy.

I want to turn to Iran and Russia now, but, before we do, how would you describe their relationship over the past several decades?

The relationship has never really been an easy one. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russians came into Iran to secure some arms agreements and civilian nuclear-energy coöperation. But they faced quite a bit of pressure from the United States to cancel some of these agreements. And you’d see the Russians really preferring to coöperate with the United States over Iran. And this also happened during the height of the Iran nuclear issue, prior to the 2015 nuclear deal that Obama made, when there were rounds of sanctions on Iran. Russia supported this. Around 2010 was when the Russia-Iran relationship was at its lowest, though, with Russia voting for probably the most stringent and damaging sanctions on Iran when it came to its economy and also a conventional arms embargo. And this even prompted former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to call Russia an enemy of the Iranian people and accuse them of caving to Satan. So their relationship wasn’t this close, tight-knit relationship at the time, though they still coöperated.

It was really the Syrian civil war that transformed this relationship. Both had ties to the Assad regime, but they also saw the spectre of what they viewed as Western-led regime change, akin to Libya. And it prompted them both to bolster Assad and keep him afloat. And eventually this culminated in the Russian intervention in 2015. And that transformed the Russia-Iran relationship because for the first time they had to operate in the same military campaign. They had to create structures and institutions and different channels for coöperation. And there were tensions in Syria. Russia and Iran had competing interests. They would sometimes vie over certain contracts. But what happens as a result of Syria is you see a deepening in the institutionalization of this relationship. And it goes beyond that. There is more coöperation when it comes to their intelligence services, when it comes to their interior ministries, and even on issues like sanction evasion.

What role has Iran played in the war in Ukraine?

When Russia seemed to be faltering in the war in Ukraine, they reached out to the Iranians for drones. And Iran provided drones initially. And, eventually, Russia shifted to local production of these drones. And a lot of the individuals who were involved in the Syrian campaign actually were behind the deals with the Russians. And so you see this relationship transforming into something much deeper, where Russia now was dependent on Iran. That’s changed a bit because of the localization. And Russia doesn’t necessarily need Iran for drone components anymore. But Iran was really crucial in that regard, of establishing these factories and providing Russia with munitions to terrorize Ukrainians every night.

How have the Russians responded to the Israeli attack on Iran and to Trump’s strikes?

Russia has come out with strongly worded statements supporting Iran and calling the aggression illegal. Russia has attempted to mediate and tried to use this as a way of de-escalating, though Russia doesn’t really have much legitimacy as a mediator at the moment because of the downturn in Russian-Israeli relations. At the same time, Russia does have a quite large ethnic-Russian population in Israel. So this hasn’t been a blanket endorsement of Iranian actions. And Russia doesn’t seem to be coming in to provide any formal military assistance to Iran. But Russia is trying to lean a little bit closer to Iran.

I imagine they don’t want to get too involved, in part because they are already stretched thin in Ukraine, no?

Yeah, the question is, what can Russia do? There was a bunch of analysis saying that Russia abandoned Iran, but in reality the question should have been, like, what could Russia have done? Russia’s defense industry is already strapped. It’s not clear if the Iranians have asked the Russians for help. There’s probably some coöperation when it comes to intelligence. At the meeting on Monday in Moscow, the head of Russia’s military intelligence was there. And I think that was an effort to signal that Russia may be helping Iran in terms of intelligence coöperation, but also to maybe assuage some Iranian concerns that Russia is not doing enough.

What about in terms of Russia’s relationship with Israel? Ideologically, it makes a certain amount of sense, and Netanyahu’s closest ally in Europe might be Hungary, which is close to Russia. Why didn’t this relationship develop more?

Putin and Netanyahu had a pretty good personal relationship, and that was even evident during Putin’s second Presidency in the two-thousands. So they’ve had a pretty strong relationship. Obviously, the Soviet Union didn’t have great relations with Israel, but, actually, on a personal level, Putin and Netanyahu had pretty close ties.

It’s nice to see two guys like that come together.

Yeah. In the Syrian civil war, the Russians and the Israelis had a pretty strong relationship. They had a deconfliction hotline. Russia would actually sometimes acquiesce to Israeli strikes on Iranian assets. And so they had a pretty strong working relationship. However, after the invasion of Ukraine and the closer coöperation with Iran, the Israelis mounted their concerns, and the Russians weren’t really open to that. And then, after October 7th, it became far worse because Russia barely even condemned the attack, but hosted Hamas delegations in Russia. And then, all the while, there were actually more aggressive moves in Syria, such as electronic jamming against Israel, that really led this relationship to sour. And I think what was surprising was, when Iran launched strikes in October of 2024 against Israel, Putin didn’t even bother calling Netanyahu. The Kremlin said that it had no intention to speak to the Israelis. However, with this round of strikes, almost immediately Putin tried to de-escalate and called both Netanyahu and the Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to try to serve as a mediator. So it perhaps reflects how Russia thinks the situation might be quite grave.

Yeah, it is interesting that it soured, because I remember Netanyahu being basically non-aligned on Ukraine and praising Putin.

Yeah, and there is also the Jewish Russian diaspora, and the Jewish population within Russia. Putin kept the lid on antisemitism in Russia for a while. But, after October 7th, it changed.

Going forward, if this conflict is going to be contained, what are you looking at in terms of alliances and regional dynamics?

It is really an issue between the U.S. and Iran and Israel right now. However, that could widen, and you could see Russia trying to exploit the situation as a form of horizontal escalation with the United States. The question is what form would that be? But Russia could be there as a spoiler. At the moment, they seem to be less willing to do that, because I do think that the Russians are concerned about the survival of the Iranian regime, but that could change. The Russians have shown quite a bit of flexibility when it comes to certain policies.

At the same time, I think that the regional dynamics are quite dire. There are still non-state actors that are aligned with Iran in Iraq, which could be activated and open up another front targeting U.S. bases, and there are the Houthis in Yemen. And then, of course, there’s always the Gulf countries that are in the middle of this, and Iran has thus far been clear in signalling to them and keeping communications open, but that could also deteriorate. One thing that I am also quite concerned about is Iran’s thinking on the nuclear issue. We now know that Iran has moved or diverted some of its highly enriched uranium or perhaps some of its centrifuge components from the Fordow site that was bombed by America. It is all quite murky, but the situation doesn’t look incredible at the moment. ♦

Inside the Mind of a Never Trump War Hawk

Eliot Cohen, a contributing writer atThe Atlantic, is a military historian and the founder of the strategic-studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Cohen has written numerous books on military history and strategy, but is perhaps best known for his passionate support of the American invasion of Iraq, which he argued in favor of extensively, both in the late nineteen-nineties, when he was a member of the Project for the New American Century think tank, along with Bill Kristol, John Bolton, and Paul Wolfowitz, and after the 9/11 attacks. In the later years of the George W. Bush Administration, Cohen served in the State Department under Condoleezza Rice. Since then, he has become a so-called Never Trump conservative, regularly attacking the President while continuing to argue for a hawkish foreign policy.

Before President Donald Trump’s order to strike Iran last weekend, Cohen published apieceinThe Atlanticpushing for American involvement, and applauding the fact that Trump seemed to be moving toward a military attack. “Much as it may pain his critics to admit it, in this matter he is acting, if not conventionally, then like a statesman of a distinctively Trumpian stamp,” Cohen wrote. Cohen followed this piece with another article, which ran inThe Atlanticon Sunday, after the strike, titled “Trump Got This One Right.” He explained, “Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime.”

I recently spoke by phone with Cohen about his case for American military action, and his history of support for a proactive American role in the Middle East. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed his skepticism about an American intelligence assessment saying that Trump’s strike only set the Iranian nuclear program back by a matter of months, his post-October 7th trip to the Gaza Strip, and the lessons he did and didn’t take from the war in Iraq.

What have you made of how Trump has handled Iran over the past week, from the strike to the push for a ceasefire?

I was in favor of the strike, and I give him credit. As you know, I’ve been about as ferocious a critic of him as one can be. I think I may have been the original Never Trumper, but I think on this one he did the right thing, because this has been a problem brewing for a very long time, and no Administration, including the one I was part of, was really able to deal with it. He seized an opportunity. In terms of damage assessments, my feeling about that, for a whole bunch of reasons, is that it is way too early to tell. But the strike was actually done remarkably well. Trump being Trump, he immediately claimed credit for obliterating the nuclear program. We don’t know that. And he has claimed credit for bringing peace, which I very much doubt. But many of us, including close friends, loathe the guy, and it’s made it impossible for them to recognize a good decision and a desirable outcome.

You said that other Administrations hadn’t been able to “deal with” this problem. Do you feel like Trump has dealt with the problem?

I think he’s done much more than other Administrations. We don’t know how much damage has been done by the American strikes, but there was damage done by the Israelis in their covert action, their air strikes, and the American strikes. What I think people have missed is that he has really set a precedent for the use of American military power to go after the Iranian nuclear program. It’s really important. We have tried sanctions and negotiations, and they may have, to some extent, slowed the program, but I think it’s very clear that the Iranians were pressing on.

What did you make ofTulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence, saying in March that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, had not authorized going forward with producing a bomb, and that American spy agencies agreed with that conclusion?

What I make of it is the same thing that I made of her statements that Bashar al-Assad was not such a bad guy. She’s a nut case who has no particular grasp on the realities of the situation. She is one of a number of people who never should have been appointed to that position. If [C.I.A. director] John Ratcliffe had said that, I would have taken it more seriously, because he’s not a nut case.

We don’t have any reason to believe that she was lying about what the American intelligence community broadly believed, correct?

We don’t have any reason to believe that she was [telling the truth]. And, by the way, the American intelligence community has a pretty mixed track record on this. Intelligence is always difficult. Secondly, on this one, they have an uneven record. Thirdly, the Israelis have had a much better record than we have and they’re motivated because the Iranians want to exterminate them. So between the weirdness and unreliability of Tulsi Gabbard on the one hand and our intelligence community’s record on the other, I don’t take anything she says seriously.

I was only saying that we don’t have any reason to think that the intelligence community had reached a different conclusion.

We don’t know whether she was accurately rendering what people were saying. We don’t know that it was actually a consensus position. [On June 19th, the Timesreportedthat it remains the consensus position of the intelligence community that Iran has not yet decided whether to pursue the manufacture of nuclear bombs; senior officials also told the newspaper that Iran was likely to move toward it if the United States attacked.] It would be a big mistake to think that the top-level judgments are not made with an eye to what you think the political leadership may do that you like or dislike. That was the experience I had in government. So, you know, the intelligence world is murky. It’s a murky world. There’s some outstanding people there and there are other people who have political views and act on them.

You just said that you weren’t sure how much damage was done by the American strikes on Saturday. Youalso wrote, on Sunday, “For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option.” Did you have a reason to use those numbers, or were you just speculating? TheTimesand other outlets recentlyreported, based on a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency report, that the strike seems to have only set the program back by a “few months.”

That was a preliminary D.I.A. assessment which is not shared by the Israelis. If you look at the Israeli press, you’ll see that is not the Israeli view. [After Trump began an extraordinary attack on the media for reporting on the D.I.A. assessment, and defended his claim that the Iranian nuclear sites had been “obliterated,” Ratcliffe released an assessment saying that the American strikes had “severely damaged” Iran’s nuclear program. The Times also reported, on Wednesday, that, according to U.S. government officials, “should Iran decide to move quickly to get a bomb, it is unlikely to use the facilities struck in the American attack but probably has much of the raw materials and know-how needed to continue.”]

I ran the Air Force’s study of the first Gulf War. And even like six months or a year later, we were still arguing about the bomb-damage assessments. It’s a very difficult task. So it is too soon to know exactly what the result of the Fordo strikes in particular were.

That’s why I was surprised by the “five years, maybe 10” thing.

My judgment on that is based on the fact that the issue is not the American strikes; it’s the Israeliandthe American strikes.

I wasn’t sure if the five or ten years was from an intelligence assessment or—

It’s good to have the best-informed speculation.

You recentlywrote, “[Trump] understands that a different kind of Iran—if not a democratic one, then a tamed dictatorship—would be open for deals, and he would gladly make them. He has engaged more with the Persian Gulf in recent years than with any other part of the world, and sees opportunities there. He believes that the price would be low, and although the Israelis have done the heavy lifting, he will get the credit from them and others for the finishing touches.” What did you mean?

He clearly likes going to the Middle East. He likes the Persian Gulf. I think it’s partly because he likes the deference, the vast quantities of things like gold all over the place, huge business deals, jetliners. Parts of it are grotesque. But, in any case, I think he does feel comfortable doing business with those people.

He’s a businessman of a certain type and a certain rather unsavory type. But, yeah, he is a businessman. He also probably sees this as his opportunity to get a Nobel Peace Prize, which he clearly thinks he deserves and desperately wants. But also, he has a feral instinct for weakness. And I think he understood much better than a lot of the commentators have understood that this is a weak state and it’s a weak regime. And he proved to be right. All this stuff about how these guys are going to unleash terror against Americans all over the Middle East and elsewhere—no, they shot one salvo of missiles at an empty base, after they forewarned us.

Yes, you recentlywrote, “The bottom line is that Iran’s leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools.” You alsowrote, “Israel’s current campaign is built around two realities often missed by so-called realists: first, that the Iranian government is determined to acquire nuclear weapons and cannot be deterred, bought off, or persuaded to do otherwise, and second, that Israel reasonably believes itself to be facing an existential threat.” Is there a contradiction here? At one level, you seem to say that the Iranians are scared and acting rationally, but also that they would risk extinction and death by trying to destroy Israel.

I wouldn’t accept your characterization of it. I think there are two things at play. One, as former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said, Israel’s a one-bomb country, which is very different from the United States. They could reasonably believe that with a couple of nuclear weapons they could basically destroy the state of Israel.

I have been over to Israel several times since October 7th, including getting a tour of the Gaza Strip.

Just Rafah and the Philadelphi Corridor. [The corridor is a strip of land near the Egyptian border.] One of the things that really struck me was some of the Hamas hardware that they picked up, a lot of it Iranian. One of the things the Israelis say is, “This isn’t just about us and the Palestinians. This is us and Iran.” The Iranians have talked about destroying the state of Israel. So I think the Israelis have every reason in the world to think it’s existential. And the Iranians could reasonably believe if they have nuclear weapons that that would give them some kind of umbrella under which they could do a lot of things, particularly to their neighbors.

Iran has done a lot of terrible things in the neighborhood. And having nuclear weapons might unleash their ability to do much more. I was focussed on whether they are a rational regime or one that is willing to risk extinction of their entire leadership just to destroy Israel. That was the tension.

I don’t think until this point they thought that they would be risking the extermination of their entire senior leadership.

Well, Israel does have nuclear weapons.

Hezbollah was able to fire loads and loads of rockets at Israel without getting a nuke in response. But I think we've got to remember the Iranians talk about Israel as the lesser Satan. We are the greater Satan and they are much more afraid of us.

You are someone who warned about Trump’s lawbreaking and his disrespect for the law. Is there no concern about someone like Trump just deciding that he can use the military whenever he wants, even without congressional authorization?

I’ve been saying he’s a terrible guy for a long time. But I am somebody who very much believes that you don’t let those kinds of sentiments, which I absolutely have and I still have, get in the way of your analytic judgments. The “evil” George W. Bush regime, of which I was part, actually twice got authorizations for the use of military force. They didn’t get a whole lot of credit for it, I might say.

And the sainted Barack Obama Administration, which launched an extended bombing campaign in Libya, did not get congressional authorization. And I don’t remember any of the columnists or journalists, let’s say, from the center to the left part of the spectrum, complaining about that. So I think that’s really an important point that people might want to think about to get to Trump. I think he genuinely does not like war, and I don’t know what, exactly, the reason is for that. I think he’s willing to use force up to a point. He really doesn’t like war. I don’t know if it’s because he’s a builder and he hates to see buildings get blown up.

You wrote apiecea couple of years ago called “Beware the False Prophets of War.” In it, you say, “Prognosticating about war is always a chancy business . . . But making all allowances for that, it is striking just how bad Western governments, commentators, and leaders have been over the past few decades at gauging not only what course wars might take but how they have gone as they have unfolded.” In the context of our conversation today, what did you mean here?

I will say what’s striking to me is how wrong journalists, pundits, experts have been here. And, you know, a complete lack of humility. If I were to look at the misjudgments that people have made about Iran, it has been about the nature of the regime that you’re dealing with and about its objectives and about what it’s trying to achieve. Those have been the biggest misjudgments.

In late 2001, less than two months after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, you praised what you called “the Afghan achievement” as “remarkable . . . to have radically altered the balance of power there, to have effectively destroyed the Taliban state.” You were also a famous supporter of the Iraq War, which didn’t turn out so well, but which you predicted would be easy to win. What do you think you got wrong, and what lessons have you learned in thinking about Iran today?

So, a couple of things. One is, if you read my book, “The Big Stick,” I have a whole chapter on that.

I read that chapter. I didn’t read the whole book, but after finishing the chapter I still wasn’t sure what the answer to my question was.

So the answer is this: I think in both cases the part I was right about was that the conventional campaign would be quite straightforward, as it was. I think where we failed in both parts, where I failed in both parts, was in overestimating what our institutions would be capable of in terms of actually waging those wars. The biggest issue was the Iraqi and Afghan National Security Forces. And there was the way we rotated forces in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, rotating entire divisions, which meant that basically you had no consistency in kind of the overall conduct of the campaign. If you look in Afghanistan, say, the divided chain of command, again, made no sense.

But, more broadly, these failures didn’t change your very hawkish outlook on foreign policy in the Middle East and just the whole way America conducts foreign policy, right?

I don’t know that it’s particularly hawkish.

The AfghanistanpieceI just quoted from was titled “World War IV.”

Honestly, do I still think that there is a huge problem with radical Islam? Yeah. They still do want to kill us. I mean, it’s—I don’t know if you follow the stuff that’s going on in Africa, for example, right now. You can’t tell me that that conflict is over. You have Islamic extremist groups in the Horn of Africa. And actually in Pakistan and Afghanistan and other places as well, and sometimes even within Europe and even the United States. What I try to do is describe the realities as they are. People don’t particularly like to hear them, but those are the realities. Part of the problem that you have here is everybody wants to scratch at the scab that is the Iraq War.

And, O.K., you can say Cohen’s a complete idiot.

I remember last year you wrote apiececalled “The Awfulness of War Can’t Be Avoided.” It does seem like one thing that you have tried to point out in your writing and just pointed out now is that, broadly speaking, people think that we can avoid these entanglements and we actually can’t.

That piece was about Israel continuing its war in Gaza, to be specific. But you were talking more broadly, too.

Unfortunately, that’s the world that we’re in, and people do want to avoid that.

You said earlier that you went to Gaza. What was your sense of the humanitarian situation there? It seems quite terrible.

So, honestly, the parts that I was in were just along the Philadelphi Corridor. The main impression is that the level of destruction is enormous. Actually, we saw columns of aid trucks going in. And you understand the problem. As long as you have Hamas gunmen around, they’re going to take charge of the food distribution and use it to control the population, but also to support their efforts.

I guess the Israelis have stopped that by cutting off the aid going in.

Well, the Israelis have not cut off all the food and aid. I mean, that’s not true.

If somebody has a good solution, I would love to hear it. I don’t know what a good solution is.

Well, you also have people in the Israeli government essentially implying that Palestinians deserve to starve and so on.

That’s appalling. My sentiments are more closely with those who think that you probably should have brought this thing to a conclusion a lot quicker. But having said that, I think what I would also recognize is there are no good solutions to this one. What the Israelis have tried to do, and you might say it’s a terrible solution, is create a new organization to distribute food. Is that a good idea or not? I honestly don’t know. [In the past month, since Israel helped set up anentitycalled the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, more than four hundred Palestinians have beenkilledat or near food and aid distribution sites.] I simply just don’t have enough information to be able to tell.

Yeah, you probably don’t want to just speculate on it.

I don’t want to speculate on it. ♦

The Supreme Court Sides with Trump Against the Judiciary

Its ruling lets the President temporarily revoke birthright citizenship—and enforce other unconstitutional executive orders without fear of being blocked by “rogue judges.”

The courts cannot protect us from PresidentDonald Trump’s unconstitutional overreach. That is the terrifying lesson of Friday’s 6–3 Supreme Court ruling limiting the power of federal judges to issue broad orders blocking Trump’s policies from taking effect while the lawsuits challenging them make their way through the courts. The case,Trump v.CASA, involved one of the most blatantly unconstitutional of Trump’s orders: his bid to revoke, by executive fiat, the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. But the implications of the ruling extend far beyond that single issue. Friday’s decision means that courts are now hobbled from stopping any of the Administration’s actions, no matter how unconstitutional they may be, nor how much damage they will inflict. Once again, the Court’s conservative super-majority abandoned its constitutionally assigned role and dangerously empowered the President. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in her dissent, “its decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution.”

The LedeReporting and commentary on what you need to know today.

This outcome was as unnecessary as it was unwise. Witness the victory lap that President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi took in the White House briefing room after the ruling was released. Trump crowed that the Court had defused a “grave threat to democracy,” in which “a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president.” Bondi, for her part, decried “rogue judges striking down President Trump’s policies” through “lawless injunctions” that let district-court judges act as “emperors.”

It remains unlikely that the Court, when it finally gets around to deciding the merits of the dispute, will uphold Trump’s effort to undo birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship was the rule before it was written into the Fourteenth Amendment. (The departure that necessitated constitutional protection was the Court’s infamous 1857 holding inDred Scott v. Sandford, which held that people of African descent “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution.”) And the language of the Amendment is clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” (The caveat—“subject to the jurisdiction”—is a carve out for the children of diplomats and other minor exceptions.) That guarantee has been codified in federal law; it was affirmed in an 1898 ruling in the case ofWong Kim Ark, the U.S.-born son of Chinese immigrants. “The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” the Court said in that case, and subsequent rulings have repeated that conclusion. No surprise, then, that three district-court judges reviewing the executive order had little trouble finding that the edict was probably unconstitutional, and that three appeals courts that reviewed their work left intact their rulings blocking the order from taking effect. Equally telling, the Supreme Court majority said not a word about the legality of the order itself.

But imagine the harms that can ensue in the meantime: parents unable to obtain Social Security numbers for their children; infants denied health coverage or nutrition assistance. Sotomayor’s dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan andKetanji Brown Jackson, raised the prospect that Trump’s order “may even wrench newborns from the arms of parents lawfully in the United States, for it purports to strip citizenship from the children of parents legally present on a temporary basis.” If this warning sounds overblown, let me introduce you to the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller. And this gets to why the consequences of Trump v.CASAreverberate beyond birthright citizenship. “No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,” Sotomayor warned. “Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.” Sotomayor had more hypotheticals in her arsenal. “Suppose an executive order barred women from receiving unemployment benefits or black citizens from voting. Is the Government irreparably harmed, and entitled to emergency relief, by a district court order universally enjoining such policies?” she asked. “The majority, apparently, would say yes.” Those unlikely scenarios underscore the scary implications of the Court’s approach, but the real-world consequences of Friday’s decision are undeniable. They span the landscape ofTrump’s executive ordersand other actions, including efforts to impose more stringent voter-identification requirements, relocate transgender women prisoners to male facilities, and freeze foreign aid.

The majority got the balance dangerously wrong, but there is a legitimate debate over the proper reach of what are called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions. Democratic and Republican Presidents have chafed at orders from district-court judges, often cherry-picked by plaintiffs for their demonstrated sympathies, that prevent policies from being implemented across the country, sometimes for years. “Look, there are all kinds of abuses of nationwide injunctions,” Kagan said at the oral argument in the birthright case last month, and the dissent acknowledged that “there may be good reasons not to issue universal injunctions in the typical case.” But the birthright citizenship order was particularly ill-suited to serve as a vehicle for curbing such injunctions. The order itself is likely doomed. The government’s argument that the injunctions were causing it irreparable harm is unconvincing; leaving in place what has been the rule for centuries is no hardship. And the government’s proposed alternative—that the injunctions keeping birthright-citizenship protections in place apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not to a broader group of those affected—makes little sense in the context of citizenship, which should be decided on a national basis, not relegated to a haphazard patchwork dictated by circumstances of geography or the capacity to secure a lawyer. As the dissenters put it, “This is not a scenario where granting universal relief will encourage forum shopping or give plaintiffs the upper hand. Quite the opposite: By awarding universal relief below, the District Courts just ordered the Government to do everywhere what any reasonable jurist would order the Government to do anywhere.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, ruled that courts must limit themselves to orders that deal with the disputes immediately before them; they may not rove beyond the case at hand to resolve issues for those who aren’t parties to it. At oral argument, Barrett had seemed to express some exasperation with the government’s position, so it was disappointing to see her in the majority. But Barrett left open the possibility that the states challenging the birthright order could prove they needed the broader relief of a blanket ban, leaving that question to lower courts to determine. She also suggested that those challenging Administration orders had another option: they could file their suits as class actions. This would be more comforting if the Court in recent years had not made it more difficult for plaintiffs to obtain class-action status and if the Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, had not said that the government would probably oppose granting class status, at least in the context of birthright citizenship. Then there is the concurring opinion in Friday’s case by Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas; they warned that “district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors” of its requirements. In other words, don’t count on class actions to rein in Administrations bent on abusing the law.

Given Congress’s abdication of its constitutional role, the courts remain the best immediate vehicle for combatting Trump’s excesses. (Elections are a better solution, but they remain far off.) With Friday’s ruling, though, they are unnecessarily handcuffed. If there is one thing we have learned during the five long months of the second Trump Administration, it is how easy it is to inflict damage on programs and institutions, and how hard that damage is to repair. This is an example of the Court stripping its own branch of power, and at the worst possible moment. ♦

ICE Detains a Respected Immigrant Journalist

Mario Guevara became a target of the law-enforcement and immigration agencies he covered. Others may be next.

“LaBoca del Lobo,” a 2019Timesshort documentary, follows the work of Mario Guevara, a reporter based in the outskirts of Atlanta who has a large audience among Latino immigrants in the area. In one scene, a woman tells Guevara that her husband, who had just been detained byICEagents, had walked into “la boca del lobo” (“into the wolf’s mouth,” an expression meaning “into the lion’s den”). The immigration-enforcement agency had more than quadrupled noncriminal arrests in Atlanta in the 2017 fiscal year and was causing havoc in Spanish-speaking communities. Guevara, a forty-seven-year-old Salvadoran immigrant, is the only reporter in Atlanta (and possibly in the United States) who has been covering these raids every day for years. “Mr. Guevara’s job, and his obsession, is to stalk the wolf,” Jesse Moss, the director of the video,wrotein an accompanying piece for theTimes.

The LedeReporting and commentary on what you need to know today.

Now Guevara himself has been detained byICEagents. On June 14th, he was arrested while live-streaming a No Kings protest near Atlanta, and he is currently being held in an immigration-detention center. His case highlights the particularly vulnerable position of immigrant journalists who report on immigration for immigrant communities. As attacks on press freedom mount, including theintimidation of journalists covering protests, reporters are becoming targets of the law-enforcement and immigration agencies that they cover.

Guevara’s career as a journalist in El Salvador was brief but deeply consequential. When he was in his early twenties, he joined the photojournalism desk atLa Prensa Gráfica, one of the country’s main newspapers. “He was very young and very enthusiastic,” Francisco Campos, a renowned photojournalist who was then his editor, told me. Guevara lived in Apopa, a district north of San Salvador, the capital city, which was by then falling under the control of themaras—gangs that originated in Los Angeles and whose members were deported en masse to El Salvador in the nineteen-nineties—who routinely threatened those who didn’t pay them arenta(protection money). Guevara confided to Campos that he was afraid of them.

In 2003, Campos sent him to cover a mass protest in front of the national-government complex in San Salvador. The organizer was the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (F.M.L.N.), a left-wing guerrilla organization during the civil war that had become a legitimate political party following the 1992 peace accords. Just over a decade had passed since the end of the brutal twelve-year-long conflict, and street protests often ended in violence. As a journalist withLa Prensa Gráfica, Guevara was a target: F.M.L.N. sympathizers saw the paper as a political enemy, because it had supported the military through the war. A group of protesters attacked Guevara, who sought refuge at the nearby Ministry of Justice. He was then driven to a police station, where Campos picked him up later that day. Guevara latertold CNNthat he had received death threats during this period; in the documentary, he reiterates that he had “made some enemies” and was promised “two bullets in the chest.” In early 2004, Guevara, with his wife and young daughter, left El Salvador for the United States, reportedly arriving on a tourist visa. He settled in Atlanta and eventually requested asylum.

Guevara managed to get a job at a local, now defunct newspaper,Atlanta Latino. In 2007, he moved toMundo Hispánico, an outlet owned at the time by Cox Enterprises, which also owns the AtlantaJournal-Constitution.Mundo Hispánicobecame the leading Spanish-language news outlet in Georgia, with numbers rivalling those of English-language outlets: by 2020, it had 4.9 million followers on Facebook, while theJournal-Constitutionhad just 837,000. This growth coincided with a rapid rise in the state’s Latino population; according to the Atlanta Regional Commission, there was a more than thirty per cent increase in the Atlanta metro area between 2010 and 2020.

During the Obama Administration, a federal program that allowsICEto partner with state and local law enforcement expanded across the region, and the number of detentions ballooned. Guevara began covering them as they occurred, to document their personal and communal toll. Shortly before the start of the first Trump Administration, Guevara began noticing abandoned vans on the sides of roads, often with ladders attached to the roof and coffee thermoses left inside, and realized thatICEwas targeting vans carrying migrant construction workers. He began driving around the Atlanta region at dawn, whenICEoperations were most frequent, to catch and live-stream those raids.

Guevara built a huge immigrant audience on social media; he now has more than 1.4 million followers across all platforms, including almost nine hundred thousand on Facebook. He forged a direct relationship with them by answering their messages and by speaking to them, or by driving around their neighborhoods and introducing himself. They often sent him tips, which he pursued and turned into stories. “He had eyes and ears everywhere,” Lautaro Grinspan, a bilingual immigration reporter with the AtlantaJournal-Constitution, told me. When they had “trouble getting an official tally of immigration arrests in the area, the second-best source was Mario.” Grinspan, whoprofiled Guevarain May, just a few weeks before his arrest, added that it is “hard to overstate” his influence in the Spanish-language community. “He was a singular presence in our media ecosystem.” Now “he finds himself in the bowels of the immigration-detention system, experiencing firsthand something he used to write about.”

In “La Boca del Lobo,” Guevara recalls receiving a tip:ICEhad surrounded a building and was knocking on the door. When Guevara arrived at the scene, officers had already cordoned off the area. He began live-streaming and, at one point, realized that the migrant they were after was watching the operation live on his Facebook page. The man contacted Guevara and asked him to mediate with theICEagents so that they wouldn’t shoot him when he left the building. Guevara informed the officers that the man inside was afraid to come out, and they communicated with him—through Guevara—until he surrendered. In the same video, Guevara states that, as a reporter, he doesn’t take sides—he often interviewsICEagents and police officers for their perspective—but he notes that the raids create “a lot of fear and terror. A lot of panic. There are people who won’t go to work nor send their kids to school after a raid in their neighborhood. That fear is not letting them continue with their normal life.” He adds, “I understand that fear. Sometimes I think I’ll be next.”

By then, Guevara’s asylum request had been denied. In June, 2012, a judge had ordered him to leave the country within sixty days, but his lawyers obtained administrative closure, a procedure by which an immigration judge can temporarily pause removal proceedings. Guevara and his wife have two sons born in the U.S., and Guevara applied for a green card as an immediate relative of a citizen. According to one of his lawyers, Giovanni Díaz, he was granted a temporary work permit. His green-card request is still pending. In a recent press conference, Guevara’s daughter mentioned that one of her brothers, who is now twenty-one and is sponsoring his father’s request, had to undergo two surgeries to remove a brain tumor and depends on his father financially and emotionally.

Guevara continued reporting despite his legal vulnerability. He leftMundo Hispánicolast year to launch his own operation, MGNews. On June 14th, wearing a red shirt, a helmet, and a black vest that read “PRESS” in large white letters on the front and back, he went to cover the No Kings protest. A group of local police officers closed in on him, and, while he loudly identified himself as “a member of the media,” they arrested him. He “is very, very well known in the community, even with these jurisdictions and these police officers . . . It’s hard to believe they didn’t know who he was,” Díaz, his lawyer, said during the press conference.

Guevara was taken to the DeKalb County Jail and charged with three misdemeanors: obstruction of law-enforcement officers, unlawful assembly, and pedestrian improperly entering roadway. A few days later, three additional misdemeanor charges were filed in Gwinnett County—for ignoring traffic signs, using a communication device while driving, and reckless driving—which stemmed from an incident in May, in which, according to Díaz, Guevara was recording law-enforcement operations. (Dekalb County dropped the charges on June 25th, but the ones filed in Gwinnett County are still pending. Guevara’s lawyers said in a press release that “it is very uncommon for traffic warrants to be sought out after the alleged illegal activity. Nevertheless, we are working to obtain more information about these warrants and find out the reason why they were not brought earlier. Mr. Guevara is innocent until proven guilty.”) On June 18th, the police turned Guevara over toICE, and he was transferred to the FolkstonICEProcessing Center in southeastern Georgia. On Friday, June 20th,ICEannounced that it had initiated deportation proceedings.

Francisco Campos, the photojournalist in El Salvador who was Guevara’s editor, and who has remained in touch with him, saw the news of the arrest on Guevara’s social-media accounts. “In these twenty-some years since he left, Mario has helped several people here,” he told me. About ten years ago, he said, Guevara came to the aid of a campesino in Sensuntepeque, a remote area near the border with Honduras. The man had been forced to mortgage his land after gang members had extorted him, and the bank was about to foreclose. Guevara raised the money, Campos said, which was deposited directly in the bank to cancel the man’s debt and to insure that he maintained the property title. Sending Guevara back to El Salvador “would be a very unfortunate situation,” Campos said. “Newsrooms have laid off about sixty per cent of their staff. Many journalists are unemployed. This is not a country where you can come and launch a successful news channel like the one he has there. For him, it would be personally devastating.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists (where I serve as a board member), along with a coalition of civil-society and media organizations, expressed “alarm” at Guevara’s detention in alettertoKristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and demanded his release. “If Guevara’s case proceeds, it would represent a grim erosion of both freedom of the press and the rule of law. Journalists who are not U.S. citizens could be at risk of deportation solely because local law enforcement filed misdemeanor charges against them in retaliation for reporting without those charges ever being tried in court,” the letter reads. (The Press Freedom Tracker has documented the arrest of eleven journalists since Trump’s Inauguration, including Guevara’s, all at anti-ICEprotests, and is working to verify the arrest of four more.) In an X post from June 20th, the Department of Homeland Security denied that Guevara had been detained because of his work and said that he was inICEcustody because he had entered the country illegally in 2004. (Díaz reiterated to NPR that Guevara had entered the U.S. legally on a tourist visa.)

Maritza Félix, the founder and director of the Spanish-language news outletConecta Arizona, based in Phoenix, has known Guevara for years. She told me that news of his arrest compounded what has been a “traumatizing” few months for reporters, especially those who came to the U.S. seeking the freedom that they lacked in their home countries. “Today, it was Mario, but tomorrow it could be any one of us. We used to believe we were in a country where the law and the Constitution were respected.” She said that her team has seen an uptick in hate messages in e-mails and on social media—“Go back to your country,” “Speak English”—and have been forced to adopt safety measures she never imagined would be necessary here.

Paola Jaramillo, the co-founder and executive director ofEnlace Latino NC, a nonprofit Spanish-language digital news outlet covering North Carolina, painted a similar picture. “The xenophobic messages began in the middle of last year, after we posted a video of a state legislative session with Spanish closed captions. They intensified with our coverage of protests and immigration issues—‘Deport them,’ ‘Learn English,’ ” she said. Jaramillo, who knows Guevara and has been following his work for years, noted that his case is “a warning” of what others might face. “Many journalists covering the Latino community have, at some point, found themselves in immigration limbo—and still we go out and report. But we used to be more respected. What we did was valued a little more. The circumstances have changed.”

When Félix watched the video of Guevara’s arrest, she realized that he was doing everything she has been trained to do in preparation for the possibility of being arrested while covering a protest—a type of training more and more journalists are now receiving from news organizations, professional associations, and some journalism schools (including the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, where I serve as the dean). “He de-escalates the situation, stays calm, walks, doesn’t resist—and, still, they take him.” When journalists who are U.S. citizens are arrested, Félix continued, they generally are taken to jail, bail is set, and they are released. But for a reporter without solid immigration status the outcome can be deportation. “Even if you’re here with legal permission, being allowed to do the work is considered not a right but a privilege,” she said. Community reporters are often the most (if not the only) trusted source of information for the most vulnerable, and the stakes for both those reporters and the people they serve couldn’t be higher. ♦

Trump, Congress, and the War Powers Resolution

Two interrelated fears that have caused mounting public alarm with respect to the Trump Administration involve unchecked executive power and the erosion of the rule of law. These worries have intensified in debates about the legality of President Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities more than a week into Israel’s war against Iran. Members of both houses of Congress had introduced resolutions to try to prevent Trump from taking such military action without its authorization. But the energy that some lawmakers had mustered for a rare attempt to assert Congress’s constitutional power against Trump seemed to dissipate, at least while they expected a ceasefire between Israel and Iran to hold.

One would normally look to Supreme Court precedents to determine the constitutionality of a Presidential action. But no cases provide legal answers about the permissibility of attacks like the one on Iran. The only relevant case from the Court dates to the Civil War. It states that Congress has the sole power to “declare war,” but that, in the event that a foreign nation invades the U.S., congressional authorization is unnecessary and the President’s constitutional power as the Commander-in-Chief is sufficient to take action. The Court noted that the President cannot “initiate the war,” but it has never provided an authoritative definition of “war,” as opposed to armed conflict.

Congress has not formally declared war since the Second World War, but it has sometimes authorized Presidents to use military force in conflicts colloquially known as wars—for example, in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But, when Congress has given no such authorization, Presidents have often turned to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. O.L.C. issues opinions that are not binding law, but which attempt to present legally correct boundaries that the President should respect. Presidents have regularly acted unilaterally to enter significant hostilities on the basis of those opinions, including in the Korean War, in Kosovo, and in Libya.

Congress, in the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (enacted over the veto of President Nixon, who thought it unconstitutional), aimed to check the unilateral Presidential use of force, requiring, among other things, that the President consult Congress before sending armed forces into hostilities and obtain congressional approval to deploy troops in conflicts for more than sixty days. But both Democratic and Republican Presidents have not fully complied, and Congress hasn’t done much about it. In recent weeks, some lawmakers proposed new War Powers Resolutions to prevent Trump from attacking Iran again unless Congress authorizes it, but the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, resisted the idea and declared that the existing War Powers Resolution was an unconstitutional infringement of the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief.

During the past several decades, O.L.C. has produced opinion after opinion that has been staggeringly expansive with respect to that power. Each armed conflict that a President undertook without congressional authorization became a precedent that further enlarged what the executive branch considered constitutionally permissible. That is how we got to a situation in which a President can reasonably claim that it is lawful, without congressional approval or even consultation, to drop bunker-busting bombs on a country that has not attacked the U.S. One might assume that Trump wouldn’t care a whit about precedent, but the telltale way he described the operation in a letter to Congress days after the strikes suggested that he was closely informed by past executive practice. He alluded to key formulations from previous O.L.C. opinions, stating that his strikes “discretely targeted” Iran’s nuclear facilities, were “limited in scope and purpose,” and did not involve ground forces—meaning that the operation fit the criteria of what O.L.C. has said falls short of war, such that congressional authorization was unnecessary.

Trump’s justifications also reflected O.L.C. precedents maintaining that a President can unilaterally use military force abroad to pursue “national interests” and “collective self-defense.” The office has construed “national interests” very broadly, to include “ensuring the safe delivery of food and medicine in Somalia,” under the first President Bush; “assisting an ally or strategic partner,” Iraq, under President Obama; and deterring “the use and proliferation of chemical weapons,” in Syria, during Trump’s first term. And “collective self-defense” can mean not only repelling an imminent attack but also warding off future attacks and defending allies.

Jack Goldsmith, a foremost expert on war powers and a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote, in October, 2023, that, under the body of O.L.C. opinions, “just about any conceivable circumstance” in which a President “would think it prudent to use force in the Middle East” can be justified. Slowing down Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons would satisfy the “national interests” test as well as the “collective self-defense of our ally, Israel,” as Trump put it. More recently, Goldsmith rued the troubling reality that “there is no constitutional rule that would answer the question” of whether the Iran strikes were unlawful. But some lawmakers may believe that it is time for Congress to rethink the acceptance of past executive-branch practice as a justification for future unilateral military actions. Not least because a leaked preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency report suggesting, to Trump’s ire, that his attack had not “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, if proved correct, may lead him to feel that it is in the “national interest” to try again. (The Administration said that it might now limit the intelligence it shares with Congress.)

The courts largely stay out of war-powers debates because those debates are often deemed to entail policy questions rather than legal ones. So if Congress persists in not checking the President’s use of the military, or even believes that such checks are unconstitutional, his unilateral power will remain nearly unlimited. Before the Iran strikes, concerns about Trump and the military were focussed on his federalization of the California National Guard, which the Administration justified on the theory that violent incidents among those protestingICEin Los Angeles had turned into a “rebellion” against the U.S. The Ninth Circuit found that Trump’s actions were likely consistent with a statute stipulating that the President may take such steps when “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

We are learning that, at home and abroad, the ability to curb the most dangerously consequential uses of Presidential power relies mostly on the self-restraint of the Commander-in-Chief. Law gets us only so far, or, sometimes, nowhere. ♦

The Grim State of Trans Health Care

With the “Big Beautiful Bill” in flux, and federal funds for gender-affirming care hanging in the balance, protections for trans children and adults continue to be dismantled at the state level.

This weekend, as raucous parties and strident Pride marches take place across New York City, many in the L.G.B.T.Q. community are in a less than celebratory mood. At best, the vibe is ambivalent, withlocal political victoriesovershadowed by ominous national news. Trans people, in particular, are grappling with the painful political disappointments of the past year. The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling in United States v. Skrmetti,upheld a Tennessee state lawbanning puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors, and the Trump Administration is attempting to ban all pediatric gender-related care. Older trans individuals, too, are under threat, as the Administration now seeks to block federal funds from supporting trans health care. There are roughly two hundred and seventy-six thousand trans adults currently enrolled in Medicaid; their access to gender-affirming care may soon be stripped away, should Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” pass in the Senate. Hormones and surgery costs could soar beyond most trans people’s means, forcing some to resort to alternative methods, like using underground D.I.Y. networks, or seeking care abroad. Although the Administration, with its proposed changes to programs like Medicaid, may claim that its guiding principle is fiscal conservatism, its true goal is control.

In May, more than a month before the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti, the Department of Health and Human Services released a four-hundred-and-nine-page document casting doubt on the safety of gender-affirming care for children. The report attempts to undermine the idea that it is safe for trans children to receive hormone-replacement therapy and puberty blockers, the treatment course established by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and which is currently endorsed by all major medical associations in the U.S. (Despite conservative fearmongering about young trans people undergoing radical medical procedures, theWPATHguidelines generally recommend that only those above the age of eighteen should receive genital reconstructive surgery.)

According to the H.H.S. report, for the vast majority of people, gender dysphoria is simply a temporary discomfort. Perhaps, with proper care, such as counselling, they would come to terms with the “reality” of their biological gender. The report begins with explanations of various medical maxims: one isPrimum non nocere—“First, do no harm.” But counselling can sometimes be a thinly veiled disguise for conversion therapy, and conversion therapy is harm at the highest level—I know this from experience. The report technically calls for “gender exploratory therapy,” noting that “being labeled a ‘conversion therapist’ ” is a “damaging accusation given the profession’s mistreatment of gay people.” But such a claim fails to acknowledge the possibility that gender-exploratory therapists may be perpetuating the same kind of mistreatment.

The H.H.S. report contradicts a previous assertion from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a subset of H.H.S., which has written that no research has displayed convincing evidence that therapy can alter a patient’s gender or sexual identity. It also contradicts guidance from medical authorities such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, the latter of which hascalledthe H.H.S. report “inaccurate.” These authorities stand by the recommended treatment protocols established byWPATH, an organization of physicians, surgeons, and mental-health professionals that emerged from an attempt to standardize care in 1979. Trump has deridedWPATHfor conducting “junk science,” and the organization has been accused of selectively publishing research regarding the effectiveness of pediatric trans care on mental health. But the H.H.S. report, which Trump ordered as a corrective, does not represent a good-faith effort to engage on the question of when and how young people suffering from gender dysphoria should be treated. Rather, in its reliance “on select perspectives and a narrow set of data,” in the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics, it engages in the same kind of cherry-picking thatWPATHhas been accused of. After enacting a ban on pediatric trans care, in 2023, Utah lawmakers commissioned an assessment of the safety of puberty blockers and H.R.T. The study recently found that these treatments are both safe and effective. But, as Chase Strangio, a trans lawyer at the A.C.L.U.,pointed outin an Instagram video, the report got little mainstream-news coverage. The H.H.S., and the political right at large, have instead focussed on detransitioners. If trans people comprise a small community—an estimated 0.6 per cent of the population—then the detrans community is even smaller. Yet the right loves to platform their stories; the H.H.S. report describes these individuals as “brave whistleblowers.”

For trans children caught in these political crosswinds, the stakes are high. “Being called your correct name and pronouns, being on HRT, that can be the difference between life and death,” Zelda, a seventeen-year-old trans boy from Louisiana, recentlytoldtheCut. More than forty per cent of trans adults have attempted suicide, according to the Williams Institute at U.C.L.A. While the H.H.S. report does raise the alarm on trans suicide, at times it suggests the blame is on hormones, more so than a culture rife with violent transphobia. This is despite the fact that numerousreportshave found that those who undergo conversion therapy are far more likely to die by suicide than their peers. In states where anti-trans legislation passed, suicide attempts by trans teens subsequently went up by seventy-two per cent, according to the Trevor Project, a nonprofit organization focussed on crisis prevention for L.G.B.T.Q. youth. Some have argued that the studies have yet to directly link access to trans health care with lower youth-suicide rates, but medical care is not the only factor influencing mental health—discrimination, job security, stigma, and harassment also play key roles. Still, as Strangio, who represented the plaintiffs in the Skrmetti case, told the Supreme Court during oral arguments, “There are multiple studies, long-term, longitudinal studies that do show that there is a reduction in suicidality, which I think is a positive outcome to this treatment.”

Children are often caught at the center of the moral panic around transness. They are the testing ground for the erosion of trans rights, which conservatives often frame as a defense of parents’ rights. This thinking, too, is reflected in the way that the media often spotlights the voices of parents of trans kids rather than the children themselves. Right-wing stories that aim to whip up panic about an alleged “trans boom” tend to interview parents, infantilizing the kids as unreliable narrators. Even on the left, the voices of parents are often prioritized, ranging from spokesperson or advocate to the central narrator of their trans child’s story, in a way that goes beyond the standard journalistic practice of protecting minors, given that these trans kids are often in their teens. (A rare exception is “Just Kids”—a recent documentary directed by Gianna Toboni about the great lengths that trans kids must go to in order to receive care—which interviews a number of trans children and allows them to speak for themselves about the criminalization of their care.)

It is easy to deprive children of trans rights because our society generally functions as if children don’t have any rights at all. We struggle to believe that these little humans are capable of making their own decisions, much less of telling us who they are. But, although conservatives might focus their public messaging around trans children, it’s naïve to think that trans adults will be any safer from the Administration’s ire. The age at which someone should be “allowed” to transition keeps moving: Trump recently said nineteen; other conservative critics have suggested waiting until people are in their twenties. (Of course, this would mean that no one is allowed access to puberty blockers.) But the White House’s goal isn’t just no new trans kids; it’s no trans people, period. This is the clear takeaway from Trump’sexecutive order“Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which declares that sex is immutable, and withdraws all federal recognition for trans people.

Trans kids are often used as a Trojan horse. An early version of the House Republicans’ “Big Beautiful Bill” proposed eliminating Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care solely for minors; a later version of the bill struck the phrase “for minors.” Curtailing care for trans adults was always part of the larger conservative plan. In addition to stripping away coverage for trans health care, the bill also sets stricter work requirements for Medicaid—another dangerous prospect for trans people, who face significantly higher unemployment rates. When I started transitioning, I was unemployed and reliant on Medicaid coverage. Many trans people have expressed outrage at the proposed bill: “Being covered by Medicaid has given me medical support I never thought possible,” the comedian Marley Gotterer told me. “ ‘Lifesaving’ doesn’t even come close to describing it.” Health care, she continued, “shouldn’t be about luck.”

In her recent book “Aggregated Discontent,” Harron Walker writes about Amida Care, a Medicaid health plan in New York specifically designed to help low-income trans people. “They paid for my hormones during two significant periods of my life when I couldn’t get insurance through work, because no employers with those kinds of jobs would hire me,” Walker told me over the phone. “It’s why so many of us don’t have to stress about paying for hormones every month, much less other bills, and why we’re able to focus on our art, our work, whatever else makes up our life—because we’re not funnelling all of our attention and resources into figuring out how to get health care.”

The Trump Administration is “using every mechanism at their disposal to try to decrease access,” Strangio, the A.C.L.U. lawyer, has said. He has suggested that, in order to build a “trans liberatory project,” the left must embrace a “politics of solidarity.” This is more than just a catchy slogan; the idea is a coalition focussed on securing material rights for the various groups struggling to safeguard bodily autonomy in our current moment—immigrants, women seeking abortions, disabled people. (As part of the “Big Beautiful Bill,” Republicans have also been seeking to deny Medicaid coverage for abortion and forDACArecipients.) Thesame executive ordermeant to strip government protections from trans people has recently been applied by the Department of Veterans Affairs in a way that affects a broad swath of cisgender individuals as well, owing to the removal of language that explicitly prohibits doctors from discriminating against patients for their marital status or political beliefs. “Under Trump’s new rules, veterans can be blocked from getting care, and doctors can be barred from working at V.A. hospitals for the sole reason that they may be unmarried, belong to a union, are registered Democrats, or identify as gay or trans,” Senator Patty Murray, the former chair of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, wrote in a statement.

“I want people to fight for others and others will fight for us,” Strangio said. Still, it is easy to feel pessimistic. While there are occasional victories—a federal district judge recently ruled against the Trump’s Administration’s anti-trans passport policies—it is hard to know whether the White House will comply, even when it loses in court. The “Big Beautiful Bill” may still be in flux, with federally funded trans health care hanging in the balance, but protections continue to be dismantled at the state level; there are two bills in Texas, for instance, that seek to prohibit trans health care and insurance protections, and which are already under way. Democrats, meanwhile, seem all too willing to compromise, having turned their attention to less “controversial” battles. Zohran Mamdani and Tim Walz are some of the rare politicians who have continued to champion gender-affirming care, whereas many other prominent members of their party, such as Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, have backed down on their previous support of trans issues. Trans participation in sports is often a particular point of contention on the left. Last year, Massachusetts representative Seth Moulton told theTimes: “I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” By shifting the conversation to sports, Democrats obscure larger issues like the assault on trans health care. Trans people are not just a cultural war issue. They deserve material rights.

I tried to talk myself out of transitioning. For years, I sat in an armchair across from a Christian counsellor to discuss “my situation.” It took a long time to undo the psychic damage, to learn how to inhabit my body, to not dissociate long enough to realize I wanted to change my sex. If we enforce the idea that changing gender is unthinkable, it soon begins to seem impossible. But we have the capacity to think such audacity into being. All change is dangerous, but to remain impermeable to new identities, and to new bodies, is a brittle way to live. We don’t need freedom from change, but freedomtochange.

Last September, I “got” a vaginoplasty. Though it was before Trump was reëlected, I was not the only one to joke that perhaps my procedure was among the last that this country would offer. What’s perhaps more noteworthy is how few of these surgeries occur, even in an environment that’s not openly hostile to trans people. In 2020, just over nine hundred vaginoplasties were performed in the U.S.,accordingto theJournal of the American Medical Association. The worldwide figure is around three thousand annually. (Phalloplasties are even rarer; only about three per cent of trans men have received such a surgery.) For the past few years, right-wing politicians and pundits have written about trans surgeries as if they are offered for free at drive-ins. The numbers tell a different story.

A larger number of trans people utilize hormones, which are life-altering but not as drastic as surgical intervention. When I go to get my hormone-replacement-therapy (H.R.T.) prescription, I sit in a waiting room next to post-menopausal women seeking the same medication. Many cis women also take spironolactone, the foul-smelling little pills that I once took as a part of H.R.T., in order to get rid of their acne. Trans people, often forced to do their own research, are more likely to understand the risks, side effects, and joys of estrogen and testosterone. Cis people, on the other hand, usually trust their doctors implicitly in regard to these medications because they’ve typically been able to.

The regret rate for kids who transition is far lower than Republican lawmakers would like us to believe, not even rising above one per cent, according to a 2021 collection of studies published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. Kristina Olson, the lead author of a 2024 JAMA Pediatrics study, told NPR that only four per cent of participants expressed regret with some aspect of their care: “Often the regrets they were expressing had to do with [wishing] they hadn’t done blockers and they’d gone straight to hormones, or they maybe had a negative side effect related to the blockers,” such as an implant getting irritated. Regret is a phantom frequently leveraged against trans people, especially children.

Republicans claim they are protecting children, in particular, from making choices that the kids will later wish they could undo, the kind that will scar them and limit their ability to have fulfilling, reproductively healthy lives. It’s a modern twist on an age-old fear. In his book “Kids These Days” (2017), Malcolm Harris chronicles parents’ growing intolerance for risk, often because they see their children as an economic investment. Harris cites an article in theAmerican Journal of Playby Peter Gray, about adolescents’ declining ability to self-direct their leisure time:

Even casual observations of children playing outdoors confirm that these youngsters, like other young mammals, deliberately put themselves into moderately fear-inducing conditions in play. . . . If too little fear is induced, the activity is boring; if too much is induced, it becomes no longer play but terror. Nobody but the child himself or herself knows the right dose, which is why all such play must be self-directed and self-controlled.

The task, for all of us, is to become autonomous, capable of managing our own lives—understanding work and play, danger and reward, fantasy and reality. Trans people are all too aware of such dichotomies. Happiness is never far from risk. But some things are perhaps worth doing even if they do not come with a guarantee. ♦

Your Hip Surgery, My Headache, by David Sedaris

The year my sister Amy was invited to play Mrs. Claus in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade was the same year Hugh had his hip replaced.

“It somehow makes sense that these two things are happening within a week of each other,” I said.

“Except I’m not doing it,” Amy told me.

It was nearly midnight, and we were in my apartment in New York, gathered in the living room. The view from the window looked like the backdrop of a talk show—a jumble of tall buildings with thousands of lit windows, some of them winking. “How can younotplay Mrs. Claus?” I asked.

Amy ticked the reasons off on her fingers. “One: they want me there at 3a.m.Two: it’s supposed to rain. And three: they’re not paying me anything.”

“Macy’s doesn’t pay Mrs. Claus?” I asked, surprised in the same way I’d be if I’d learned that she—Mrs. Claus—had been married before, maybe to another woman, like, “What? That can’t be true!”

With us in the living room were two Frenchmen whom Hugh and I know from Normandy: Olivier, who owns a donkey and had been teaching himself English with Duolingo, and David, who also has a donkey but spoke no English whatsoever. Still, he could understand by my tone that something outrageous was happening.

“Qu’est-ce qui se passe?” he asked.

“The department store that calls itself the House of Macy will not give money to the bride of Father Christmas,” I said in French. “For us, this is unacceptable!”

Olivier and David had arrived a week earlier and were staying with us until the Saturday after Thanksgiving. It was their first trip to New York, and they were overwhelmed by how loud and crowded the city was. My sister Gretchen, who lives in North Carolina, was also staying with us, and while I was happy to see her and our French friends, I’d just returned from a long tour and had not had any time alone—or alone with just Hugh—since mid-September. We have a good deal of room in our New York apartment. It’s not like anyone was sleeping on a sofa or hanging wet towels off the doorknobs. I just resented having to adjust my schedule. House guests meant less time at my desk, both in the morning and in the evening, when, mainly because of Gretchen, we had to eat dinner earlier than usual. I can put up with a lot, but when my work schedule is interrupted I get antsy. It didn’t help that just four days after Gretchen was due to leave, Hugh would be checking into the hospital for hip surgery. “And don’t think I’m not going to need you,” he said over Thanksgiving dinner.

A whiz in the kitchen, Hugh makes all our meals, and when I suggested that he could probably still manage—“I’m sure other people have. Can’t you cook, like, from a wheelchair or something?”—he said, “No,you’regoing to do it. Three times a day and for as long as I need you to.” He poured himself a glass of wine. “I could be out of commission for months!”

“Yes, but you don’t know that for a fact,” I reminded him. “I’m sure there are people who recover from a hip replacement in a matter of days. You just don’t hear about them.”

David asked what we were talking about, and I said, in French, “After the hospital, he wants to make a strike!”

However difficult Hugh’s operation would be, I doubted that it could be worse than the year and a half leading up to it. There was no one day he started complaining about his pain—he’s always done that to some degree. Rather, it shifted from his back or his sciatica to his hip, then stayed there and intensified.

“Ow!” he’d cry, wincing as he sat down at the lunch or dinner table, as he bent before the oven or even looked at a stepladder. Hugh never says anything so simple as “I have a headache,” or “My finger hurts.” Instead, he describes his pain in detail, the way he might to a doctor who’d just said, “Tell me everything, and I want you to be as specific as possible.”

I know when Hugh is on the phone with his mother because all his talk will be about his sore wrist, his swollen joint, the cut on his foot. When I offer to get him an ice pack, an ibuprofen, a Band-Aid, he’ll say in a voice that is weak but also bitter, “That’s O.K. I’ll get it myself later if I need to.”

“They don’t hand out medals for needless suffering,” I’ll remind him.

“You don’t know what it’s like,” he’ll tell me.

I know all about kidney stones and gum surgery. I know about broken ribs and urinary-tract infections. When it came to hip pain, though, he had me.

His groaning would sometimes wake me in the middle of the night.

“Listen,” I’d tell him, “if I could take your pain and suffer it myself, I would, if only to get a decent night’s sleep.”

This went on day after day, until I could no longer remember its absence.

Hugh became a non-stop grouse. Ghosts in movies moaned less than he did. Still, it took a lot to get him to see a specialist. “The doctor said it’s bone on bone,” he reported after returning from his appointment. “Do you have the slightest idea of what that feels like?”

Two months after Thanksgiving, Hugh would turn sixty-five and be eligible for Medicare, but even that was too long to wait. Luckily, we have health insurance, and it appeared that our plan would cover the brunt of the cost. And so, in what seemed like very little time, he was scheduled for surgery at one of the hospitals within a short walking distance of our apartment. There are a number of them, so many that when our friend Tracy was looking for a place on the Upper East Side, and we suggested our part of it, she instead chose to get something thirty blocks north. “All the Google Street Views I looked at in your neighborhood showed people who were crying,” she told us.

It’s something I hadn’t noticed until she said it. Then I thought,She’s right!If our sidewalks are clean, it’s likely due to a steady downpour of tears, mostly in the vicinity of Memorial Sloan Kettering.

The place Hugh went to was called the Hospital for Special Surgery. “It’s the best,” his doctor said, as did many of the retired residents in our building who’d had their hips and knees and shoulders replaced there. “If you need a walker or a wheelchair, just ask,” any one of them would tell us. “I’ve got one in the basement!”

A neighbor said that she still had some painkillers left. Another offered to loan us her comfort-height toilet seat. Hugh passed, but wound up buying his own. “The doctor says I’ll need it,” he told me.

The sight of the puffy, foot-tall toilet seat in our home was too much for me, a spectre of death no less chilling than the Grim Reaper himself. I said, “Next, bring in a coffin, why don’t you.”

The day before his surgery, Hugh talked to his older brother John in Washington State, then limped into my office to recap their conversation. “He said he really wished he was here to help take care of me.”

I looked up from my laptop. “Call him back.”

“I don’t know that he reallymeantit,” Hugh said.

I handed him my phone. “Sure he did, call him. Do it now.”

“John can’t afford a last-minute ticket across the country,” Hugh told me. “And I know for a fact that he won’t want to drive three hours from his house to the Seattle airport.”

“He won’t have to,” I said. “Call him.”

That was at 3p.m.New York time. By five, a hired car was heading to Port Angeles to collect Hugh’s brother, and by midnight John was in a first-class seat to J.F.K., where another car would be waiting to deliver him to our apartment.

I said to Amy, “It’s worth every penny.”

I like all of Hugh’s siblings. Each is creative in his or her own way. John, for instance, can make a sculpture out of anything. Hand him an empty sardine tin, three chopsticks, and a broken calculator, and he’ll turn them into something remarkable. He’s a wonderful writer as well, and a huge reader. John is warm and inquisitive. He’s bighearted and energetic, and I’d always looked forward to his visits, especially now. “He can cook, right?” I asked.

“Well, sure,” Hugh said, “but it’s just regular stuff he makes for his grandkids. Pork chops, macaroni and cheese, that kind of thing.”

“That’ll do,” I told him. “At least until you can stand on your feet long enough to pan-fry scallops.”

John hadn’t yet arrived when I collected Hugh’s overnight bag and accompanied him to the hospital for his operation. For years, I’d heard horror stories about American health care, but this place was first-rate. After checking in, we were led to a small, spotless room with curtains for walls. There was an examining table set up, and, once Hugh had changed into a medical gown, we were visited by six staff members, starting with a nurse who inserted an I.V. into the back of his hand and cleaned out his nose with iodine. An aide shaved and then washed the hip that needed replacing. Then came another nurse, who took a vial of Hugh’s blood and asked a series of questions, including “When did you last have a bowel movement?”

I put my fingers in my ears and made the noise of a hundred thousand bees.

“Are you O.K.?” the young woman asked.

“We don’t do things like that,” I told her, rocking back and forth, my fingers still in my ears.

“We don’t have bowel movements,” I explained. “The bathrooms at our house are for soaking in the tub and brushing our teeth—that’s it. Nothing else has ever happened there.”

I know couples who sit on the toilet with the door open, who merrily pass gas in front of each other and discuss their evacuations in graphic detail. But Hugh and I are not those people. Hearing his answer to the nurse’s question could have possibly destroyed me, and so I kept my fingers in my ears until she left and the anesthesiologist arrived. Then came another nurse and, finally, the surgeon—Dr. Reif—who, we learned, had just amputated a leg.

Sitting in the curtained-off room, listening as patients to the left and right of us were asked about their bowel movements, too, I realized that I had never seen Hugh frightened before. “You’ll be fine,” I told him, patting his hand and noticing for the first time that it had age spots on it.

At 11a.m., right on schedule, a gurney pulled up. Hugh was outfitted with a bonnet, and, after he was wheeled away, I went home to meet John, who has visited us in France and England but, like Olivier and David, had never before been to New York. All the Hamrick brothers are handsome, though in slightly different ways, like dogs born in different litters to the same purebred parents. John’s jaw is squarer than Hugh’s and Sam’s, and his thick hair, even as he turns seventy, has hardly any gray in it. His gait is looser, and he’s more affectionate, always ready to lay a hand on your shoulder, and perhaps surprise you with a kiss on the cheek.

“Ick,” I said, when we greeted each other. “Get off me!”

Walking from my apartment to the Morgan Library, where we would have lunch, took three times as long as it normally would because John kept stopping in the middle of the sidewalk to look up: “Wow. Did you see the detail on that building?”

A woman slammed into his back, the way I myself have done a thousand times when a tourist, oblivious to the people around him, quits moving in order to gawk and point.

“You could at least apologize!” John shouted after her once she’d skittered around him, muttering.

We were eating when the surgeon called to say that he had finished, and that there had been no complications.

It hadn’t occurred to me that anything might have gone wrong, though I suppose it easily could have. Eight years earlier, John’s wife—a woman he’d been with since he was fourteen, the mother of his child—died of a blood clot after breaking her leg. Totally unexpected, and his entire life was derailed. I’m still not sure how he makes it from one day to the next, and in such good humor. Time helps, I imagine, as do all the philosophy books he reads. For a while, he saw a therapist. Now he dates a woman who lives down the street from him and makes her own greeting cards.

It’s amazing how quickly doctors can get hip-replacement patients back on their feet. The morning after the operation, John and I entered the hospital and found Hugh shuffling down a hallway. He had a physical therapist by his side and was using a walker—but still!

Getting him home a short time later involved a thick cushion and a car with plenty of legroom. “Ow!” he said whenever I tried to help. “You’re making everything worse!”

In the apartment, he steered his walker toward the bed. “I’m going to need you to take my shoes off,” he said to me, adding, as I began to do so, “Slowly! Now put my slippers on—not like that!! Get me my shoehorn!”

He needed a blanket, his phone, a glass of water. “Notthat muchwater!” he complained when I handed it to him. There were prescriptions to be picked up, and sickroom equipment—for instance, an adjustable stool he’d need when getting in and out of bed. I went to four different places looking for one. At CVS, I came upon a well-dressed white-haired woman who had in her shopping cart a pack of wet wipes and eight quart-size cartons of half-and-half.

“God, that’s a lot of half-and-half,” I said to her. “Who on earth needs that much?”

“I’m having guests,” she snapped, and I scurried away.

That evening, I went with Amy to our friend Mike’s for dinner.

“I can’t believe you’re abandoning me,” Hugh said as I dressed to leave.

I reminded him that it had been on the calendar for months. “And I’m notabandoningyou—John is here.”

It was nice to get away, if only for a few hours. To have someone bringmebowls of nuts and glasses of water. At the table, I mentioned the lady who’d growled at me at CVS. Then Mike told us about a woman who’d spotted Ted Koppel carrying a basketful of avocados at a farm stand in Maryland.

“None of your goddam business,” he reportedly answered.

I recapped the evening for Hugh the following morning, saying that there were plenty more parties coming up. “Hopefully, you can come with me to Antonio’s Christmas lunch in two weeks. We had so much fun last year, remember?”

“Two weeks!” Hugh gestured toward his outstretched leg. “Look at me! Are you out of your mind?”

John, who had gone that morning to buy a juicer, set a glass of something that poured like wet cement in front of his brother and raised his voice, which was unlike him. “My God, David. He’s just had major surgery!”

I raised my voice in return. “Well, excuse me! I thought that eventually hemight get better!”

By outsourcing Hugh’s care, I had shut myself out of his recovery. Now I wanted back in, but it was too late. After saying, “Whatever you do, don’t give him a bell,” Amy brought Hugh an empty can she’d put a few quarters in.

Clang,clang,clang, I’d hear while sitting at my desk.Clang, clang.

“How can I help?” I’d ask, racing into the bedroom.

“John is downstairs,” Hugh would say. “Go get him and tell him I need to put my socks on.”

I’d roll up my sleeves. “I can do that for you.”

The two were inseparable, and would convene each morning to dissect their dreams. “So I’m back in Port Angeles under a pitch-black sky, frying—get this—pennies in a skillet,” I caught John saying a week after his arrival, as he sat on the edge of the bed, massaging oil into Hugh’s feet. “I might be wrong, but I’m interpreting this to mean I could use more copper and iron in my diet.”

At meals, the brothers would reflect on their childhoods in Africa. “Remember that C.I.A. agent who had a crush on Mom in Djibouti?” “What was the name of that Belgian nun in Ethiopia who we gave our monkey to?”

It made it hard to join the conversation. This as opposed to when Amy would visit. Shortly after Hugh’s operation, she had her elderly rabbit, Tina, put to sleep. A few days later, nose stuffed up and with puffy eyes, she came to dinner.

“Actually,” Amy said, “I think I’m allergic to Tina’s ghost.”

Hugh has a sister named Ann, and one morning I walked into the dining room and found him talking with her on speakerphone. “Do you have comfortable enough chairs?” she asked.

The answer would normally be yes, but, on account of his hip, he had to be raised up while sitting. “There are a few that are O.K. if I put a cushion on them,” Hugh told her, gesturing for me to refill his coffee cup. “At my doctor’s office yesterday, I saw one that would be perfect, but there’s no way David would allow it into the apartment. It’s too ugly.”

“Well, screw him,” I heard Ann say. “We’re talking about your health here!”

The next morning, she sent a text that read “Is David any help to you?”

Before Hugh could answer, I picked up his phone and typed, “None at all,” adding an emoji—my first time ever—of a skunk.

I expected her to respond with “You’re kidding,” or “I don’t believe that for one second.”

Instead, she wrote, “That sort of angers me. But then, he’s so self-involved.”

Rather than texting her back, I returned to my office and resumed writing in my diary.Self-involved,indeed, I thought. Hugh hadn’t shown me the chair he was talking to Ann about, but, if it was truly that ugly, I’m sure he wouldn’t have wanted it, either. Why was I the villain here?

Hugh went off his painkillers after the third day. After the eighth, he cast aside his walker and was able to get around using a cane. He made it to the lobby, slowly, then all the way to the corner. Now that he didn’t need quite as much attention, I started taking John to see a bit of the city. One afternoon, on the C train, we came upon a man who had peed on himself—and had likely been doing so for quite a while. The stench of old urine was so intense that it had emptied half the subway car. Neither awake nor asleep, he sat slumped beside a dribbling vodka bottle, muttering.

Check, I thought, since that’s something every visitor to New York needs to see. After looking at this man for a moment or two, John remarked not on the smell or on the ridiculous Santa hat the man wore but on his hands. “Did you notice how beautiful they are?” he asked.

I took him to lunch at a deli in Carnegie Hill. Just as our orders arrived, I heard someone ask, “Can we get a picture?”

Must I? I thought, looking to my right and realizing that the person was talking not to me but to Kevin Spacey.

“Hasn’t he been cancelled?” John asked much more loudly than he needed to.

“It still counts as a star sighting,” I told him, thinking,Check!

We went to the Met andMoMA, then to the most garish of souvenir shops so that John could buy sweatshirts for his grandsons. In Times Square, he stood stock still and took photos of billboards as people who work in that neighborhood cursed the pair of us. I said to Hugh when we got home, “I even took him to see the tree at Rockefeller Center.”

That was huge, as no one in their right mind goes anywhere near Rockefeller Center from Thanksgiving to mid-January or so.

“What do you want, a medal?” Hugh asked.

I tried to remember that he was still in pain, and that, trapped inside for all but thirty minutes a day, he was going a little stir-crazy. It was hard for both of us, but became surprisingly easier when, shortly before Christmas, John returned to Washington State. On that morning, I accompanied Hugh to his surgeon’s office for a follow-up appointment.

“Any questions?” Dr. Reif asked after removing Hugh’s bandage to examine the wound.

“Yes,” I said. “Do you see any reason why he can’t cook Christmas dinner? We have nine guests coming, and he’s threatening to have it catered.”

The doctor replaced the bandage. “Oh, I think he’s up to it. That said, you might want to take a few shortcuts, use Stove Top stuffing rather than homemade, that sort of thing.”

“Stuffingfrom a box?” I said when we were back on the street. “Stuffing,period? As if we’d have turkey on Christmas Day! That man didnotknow who he was talking to, did he?”

“No, he did not,” Hugh sniffed, raising his cane to hail a cab. And, with that, he was back. Christmas nearly killed him, but no shortcuts were taken. He made a second entrée for the vegetarians and two desserts. Given a few more days, he might have even churned his own butter.

I left New York in early January to go back on tour, and when I saw Hugh again, six weeks later, he was fully recovered. Walking, swimming, going up and down stairs. “It’s a miracle!” he said.

I once met a young man who’d discovered by accident that one of his kidneys was dead inside him. Doctors removed it, and when I asked what happened to the cavity he said that his other organs had shifted slightly to occupy it. That’s what happened to the space Hugh had filled with his pain. It’s not like we now devote it exclusively to politics or art appreciation, though both subjects grew larger, as did talk of our families, and our friends. As he became his old self again, the pleasantness of our life together just sort of swelled, crowding out everything but half a bottle of OxyContin and a really tall toilet seat now gathering cobwebs beside an aluminum walker in our building’s dank, uninviting basement. ♦

Heir Ball: How the Cost of Youth Sports Is Changing the N.B.A.

American sports come with implied narratives. The story of baseball is fundamentally nostalgic, connecting us to childhood and to the country’s pastoral beginnings. Football tells a story of manly grit, with echoes of the battlefield. Basketball is the city game, as the sportswriter Pete Axthelm called it half a century ago, and its chief narrative, for decades, was about escaping the ghetto. Religious metaphors run hotter in basketball than in other sports: when Spike Lee set out to make an ode to New York City hoops, he named his protagonist Jesus Shuttlesworth, for the N.B.A. Hall of Famer Earl (Jesus) Monroe; LeBron James appeared on the cover ofSports Illustratedat the age of seventeen as “The Chosen One.” Every tall and prodigiously skilled teen-ager feels like an act of God. And no sport, perhaps other than soccer, with itspibesandcraques—the impoverished dribbling and juggling machines who hope to become the next Maradona or Pelé—so deeply mythologizes the search for talent. The savior of your N.B.A. franchise might be getting left off his high-school team in Wilmington, North Carolina, or he might be selling sunglasses on the streets of Athens, Greece, to help his Nigerian immigrant parents make ends meet, or he might be living with his mother in a one-bedroom apartment in Akron, Ohio. You just have to find him.

At least, that was the story. On a recent episode of “Mind the Game,” the podcast that LeBron James hosts with the coach and former point guard Steve Nash, James spoke with the young N.B.A. superstar Luka Dončić about how different James’s hoops upbringing had been from that of kids today. On the playgrounds of Akron, James said, he would play 21, in which the person with the ball tries to score against everyone else. Such games taught him how to improvise, how to get around multiple defenders and create scoring opportunities out of nothing. James is a father of two sons, who mostly learned how to play basketball “indoors,” in a “programmed” environment, he said. They were taught the game by a fleet of coaches and other professionals. “I didn’t have a basketball trainer until second, third, maybe fourth year in the N.B.A.,” James went on. “My basketball training was just being on the court.” Last year, Dončić founded a nonprofit that focusses on youth basketball; in December, the organization published a report arguing that, as youth sports have professionalized, they have become more exclusive, sucking the “joy” out of the game.

A video clip of the podcast was posted on TikTok, and the top comment beneath it reads, “Lebron will be one of the last superstars that’s from the ghetto, basketballs like golf now it’s a tutelage sport.” That might not be entirely true; if a seven-foot-two teen-age Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were walking around any neighborhood in New York today, he wouldn’t get far without a wannabe agent stopping him in the street. But, putting aside such once-in-a-generation talents, the landscape of the league has subtly changed. James and his older son, LeBron (Bronny) James, Jr., made N.B.A. history last year by suiting up as teammates, for the Los Angeles Lakers. And, while that was a first, being a second-generation N.B.A. player is becoming almost unremarkable. In 2009, ten players in the league had fathers who’d played for N.B.A. teams; this past season, there were thirty-five. The future promises even more hoop legacies. The likely No. 2 pick in the upcoming draft is Dylan Harper, whose father, Ron, played with Michael Jordan on the Chicago Bulls. Lists of top high-school recruits include the names Anthony, as in Carmelo, and Arenas, as in Gilbert. James’s younger son, Bryce, has committed to play for the University of Arizona and could also reach the N.B.A. soon.

Genetics is the most obvious explanation: if your dad is six feet eight and your mom is six feet two, you stand a better chance of guarding Kevin Durant—or Durant’s kids—than my children will ever have. But the N.B.A. has been around for almost eighty years, and the number of roster spots in the league has barely changed since the mid-nineties. If all that mattered were good genes, the influx of second-generation players would have shown up thirty years ago. Why the spike now?

To answer that question, one N.B.A. executive told me, you probably have to look at the economy of basketball development. The children of pros are generally wealthy and well connected; they have access to “better training, coaching, and the right people who can put them on the right lists,” the executive said. “Those early edges accumulate.” Increasingly, players are made as much as they are born, and making those players costs money. A star prospect requires a set of physical gifts that might as well be divine in origin. But, to compete now, he will also likely need the kinds of resources that you have to buy, and a small industry has arisen to sell them.

“It’s getting too expensive for some kids to even play, and the pressure to be perfect takes away the love for the game,” Dončić told me. “I think about my daughter and wonder what sports will feel like for her one day.” Jay Williams, a basketball analyst at ESPN who was the second pick in the 2002 N.B.A. draft, said to me, “When I came into the league in the early two-thousands, player development was mostly raw talent, repetition, and survival.” Now, he said, “development starts younger, it’s more specialized, and it’s driven by business.” Jermaine O’Neal, a six-time N.B.A. All-Star who recently founded a basketball-centered prep school, told me, “The cost of everything has changed.” O’Neal, like James, grew up with a single mother in a working-class area of a small city. Sports in general, O’Neal said, are “pricing out a percentage of athletes raised in communities like mine.”

The professionalization of youth sports has changed not only who reaches the N.B.A. but how the game is played when they get there. Watching the post-season this year, I found the level of play to be possibly higher than ever. But I felt little emotional connection to the game. Like many fans, I complain about the number of three-point shots that teams are taking, which turns so many games into an almost cynical exercise in playing the odds. Today’s style is also more rehearsed, more optimized. This, I believe, can be traced to the way that the players are learning the game from an early age—to the difference between a childhood spent outdoors with your friends, competing against grown men, and one spent as a customer, with a cadre of coaches who push you only in the ways that you or, in most cases, your parents approve of.

“What used to be driven by someone’s hunger to improve, to figure it out and work to get better, becomes a job for a lot of these kids so early,” Steve Nash told me. This, he added, meant “essentially trading their enjoyment and motivation for a calculated approach that may be more suitable to young adults than young kids.”

Does this shift also help explain why the N.B.A. has struggled to find its next superstars, successors to James, Steph Curry, and others of their generation? Perhaps. It’s true that a number of today’s best players—Dončić, Nikola Jokić, Giannis Antetokounmpo—are from other countries, and many Americans crave homegrown heroes. But the leading players in this year’s finals, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, of the Oklahoma City Thunder, and Tyrese Haliburton, of the Indiana Pacers, are North American. (Gilgeous-Alexander is from Canada.) The former plays a throwback game that involves a lot of slithering through tight spaces; the latter makes surprising, lightning-quick passes and fires his jump shots with an awkward motion that resembles an old man pushing his grandchild on a swing. Yet neither player has caught the public imagination in the manner of a James or a Curry or a Durant. When fans argue about the next face of the league, they usually bring up Anthony Edwards, the charismatic guard on the Minnesota Timberwolves, or Ja Morant, of the Memphis Grizzlies, who floats through the air like his bones are hollow before exploding into some of the most violent dunks the league has ever seen. They are the basketball equivalents of James Brown: undeniably virtuosic, always on point, but with so much confidence and brio that they feel unpredictable and capable of anything. The new N.B.A. archetype, in contrast, feels more like an “American Idol” singing machine—technically flawless and with unlimited range, but ultimately forgettable for everyone except the vocal coaches on YouTube.

What happened? Once, a serious basketball prospect might simply play on his local high-school team and then head off to college. Nowadays, he will likely attend multiple schools, seeking exposure, playing time, and competition. The trend began slowly, in the nineteen-eighties, when secondary schools with big-time basketball programs—notably, Oak Hill Academy, in rural Virginia, the alma mater of Rod Strickland, Anthony, and Durant—began recruiting the country’s best players. Soon, explicitly sports-centered schools emerged. The talent agency IMG purchased the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy, in Florida, and expanded it to include other sports, adding basketball in 2001. Five years later, Cliff Findlay, a Las Vegas businessman who had made his money in car dealerships, opened Findlay Prep, which was, arguably, just a basketball team—a dozen or so boys from all over the world who played games around the country and took classes at a private school a few minutes away from the gym where they practiced. Findlay Prep won three national high-school titles in four years and produced eighteen N.B.A. players. It closed down, in 2019, when the nearby private school ended the partnership. Suddenly, Findlay’s students had nowhere to go to class.

This spring, I flew to Dallas to visit Dynamic Prep, the school that Jermaine O’Neal founded in 2022. It has eleven students, all of them Division I basketball prospects. Monday through Friday, the students gather at a twenty-four-thousand-square-foot training facility just north of the city. In the morning, they sit in a classroom and take an N.C.A.A.-approved curriculum of online courses. Then they head to the gym for strength training and conditioning, before basketball practice in the afternoon.

When I arrived, Dynamic’s student body was on the court. The team had recently been ranked tenth in the country by ESPN, helping it qualify as a late addition to the Chipotle Nationals, an annual tournament that unofficially crowns the country’s high-school champions. But Dynamic would face long odds against more established programs, including IMG Academy and Montverde Academy, another Florida school that consistently produces N.B.A. draft picks. And practice wasn’t going well. O’Neal, who is the head coach of the team in addition to being the school’s founder, stood on the sidelines, his arms crossed. He is nearly seven feet tall, with a high forehead and a dimpled chin; he still appears to be more or less in playing shape. The team had been running half-court sets for nearly thirty minutes, but nobody was where he was supposed to be—not even Jermaine O’Neal, Jr., the team’s small forward. O’Neal, Sr., had spent the first half of practice quietly simmering; then one player missed a defensive rotation and asked his flummoxed coach what was wrong. “Your demeanor!” O’Neal yelled, before ordering the player off the court. Another kid replaced him, and the ball was passed back to the top of the key. The drill began again.

O’Neal grew up in Columbia, South Carolina, and counts thirty-two siblings among his relatives. His mother taught him almost everything; he didn’t meet his father until he was thirty years old. At seventeen, just a few years after growing about nine inches in three months, he became one of the youngest players ever to reach the N.B.A. when he was drafted in the first round by the Portland Trail Blazers. He was part of a generation who skipped college entirely; the sports media was largely skeptical of kids who turned down college scholarships in favor of N.B.A. dollars, and these teen-agers often found themselves competing for playing time against men more than a decade older. O’Neal rode the bench for four years. But veterans on the team made sure that he understood his place on the roster and how to act like a professional. When he was traded to the Indiana Pacers, after his fourth season, he flourished.

O’Neal credits the playgrounds of his childhood with giving him instincts on the court and helping instill the resilience to endure what felt like an ignoble start to his career. He knows that the kids he coaches aren’t getting that kind of real-world instruction, and so he looks for ways to simulate it. “I’m taking a little bit of the hardship mind-set of how I grew up, and I’m bringing it to this new-school mind-set and mixing it,” he told me. The team’s intense practices and his focus on defense are partly meant to create an experience of adversity. He believes that his job is not only to prepare his players for what comes after Dynamic in college or in the pros but also to protect them from it. “Your coaches won’t love you—you’re just getting them closer to another win,” he yelled at one point during practice. “Once you get on campus, your parents will never be able to help you.”

In O’Neal’s view, a school like Dynamic is more sensitive to the needs of young athletes than traditional options are. Before founding the school, he created Drive Nation, a home for youth basketball and volleyball teams which was headquartered next to the car-rental center at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. Drive Nation’s teams were affiliated with the Amateur Athletic Union, or A.A.U., an umbrella organization for club teams which, in the past twenty-five years, has become a major part of youth sports. At the time, O’Neal’s daughter, Asjia, was one of the top high-school volleyball players in the country. But, during her junior year, she told her parents that she was burned out: full-time school followed by practice and training—plus the travel and stress that came with playing for a club team and the United States youth program—had been too much. O’Neal began reading about other approaches to youth sports, and he talked to coaches in Europe. He learned about the Continent’s academy system, which plucks promising athletes at an early age and gives them a more specialized path, organizing their lives largely around their sport. Dynamic is his attempt to bring that system to the U.S.

Most of the kids at Dynamic won’t make the N.B.A., but all of them could play for major college programs—and big-time college basketball is a lucrative endeavor in itself. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that N.C.A.A. restrictions on the payment of student athletes were a violation of antitrust law; now student athletes can make money by selling their name, image, and likeness. Bronny James reportedly earned nearly six million dollars from such N.I.L. deals—with Nike, Beats by Dre, and other companies—before he left college. And you don’t have to be LeBron James’s son, or even a top N.B.A. prospect, to do well. R. J. Davis, a talented but undersized guard, spent five seasons at the University of North Carolina, becoming the second-highest scorer in the program’s history; he may not get an N.B.A. paycheck anytime soon, but he racked up at least twenty-five N.I.L. deals last year, which paid him more than two and a half million dollars. Players like him are staying in college longer than before, and many of them move around to pursue the best and most profitable opportunities by registering with the N.C.A.A.’s transfer portal, which notifies coaches at other colleges about the players who are newly available for recruiting. The day I visited Dynamic, the transfer portal had just opened up, and O’Neal informed his kids, early in practice, how many players had entered it. This, he was suggesting, is what they were up against: hundreds of young men vying for a limited number of spots that could be worth millions of dollars.

After practice, he gathered the team around him. “What do you all want?” he asked. The players hung their heads. “I’m going to be real with you,” he said. “Today was not good enough.” If the team hoped to succeed at the Chipotle Nationals, they would have to put in more effort. O’Neal pointed out that the number of players in the transfer portal had gone up since that morning. “Seven hundred in the portal now,” he said. “It’s a record. Every year, it’s a fucking record.” Then he repeated his question. “What is it you want?”

It’s an old complaint, but it’s still true: kids who have been given everything may end up lacking motivation. “I wish I’d had the access my kids have—the trainers, the recovery tools, the mental-health support,” Jay Williams told me. “It’s a smarter system now, but what I want to pass down to them is the hunger, the grit.” O’Neal made more than a hundred and sixty-seven million dollars in his playing career, and he has struggled to impart the lessons he learned in his childhood to Jermaine, Jr. “I had this thing where I’d say to him, ‘Man, you don’t understand how good you got it,’ ” he told me. “ ‘The only thing you’re missing is hardship. You fly on private jets. You drive a Range Rover. You’ve had a chef your entire life.’ I have literally missed meals. I’ve literally had one pair of shoes that were my school shoes, my basketball shoes, and, if I went to church, they were my church shoes.”

“I never wanted my kids to live like that, and I didn’t want to live like that,” he went on. “So I would ask Jermaine, Jr., ‘What are you starving for?’ And he couldn’t answer the question.” Eventually, Jermaine, Jr., came up with a response: he needed an emotional break from living in the shadow of both his dad and his coach. O’Neal has been trying to give him one.

Youth basketball is not an outlier in its trend toward professionalization. You can see the same story in countless aspects of American life. Fierce competition breeds cottage industries that promise advantages to the children of parents who can afford them. Those children crowd out their peers, and the path to upward mobility narrows. The kids playing sports at big-time college programs are examples of this trend, but so are many of the straight-A students who attend classes at those same colleges, whose parents may have paid for private tutors and consultants to help secure admission. Children from poorer families have to be extraordinary or they will fall behind.

The most highly touted prospect at Dynamic Prep, according to ESPN, is not Jermaine O’Neal, Jr.—the twenty-second-ranked small forward in the country—but another child of professional athletes. Marcus Spears, Jr., is the son of a retired N.F.L. defensive lineman and a former W.N.B.A. player, Aiysha Spears. June, as his parents call him, is six feet eight, with long arms and the lankiness of a teen-ager who is still growing. He can shoot from outside, defend at the rim, and trigger a fast break after a rebound. If he grows a few more inches, he’ll be the same height as Durant, one of his favorite players; his loping but graceful gait calls to mind a young Antetokounmpo. It may be ludicrous to invoke such superstars when discussing a kid who just turned sixteen, but scouting is an exercise in imagination, one in which the most salient inputs are limitations—if a prospect has T. rex arms or shoots like he’s angry at the ball, his spectrum of possibility shrinks. June was averaging fewer than seven points a game, but he has uncapped potential: you can map his body, skills, and movements onto many of the best players in the N.B.A. He’s currently the third-ranked high-school sophomore in the country, at any position in the game.

He’s also, for now, younger and skinnier than most of his teammates. At practice, I watched him get pushed around while his father paced the sidelines. Marcus Spears, Sr., was a football star at Louisiana State University before playing eight seasons for the Dallas Cowboys and another for the Baltimore Ravens. He’s now one of ESPN’s premier football analysts. On TV, he is self-deprecating and exceedingly likable, but on the sidelines he was like every other anxious basketball dad: muttering to himself when June didn’t rotate fast enough on defense, staring morosely at the floor when June took a spill onto the hardwood. When June declined to shoot an open jumper, he yelled, “Take the shot!”

Later that day, I visited Marcus and Aiysha Spears at their seven-thousand-square-foot house in a gated community near where the Cowboys practice. Aiysha grew up in Detroit—“the city,” she told me, “not the surrounding areas”—and was reared, in her early years, by a mother who wanted her to become a swimmer. Her mother died when Aiysha was thirteen, and she decided to take up basketball, mostly playing for her local school teams, with some A.A.U., too. “I was travelling by myself to tournaments,” she told me. “My mother passed away, my father wasn’t in my life, and my grandparents didn’t know what to do, so they trusted my coaches to handle it and make sure that I was O.K. I would be in Indiana or Chicago, and they definitely couldn’t pay to come watch me play in a tournament. The hundred and fifty dollars or whatever it would cost to see me, that was our electricity bill.”

Marcus, whose extensive array of barbecuing equipment sat on the back patio, grew up in a blue-collar family in Baton Rouge. His mother was a telephone operator for Bell South, and his father worked as an electrician before getting a job at the Georgia-Pacific paper mill. Spears echoed the other former pros I talked to when he described how he learned to play sports: “outside,” mostly in pickup games with older boys. Now he’s trying to teach toughness to his son. “I was super hard on June when he was young,” he told me. “I was looking at it from a prism of knowing what he was going to actually be. Like, ‘Your mom is six foot two, bro, and I’m a pro football player. She’s a pro basketball player. You’re going to be the one per cent of the one per cent of what you’re doing.’ ” He prodded his son to work harder, even cursing at him the way he knew June’s coaches someday would. “But I probably started a little too early with him, at seven or eight years old,” he said. “I still have to check myself at times now and realize he’s still fifteen years old, because when I was fifteen I wasn’t even close to what he is doing now.” Spears wants his son to succeed, and he knows that college sports have changed. “When I got to L.S.U., I was developing as a player,” he said. “Kids can’t sit on the bench and learn how to play anymore. They need to produce immediately or they’re gone.”

Kids who are serious about sports now don’t just spend hours practicing; they also spend hours building their brands. Today, just about every notable college prospect has dozens of tightly edited YouTube highlight reels and tens of thousands of Instagram followers. Top prospects used to meet one another at camps or at the annual McDonald’s All-American Game; they might have scanned one another’s names in the infrequent updates of high-school player rankings. Now those same players meet through social media and the booming youth-sports content business.

This is true across all kinds of activities. If you’re the best twelve-year-old chess player in a big city, you’ve probably competed in hundreds of online games against the other top twelve-year-olds across the world—you might even live-stream your matches and feed some of that content into the algorithms of TikTok and Instagram. Yogi Roth, an analyst at the Big Ten Network, has tracked the development of N.F.L. prospects for the past twenty-five years, and he believes that social media has fundamentally changed the experience of learning to play football. Roth played in college and coached for several years before going into television; in 2009, he became a producer and the host of “Elite 11,” which has been likened to “American Idol,” but for high-school quarterbacks. The show has featured sixteen future Heisman Trophy winners and was once a rare opportunity for players at that level to meet one another and compete. Now those connections are made online. “They find one another early,” Roth said. “And then they all get on the same club team, which draws even more connections.”

There are benefits to this hypervisibility—scholarship offers, attention from skilled trainers and coaches. But it also attracts predatory figures and creates additional pressure. Cautionary tales abound. The canonical basketball example is Julian Newman, whose highlight reels went viral when he was a fifth grader and not yet four and a half feet tall. He was written up in theTimesand featured on “Good Morning America”; an online marketing machine was built around him, much of it orchestrated by his father. But Newman was just five feet seven when he finished high school, and no big-time college program wants a tiny shoot-first point guard who might arrive with a long list of demands. He spent the next five years as a fading YouTube celebrity, challenging other content creators to one-on-one battles.

Marcus Spears, Jr., does not have a large social-media following, nor does he spend much time with influencers—relative to other top prospects, he has little online presence, which is mostly by design. “I’m not going to monetize my fifteen-year-old,” his father told me. “I’m not interested in him having three hundred thousand followers.” But he and Aiysha understand that this is a privilege: parents who need the sponsorship money will understandably want to turn the hype around their talented children into funds, and some may even view it as the best choice for their kids. Spears said that he and his wife can see the downsides of that attention because of their experiences as pro athletes. “Also, if I need to fly to L.A. because the best knee doctor is out there, I can do it,” he added. “But, if I wasn’t in this position, and monetization on Instagram was going to allow my kid to go to the best doctor, then I would do that for them.”

All the former pros I talked to were frustrated by the intensity of youth sports as it exists now, but they still participated in the system because, well, what good parents wouldn’t do the same to insure that their children kept up with other talented kids? If I had a child who could potentially play basketball in college or the pros, I would pay for all the trainers everyone else was paying for—and then, if I could, I would send them to play at Dynamic for Coach O’Neal. Most people probably would. As O’Neal put it to me, “Wherever there’s kids, there’s parents. Wherever parents and kids go, they’re going to spend money.”

Not everyone at Dynamic, or at the programs it competes against, has money. The established schools offer scholarships; Dynamic is in an “incubator” phase, O’Neal told me, and so, for now, is not charging tuition. But the student athletes at these schools have all learned to play ball through careful instruction. In early April, a couple of weeks before the N.B.A. playoffs, the Chipotle Nationals began. The kids in these games had a long way to go, but they already played a facsimile of the pro game. Big guys shot threes, guards drove the lane and kicked the ball out for more threes. Gone are the days of novel high-school offensive sets or, at least on this level, wild invention.

More than a decade ago, I travelled to Oak Hill Academy to watch some practices. Most of the kids I saw went on to play big-time college hoops; the school drew a level of talent similar to Dynamic’s today. But, watching Dynamic practice, I was struck immediately by how fast they moved; I felt almost as if I were watching a different stage of evolution. “The game has become faster, more positionless, and more physically demanding,” Bill Duffy, a former N.B.A. draft pick and one of the top agents in the league, told me. “Players are training at a high level from a much younger age, and that’s changed not only how they move but how they think about the game. The style of play has evolved to match the speed and specialization that comes with early development.”

All that training has also led to a uniformity of play. “I absolutely hate it,” Marcus Spears, Sr., told me. That sameness comes from learning the game in a controlled environment, he said. “I think that’s why so many players from overseas are the top names in the N.B.A. now, because not only do they learn the technical side—they play the game with the old-school principle of playing against people who are older than you.” At the turn of the century, there were thirty-six foreign-born players in the N.B.A. Last year, there were a hundred and twenty-five. The top European teens play in pro leagues, against veterans. “You develop instincts in those situations,” Spears went on. American kids, no longer learning on the playground, were losing theirs, he believed. “You hear N.B.A. players that have been in the league a while say these young players suck. It’s not that they suck—it’s just they can’t do anything if you don’t tell them to. You need to make reads in the game, you need to deviate away from the play because it didn’t work. Now everybody just looks around, like, ‘What do I do now?’ ” One coach told the authors of the report published by Luka Dončić’s foundation, “Players don’t know how to anticipate where the ball will fall because they’re so used to their trainers getting their rebounds.”

Steve Nash told me that his effort “to be creative and imaginative” as a player was driven in large part by what he didn’t know—and that, as much as he envied some of the tools that young prospects now have, constant training likely would have altered that. O’Neal, too, saw this as a problem with the way basketball is now taught. “They are literally training these kids like robots, and the players don’t have any feel anymore,” he said. “That’s why all the players look alike now. Hell, half these kids don’t even watch basketball—they watch YouTube.”

At the Chipotle Nationals, O’Neal’s focus on defense, at least, seemed to pay off. Dynamic’s first game was against the vaunted Montverde, and his squad jumped out to an early 12–2 lead, largely owing to the players’ defensive effort. June, who came off the bench, was conspicuously the tallest person on the floor and also conspicuously among the youngest. He finished the game with respectable numbers—five points, five rebounds, and a block in sixteen minutes—and Dynamic managed an upset. The next day, Dynamic blew out Link Academy, the second-ranked team in the country. (The most recognizable name on Link’s roster is Andre Iguodala, Jr., whose father is a four-time N.B.A. champion.) Dynamic won again in Round Three, reaching the finals against Christopher Columbus High School, a Catholic prep school in Miami. Columbus was led by Cameron and Cayden Boozer, the twin sons of the two-time N.B.A. All-Star Carlos Boozer. In the title game, Cayden scored twenty-seven points, Cameron chipped in eleven with eight rebounds, and Columbus got another twelve rebounds from Jaxon Richardson, whose father, Jason, played fourteen seasons in the N.B.A. Columbus won by eighteen points, ending Dynamic’s unlikely run.

There’s no inherent reason that silver-spoon players have to produce an inferior product on the court. And a certain kind of basketball purist—the sort who hates any talk of narrative and is interested only in what happens between the lines on the floor—would roll his eyes at questions about where the handful of players who make the N.B.A. come from.

Still, let’s indulge in one last metaphor. Basketball is like jazz in so many ways that the analogy has become a cliché. As Wynton Marsalis once wrote, “Both reward improvisation and split-second decision making against the pressure of time.” Both are also Black art forms that require incredible discipline and a lifetime of study but which, when performed at their highest levels, encourage a freedom of expression that can take the audience into an ecstatic state. Every hoops fan can think of at least one such moment. For me, it was watching LeBron try to single-handedly beat the Golden State Warriors in the 2015 N.B.A. Finals after his two most talented teammates went down with injuries. James broke from the established tempo of the game and birthed a moment of ugly genius, walking the ball up the court, ordering his overmatched teammates around like a conductor, and almost breaking the spirit of their opponents, one of the best teams of all time.

Maybe this is nostalgia on my part. Perhaps athletes trained in state-of-the-art gyms can bring as much drama and charisma to the court as those who learned to play by trying to score against older guys on a run-down playground. But I’m not sure that basketball can survive as a major sport if it loses all connection to the narrative that has woven it so deeply into American culture. Basketball’s past may not be as virtuosic or as technically sound as its future, but part of why we watch the game is to witness the come-up—the pain of losing followed by the moment when years of work produce an instant of ingenuity that finally gets the superstar to the top. And, because we are sentimental, we want to know that the journey started on the blacktops of Akron, or in some dusty church gym in Indiana, or on the playgrounds of Coney Island. Every great American story is sentimental in the same way: instincts born out of struggle, the triumph of the schoolyard over the classroom, uncommon creativity driven by necessity. ♦

The Mütter Museum Reckons with Human Remains in Its Collection

When Anna Dhody was growing up in Philadelphia, in the nineteen-eighties, her mother used the city’s museums as a kind of babysitter. “She would just drop me off at the Penn Museum and be, like, ‘Don’t touch anything, I’ll meet you at the totem poles in an hour,’ ” Dhody told me. One day, when she was in elementary school, her mother took her to the Mütter Museum. “I don’t think she knew what she was getting into,” Dhody said.

The Mütter, a museum of medical history, is stranger and less clinical than that description implies. Its dimly lit rooms are crowded with specimens of physical anomalies and pathologies: stillborn fetuses in jars, slices of faces suspended in an alcoholic solution, a wall of nineteenth-century skulls. One display case features the livers of Chang and Eng Bunker, conjoined twins who were widely exhibited as curiosities during the nineteenth century; in another is the corpse of a woman whose fat transformed after death in an unusual form of natural preservation called saponification. The Soap Lady, as she is known at the Mütter, has rough, blackened skin, and her mouth is open, as if in a scream. A banner outside the museum, which was founded more than a hundred and sixty years ago, reads “Disturbingly informative.” Every so often, a visitor faints.

Dhody is fifty, with a mobile, expressive face that she uses to comic effect. When she talks about her early visits to the Mütter, her eyes widen in wonder. “It was just so . . . interesting,” she said. On a trip to Belize as an undergraduate studying archeology, she excavated her first grave and was hooked: “You could read the bones, and it was like reading another language.” She went on to get a master’s degree in forensic science, intending to become a crime-scene investigator, but then the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, at Harvard, hired her to help it comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, which requires institutions to return Indigenous human remains and other culturally significant items to tribal nations. In her late twenties, she interviewed for a short-term position at the Mütter. She ended up working there for nearly twenty years, most recently as the museum’s curator. “I was there before we had security cameras, and I would walk around in the mornings and talk to the babies in the jars and ask them how they were doing,” she said. “It’s not for a lot of people. But if it’s for you it’s really for you.”

During Dhody’s tenure, staff and invited guests often ate lunch at a communal table in the basement, under a large inflatable pteranodon. “It became a thing you didn’t want to miss,” Robert Hicks, a former director of the museum, said. They made Monty Python references and discussed the news or the reproductive systems of fish. People drawn to the Mütter often share a frank, forensic fascination with the human body and the stranger aspects of science. When the writer Mary Roach went to visit the Mütter offices, Hicks greeted her with one of his pet leeches hanging from his arm. “I asked what its name was, and he told me that it depended on the week, because apparently leeches change genders,” Roach recalled. “I just thought, This is my kind of place.”

Dhody was proud of her work cultivating people willing to donate their own skeletons or other body parts to supplement the museum’s core collections, which mostly date from the nineteenth century. One of them, Robert Pendarvis, is a goateed man in his early sixties with a no-bullshit air. When Pendarvis was a young man, his ring size expanded from ten to fourteen, and his forearms got so beefy that his fellow construction workers called him Popeye. He went to see a former high-school classmate who had become a cardiologist. “Everyone else from high school looks the same, just older,” his friend told him. “But your face looks completely different from how it does in the yearbook.” Pendarvis was eventually diagnosed with acromegaly, a rare endocrine condition in which a pituitary tumor produces growth hormone into adulthood—“the gift that keeps on giving,” as Pendarvis put it.

Pendarvis learned that the Mütter had a skeleton of someone with acromegaly on display. After visiting it, he decided that he wanted to donate his own. It seemed like a fitting tribute to his extraordinary body and the ways it had shaped his life. When he looked into the idea, though, it sounded complicated. “There’s a whole process—you gotta find someone that’ll boil the skin off your bones, yada yada yada,” he said. A few years later, he was preparing for a heart transplant. When he asked Dhody if the museum would be interested in his original heart, “she just freaked,” he said. By the time the surgery took place, Pendarvis’s heart was roughly the size of a football, more than twice the average. When the heart was delivered to the Mütter via FedEx, Dhody filmed an unboxing video and posted it on YouTube. She told me, “There’s no other place like the Mütter is—or was.”

It’s well understood among museum professionals that people like to look at bodies. “We did a mummy exhibit in San Diego and attendance tripled,” Trish Biers, a former associate curator at the San Diego Museum of Us, told me. She now manages a human-remains collection at the University of Cambridge, where the skeleton of a Roman woman, on display in a lead-lined coffin, is one of the most popular attractions.

But such exhibits are coming under increased scrutiny. A recent wave of institutional reëxaminations, accelerated by George Floyd’s murder, in 2020, has had a “seismic” impact on museums holding human remains, according to the anthropologist Valerie DeLeon. It’s increasingly acknowledged that racism, colonialism, and eugenics have played a role in whose bodies end up on display. High-profile news stories have exposed the ugly provenance of items in élite institutions. The Smithsonian held a “racial brain collection,” amassed by a curator in the early twentieth century, purporting to prove the superiority of white people; the University of Pennsylvania owned hundreds of skulls collected by a man who came to be known as “the father of scientific racism.” Ethically questionable behavior isn’t just an artifact of the past: as recently as 2019, an anthropologist at Penn was using the remains of someone killed in the 1985 police bombing of theMOVEheadquarters as a teaching tool, without the consent of the family. (The anthropologist has said that the bones had not been conclusively identified.)

A new movement called for taking human remains that had not been obtained with explicit consent out of public view. In the past few years, the Rhode Island School of Design has returned a mummy to its sarcophagus, and the Hunterian, a medical museum in London, has replaced the seven-foot-seven skeleton of Charles Byrne, “the Irish Giant,” with an artwork. After consulting with native groups, Chile’s National Museum of Natural History has substituted realistic 3-D reconstructions for mummified bodies. Repatriation, which used to be confined largely to Indigenous communities, is now being considered more broadly; the Smithsonian’s Human Remains Task Force recently recommended that any of the collection’s tens of thousands of remains that were taken without permission—which is to say, the vast majority of them—should be offered “to their descendants and descendant communities, organizations, and institutions.”

In 2023, Dhody was on medical leave for a shoulder injury when she heard from colleagues that things were changing at the Mütter, too. Many specimens in the museum were obtained during surgeries and autopsies at almshouses, prison wards, and military field hospitals; few were collected with a contemporary understanding of consent. The museum had a new C.E.O., Mira Irons, and a new executive director, Kate Quinn, who told interviewers that she wanted the Mütter to focus more on well-being and public health. She instructed the staff to avoid “any possible perception of spectacle, oddities, or disrespect of any type.”

By the time that Dhody returned from leave, the museum’s leadership was midway through an ethical review of the collection’s provenance. But Dhody had already anticipated a different kind of risk. “In my opinion, one of our greatest threats is our own fan base if they feel the museum is being somehow threatened,” she cautioned in an internal memo she sent her bosses. “I don’t think it has been properly articulated how passionate these individuals are.”

In 1831, a recent University of Pennsylvania medical-school graduate named Thomas Mutter travelled to Paris, which was then a center of the emerging field of plastic surgery. When he returned to Philadelphia, a year later, he added an umlaut to his name and irritated his colleagues with his incessant chatter about the superiority of French surgeons.

In the early nineteenth century, surgery was performative and brutal. “Time me, gentlemen, time me!” a British surgeon bellowed to his students before amputations. (Once, during a hasty operation, he accidentally cut off an assistant’s fingers.) At the University of Pennsylvania, the nation’s first medical school, patients who agreed to be operated on in public could get their care for free, and physicians sometimes traded insults with their colleagues during operations, according to a biography of Mütter, by Cristin O’Keefe Aptowicz. Mütter was known for his colorful silk suits and for his skill in treating patients deemed “monsters”: people with proliferating tumors, say, or severe facial burns. The theatrical nature of the work suited him but, perhaps because of his own ailments—he was ill for much of his life and died in his late forties—he “appeared at operations to be painfully sympathetic with the suffering of the patient,” a fellow-physician noted. When anesthesia came into vogue in this country, in the eighteen-forties, he was the first surgeon in Philadelphia to use it.

Like many physicians of his time, Mütter amassed specimens for use in teaching, including realistic wax and plaster models and preserved human tissue and bones. After his death, in 1859, he left his collection—some two thousand objects—to the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, a fellowship organization for doctors, with the stipulation that it be presented as a museum. Mütter’s bequest was eventually supplemented by donations from other physicians and scientists. One otolaryngologist provided thousands of objects that he had extracted from patients’ throats and lungs: toys, coins, keys, and a medallion that read “Carry me for good luck.” Joseph Leidy, a paleontologist and an early enthusiast of forensics—he was reportedly the first person to help solve a murder using a microscope—was a prominent contributor. In the eighteen-seventies, he obtained the skeleton of a seven-foot-six man and the corpse of the saponified woman, which he acquired, as he noted on the receipt, via “connivance.” (Leidy donated his own brain to the American Anthropometric Society, as did Walt Whitman.) The Mütter collection came to include Grover Cleveland’s jaw tumor, a piece of one of John Wilkes Booth’s vertebrae, and slides of Albert Einstein’s brain.

This spring, I visited the Mütter, situated inside the grand Beaux-Arts headquarters of the College of Physicians, which still owns the museum. Erin McLeary, who was hired as the senior director of collections and research last year, met me in the lobby. We walked past high-ceilinged reception rooms toward the entrance to the Mütter, which was marked by a disclaimer. “You are about to enter a gallery containing human remains,” it cautioned. “If you wish to avoid this, please do not enter.”

McLeary wore a silk scarf tied around her neck and had an air of scholarly flutter. “Specimens are the ways in which physicians in the nineteenth century were communicating ideas,” she told me. “There’s a repeated phrase they use—that these are ‘nature’s books.’ As in, they can be read, they reveal information.” Around the nineteen-thirties, as the science of pathology evolved, such collections began to fall out of favor. “People are looking less at gross pathology—the big specimens—and more at microscopic changes. And there are different techniques for preservation,” McLeary said. We paused in front of a pale, fleshy object in a glass jar blurry with condensation. “Like this—this has lost some fidelity, right?” McLeary leaned in to read the label more closely; it was a foot.

Many institutions got rid of their specimens, likely disposing of them as medical waste or, in some cases, passing them on to the Mütter. Collections of pathological specimens came to be associated more with P. T. Barnum-style sideshows than with medical scholarship, although the two categories hadn’t always been clearly delineated. “There’s been a lot of resistance to the idea that medical schools even had collections like this,” McLeary said. “Someone at Penn was, like, ‘I don’t believe we ever had a collection like the Mütter’s.’ ” (They did.) “I think they’ve been memory-holed.”

The Mütter might have become an obscure collection, of interest mostly to historians, if not for a woman named Gretchen Worden. In 1974, Worden wrote to the Mütter’s curator asking for a job. She had a degree in anthropology from Temple University and no full-time work experience. “As for vital statistics, I was born in Shanghai, China, on September 26, 1947. I have since grown to a height of five feet, eight and three-quarters inches and can get things down from a seven-foot shelf. I am fairly proficient in English, barely proficient in French, and have forgotten most of my Russian,” she wrote. In lieu of a résumé, she included her college transcript. Worden was hired, and spent the rest of her life at the museum.

Anatomical collections like the Mütter’s had long inspired feelings of fascination and shame about the human body. In Victorian London, the proprietors of anatomical displays were sometimes prosecuted for indecency. For many years, the Hunterian museum was open only to medical professionals, “learned men,” or “respectably dressed persons.” But Worden, who became the Mütter’s director, promoted the museum through multiple appearances on David Letterman’s late-night talk show, where she showed off objects that made the audience groan or erupt in shocked laughter. (“GoodLord,” you can hear someone say, after she shows Letterman a photograph of a wax model with gnarly facial lesions.) She and the publisher Laura Lindgren invited artists, including William Wegman, to photograph the collection for a calendar distributed in bookstores around the country. Worden also cultivated the museum’s distinctive Victorian atmosphere: heavy velvet drapes, red carpets, wooden cases packed with specimens. As some institutions got rid of their anatomical collections, Worden snapped them up. “I am almost totally fulfilled here in this job. It’s everything. It’s art, it’s science, it’s bones, it’s anatomy, pathology, it’s contemporary medicine. I just couldn’t be happier,” she once told the PhiladelphiaDaily News.

Regal and unapologetically odd, Worden shaped the museum in her image. Questions of spectacle and propriety circled the Mütter even then, but Worden’s ample charisma, her confidence in the validity of her own fascination, seemed largely able to keep them at bay. She saw the museum as a place for “humans looking at humans,” somewhere that “treats people as if they’re grown up enough to take a look at what’s under the hood.” By the end of her tenure, attendance had grown more than tenfold.

Worden died in 2004, at fifty-six, after a brief illness. An article in theTimesnoted the “motley crowd” that gathered for her memorial service at the museum, which included “dignified-looking surgeons,” “Philadelphia society matrons,” and “a couple of sideshow impresarios.” The mourners sang “Babies in Jars,” a song composed to the tune of “My Favorite Things.”

Valerie DeLeon, the anthropologist, began a two-year stint as the president of the American Association for Anatomy in 2021, as her field was coming under intense scrutiny for its treatment of human remains. DeLeon convened a task force to devise best practices for institutions with historical collections of remains, an area with hardly any regulatory guidance. She felt that it was important to move quickly. “The members that I represent needed helpnow,” she told me. (The University of Florida, where she is a professor, was weighing how to handle its own anatomical teaching collections.) The task force included anthropologists, anatomists, and museum professionals. They agreed that it was important to treat human specimens with dignity and respect, but they disagreed about what that meant in practice. Some argued that, given the presumptive unethical taint of such collections, human remains should be buried or otherwise respectfully disposed of. Another faction argued that the societal benefits of continuing to research, teach with, and display human remains outweighed the harms to people who were, after all, long dead.

Human tissues “hold an ethically intermediary place between inanimate property and living beings,” the members of the task force wrote in a report, which was published inThe Anatomical Recordlast year. First, the group had some thorny discussions, DeLeon said. Just how much of a body counted as a person? Did a bone shard have the same level of personhood as a full skeleton? What about teeth, or tumor cells? Should fetal remains be considered part of the mother or a separate person? Did the long dead occupy a different status from those who had died more recently?

In the report, the group laid out its guidelines, which recommend taking cultural context into account when determining how to display or dispose of remains, given that practices such as cremation or postmortem display may be considered traditional by one culture and taboo by another. Whenever possible, the A.A.A. recommends consulting with “communities of care”—descendants or others with an interest in and a connection to the remains. But it’s not always clear who is best positioned to speak for the dead. “For many remains, even within my own institution, we literally have no idea where they came from,” DeLeon said. “So what do you do with those?”

In Philadelphia, I met Kate Quinn, the Mütter’s executive director, in one of the College of Physicians’ anterooms, whose walls were lined with mahogany bookshelves and oil paintings of eminent physicians. Quinn had an air of guarded professionalism, and for most of the interview she was flanked by both a P.R. representative and her new boss, Larry Kaiser, a thoracic surgeon who had recently been named the president and C.E.O. of the College of Physicians.

After Quinn’s hiring, in 2022, she quickly moved to professionalize the Mütter, helping to establish policies for ethics and beginning the process of applying for accreditation from the American Alliance of Museums. She sometimes received calls from people who had been told by Dhody that the Mütter might acquire their body parts; Quinn told them that the museum wasn’t doing that at the moment. She oversaw an audit of the collection, the first in more than eighty years. “I had the expectation that we would find that maybe two or three per cent of the collection had been given to us with consent,” she told me. “But we’re finding it’s much, much less than that.”

Stacey Mann, a consultant who was brought in by Quinn, told me it seemed that the collection was haphazardly catalogued, with some things apparently acquired because of their value as curiosities rather than as medically informative specimens. “They found two of these baby skulls in the library that were linked to this woman who was, I guess, a murderess,” Mann said. (The bodies were discovered in a trunk after the woman, Stella Williamson, died, in 1980; the exact circumstances of their deaths are unclear. The museum is helping to arrange a reburial.) “Every month, there’d be another thing that was, like, ‘Are you kidding me?’ ”

Quinn also spearheaded something called the Postmortem project, an example of the kind of institutional self-critique that has become popular in the museum world in the past few years. At the Mütter, this has meant providing visitors with visual annotations to the existing collection in the form of green signs. Near the entrance, for example, a sepia-tinged photograph shows the back of a woman’s head. A matted lock of hair trails down her back in calligraphic spirals, an example of plica, a rare disorder. Like many objects in the Mütter’s collection, it is unsettlingly compelling, the distance of time imbuing the pathology with a kind of poetry. “This photo comes from a book of hair samples doctors took from patients with different ethnic backgrounds,” the Postmortem sign affixed to the display reads. “Is this just a picture of hair when you know that it was used to perpetuate racism?” One of the museum’s temporary galleries is devoted to the Postmortem project, and its atmosphere—white painted walls; bright, clean light; exhibits with clear, legible signage—feels like a portal into an entirely different institution. Next to a display about power and consent, visitors are invited to contribute their responses on butcher paper: “SCARY PEOPLE,” “acknowledge the ugly past,” “Wokeness destroys truth.”

Quinn walked me through an exhibit that had been on display for more than a decade, and which linked items in the collection to Grimms’ Fairy Tales. In a broad wooden case, a small, brownish object that resembled a piece of ginger root rested on a shelf. “That’s the bound foot of a Chinese woman,” Quinn said. “It’s on display to talk about Cinderella. And it’s a question, you know—is that something we should be doing more or less of? Whose story is being prioritized there? It’s not her story. Her background is not even part of the display at all—it’s all about Cinderella, and foot-binding, and it’s next to a book with illustrations of shoes. This doesn’t mean that we don’t share that specimen moving forward, but maybe we’re telling a different story about it.”

Under Quinn and Irons’s leadership, the museum cancelled its annual Halloween party and stopped hosting a popular goth-tinged craft bazaar. Then, in early 2023, the museum removed hundreds of videos from its YouTube channel and took down a digital exhibit featuring images of human remains. The videos, most of which were made by Dhody, were often irreverent and sometimes involved staff members goofing around in the museum. The YouTube channel was popular, with more than a hundred thousand subscribers. Dhody, sounding wounded, told me that Quinn had characterized it, disparagingly, as “edutainment.” According to Quinn, the museum planned to review the videos for accuracy and tone. (Eventually, about a third of them were reposted, although none that included human remains.) But some of the museum’s fans saw their sudden disappearance as a harbinger of worse things to come. Online, rumors spread that the new leadership planned to remove the fetal remains, or to close the museum to the public altogether.

A half-dozen or so of the Mütter’s most ardent enthusiasts—members of the “weird little parasocial network attached to the museum,” as one described it to me—formed a group called Protect the Mütter, to protest the changes. They handed out flyers around town, sold T-shirts that read “Censorship is the enemy of science,” and kept up a regular cadence of outraged social-media posts “looking out for the well being of our deceased friends” and criticizing the new leadership’s “sweeping, judgmental, reactive moves.” More than a dozen employees departed, including Dhody, who resigned last year, saying that she felt “shuttled off to the sidelines.” A woman who had donated her uterine fibroid to the Mütter demanded it back, saying that she had lost confidence in the institution’s leadership. Robert Hicks, the former director, accused Quinn and Irons of being “elitist and exclusionary,” and removed the Mütter from his will.

Protect the Mütter was run by a self-described “scrappy group of neurodivergent queers” who posted land acknowledgments on the organization’s Instagram page. Their campaign attracted some unexpected allies. In an op-ed for theWall Street Journal, a former trustee of the College of Physicians blamed “cancel culture” and “a handful of woke elites” for jeopardizing the museum’s future. “Two women put in charge ofTOTALLY COOLmuseum of oddities, The Mütter Museum, think the exhibits are icky and plan to destroy it,” the conservative pundit Ann Coulter posted on Twitter. “Is there anything women can’t wreck?” Pendarvis, who had donated his heart, told me that he was disgusted by the new leadership’s “wokeness and the bullshit about D.E.I.”; he, too, asked for his specimen back. “When I saw that Ann Coulter thought I was on the right track, I sat there and said, ‘My God, what is happening?’ ” the Protect the Mütter member told me. “But you know how a broken clock is right two times a day.”

Protect the Mütter created a petition—signed by more than thirty thousand people, including Roach, the magician Penn Jillette, and the novelist Neil Gaiman—that called for the dismissal of Irons and Quinn, among other measures. Irons resigned in September, 2023. When I met with Quinn, she spoke of that period with a kind of brittle diplomacy. “It was a solid year of recognizing that there are a lot of folks who have strong passions for this place, and rightly so,” she said. She was eager to “facilitate the discussions” and “get folks engaged in the conversation.” The one moment when Quinn’s composure wavered was when I asked her if she thought gender had played a role in the ire directed against her. “I do, I do think that,” she said with surprising vehemence. “I had a lot of attacks on the way that I look. Someone called me a bland blond normie. Someone said that I must be conservative and anti-abortion because I would roll up the sleeves on my blazer. And someone else said that I wore minimalistic 2011 makeup.” Then she seemed to catch herself. “But we carry on and continue forward.”

McLeary has been leading the effort to learn more about the people whose bodies and body parts have ended up at the Mütter. Non-experts often assume that DNA analysis can provide the solution to all mysteries, supplying a name and a family tree. But such testing is often prohibitively expensive and, when dealing with historic specimens, not consistently precise. Instead, the Mütter has relied largely on archival research. Last year, after McLeary was hired, she went looking for the nineteenth-century collection catalogue, which she found in the College of Physicians’ library. “Maybe it was when Gretchen died, I don’t know, but at some point staff just ceased knowing about this,” she told me. She set the book on a stand and began to page through it with me. It was dense with notes, some typewritten and some in tiny, precise handwriting: “skull of a typical mouth breather,” “a Chinese skull,” “a heavy skull.” Many of the listings included lengthy case reports from the physicians who had donated the specimens. Owing in part to prevailing nineteenth-century ideas about how certain diseases tracked with race, class, and life style, the entries are often rich in sociological detail, which—when cross-referenced with newly digitized historical archives—has helped McLeary and her team attach context, and in some cases a name, to hundreds of specimens.

This research is just the first step in a process that may eventually involve contacting descendants, a project that would have its own set of complications. McLeary paused at an entry describing the skull of a man sentenced to death for murder. “You think about these what-ifs—what if you contacted these descendants? The crimes he committed were horrible,” she said. “ ‘Did you know that your great-great-grandfather might have sexually assaulted his daughter and then killed her? Do you want his skull back?’ ”

I followed McLeary into the museum’s main room, past a group of teen-age girls transfixed by an exhibit on teratology, the study of congenital abnormalities. We stopped in front of a child’s skeleton, about three feet tall, with an enlarged skull and bones blackened with age. “Hydrocephalus has caused this child’s head to grow to a circumference of over 27 inches,” the label read. “After six years of expanding rapidly, the skull has numerous wormian bones—small, irregular bones between the bones normally present in the skull.” The child’s name, McLeary had determined, was Thomas Jeff, and he had died of complications from the condition in 1882, when he was six or seven years old. He had lived with his family in a low-income neighborhood in Philadelphia. During his lifetime, he’d occasionally been put on display for money. After his death, his mother sold the body to a doctor, for some six hundred dollars in today’s money. “There’s a short newspaper article about his sale, in which his mother says, If we buried him, he would just be grave-robbed—it was going to happen either way,” McLeary said. She said that focussing on contemporary notions of consent could risk reading the present into the past—essentially looking for “something that simply didn’t exist,” as she put it—but that archival work could build a better understanding of individuals’ agency and bodily autonomy, both during life and afterward, and that this understanding could help guide the museum’s decisions.

With that in mind, the research team had selected Jeff as a case study; they were seeing how much of his life they could piece together beyond his name. McLeary found that Jeff’s mother, Letitia, died not long after her son; records list her place of burial as Jefferson Medical College, which means that her body may have been used to teach dissection. With help from the African American Genealogy Group, in Philadelphia, the team was able to trace the path of Jeff’s two younger brothers to a Quaker orphanage. Afterward, one brother was placed in indenture at a farm in Delaware and the other was sent to a residential school for Black and Native children, where he was second in his class, according to a report card that a researcher at Haverford College tracked down. I glanced at the small skeleton, now freighted with a name and a history. It seemed to demand a different kind of looking. “You know, Thomas Jeff’s father voted in 1870, as a newly enfranchised Black man,” McLeary said. “There’s a whole history of the American Black experience that we can tell, and to me that’s a far more interesting thing to think about than hydrocephaly.”

In the past two years, the Mütter’s attendance numbers and gift-shop sales have declined, and the College of Physicians, which relies in part on the museum’s income, is running a deficit. Kaiser, who became the College’s C.E.O. earlier this year, told me that he has a “broader view” of the ethics of display. “Look, from the business perspective, I depend on admissions to the museum and the gift shop,” he said. “I like people coming here for whatever reason, whether it’s morbid fascination or education or simply entertainment. I’m O.K. with that.” Kaiser spent most of my interview with Quinn looking at his phone. He spoke up when I asked her if visiting the museum should be fun. “Yes!” he said emphatically, before she could reply.

A week later, I heard that Quinn’s position had been eliminated. On Instagram, Protect the Mütter declared victory and posted an image of two skeletal hands, their bony fingers pressed together to make a heart shape. The museum will now be run by McLeary and Sara Ray, a historian of science. Both women stressed to me their love of the institution, as well as their understanding that it needed to evolve. Ray mentioned that she’d been a volunteer tour guide a decade ago. “When I came back in January, I was shadowing a docent, and I was, like, ‘Oh, my God, this docent is giving the same—literally the same—tour,’ ” she said. “For all of the talk about changes to the collection, really there’s not that much in the core gallery that has changed.” The turmoil surrounding the museum’s direction ultimately seemed to be less about major alterations to the space than about a shift in emotional tone, a movement away from celebration and toward something like penance.

McLeary and Ray see the research into the collection’s origins as a form of appreciation; what is the Mütter, after all, if not a place where people go to be disturbed? “The way this controversy has been depicted is that you either need to commit yourself to ethics or you need to commit yourself to being a place of morbid fascination,” Ray said. “We think there’s a secret third way, which is that you can actually do both of those things.”

One of the Mütter’s most ambivalent defenders is the Chicago artist, writer, and disability activist Riva Lehrer. “I have a really deep love of the variance of anatomy—all the ways you can be human, all the different ways you can live in a body,” Lehrer, who has spina bifida, told me. She has taught anatomy and has been a visiting artist in a cadaver lab, where she donned scrubs and observed as medical students wielded their scalpels. “And, then, I’ve had quite a few surgeries, so I’ve done a lot of medical research on my own,” she added.

On Lehrer’s first visit to the museum, in 2006, she found it “immediately fascinating,” but the moody lighting and sideshow atmospherics struck her as both offensive and trite. “I was feeling sniffy about the whole thing,” she said. Downstairs, she entered the exhibit devoted to teratology. Preserved fetuses hung submerged in jars, swollen from preservation fluid and bleached to a uniform, milky white. “I know people with a vast amount of variance, so I’m looking at all these bodies and thinking, Oh, this reminds me of John, this reminds me of Mary Lou, but I wasn’t thinking about myself. You find out how defended you are when you can’t be anymore. And then I turned the corner—I mean literally and figuratively,” she said. “It was like my armor fell off.” On display was a small, pale body that appeared to have spina bifida lipomyelomeningocele, the rare variation that Lehrer has. She felt as if she were encountering herself. She longed to slip the jar in her pocket. “Nature does all this stuff—it’s such a bag of chaos, you know?” she said. “We’re born into this chaos, and we grow up, and then we’re, like, Well, now what do I do in this body I landed in?” she said. “What am I supposed to do with this?” ♦

Finding a Family of Boys

In 1981, I was a student of art history at Columbia University. I was twenty-one and worked to support myself at a variety of jobs. Columbia was an all-boys school then. Old oak desks and a million cigarettes. (You could smoke in class.) I didn’t know much about the university—not even that it was an all-boys university—until I got there. It was a new world for me. I had lived most of my life until then in a family of girls. Now there was a family of boys.

I didn’t live on campus. I lived with my aunt, my uncle, and an adored older female cousin in Brooklyn. At around that time, Our Ma, inspired by her sister and eldest daughter, was planning on moving from Brooklyn, where I grew up, to Atlanta. A new start. She was just over fifty then. She made it clear that there were certain rules I had to follow if I was going to stay with my aunt’s family. I had to pay rent, twenty dollars a week. “Nobody lives for free,” Our Ma said.

At first, my aunt objected to the mandate: I was just a schoolkid. But Our Ma was adamant; it was either that or I would come and live with her and my little brother in Georgia. There were several reasons that my mother put her foot down. One was Daddy. As long as she’d known him, he’d lived rent-free with his mother, whose economic smarts my mother revered. “Mrs. Williams could throw a handful of peas in a pot and feed a whole army,” Our Ma said. Mrs. Williams had a husband and two other children—two girls—but, for her, Daddy always came first.

Our Ma did not want me to be some version of my father, a guy who could love women less and get more from them because of that—not if she had anything to do with it. And she did have something to do with it, with everything. She was raised in a society—a West Indian society—that did not put much of a premium on women’s bodies, where any kind of intimacy was a joke. People made fun of you for expressing longing, or, if you were a man, for being involved with just one woman, or for showing affection to your children.

For a long stretch of his life, Daddy had two women to nurture him—Mrs. Williams and my mother—but Our Ma had only one enormous love: others. She believed in community, and wanted us all to belong to it, even Daddy, despite the fact that he was living at his mother’s house and had been born into a family that laughed at her goodness.

Our Ma may have had a devalued body, in the world she came from, but she fought for and retained her right to put her foot down. And, when she put it down, the world was different. After she put her foot down, I went to school and went to work. Every week I paid my aunt rent. In my room in her house, I had a desk, piles of books, and a typewriter. I tried to write. I was going to write.

Life at Columbia was strange. All those boys. I could smell them. So many of them in their bodies, careless with their scent. They lifted their arms up and, kingdom come, the air was different. The gay ones were less apt to reek. That would be impolite, and already life had proved to be impolite, having produced queer bodies in 1981, for instance. We gay boys were only a decade or so removed from Stonewall and two decades removed from being blackmailed or jailed for “solicitation,” so caution and madness were in our bones. Sometimes we committed great acts of love or rage in private, while the only public trespass we allowed ourselves was to throw glittering hard words into the air, hoping they would not rebound and chop us off at the knees.

I had never seen so many rich, or rich to me, people in one place before. I was amazed, first, by their hair. For years, Our Ma had made her, and our, living as a hairdresser. Her clients were all Black women. So many words and worries in their hair. The Columbia boys’ hair was so lustrous and well nourished. They had good teeth and healthy bodies and strong nipples that were on display on sunny days when, sitting on the campus steps, they removed their shirts, and not one of them, among the straight ones, at least, looked ashamed. They’d grown up playing tennis or squash in Connecticut, or Rhode Island, or farther north. In the summer, they went to the Cape. Their families knew one another and this was a source of casual pride among them, not of bitter jokes or distancing resentments.

Manhattan had always belonged to my father. He used to take me and my little brother to foreign movies and then to eat foreign food. He was deeply unconcerned about the staring white people wondering what we were doing in a tearoom, say, on the Upper East Side. We ate blintzes in Germantown, and caught Liv Ullmann in “The Emigrants.” Then Daddy took us home to Crown Heights, and, for a while, it felt like Sweden.

At Columbia, I didn’t have to pretend that I was somewhere else; Iwassomewhere else. All of it—the grand buildings, the wave upon wave of stone steps—was like a stage set for becoming. But becoming what? Daddy had given me Manhattan, and now I took to it without him. He had no active role in this New York—in my New York—and perhaps that in itself was an act of becoming for me.

Everything was so queer, or I wanted it to be. I don’t mean queer like camp—a loyal adherence to the artificial—but queer like my mind, which was interested in all that was misshapen. In this new, unfamiliar place, I felt freer to go on about the things that excited me, just as I had with my older sisters when I was a boy, before they put an end to all that—because what was I turning into, some kind of faggot?

In my family, I never answered the what-are-you-some-kind-of-faggot question, because I couldn’t trust anyone with the answer. There’s not a fag who grew up in East New York or Crown Heights in the nineteen-sixties and seventies who would have trusted the inhabitants of those worlds with the knowledge that he was gay.

In the West Indian community, Our Ma knew one sort-of-out guy. He never said that he was gay, but he communicated it through his fastidious love of women and the fact that he lived in Manhattan. He loved my mother—they were distant cousins, I think—and when he came to visit I heard family members, neighbors, and the like refer to him as an “auntie man.” To them, he wasn’t just a queen. He was every queen they had ever known and despised, been disgusted and amused by, secretly had and then spat upon, dismissed and jeered at. Because that’s how prejudice works: you are one thing that represents all bad things to others. Didn’t the elders describe racism that way? But gay was not a skin color. It was a state of being, a consciousness that took your race—or anything else that life had given you—and made it different. My ability, as an auntie man, to love those who considered me a pariah, or some kind of wicked novelty act, told me that fags were made of different stuff—but what stuff?

It happened the way love happens—while you’re least expecting it though wanting everything. I had been at Columbia for a semester or so when I fell in with a small group of guys, most of whom, like me, were studying art history. The most interesting of them was from Orange County, California, the son of a single mother who worked as a nurse at Disneyland. He had pale skin that flushed easily, curly dark-blond hair, and beautiful hands—thick Daddy hands, but gestural, femme like that. He was a brilliant reader of philosophy, and made me want to read more seriously and widely.

Roland Bartheshad landed with a boom on Columbia’s academic planet years before and he was beloved by that group of guys. My smart friend read him and imitated his aphoristic style—a new way of being an “author.” But, for me, Barthes’s writing was like the finest embroidery stitched in the air: only the author could see it. And what did all this talk about the “other” actually mean?

One reason those queens loved Barthes, I think, without entirely understanding structuralism as a discipline, was that he was so elusive about being queer. They were, too. Despite Stonewall and other political advances, my new friends were barely out of the closet (and some never left it). They had grown up in parts of America that, in 1981, were still ideologically 1956.

We had an intense philological relationship, my blond friend and I. I remember how delicately he handled the paperback copy ofToni Morrison’s“Sula” I lent him, and how interested he was to hear about my father and how he had been spoiled by his mother, just as Milkman Dead had in Morrison’s “Song of Solomon.”

We passed books back and forth, back and forth, and the words in them made the ground more solid beneath our feet. I kept trying with Barthes because I loved my friend and found something I recognized in the emotional language in “Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes” and “A Lover’s Discourse.” Actually, in the former book, it was really just a photograph and the line introducing it that got me. The picture, black-and-white, showed a young Barthes being held in his mother’s arms. He was too big to be carried, but his mother managed him with no sign of complaint or surprise. The four words—“The demand for love”—expressed a world: this was me, and all of us, with Our Mas. What soul doesn’t want to be carried, held, well past the carrying age?

In “A Lover’s Discourse,” I was taken by Barthes’s interpretation of the “cry of love”: “I want to understand myself, to make myself understood, make myself known, be embraced; I want someone to take me with him.” Indeed, I wanted my bookish friend to take me into his mind, to discover stories with me, to elevate me with his thought, and to join me in my disco of community. In that imagined disco, there was a select crowd, largely queer. The hall was small, and honestly what it looked like was a home. At my disco of community, the d.j. played Chaka Khan,Prince,Philip Glass’s“Einstein on the Beach,” Jane Olivor singing “Some Enchanted Evening,” the Voices of East Harlem declaring, “Right On Be Free,”Dionne Warwickasking us to take a “Message to Michael,”Bowie, of course, singing “Station to Station,” Labelle describing how ‘‘Going Down Makes Me Shiver,” and Elton, Elton singing so many things. All these songs were, of course, one song—a song of wishing—and they filled the room so mightily it was as if God were stepping tall around our dance hall. God could be your own queer self, too, and you could even do the Latin hustle with Her, surrounded by all the other folks and things you loved that made you feel panic-stricken because wasn’t love a panic?

My book buddy had a boyfriend. Let’s call him LES. He had grown up in a block of buildings known as “affordable housing” on the Lower East Side, with his white single mother, a social worker. LES did not know his father, who was Black. He was the only other person of color in that group of gay boys at Columbia, and, given the cultural loneliness I presumed he felt and Our Ma’s fidelity to spiritual strays, I felt obliged to love him. For a long time I thought I did because I thought I should.

We were not attracted to each other sexually. From the first, our connection and uneasiness were familial, not romantic. LES was interested in class, not as a way of eradicating his race but as a way of catapulting himself out of his background. At Columbia, he wanted not to be his origin story; he was all about the arrival myth. He outdid the white boys at being a white boy. Brusque in manner, he embraced capitalism’s lack of charity: there was room for only one class, and that class was acquisitive and brutal in its grab for the world—more was more. This was in the era of Lacoste shirts, chinos, and L. L. Bean leather bags and boots. Somehow, LES’s Lacoste shirt collars stood up straighter and stiffer than any of those other guys’.

Like Daddy, LES had been coddled for most of his life. His mother gave her son what she had and more than she had. He lived in one of the nice dorms on the newly built East Campus, and one of the signs of his wealth, or his performance of wealth, was the beauty of his space. I remember his dark, calming room, his elegant pillowcases. I had grown up getting scolded if I had the temerity to answer anyone with “What?,” but LES quarrelled openly with his mother and his female friends. He wanted to break through softness, which he associated with women. We sometimes went together to parties at St. A’s, a largely rich-boy frat, whose members had good hair and all sorts of permission. LES, tall, tawny-riny, as Our Ma would describe him, stood out at those parties, not so much to the guys in blue blazers, white shirts, and chinos who were horsing around and drinking too much, but to me. Because of his joy. He was genuinely happy there, in a world he aspired to, and when you aspire does the quality of what you’re reaching for matter? The dream is the point.

I valued LES’s generosity, his taking me to parties where I could eat, but I couldn’t share his aspirations. Still, I understood why people were attracted to him. LES was brilliant at playing the man. He took choice away from you. When I was spending too much time with my inner girl, mooning over a boy who’d left me sitting alone in a bar with melting ice cubes, LES would drag me off to another bar or to a gay party held in one of the great halls at Columbia. At those parties: loads of talk; nothing would happen. Then LES and I would jump in a cab and head to Uncle Charlie’s or one of the other white gay bars downtown, where the air was full of patchouli and synth.

LES’s attractiveness had everything to do with action. Before you could say, “Shall we do this?” or “Should we consider that?,” he was holding your arm and leading you into the Spike. He had an enviable right to himself and what he wanted, like any free white man but in a colored person’s body. And the guys who were drawn to him were drawn to both aspects of him, or to what he projected about both: the presumed authority of one, and theWhat is he?Who is he? of the other.

LES had drifted apart from my book buddy. His new love worked with him at the reserves desk at Butler Library. I met LES after his shift one day—it was spring, early spring—and, as we walked down the path that led from the library toward the Alma Mater statue, he told me about his co-worker.

Columbia was like a small town within a city then. Even if you didn’t know someone by name, you knew him by sight. Days after LES told me of his love, I met him. I was on my way to the library when LES and he were leaving. I recognized him at once. Or I recognized the back of his neck. We were both enrolled in a class on Italian Renaissance painting. A lecture course, it started at some ungodly hour, which meant that I got there very late. Although I wanted to do well, I didn’t care about doing well in the things I didn’t care about much—that would have felt like a lie, and wasn’t this moment in life, making Manhattan my home, building a family of my own, about telling the truth for once, and at last? Still, I took the Italian Renaissance painting class because I was my mother’s son and what would it mean to the world if I shirked my responsibilities?

To be honest, I had a lot of Daddy in me, too. Remember those times when Daddy took me and my brother to Yorkville to eat cabbage soup or any other place where people were puzzled by our presence and Daddy paid those pale question marks no never mind? I saw that and it went straight into my blood: I wanted to be like that, a man who paid no never mind to other minds. I had no business being in an Italian Renaissance painting class, but fuck that: Italian Renaissance painting was mine, if only I could get there on time.

I never did. And, when I search my mind now, first I hear things, especially theclick click clickof the slides in the projector, and then there are images flashing, showing us Mantegna, scrolling through history; I can see, too, how one boy always looked up at me when I made my entrance; maybe he couldn’t help it, since I had to pass the screen to get to my seat, casting a shadow on Masaccio’s Jesus and all that perspective.

I couldn’t tell if I was bothering him; he looked intrigued by the fact that I could be so late and appear not to be worried about it. I sat behind him and got settled. His neck was long and erect; he sat upright. Looking over his shoulder, I could see that he had three newly sharpened pencils and a pen lined up by his notebook. His notebook was filled with his strong, clear handwriting.

My envy of his orderliness was an old feeling, my irreverence turned on its ear. The truth is, I have always admired people who seem to get it right. In elementary school, I knew a girl named Edna. She was thin and wore glasses. I admired everything about her. I loved looking at the dark hair on her skinny yellow arms and her clean homework pages. When we ate our homemade lunches together, she had such restraint: she’d eat half her sandwich and save the rest for later. At Columbia, sitting in that class on Italian Renaissance painting, I could tell that that boy was a version of Edna. Despite my defiance, I wished that I wasn’t always late for class, that I wasn’t still the guy who was sloppy with his homework and gobbled up his lunch in two bites.

On the afternoon that LES introduced us, the boy from Italian Renaissance painting was wearing a cotton button-down shirt, jeans, and loafers without socks. (He rarely wore socks, no matter the weather.) He had an angular face, and light-colored eyes that were framed by tortoiseshell glasses. He had dark hair and his eyelids slanted a little. He didn’t smile. I was smoking a cigarette. He asked for one. I said, “If you’re nice!,” and he said, “I’m nice!” His slight body—we all weighed about a hundred and fifty pounds then—shivered a little at my implication.

I suppose other things happened after I gave him a cigarette, but I don’t remember what. I doubt we talked about Italian Renaissance painting as we walked down the gravel path away from the library—that would have meant leaving LES out—but surely there was talk, miles of it in an instant, like a fast train that kept picking up speed, passing scene after blurry scene as we raced toward a destination we didn’t know, couldn’t know, on that first day, a day that contained all our days together and the days after that, because your soul knows everything about a new love before you do.

I do remember how taken I was by his mind, which didn’t so much impose order on things as see the order that was already there. Raised in Connecticut in a Catholic household, he had faith—and perhaps that faith would extend to me beyond this moment of possibility? Let me tell you more about this moment, and moments that preceded it, because they all live together: First, you are standing by yourself in the world, and it’s fine. Then you blink and find yourself sitting in the palm of someone’s hand. That person peers down at you with the look of a connoisseur gazing at a curiosity, until suddenly a shy surprise fills both of you and alters the world as you know it. This might be too much to put on one meeting, but it’s all true.

We parted. Spring gave way to the end of the semester and exams and all that. I failed Italian Renaissance painting. By the time the school year ended, LES and my new friend were romantically and sexually involved, and life was turning, turning.

He contacted me first. In the upper left-hand corner of the envelope his letter came in, he’d written his name above the logo and return address of the yacht club he was working for that summer, in Niantic. The letter was written in his strong hand and I won’t quote it verbatim. If I did, I’d have to stop and put my pen down and let hope fly across the page—the hope that this will matter to you, and to others who know nothing of this kind of science fiction, of first a letter filled with anticipation and then, a decade later, no more letters except the one that I am writing here to the living who want to hear about ourAIDSdead, the better to understand who they were. I’m reluctant to give you his name. To name anything is to limit it, and for now I want him still to be limitless and alive, alive, alive.

In any case, his letter said that he was very happy, that he had waited a long time to have a friend like LES, and that was part of his happiness. At the end, he said how much he looked forward to getting to know me in the future, and how we could or should meet when he came down to the city to see LES sometime that summer. I remember that I was twenty-one when I received his note. I’d be twenty-two that August.

I was still living in Brooklyn with my aunt and uncle when I got his note. I was as thin as any man over six feet tall should be. But the truth is that I don’t really remember my body. In “I Remember,”Joe Brainardwrites quite a bit about his cock—looking at it, touching it, trying to make it appear bigger in his trousers—but I don’t remember looking at my cock in those years. When would I have had a chance to be alone with it? I had always lived with women in small spaces. There is no privacy in poverty.

Which is to say that I don’t remember when my body was first looked upon not as a problem, when someone’s desire moved him to hold those parts of me that gave him pleasure and presumably gave me pleasure, too. I don’t remember because, by the time any of that occurred, too much had already happened.

Still, I remember his letter. The way it took my weekend loneliness away. It weighed whatever a single piece of semi-heavy-stock paper with ink on it would weigh. That was one weight. The other was the weight, the beautiful gravitas, of his sense of responsibility and his hope: he looked forward to getting to know me in the future. The future.

During my first semester at Columbia, I’d taken Introduction to Religion, taught by the esteemed religious historianElaine Pagels. It was a big class, and packed. One day, after class, Professor Pagels asked Mr. Als to come and see her in her office. (In those days, professors addressed you by your surname.) In her office, Professor Pagels said that she liked a paper I’d written, and that she wanted to pass on two books she thought might be especially interesting to me:Simone Weil’s“Waiting for God” and James Cone’s “God of the Oppressed.” Weil and Cone, Professor Pagels said, were real writers, too.

Real writers. In the weeks that followed, I read everything I could by and about Weil, a Parisian anorexic who was raised as an agnostic Jew and became a practicing Catholic but would not be baptized, in part because she didn’t feel worthy of the sacrament, and then I read Cone, who had grown up in a small segregated town in Arkansas. Painful things had happened to both of these writers because of illness or racism. And yet, in their writing, both had a profound interest in connecting, or at least in the idea of connecting, which, of course, lies at the heart of friendship and is the beginning of community.

That boy’s letter affected me as much as Weil’s and Cone’s writing did, because, basically, he was asking the same questions they were asking: How do we make a friendship? How do we make a family? Do you believe in love, and know how to honor it? I read his letter once, and then twenty times. I wrote my own questions alongside every one of his: Was it possible to be gay and be together? Be Israelites together and refuse the sacrament, just because we were so joyful at having found each other? If we were gay and together with LES or whomever else, would that make us a gay community, and what would that mean in the world?

I remember him coming down from Connecticut to see LES. I remember the smell of the August night in New York when we met up at LES’s mother’s apartment. Trees shaded the paths as I entered a maze of high-rises whose short windows had bars over them. Nearby, there was a pool, and I could smell the chlorine. Night swimmers glistened in the dim light. Manhattan was so different from Brooklyn. One of my sisters lived in a version of these buildings in Brownsville, but there they were called “the projects,” and at the pool that was near my sister’s place I had found shit in the water.

LES opened the door. I don’t remember if the friend from Connecticut was standing beside LES, but I remember the feeling of parents. The sense that people who were together, as LES and he were now, were parents. I had seen that in the street, in the movies, and so on—couples doing things together!—but I didn’t know what that felt like; the idea cowed me.

We had a good gay conversation piece to start things off with: my hair. Before I arrived, I’d described to LES on the phone how a barber, ignoring what I had asked for, had fucked my head up to such a degree that I’d had him shave everything off. This was in the days when only lunatics or scary white punks had shaved heads. But it’s not so bad, the Connecticut boy said, after I took my cap off. He looked at me again. Honestly, it’s not bad.

He didn’t laugh, or even smile. He just stood by what he said, in his white cotton shirt. Also: he didn’t touch my head. He didn’t even make a gesture toward it. I had seen the seemingly in-a-trance eyes of the white person extending a hand to touch what you would never dream of touching on them, since it was not yours. Later, I would tell him the story of how, on a trip to visit family in Barbados, I had seen a white girl, a preadolescent child with Bo Derek braids, complain to her mother that a Black Bajan girl with cornrows she had spotted on the beach had stolen her hairdo. I don’t remember what he said about that story, and I don’t know if he ever read Joe Brainard’s “I Remember,” in which Brainard says, “I remember feeling sorry for black people, not because I thought they were persecuted, but because I thought they were ugly.”

What got into people? What compelled Brainard to say that? What made that girl in Barbados assume she could claim ownership when she was the appropriator? Those are the kinds of questions, rhetorical and otherwise, that I felt comfortable posing with the boy from Connecticut once we began to spend real time together, because he hadn’t started our relationship by touching my head. He was a human who understood that I was one, too.

The funny thing is, he didn’t have to be human, given the way he looked; he resembled the youngMontgomery Clift, especially in the 1951 movie “A Place in the Sun.” You’d think he would have plopped himself down on a stool in a gay bar, held out for the highest bidder, and called it a day. But he didn’t. I don’t know why he didn’t. Don’t know why he made good on the promise in his letter to get to know me better when he returned to Columbia in the fall. Don’t know many things where he’s concerned.

The summer he was away, I spent a fair amount of time on the Lower East Side, some of it with LES, who still wore his Lacoste collars high. Preppy chic wasn’t much of a thing in that neighborhood, though. The dominant style in the East Village that summer had a lot to do with disavowing labels, and opting for the black-and-white New Wave or No Wave look that Patti Smith served on the cover of her first album, “Horses,” or the sunglasses and rude-boy hats some of the Specials donned on the cover of their 1979 album, the one with “A Message to You, Rudy,” which I loved because a girl I knew swore it was one of the best songs ever.

The girls I admired as they walked along Third Street, Eighth Street, and sometimes even as far north as Fourteenth Street lived in shitty hot apartments with brick walls, but what did that matter when they slipped on a “nothing” black dress like the ones the beautiful but solitary post-neorealist Monica Vitti wore in the movies? These girls had come to New York to be New Yorkers: thin and angry and creative and loving. They filled the world with potential heartache or fun as they walked up Second Avenue in their spike heels, their black purses containing more money than boys ever had, because boys couldn’t hold on to a dime. Later, after the clubs closed, and they were done with men for the night, they sometimes ended up at Kiev, on the corner of Seventh Street, pulling off their gloves and eating split-pea soup together—hold the bread—and ignoring the bums at the next table. I saw them from the other side of the window as I walked south to take the subway home to Brooklyn, where, the next morning, I was greeted by derisive Black-girl laughter and gossip about where I’d been, and how white I was getting to be in the white world.

I’ve heard that laughter my whole life. It’s in my body and has never found a way out. It would like to kill me, and, at times, has made me want to die, if only to escape the feeling of powerlessness, abandonment, and despair it engenders. The best description of that laughter I’ve ever read is in Henri Bergson’s 1900 essay collection, “Laughter”:

Indifference is its natural environment, for laughter has no greater foe than emotion. I do not mean that we could not laugh at a person who inspires us with pity, for instance, or even with affection, but in such a case we must, for the moment, put our affection out of court and impose silence upon our pity.

Maybe the Black girls back in Brooklyn wanted to pity me, but that would only have detracted from the disdain for “faggots” that bonded them. Speaking of which,James Baldwinheard a similar laughter, in a different key, in 1949, which he wrote about in an essay titled “Equal in Paris.” Baldwin had been in Paris for a little over a year when an American acquaintance moved into the grim hotel where he was living. When the American friend had left his previous residence, another grim hotel, he’d taken with him, in a fit of pique, a bedsheet, which he presented to Baldwin. The young writer, disgusted by the condition of his own sheets, placed the relatively clean linen on his bed. For this “theft,” Baldwin was arrested and spent eight days in jail. I’ve read this essay a number of times, and, while I never remember, precisely, how Baldwin gets out of jail, I always remember the ending of the piece, because I understand it:

On the 27th I went again to trial and, as had been predicted, the case against us was dismissed. The story of thedrap de lit, finally told, caused great merriment in the courtroom. . . . I was chilled by their merriment. . . . It could only remind me of the laughter I had often heard at home, laughter which I had sometimes deliberately elicited. This laughter is the laughter of those who consider themselves to be at a safe remove from all the wretched, for whom the pain of the living is not real. I had heard it so often in my native land that I had resolved to find a place where I would never hear it any more. In some deep, black, stony, and liberating way, my life, in my own eyes, began during that first year in Paris, when it was borne in on me that this laughter is universal and never can be stilled.

That laughter helped shape Baldwin, just as the laughter I experienced at home and, later, in some gay bars in New York shaped me, but I could barely stand the shape: when a female relative asked, rhetorically, if I was white, or directly or indirectly called me a faggot, or laughed at me, my heart broke a million times over. I could not bear the derision I heard in the world, or at home, when something interested me or made me feel tender or curious. In retrospect, I can see that whenever I talked excitedly, openly, about those things my interlocutor was, more often than not, just waiting to jump on my vulnerability, like a kid jumping in a puddle.

That summer, before the boy from Connecticut came back, I worked as a telemarketer for a company in midtown. A friend from my years at LaGuardia High School had got me the job. I don’t remember what we sold, but I do remember that my friend and I—we’d done improv together in school, and were as clever as any Nichols and May—treated the experience as a kind of acting exercise. On different days we assumed different identities. One day, I might be a relentlessly cheerful American with lots of blond in my voice; the next, a laid-back European ne’er-do-well. On Fridays, when we got paid, we’d go to a hamburger joint near Grand Central and order up a storm: burgers and onion rings and one lemonade after another. Sometimes we’d go downtown together after work and fuck around on Astor Place or go to Azuma, a Japanese emporium filled with delectable junk. It was around that time that I saw the shirt.

It was in the window at Cheap Jack’s, an East Village thrift store. The shirt had three-quarter sleeves and a button-down collar. Its main design was a version ofMondrian’s“Broadway Boogie Woogie”—all geometric lines and primary colors. Buying that shirt and tucking it into the black flared high-waters I wore with black lace-ups and white socks made me feel that I was the artist I hadn’t yet become. My outfit also made me feel that I was part of something, and I think that “something” was the whole queer world I saw and loved in downtown Manhattan, including the girls in their dresses carrying the kind of old-timey gloves my sisters wore for real. This new world was real to me, too.

When I returned to my neighborhood by train after a late night out, my shirt reeked of cigarette smoke and was sticky with dance sweat. I was foul—at last!—with experience. I always carried a book on the train. Sometimes, on my way from the subway to my aunt’s apartment, I’d stop by an all-night diner for breakfast: toast soaked in butter, the fattiest bacon, greasiest eggs—delicious. The lady who waited on me at the diner didn’t laugh at me. While I sipped a glass of her delicious sweetened iced tea and struggled with “Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes,” she’d ask me what I was reading. When I tried to explain, she’d cut me off sweetly with “Baby, tell me the story part.”

Let me tell you the story of the dress. I wore it years before I bought that shirt. I was fourteen, and I had been invited to a Halloween party by a high-school friend who lived in Manhattan. I decided to go as the bearded lady. By then, I already knew I was a lady, but I needed something to hide that. With a beard as camouflage, I could get away with wearing my stage makeup, which I enjoyed—the girlish fact of it.

I remember my mother making a long skirt out of some tulle, and then attaching the skirt to a green bodice with gold straps. She designed the whole thing. I suppose Our Ma could justify making the dress—which I put on over a thick sweater, to further butch it up—because it was connected to my education. I was going to school to be an actor, which was a kind of artist, a profession she revered.

Our Ma was an artist who wasn’t given half a chance to become one. She was aLinda Ronstadtwho didn’t sing, aPaule Marshallwho hadn’t written a novel, anAlice Neelwho hadn’t picked up a brush—she was all of those women to me. She had whatRilkecalled an “infinite capacity” to be herself through other people’s needs. That was how it seemed to me.To me:a selfish claim that doesn’t allow for who she was to herself. I want her to own herself, just as I want all the dead to own themselves. My mother, the unrealized artist who loved artists because artists expressed themselves, was making my dress in the name of art, which is to say, also in my name.

But, before we get to the dress specifically, let me just say that for years now I’ve carried around in my head the enormous weight, I mean the powerful reality—same difference—that the feminist writerTillie Olsendiscusses in her 1965 essay “Silences in Literature.” Olsen talks about how the grind of having to earn a living, the drag of figuring out home care for young kids, has worn female writers down. Silenced them after one book or two. Just as racism and degradation have silenced a number of writers of color. Olsen describes her own workdays, raising four children while dreaming of writing, and watching that dream die. “What demanded to be written,” Olsen writes, “seethed, bubbled, clamored, peopled me . . . always denied.”

My mother stitching away in the other room—what had been denied her in this life? As a girl, she’d loved to dance; maybe she’d dreamedMaria Tallchiefdreams, and maybe now I was her Maria Tallchief in that tulle, her chance to be a prima ballerina, instead of a member of the withholding cadre of women she’d been born into, women whose job it was to disapprove.

I don’t remember when my father arrived at our place that day, but I do remember the air changing when he did. He took off his great peacoat and hat without saying anything, and put his ever-present newspaper on a chair in the hallway. I remember overhearing him say to my mother, angrily, “Well, why can’t he go as the bearded man?” I remember Our Ma defending my costume, and I remember putting on the longest coat I had to cover that dress up before we hit the streets. Then my father put his jacket and hat back on, and walked me to the subway, because my mother said that he should, to protect me from hooligans. I remember walking along with my father, and the world between us was silent.

As I rode the subway, I experienced the loneliness I sometimes felt when going from one part of my life to another. I remember expecting something to happen. I was on the lookout for a potential ambush of violent men. When I got to the party, I missed everything I’d left behind, including my mother. I remember smoking pot for the first time, and waves of paranoia squeezing me in my dress. I remember taking off the dress and wiping off my makeup, and putting on my jeans so that I could get on the subway in the cold, black air. But what I feel now most of all is that I’ve never taken that dress off, never left behind me the way my mother helped me to create myself and herself. Nor can I forget my father’s constant drama of aggrievement, his implication that the world would have been a better place for him if his son, and the boy’s mother, and their dress, weren’t part of it.

“There is speech and there are verbal symbols.” That’s fromTennessee Williams’s1944 story “Oriflamme.” In it, the female protagonist, Anna, struggles to express her inner life. At one point, she puts on a red dress, which is a kind of flag—a declaration of being. Society at large is not ready for Anna in her red dress; they don’t want to see her, but she’s there. I admired the story, because it said so much—indirectly—about being an artist: you put that dress on, and people either laugh at you or ignore you, but you put the dress on anyway, and you live. When I wore my dress or, later, my Mondrian shirt, people told me I wasn’t a man, but no one could tell me I wasn’t an artist. This was my flag. And I hoisted it in Brooklyn and in the East Village, so that other artists would find me, and love me as much as I loved them. I had so much ambition for togetherness, and so much drive to be an artist and be alone.

It wasn’t too long after we returned to Columbia that fall that LES broke up with the boy from Connecticut. I don’t recall there being a reason, but the steadfastness of love can be as crushing to some souls as its absence. Steadfast love sits in a corner and enjoys the daily things, a cup of tea in the afternoon, a cigarette it shouldn’t indulge in before lunch or dinner. It likes to look at you. And LES didn’t always like to be seen. It was too much for him. Where was all that lovely distance, scented with yearning? The white space, fortified by letters and phone calls and I-can’t-waits? Now love was an imposition, irritating and enormous in its demands, because it could not be controlled, lied to, or otherwise manipulated so that LES could win whatever he assumed the rest of the boys were winning.

I remember the anguish on the Connecticut boy’s face as he told me that, a month or two after we returned to school that fall, LES had stopped returning his calls, and that when he did manage to reach LES on the phone he was always on his way out, and said he’d call him back, but didn’t.

That fall, the Connecticut boy and I talked about LES, of course, but not for long; I could only get so close to his despair. He wouldn’t allow me to become a version of my mother, listening and listening and trying to effect change at my own expense. Because, to him, I wasn’t my mother (or his); I was a man, and that was what he wanted me to be.

I remember our first excursion in the city, or nearly our first. We met on St. Marks Place; he wanted to buy some records. That afternoon, he had on chinos with a sharp crease, a pressed button-down shirt—he ironed all his clothes carefully; of course he did—and black loafers. There were his pale ankles as he walked up the stairs to the record store. That straight back and neck I knew from Italian Renaissance painting looked different now as he flipped through used or discounted albums. “Let It Bleed.”Nico.Donna Summer.Lou Reed.Bob Dylan’sfirst Jesus record. Lots ofElvis Costello. He loved voices. I don’t remember what he ended up buying that afternoon, but I remember how proud he was of his brown-paper-bagged purchases as we walked west. My sidelong glance as we walked, talking about nothing, or a great many things, was a physical manifestation of what I felt: sidelong, about new love. If he loved me back, then what? Could I love him more than I loved his letter and the things it did to my imagination?

I said that I wanted him to meet a woman I was becoming friends with. She worked at McGregor’s (later it became Boy Bar), between Second and Third Avenues, across the street from the St. Marks Baths, and even though I averted my gaze from the Baths every time I passed it—all those men going in and out, my fear of them and my interest in going in and out with them—I tried to appear cooler and more authoritative than I was, as my friend from Connecticut and I sat down at an outside table. We were in my gay Manhattan now, and I wanted to show him the ropes. So many ropes in New York then, all trying to hold together a crumbling, economically depressed, drug-filled, violent world.

My woman friend came out of the bar’s open doors. She was carrying a tray of drinks, and she looked as she always looked whenever she did anything: flawless and annoyed. (She didn’t like to do anything.) I’d called her Mrs. Vreeland from the first because she was always immaculate and she made pronouncements like “Europe stinks. I am depressed. Bye,” which was what she wrote to me from abroad once. A Latvian American woman from New Jersey, she heightened things, in the way a born star can, and she could just as easily ruin things—a day, an event—simply by switching her mood from elation to dissatisfaction. A big component of her charm was her essential don’t-care-ness, with a lipstick touch.

Drinks and introductions all around. And across the street those men were coming and going, coming and going, just as—it’s clear to me now—I was both coming and going with my friend from Connecticut, because look at what I’d engineered on our first date: I’d interrupted the flow of my getting to know him, and his getting to know me, by introducing him to another person. Hadn’t he written me a letter, and telephoned me, and met me downtown, and showed an interest in me? And I had broken our covenant by shifting the scene away from any potential intimacy.

Daddy did the same thing to me. All those weekends in the city, and the bliss of walking down Fifth Avenue with my hand in his, my little brother on the other side of him, the joy of being together, only to be disrupted by his tics, his violence, and left hoping for a better time next time. Once the visit was done and Daddy had let go of my hand and deposited me at my mother’s door and walked away, anxious, no doubt, to be in his own room, alone but catered to, reading his newspapers and finding disasters in every one of them—once all that had happened, I burned with want. Burned and burned in the void. We are all the people who came before us, those whom we can never seem to turn away from, even if they have turned us away.

Still, when my friend and I had finished our drinks outside, I followed him onto the dark, empty dance floor inside. I don’t remember what songs were played, but I remember that, as we danced, coming together and then apart, he was still holding on to his records.

That semester, at school, we took another course together, over at Barnard—Brian O’Doherty’s The Art Film. The course focussed on artists whose work included short films—Joseph Cornell,Maya Deren, and others. We also saw documentaries made by visual poets like the Maysles brothers, their “Grey Gardens.” My new friend loved the class; he was a big movie buff. Our first assignment was to write a scenario about an artist; my script was called “The Trouble with Saskia,” and it began with a scene in whichRembrandtis trying to paint his wife, Saskia. Saskia fidgets. Finally, Rembrandt puts his brush down, walks over to Saskia, and slaps her. The day that my script was discussed was one of the rare occasions when my friend wasn’t in class; he had a cold. Later, he telephoned to find out what he had missed. When I told him that I’d got an A on my piece, he said, “I knew it!” I have never forgotten the sound of his voice in that instant: excitement tinged with envy and the feeling that I was a writer, and he wasn’t, and that was just one of the ways that we were learning that we were different together.

My new friend, my first true and truly beloved. His feeling about life was, basically, Why burn down the house before you’ve built it? He wanted to live in that house every day. To build a house and put his records in it. From what he told me during our first days, months, and then a year, his folks were not a couple whose relationship took place on the phone, like Daddy and Our Ma. His mother didn’t hold the receiver as if it were a quarrelsome baby squirming to break free of her love. His folks, in fact, lived in the same house, and it was their house, not welfare’s, or somebody else’s. His father, a quiet Wasp from Indiana, was an engineer, and his mother was an Irish Catholic who, in addition to working in the Connecticut school system, kept house and raised her good-looking children in the faith.

When I was ten or so, I lived in an apartment building in Flatbush. I had a next-door friend, a white girl who read books, like me. One day, she took me on a tour of her home, and when I saw her parents’ bedroom I said, “That’s nice. Where does your father sleep?” The girl looked at me quizzically. She said, “Here.” After that, I wondered about families. That is, how did they make a home that was real? How did parents make a bed together? Sometimes, on special nights, my brother and I slept with our mother, but the closeness, the promise and reality of love in that sleepy warmth, evaporated during the day. Being solely responsible for her children’s well-being, Our Ma had to leave the bed and get on with the business of living and listening to our father, on the other end of the line, whining and carping, wondering when she might turn up to make his bed.

And here my friend was, saying, Why burn the house down? And, What’s up with your imagination? Love can be real. Real love in a potentially real house. One way he got me to approach the door of that house was by not pointing it out: he just built the house and left the door open. He walked around the house first. As I remember it, he was hard on his shoes—he walked like the Taurean that he was: with a sense of purpose, and inevitability. When he walked through his house of love, the floors shook. He wanted that house to know he was in it.Come and share, come and share.

Here’s what I found by standing on the threshold of the house he built, window by window, and the chimney flue, too: a man who could be with me in silence. A man who could be and wanted to be by my side and not say a word as I explored this new world of trust. Silence was trust that didn’t have to explain itself; it was also knowing someone. I had spent so much time lying. Lying to everyone I knew in Brooklyn about who I was or wanted to be. I lied to survive all those people.

Then life got fuller and bigger, with rainbows! rainbows! rainbows! everywhere, even as we walked toward his death. Our language, our love of it, the talking and laughter, the shared books and gorgeous and petty observations I offered up about people I didn’t like (my bitchery amused him but he never joined in—he was focussed on me) were the whole world that first year and a half or two years while we were at Columbia together.

He had a scar on one of his knees, the result of a car accident in high school. He told me that story when I finally went to Connecticut to visit; one of his lovely, funny sisters was getting married, and I was his date. We were finished with college by then. It must have been 1984, or 1985, who can remember. We had been friends for several years. At that point, he was in love and living with a man in an apartment on the Upper East Side, near where the train tracks emerge from under Park Avenue. I spent some time in that apartment. We’d all go out, and instead of going home without him I’d go to his home and sleep in the living room, sleep fitfully, because of their closed door.

He picked me up at the train. We were delighted to see each other. His sister’s wedding would take place in a nearly completely white town. There are many ways to come out. Before he took me to meet his parents in their nice, modest home, he took me on a drive and showed me a number of things: his high school, the shore where he and his friends sometimes hung out, other places. I remember night rolling in and his legs in his bluejeans and his loafered foot on the car’s accelerator. I remember being turned on by his confidence behind the wheel.

He had told me a story about how once, when he was little, his mother drove him and his siblings to pick up their brother from his paper route. This was around 1969, when there was much strife and mayhem in the Connecticut branches of theBlack Panther Party. His mother told her children to make sure to lock their car doors, because “those Panthers were loose.” And he remembered thinking then,Oh, let them in, let them in.

The point was his smile. The point was that here was a human, and this human was saying, Press your smile and all else against me, and this human was saying, I’m glad I’m from Connecticut and you’re from Brooklyn, and isn’t it amazing that we can drink Manhattans in Manhattan? The point was that he was interested in my interest inProustand in the accuracy of William Gass’s observations. The point was that he wanted to be a living presence in my imagination, was intent on making room for himself in my thoughts. I remember him saying once—God, this is just coming back to me now—I remember him saying once after he got sick, in 1989 or 1990, I was with him in the hospital and I was trying to take his clothes so that I could wash them at my place, and he exclaimed, “You’re a young man!” He saw in my posture all the women he would never know, including my mother, who was dead by then, and my sisters, but what he also saw and was calling me out on was a fact: I was a man, and I turned him on just as I was.

Love had teeth. They grabbed me by the modified Afro and wouldn’t let me go. I didn’t want him to let me go, not then, and not now. I want to say that one of those teeth was chipped in the front, but I can’t remember. What I do know is that, Yankee stoic until the end, he had his four wisdom teeth pulled in one go. His former lover presented them to me in a Tiffany watch box at his funeral. (When the West Indian elders dreamed of teeth—“Dem teet fall out dem head”—it meant that somebody would die, or was dead. He’s already dead, but he comes back, he comes back.)

For some time after he died, I kept those teeth on a little altar I made for him, in my first real New York apartment. A careless rich Black girl was staying with me the fall after he died; she was between apartments, having just left her female lover. Back then, I thought it was my job to take in every Black girl in the world, especially those who seemed in distress. One night, as this woman talked about her tiresome ex-lover, she lit a cigarette off one of the candles I had burning by the altar. Then, distractedly, since she was interested only in her own story, she put her cigarette out on the box that contained his teeth. I remember saying nothing, because I didn’t feel I had a right to, because who was I? Plus, I wanted to believe that she wouldn’t do such a thing; I wanted to believe that she was family, and with family you can forgive anything, even having the teeth you love singed by carelessness, all in the hope that your silence will result in togetherness. ♦