President Donald Trump issued blistering remarks in response to Iran’s Supreme Leader claiming victory over Israel and, by extension, the U.S. In a loaded public message, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had also threatened to attack more U.S. Military bases, further splintering the Middle Eastern country’s relationship with the U.S.
“Look, you’re a man of great faith. A man who’s highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell,” Trump said as he addressed the Iranian Supreme Leader during a White House press conference on Friday. Trump issued an even stronger response on his social media platform, Truth Social, later in the day, and doubled down on his stance once more when he reposted his message early Saturday morning.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
In the lengthy post, Trump accused Khamenei of publicly sharing a “lie” by claiming Iran achieved a victory over Israel. He reaffirmed his much debated viewpoint that the U.S. strikes “obliterated” the three key nuclear facilities it targeted on Saturday, June 21. Trump also seemingly made reference to previous reports that stated the White House turned down a plan by Israel to try and kill Khamenei.
“His country was decimated, his three evil nuclear sites were obliterated, and I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the U.S. Armed Forces… terminate his life. I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death,” Trump said, lamenting that Khamenei would not “thank” him for this. “During the last few days, I was working on the possible removal of sanctions, and other things, which would have given a much better chance to Iran at a full, fast, and complete recovery. The sanctions are biting! But no, instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief.”
According to Congress, the U.S. sanctions on Iran “are arguably the most extensive and comprehensive set of sanctions that the United States maintains on any country.” They block Iranian government assets in the U.S., ban nearly all U.S. trade with Iran, and prohibit foreign assistance and arms sales.
Trump concluded his charged social media message by saying “Iran has to get back into the world order flow” or else things “will only get worse for them.”
“They are always so angry, hostile, and unhappy, and look at what it has gotten them. A burned out, blown up country with no future, a decimated military, a horrible economy, and death all around them. They have no hope, and it will only get worse! I wish the leadership of Iran would realize that you often get more with honey than you do with vinegar. Peace!”
Khamenei broke his silence on Thursday, publicly speaking out—via a pre-recorded televised address and various social media comments— for the first time since Trump announced the (admittedly fragile) cease-fire between Israel and Iran.
In his televised message, Khamenei threatened to attack more U.S. military bases should any further aggression from the U.S. side occur.
“The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face. It attacked one of the important American bases in the region,” Khamenei said, referring to his country’s air assault on Al Udeid Air Base, a U.S. airbase in Qatar. The strikes were intercepted by the U.S. (except for one that was allowed to proceed as there was no risk of contact), and no casualties were reported. The military action was retaliatory, a direct response to the U.S. strikes on nuclear facilities.
Khamenei claimed “total victory” over Israel. But Israel, the U.S., and Iran have all claimed to have won the war that started on June 13, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear and military targets, amid growing concern over Iran’s nuclear capabilities. When the U.S. actively joined the conflict on June 21, striking three key Iranian nuclear facilities, world leaders urged de-escalation and a return to negotiations, amid fears of a far-reaching war erupting.
Though Trump continues to say that Iran’s nuclear sites were “totally obliterated,” others have cast doubts on how effective the U.S. strikes were in setting back Iran’s nuclear program. Leaked U.S. intelligence suggested that the damage to Iran’s nuclear program may not be as severe as Trump has stated. CIA director John Ratcliffe said on Wednesday that the sites had been “severely damaged” by the U.S. strikes, and that it would take years to be rebuilt. Amid the debate, the White House has put out statements arguing Trump’s stance that the facilities were “obliterated,” labelling reports to the contrary as “fake news.”
But some Democrats left a classified meeting with lingering questions over the effectiveness of the strikes.
“There’s no doubt there was damage done to the program, but the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don’t seem to stand up to reason,” said Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut on Thursday. “To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months.”
When asked about concerns of Iran having “secret nuclear sites” at Friday’s press conference, Trump said he was “not worried about it at all.”
“They’re exhausted. The last thing they’re thinking about right now is nuclear,” he told reporters. “You know what they’re thinking of? They’re thinking about tomorrow, trying to live in such a mess. The place was bombed to hell.”
Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that Trump needs to retire his “disrespectful” tone towards Khamenei if he wants a deal to be struck between the U.S. and Iran.
“If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran’s Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers,” he said. “The great and powerful Iranian people, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had no choice but to run to ‘Daddy’ to avoid being flattened by our missiles, do not take kindly to threats and insults.”
Araghchi was referencing remarks made by NATO chief Mark Rutte who, during the NATO Summit on Wednesday, referred to Trump as the “daddy” who had to intervene in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Amid the back-and-forth between Trump and Iran, on Saturday, thousands of mourners gathered in Tehran for the funerals of top Iranian military commanders and scientists that were killed in the Israeli strikes. According to reports, crowds chanted “death to” Israel and America.
Araghchi paid tribute to those who had been killed, and went on to tell Iranians on Saturday that the “pride of a nation is paramount,” pledging that Iran would return to “new glory and greater strength.”
When you think about BritBox, if you think about it at all, it’s likely you imagine an endless library of interchangeable cozy mysteries and Victorian costume dramas. But the Anglophile streaming service, backed by BBC and ITV, has much more to offer. To wit: among the very best new TV shows I encountered in June are BritBox titles about the fascinating Mitford sisters and an older gentleman living a closeted double life. Also worth watching this month are a frothy Bravo debut, a speculative drama about the end of Denmark, and a golf comedy starring Owen Wilson.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Families Like Ours (Netflix)
What if your government made the calm, rational decision that your country must cease to exist, then set about shutting it down in stages, as the currency became worthless and the population scrambled to emigrate? This is the terrifying thought experiment that propels the Danish drama Families Like Ours, which opens with the news that Denmark will be slowly but permanently evacuated before rising waters can swallow the small, low-lying nation. It’s a premise that might seem to lend itself to dystopian sci-fi, but, as the title suggests, creator Thomas Vinterberg—a superstar of Danish cinema best known in the U.S. as the director of Another Round, Far From the Madding Crowd, and The Hunt—filters the cataclysm through the sieve of family drama.
Amid the panic, we meet teenage Laura (Amaryllis April Maltha August), who’s just falling for a classmate (Albert Rudbeck Lindhardt) bound for Finland as she sets her sights on the Sorbonne. While her architect father (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) makes plans to work in Paris, his ex, Laura’s mom (Paprika Steen)—a science journalist who is on public assistance following an extremely understandable nervous breakdown—must face the prospect of living dorm-style in Bucharest, among other Danes who lack relocation funds. Vinterberg has convincingly thought through not just the political, environmental, and financial aspects of this near-future crisis, but also how it might strain or strengthen familial relationships. The acting is superb. And although the show avoids preachy comparisons between its well-off, white climate refugees and their less privileged present-day counterparts, there’s plenty to notice about the international community’s indifference to the plight of the stateless. “I’m really sorry to hear about your country,” a Frenchman tells new Danish acquaintances, with all the solemnity of someone commiserating over a bad vacation. “Everybody in my family’s talking about it.”
Mr. Loverman (BritBox)
Barrington Walker has made the most of his 75 years on Earth. Born in Antigua, he immigrated to Britain as a young man, found success in business, raised two daughters with his wife, Carmel (Sharon D. Clarke), and can now afford to pay his grandson Daniel’s (Tahj Miles) tuition at an elite private high school. But, for upwards of half a century, Barry (Lennie James) has been keeping a huge secret: his romantic relationship with his lifelong best friend, Morris (Ariyon Bakare). Now, as he realizes he’s running out of time to live authentically and Carmel’s suspicion that he cheats on her with women strains their already troubled marriage, Barry resolves to get a divorce and spend the rest of his days with the man he has always loved.
This is the emotionally layered premise of Mr. Loverman, a tight half-hour drama adapted by Nathaniel Price (The Outlaws) from Bernardine Evaristo’s novel of the same name. James, Clarke, and Bakare are spectacular; Carmel may initially come off as a generic church lady, but Price has empathy for each of his characters, and she eventually gets the humanizing backstory she deserves. The series feels grounded in the Walkers’ immigrant milieu. And while there are harrowing moments—the closet doesn’t always offer Barry and Morris the protections they seek in it—Mr. Loverman balances them out with a massive heart and a wicked sense of humor.
Next Gen NYC (Bravo)
OK, so Bravo’s latest soap doesn’t exactly fit the traditional definition of “good.” If you can’t get on board with the Real Housewives franchise, this probably will not be the show that converts you. But for those of us who crave featherweight drama, Next Gen NYC hits a fabulously frivolous spot that the network has been missing amid its increasingly trauma-driven reality programming. Among the 20-somethings at its center are the Bravo-famous offspring of breakout Housewives Kandi Burruss, Kim Zolciak, Meredith Marks, and Teresa Giudice. Their wider “friend group” consists mostly of influencers (Emira D’Spain) and nepo babies (Damon Dash and Rachel Roy’s daughter Ava); crypto bro Charlie Zakkour’s claim to fame is his tangential connection to a notorious crypto-related kidnapping.
In early episodes, the storylines have been supremely silly: Charlie taunts Brooks Marks about wanting to sleep with Brooks’ sister! Contrarian New York native Georgia McCann scandalizes the group by refusing to wash her hands after going to the bathroom! (When will the NYC slander end?) The struggle to find an apartment for under $6000 a month is real! If the idea of spending time with these people makes your skin crawl… fair. But if immersing yourself in rich-people problems is your idea of a summer vacation, don’t miss it.
Outrageous (BritBox)
If you think your family gatherings have been poisoned by political polarization, imagine being one of the Mitford sisters. In the 1930s, these six young women of irrepressible spirit, noble birth, and in some cases deranged beliefs claimed historic roles at opposite ends of a spectrum stretching to unprecedented extremes. Glamorous Diana left her husband for British fascist leader Oswald Mosley; her younger sister Unity went full Nazi, moving to Germany and insinuating herself into Hitler’s inner circle. Inspired by the Popular Front in the Spanish Civil War, Jessica became a communist and, later, a journalist. Eldest daughter Nancy wrote incisive comic and romantic novels about her social set—as well as a sendup of fascism, Wigs on the Green. (Pam and Deborah also lived fascinating, if not quite as public or politicized, lives.)
An adaptation of Mary S. Lovell’s book The Sisters: The Saga of the Mitford Family, the lively and thoughtful Outrageous dramatizes life on the cash-strapped Mitford estate in the ’30s, when Europe was ablaze with conflict and the girls—then teenagers and young adults—burned to be a part of it. Fittingly, it’s Nancy (Bridgerton’s Bessie Carter, excellent) whose wry voice narrates her family’s fracturing, as she navigates her own romantic woes. Icy yet impulsive Diana (Joanna Vanderham) blows up her relationship with Nancy over the satirical novel. Jessica (Zoe Brough, suitably intense) and Unity (Shannon Watson, persuasively selling her character as an unhinged fangirl) start out as oddball kids play-fighting in their shared bedroom but soon find themselves at war over Unity’s very real antisemitic vitriol. Few true stories could be more timely than this one, which asks whether it’s possible to keep loving a close relative whose beliefs you find appalling. And creator Sarah Williams does a remarkable job transitioning from early storylines about a big, warm, eccentric family to later episodes that weigh Diana and Unity’s monstrous choices without succumbing to doom and gloom.
Stick (Apple TV+)
The third episode of the new Apple TV+ golf comedy Stick is called “Daddy Issues,” but that might as well be the title of the show. Created by Ford v. Ferrari writer Jason Keller, it stars Owen Wilson as a former top golfer, Pryce Cahill, who publicly flamed out 20 years ago. He’s been mired in the past ever since, from his job at a sporting goods store to his refusal to finalize the divorce initiated by his long-suffering wife (Judy Greer), move out of their old house, and accept that he’s no longer a husband, a father, or a pro athlete. When he spots a surly teen at a driving range, Santi (Peter Dager), who has the makings of a major talent, Pryce sees in this potential protégé a shot at redemption. But Santi, whose now-estranged dad used to push him too hard on the golf course, doesn’t exactly relish the prospect of having a new father figure to satisfy.
It sounds hackneyed and heartstring-yanking—another comedy that uses sports as a cover to talk about men’s feelings and relationships from the platform that brought us Ted Lasso. There are indeed elements of Stick that come off as pandering…Yet within the limitations of its formula, Stick works. [Read the full review.]
F1 The Movie, which is out in U.S. theaters and IMAX on Friday, has summer blockbuster potential, given the huge budget—north of $200 million—and star power—Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem, cameos by Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen and other Formula 1 drivers—involved. So if you’re an F1 newbie looking to spend a few entertaining hours in an air-conditioned theater, or you’ve seen the film but don’t totally understand all those terms about tires and safety cars and DRS, we’ve got you covered. Below, some of your questions, answered. (With an assist from Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, an executive producer on the film who also makes an appearance in the movie).
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Can a 61-year-old man who hasn’t raced inFormula 1in more than 30 years actually be a competitive driver?
It’s a movie, people. And while Pitt is indeed a 61-year-old actor, we never find out the age of his character, Sonny Hayes, the journeyman washout whose promising F1 career was derailed by a horrific accident at a race in Barcelona in 1993. Pitt could be portraying a younger man. “I don’t think Sonny is 61,” says Wolff.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Hayes was an 18-year-old rising star at that race in Barcelona. That would put him at about 50 in the movie. Middle-aged drivers were more common in olden times: Luigi Fagioli, at 53, is the oldest F1 driver to win a race; he shared the 1951 French Grand Prix title with another driver. Fernando Alonso is the oldest driver on the current grid: the two-time world champion, who currently drives for Aston Martin, turns 44 at the end of July. But Alonso hasn’t won a race since 2013.
Hayes still has driving talent: at the beginning of the film, we see him help his team win the 24-hour endurance race at Daytona. Transitioning to F1 soon thereafter is a bit of a stretch, but not, according to Wolff, utterly impossible. “Racing cars is like learning to ride a bicycle,” says Wolff. “You don’t unlearn that.”
What is DRS?
It’s a term that pops up in the film, and in actual races: DRS, or Drag Reduction System. During F1 races, at designated areas of the track—particularly on straigtaways—drivers can can open up a flap on the car’s rear wing to reduce aerodynamic drag, and overtake opponents. A car must be within one second of the racer it’s trying to catch in order to use DRS.
What do all the tire terms mean?
Grip, Wolff explains, “is a tire sticking to the ground. The more sticking to the ground you have, the quicker you go through a corner.” Simple enough. “Here comes the caveat,” Wolff says. “Going beyond that limit of sticking, or sliding, creates overheating of the tire. So what you want to achieve is actually the optimum grip, the optimum sticking to the ground without it giving up and sliding.”
Tires for dry race conditions—the slick tires—come in three classifications: soft tires offer the most grip but last the shortest period of time before degrading, so they’re ideal for qualifying runs, or when a driver needs a burst of speed. Hard tires last longer—saving pit stops—but have less grip, and result in slower lap times. Medium tires split the difference between the two.
In damp conditions, teams employ intermediate tires, which are grooved to allow drivers to navigate tracks with no standing water, or drying surfaces. The deeper grooves of the wet tires can disperse more water and are best for the rainiest days.
So what’s the deal with F1 “teammates?”
Each of the 10 Formula 1 teams consist of two drivers, who are all fighting for two championships in every race: the Constructor’s title, in which the combined performance of both drivers helps the team assemble points and trophies, and the Driver’s title, in which a single driver is designated as world champion. Racers often put more stake in the individual title, which builds their legacies and brands. So while they’re supposed to be working together on the track, they often want to beat each other to the checkered flag.
F1’s tension revolves around the aging Hayes and his teammate on the fictional APXGP race team, Damson Idris’ Joshua Pearce, a young talent from Great Britain. Drivers at loggerheads is quite common in F1. “Tension is always existing, which you’ve just got to accept,” says Wolff. “That’s how it is.”
Wolff would know: as Mercedes boss, he had to manage the competition between Lewis Hamilton, the seven-time F1 champion, and Nico Rosberg, who won the 2016 title over Hamilton before retiring. There was hostility between the duo, especially after Rosberg used an engine mode banned by the team to gain an advantage over Hamilton during the 2014 Bahrain Grand Prix. Hamilton returned the favor in Barcelona a month later.
Drivers are calibrated to win at all costs. “You can’t expect the lion in the car and the puppy outside,” says Wolff. “They drive with the knife between the teeth. It’s the team’s principal’s role to say, ‘no more.’ And that’s what we did.’” Mercedes drivers won every title between 2014-2020 (Hamilton in 2014, 2015, 2017-2020, Rosberg in 2016), and eight straight Constructor’s championships from 2014-2021.
Can they actually redesign the car like that between races?
In F1, APXGP technical director Kate McKenna, played by Oscar nominee Kerry Condon, tweaks the car design: the fix helps boost the team’s results. Yes, this actually happens in the real Formula 1. While a set of strict technical regulations guides the makeup of an F1 car, teams can come up with innovations within these rules to give themselves an edge. Before the 2020 season, for example, Mercedes made a change to the steering column: its drivers could push and pull the wheel to change the alignment of the tires. The steering advantage was so effective, it was banned the next season and beyond.
What’s the difference between a virtual safety car and an actual safety car?
On-track accidents and dust-ups slow down the race. For less serious incidents, officials send out a “virtual safety car”—no physical car is deployed onto the track, but cars must reduce their speed by 30-40% of the normal racing pace. So the gap between racers remains the same before the restart.
For the more severe crashes, which require more time to remove debris from the track, an actual car—the safety car—enters the track. Cars file behind the safety vehicle: while drivers can’t overtake one another on the track while a safety car is deployed, they can bunch up closer. So a driver who was way behind the leader, or the car in front of him, can effectively erase such a deficit. “It kind of resets the race,” says Wolff.
Which all begs the question: could one F1 teammate crash on purpose to give another an advantage? This is unlikely to happen for several reasons. First, a driver risks injury or worse in a crash. And second, a 2008 incident in Singapore, in which Renault driver Nelson Piquet Jr. said he was asked by his team to deliberately crash to allow his teammate, Alonso, to gain position during the safety car period as other cars made pit stops for gas, led to an embarrassing scandal. Alonso won the race. But the resulting “Crashgate” fallout resulted in bans for Renault team leaders. Renault was threatened with disqualification from F1.
The risk just isn’t worth it.
Given the 200 m.p.h.-plus speeds we see in F1, how often do drivers get hurt, or worse?
According to a 2025 study that appeared in the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 264 total injuries and 43 deaths were reported in F1-related events between 1950 and 2023. The analysis included 865 F1 drivers. While a 5% death rate for F1 drivers seems frighteningly high, there’s a crucial caveat: a majority of the fatalities took place in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s. No F1 driver has died in the 2020s. “The evolution of safety regulations in F1,” the study concludes, “appears to have successfully reduced total injuries, total deaths, and most injury classifications.”
Are all F1 races the same number of laps?
No, since each track, or circuit, has different designs and laps lengths. F1 races must cover a minimum of 305 km (or about 190 miles). Each race is about that length: but while the Belgian Grand Prix, for example, requires just 44 laps to reach that distance on the long track at Spa, the shorter circuit in the Netherlands requires 72 laps.
One exception to this rule is the street circuit in Monaco: that race covers just 260 km (162 miles). Due to the narrow roads and sharp turns on the Monaco track, lap times are slower, so the distance is shorter to allow it to be finished within F1’s two-hour time limit for races. (A race can take up to three hours in the event of suspensions due to bad weather; most are done in about 90 minutes).
What did the drivers think of the movie?
The feedback seems to be positive from the actual F1 drivers; they saw it at a screening before the Monaco Grand Prix in May. In the audience was Kimi Antonelli, the 18-year-old Mercedes rookie driver who finished his final high school exams right after earning his first podium with a third-place showing in Montreal in June. Perhaps not surprisingly, what stood out to Antonelli was the 2 hour, 36 minute run time. “It’s freaking long,” he said afterwards.
By right of his birth, the immigration officials should have prostrated themselves before Juthavachara Vivacharawongse, eyes glued to the sunbaked earth, before offering jasmine garlands and shepherding him toward a waiting limousine. Instead, Juthavachara, who goes by the anglicized name Max, and his younger brother Vatchrawee, were ushered into a dingy interrogation room at the Thai-Malay border on May 28 and politely asked for their U.S. passports. It was a jarring moment for two sons of Thailand’s king—estranged nobles returning to their homeland after decades in exile.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
After 45 minutes, a visibly uncomfortable official issued the verdict: the brothers were refused entry to Thailand, the country where their father reigns as King Maha Vajiralongkorn, Rama X of the Chakri Dynasty, the world’s wealthiest monarch with a fortune estimated at some $60 billion. The rejection left Max “physically and mentally crushed,” he tells TIME in an exclusive interview. “Because I’ve missed my homeland every day of my life, and I’ve always dreamed of going back.”
Aside from a fleeting 12-hour visit in January, during which the brothers were detained, interrogated, and harassed by security officials wherever they went, this would have been the first time they had set foot on Thai soil since being banished by their father in 1996, along with their mother and two other brothers, following their parents’ high-profile divorce.
The heartbreak at the border spurred Max, 45, and Vatchrawee, 40, to pen a Facebook post that pinned blame on “a small yet powerful group of individuals, seeking to preserve their influence within the monarchy, legal system, and political sphere.” Max returned to his life as an aerospace engineer living in downtown San Diego, where his American wife was born and they recently moved with their three children to be closer to her family. But he agreed to speak exclusively to TIME about his family’s ordeal since their banishment and his burning desire for reconciliation.
“I want to get word to my father that I want to go back to live and to work,” Max said in a Zoom interview. “I have no other ambition other than to go back and be his loyal subject. But unfortunately, there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding that has prevented us from entering the country.”
That misunderstanding has only metastasized in recent days. In August 2023, another brother, Vacharaesorn, 44, shocked the nation by suddenly returning to Thailand, the first time any of the Vivacharawongse family had visited Thailand for nearly three decades. He visited schools, made merit at temples, and lent his support to humanitarian projects, such as building houses for flood victims. He rode Bangkok’s BTS Skytrain and gushed that it was cleaner than the New York subway. In late May, he shaved his head and donned the saffron robes of a Buddhist monk, as is common for royalty to demonstrate piety. Max’s thwarted trip was ostensibly to offer support in this new endeavor.
“We were all novice monks when we were still in the palace, as every young male member of the royal family had to do,” Vacharaesorn told TIME last week. “And I’m the first sibling to become an adult monk in Thailand for our family. So this was a very big deal for us, and we were all looking forward to celebrating together.”
However, on June 23, Vacharaesorn’s stay in Thailand was abruptly curtailed. Scores of Thai security officials swooped on Wat Pariwat Ratchasongkram, a picturesque temple where Vacharaesorn was staying perched on the bank of Bangkok’s Chao Phraya river, and detained him. After a quick stop at his home to pick up his belongings, Vacharaesorn was escorted to Suvarnabhumi International Airport and ordered on a flight to New York City, accompanied onto American soil by Thai security officials, who handed him straight to State Department representatives. Another brother, Chakriwat, would be deported from Thailand the following day, Vacharaesorn was told, although his location is currently unknown. All four are U.S. citizens. “The officer who came for Vach informed him that they don’t want any Vivacharawongse in the country,” says Max, using a nickname for his brother.
TIME requested comment from Thailand’s Royal Household Bureau regarding the reasons for Vacharaesorn’s deportation and the Vivacharawongse family’s status in Thailand but has not received a response. Thailand’s Immigration Police has not responded to similar inquiries. A spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok declined to comment since they “do not share information with the media about private U.S. citizens absent their written consent.”
Why the Vivacharawongse brothers were exiled and partially rehabilitated only to be excommunicated once again lies at the core of a succession crisis that is roiling Thailand’s royal household just as younger citizens are demanding reform of the institution. Although King Maha Vajiralongkorn has seven children, only three have royal titles, and none have been identified as heir. “If no one really understands what’s going on, it’s a source of instability, and it’s a source of doubts,” says Paul Handley, a journalist and author of The King Never Smiles, an unofficial biography of King Bhumibol that has been banned in Thailand.
Thailand is America’s oldest ally in Asia whose revered palace historically served as a pillar of conservatism and permanence, as well as a bulwark against the communist fervor engulfing its Southeast Asian neighbors. Yet in the post-Cold War era, many young Thais feel alienated by the institution’s opaque, hierarchical structures, and desire more accountability.
In 2020, unprecedented public protests erupted across Thailand that shattered taboos by openly calling for royal reform. Ten listed demands included permitting criticism of the King, properly accounting for the crown’s finances, banning the sovereign from expressing political opinions, and prohibiting the monarchy from endorsing coups. In rare public comments around the time, King Vajiralongkorn called Thailand “the land of compromise” and said “we love them all the same” of the demonstrators.
Still, the lack of a clear succession plan is a cause of great anxiety in a country where the monarch has long served as a bastion of stability. The nation’s 2014 coup d’etat was commonly ascribed to a desire by the nation’s elites to micromanage the transition to King Vajiralongkorn. Yet he will turn 73 next month and nobody has a clue what the future of this paramount institution looks like.
Although primogeniture would make Max first in line for the throne, he currently has no royal titles, and Thailand’s constitution excludes any potential heir with a foreign spouse. He insists that he and his brothers only want to be reunited with their homeland to live a simple life as regular folk. Yet forces are conspiring to ensure this never happens.
“I just don’t understand why this is such a problem,” says Max. “It hurts me even more to think that I don’t believe I did anything wrong in my life, and yet I feel like I’m being punished for things that I did not do.”
It is, of course, a sadly common sentiment among the progeny of broken homes, though the fallout from Max’s parents’ split was anything but typical. King Vajiralongkorn inherited the throne following the death of his revered father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, who was the world’s longest-reigning monarch when he passed in 2016. The only son among Bhumibol’s four children, then Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn, a former Royal Air Force pilot, was famed for his sybaritic lifestyle, spending much of his time in Germany, and has been married four times.
In a 1981 interview with the Dallas Times Herald during an American tour, Vajiralongkorn’s mother, Queen Sirikit, said: “I have to be very frank. My son, the Crown Prince, is a little bit of a Don Juan. He is a good student, a good boy, but women find him interesting, and he finds women even more interesting. So his family life is not so smooth.”
Vajiralongkorn’s first wife bore him a daughter, Princess Bajrakitiyabha, but they divorced in 1991. His second wife, actress and dancer Sujarinee Vivacharawongse, gave birth to four sons and a daughter: Max, the eldest, followed by Vacharaesorn, Chakriwat, Vatchrawee, and Princess Sirivannavari.
The siblings grew up in the lap of luxury, dressed in the finest silks, with doting courtiers catering to their every whim. Though life wasn’t always easy. When Max was young and living in the palace, the royal garage was his refuge, where he could escape domestic strife by clambering through dozens of luxury and vintage cars. “Because there were a lot of unhappy times.”
Vajiralongkorn divorced their mother in 1996 after accusing her of being unfaithful, stripping her and their sons of their titles and forbidding their return to Thailand. The family were living in the U.K., where the eldest two boys attended the prestigious Harrow private school, when the Thai Ambassador suddenly appeared and demanded they relinquish their diplomatic passports. Instead, ordinary ones were issued valid for just one year. Without her mother’s knowledge, Princess Sirivannavari was spirited away to Thailand to live with her father. “My mother got on the phone with His Majesty and said, ‘Okay, you already have the girl. Do you want the boys as well?’” recalls Max. “According to my mother, he said, ‘Not at this time.’” The brothers have not seen their sister since.
Cast out from their homeland, Sujarinee and her sons moved to the U.S. as political refugees, settling in central Florida. “I’m a diehard Tampa Bay Buccaneers fan,” laughs Max. Sujarinee was the quintessential “tiger mom,” says Max, and ruled the household with an iron fist. “She’s a very, very tough woman, and she pushed us extremely hard from a very young age. Education was extremely important. She said, ‘just because you are not in Thailand doesn’t mean you have to lower yourself to the standards of commoner.’” Three brothers have law degrees; Chakriwat is a medical doctor.
Every year, the brothers would write a letter to their father on his birthday, as well as to mark important family events such as graduations, appraising him of their health and progress. No reply ever arrived. On occasions, the family would post public statements expressing their devotion and desire to return to Thailand. Early in their banishment, when the pain was still raw, the tenor was rebukeful. In 1998, a letter co-signed by the brothers accused their father of “trying to erase memories of us,” saying that he never loved their mother and would force them outside of their house “every time he found another woman.” Asked about this missive, Max says early letters tended to be drafted by their mother and didn’t necessarily reflect the sons’ true sentiments.
In 2003, the boys heard that their father was to visit the U.S., so they turned up unannounced at the Thai Consulate in Chicago to doorstop him. The 30-minute meeting, during which Max and his three brothers sat on the floor per royal protocol, was “standoffish,” says Max. “He didn’t quite treat me as his child.” Still, the then-Crown Prince enquired after the brothers’ health, education, and interests. “Then he says, ‘hey, you kids didn’t do anything wrong,’” recalls Max. “’If you ever want to come back to Thailand, nobody’s going to stop you.’”
Max now regrets that the brothers didn’t immediately seize that invitation, though he notes they were still young and didn’t want to abandon their mother, who was still patently unwelcome. Over time, the brothers came to terms with their exile, different as it was from the pampering of the palace. Max tried to put Thailand out of his mind and immerse himself in American life. “At the time, all anybody could ever talk about was Thailand, Thailand, Thailand,” says Max. “I felt like it was holding us back. So I tried to go to school, get a job, move away from the family a little bit, and get my life going.”
For nearly three decades, that’s exactly what the family did. The brothers focused on school, worked casual jobs, and graduated college. As a young man, Vacharaesorn hawked hot dogs at sporting events and sold vacuums door-to-door.
In 2013, Max married an American woman, Riya Gough, and the couple have a son and two daughters. When not traveling for work, he plays pickleball, shops at Costco, and drives his kids to soccer practice in his custom BMW, which he sometimes races at the track. Thailand faded into the background.
That all changed in August 2023, when Vacharaesorn suddenly returned to the Kingdom. “I literally found out he was in Thailand through the media,” says Max. “He did not consult with me, my mother, or anybody in our family before going.” It was a lightning bolt that left Max “hurt and then somewhat angry,” he says, “because I thought that when it comes to Thailand, we’re all in it together.”
However, Max softened after it emerged that Vacharaesorn’s return had been generally well-received: “I saw that he was making headway.”
Vacharaesorn’s return to Thailand spoke to a succession crisis that is roiling the nation of 70 million. Although King Vajiralongkorn was named heir aged 20, he still has not named his own successor. The presumed favorite had been Princess Bajrakitiyabha, the daughter of his first wife, but she collapsed while training her dogs in December 2022 and has been in a coma ever since. Hopes of a recovery are slim.
The King also has a son by his third wife, Prince Dipangkorn, although he is understood to have learning difficulties that could impede his ability to fulsomely discharge his royal duties. With few viable alternatives, Vacharaesorn’s prodigal return has been seen by analysts as an attempt to road-test his suitability for the role.
However, after a few months, the tone soured. It emerged that Vacharaesorn had married an American woman, Elisa Garafano, and the couple have two daughters, which would bar him from consideration, just like Max. Although Vacharaesorn has steadfastly denied any desire for the throne, his desperate scrambling to explain that he was getting a divorce appeared to betray his furtive ambitions.
The perception among analysts was that Vacharaesorn was striving to thread the needle as a compromise candidate for succession, one who would appeal to progressives as a worldly, modernizing force, while still bearing blood blue enough to avoid alienating staunch royalists. But he may have misjudged just how precarious that tightrope had become, as the future of the institution was thrust to the center of political discourse.
In May 2023, Move Forward, a political party that openly campaigned on curbing the monarchy’s powers, won the most seats in Thailand’s general elections but was blocked from forming a government by the military-appointed Senate. The party’s subsequent disbandment by the Constitutional Court last August added grist to the perception among Move Forward’s predominantly young voters that the nation’s elites are conspiring to expunge their democratic will.
Vacharaesorn appeared to align himself with reformers with veiled criticism of Thailand’s draconian lèse-majesté royal defamation law, known as Article 112, which is the bedrock on which royal power is built. Under it, anyone who defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, heir apparent, or regent faces three to 15 years in prison. Critics argue that far from protecting the dignity of the monarch, the law has been co-opted to silence all dissent.
At least 276 people, including 20 under the age of 18, were charged under Article 112 in the four years until November, according to Thai Lawyers for Human Rights. Last June, former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a 2006 coup and is father to current Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, was indicted for lèse-majesté for an interview he gave nearly a decade ago. “Article 112 prosecutions are becoming more and more aggressive,” says Paul Chambers, a renowned American expert on Thailand, who fled the country in May following a lèse-majesté charge.
In his recent Facebook post, Max lamented how his family had been harassed “using surveillance, threats, and abuse of Article 112.” But asked by TIME to elaborate, he pointedly declines. “Charlie, I’m going to stay away from that one,” he says. “It’s the palace’s prerogative how that law is utilized.”
Regarding Article 112, it’s possible Vacharaesorn flew close to the sun. In September 2023, a month following his initial return to Thailand, he attended an exhibition titled Faces of Victims of 112 at New York’s Columbia University curated by Thai dissident Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a prominent academic who himself faces lèse-majesté charges. Afterwards, Vacharaesorn posted on Facebook that “I love and hold my loyalty to the monarchy, but I believe that ‘knowing’ is better than ‘not knowing,’ and each individual has their own opinion which is derived from their own experiences.”
Against this backdrop, Vacharaesorn’s efforts to find the middle ground between reformists and royalists may have simply alienated both camps. His cause certainly hasn’t been helped by several missteps. Other than the secret American family, it emerged that he left the U.S. with $94,767.88 in credit card debt, which he later agreed to pay back. After arriving in Thailand, he set up a legal consulting firm, VVV Group, to help foreign companies come to Thailand, and has been working with brands from Chinese EV firm Zeekr to Hollywood actor Mark Wahlberg’s tequila label.
The VVV Group website originally listed its chairman as “Prince Vacharaesorn,” despite his having been stripped of royal titles, but he has since removed the honorific. Still, the perception for many was that Vacharaesorn was attempting to cash in on his royal connections. He also reportedly had close contact with Thaksin, the former prime minister whose populist adulation has made him anathema to royalists. “I think somehow he met up with the wrong people,” says Pavin. “And this encouraged rightwing royalists to go after him.”
Max still insists his father remains unaware he was blocked from returning to Thailand, nor of Vacharaesorn’s forced departure, believing instead that some shadowy clique is working against his family to protect their own interests. “His Majesty has no idea that I’m trying to get back in. I sincerely believe that,” he says. “He would welcome me with open arms. Things would never be back the way they were, but he would definitely not tell me to go away.”
Max suspects that a palace faction has been conspiring to temper any influence his family might generate, fearful that more returning brothers might form a stronger alternative power source that would be more difficult to tame. They would presumably be figures who are close to Prince Dipangkorn and would prefer him to take the throne. “This is a zero sum game for them,” says Pavin.
Some have suggested it could even be the brothers’ estranged sister, Princess Sirivannavari, who having toiled by her father’s side for decades now objects to being sidelined by her returning kin. “That is certainly the rumor that I’ve heard,” says Max. “But I don’t know if I could ever substantiate it.”
The opacity of the palace means no outsiders can know for sure. But the actions of King Vajiralongkorn following his rise to the apogee of Thai society don’t suggest a monarch wanting for control.
Since taking power, King Vajiralongkorn has taken personal command of the Crown Property Bureau, which handles the estimated $60 billion royal fortune, and brought several influential state offices under his direct supervision. In 2017, he ordered the transfer of two army units—the Bangkok-based 1st and 11th Infantry Regiments—from the military chain of command to the Royal Security Command under his direct supervision. The following year he established a new elite faction of the Thai Army—known as kho daeng, or red collar—whose members the palace nominates and from whom top leadership posts must be picked, including the Army Commander, Supreme Commander, and the Commander of the First Army Area, which covers central Thailand including Bangkok and has historically staged several coups. In addition, more than 1,600 police have been assigned to protect the King and his family.
Also in 2017, King Vajiralongkorn changed the national constitution to allow him to rule from abroad. Months later he dismissed or reassigned 96 palace staff on charges such as being “lazy” or “arrogant,” according to official royal proclamations, and later dismissed six palace officials for “extremely evil” conduct. When, in 2019, Vajiralongkorn’s oldest sister Princess Ubolratana announced her candidacy for Prime Minister, Vajiralongkorn quickly blocked her, saying it would “defy the nation’s culture.”
In July 2019, King Vajiralongkorn designated Sineenatha Wongvajirapakdi as his official consort—rekindling a position that hadn’t been seen for almost a century—only to strip her of her title and rank three months later. After she disappeared for 10 months, Sineenatha reemerged in August 2020 suddenly restored to her former position as “untainted,” though she briefly disappeared from public view again in late 2021. Today, other than his queen and official consort, Vajiralongkorn has increasingly been seen with two other minor consorts, who have even been charged with royal duties in his absence.
In fact, the line of succession is the only aspect of palace life that King Vajiralongkorn has yet to exert a firm hand over—but it is the one that threatens to be most destabilizing. “It’s the king’s prerogative; it’s the palace’s prerogative,” shrugs Max of the succession. “I don’t care because that is not my intent in life.
“The bottom line is that I love and respect His Majesty and want nothing more than to literally kiss his feet again. I just want to make people around him understand that there is absolutely no danger of any kind. I don’t want anything. I respect the institution and just love my homeland.”
Does his American family feel the same way? Max breaks into a weary grin. He reveals that he recently overheard a young friend of his 10-year-old son asking him what it was like being a part of a royal family. “My son looked at his friend and says, ‘Oh, it’s crazy. There’s nothing good about it.’”
In the short term, the U.S. leader’s declaration and subsequent lashing out against ceasefire violations might have ended the recent war between the regional rivals—but over the long term, the future of the conflict between Tehran and Tel Aviv depends on how the various parties manage what remains a brittle peace.
It is clear that, when Trump announced the ceasefire, Iran and Israel were ready to stop fighting. Israel’s military success was undisputed; it had assassinated scores of Iranian military leaders, damaged several Iranian nuclear facilities and missile sites, and dominated Iranian skies. Yet it was also incomplete, in terms of Israel’s stated goal of destroying the Iranian nuclear program; U.S. bombings pushed the program back, but reportedly only by a few months.
On the other side, although bruised and bloodied, Iran could insist on being unbowed, on holding its own with enough of its missiles penetrating the Iron Dome and other Israeli air defense systems to compel Tel Aviv and the United States to seek a ceasefire.
Yet this tenuous pause in fighting does not lay the foundations of peace. Israel has already said it will strike Iran again if it resumes its nuclear efforts. And unless there is a new comprehensive nuclear deal between Iran and the United States, Tehran is likely to seek to reassemble its nuclear program. That sets the stage for another confrontation.
It won’t happen immediately, of course. Iran needs to introspect upon the magnitude of its losses, address its immense intelligence vulnerabilities, regroup its battered military apparatus after the spate of assassinations, and more generally rebuild its defenses. Israel, meanwhile, needs to rebuild and improve its air defenses which failed to prevent Iranian missiles from striking strategic and civilian targets.
None of this, however, would stop Israel from continuing to launch lower-level attacks on Iran despite the ceasefire—applying the same strategy it has used in Lebanon despite its ceasefire with Hezbollah. Such attacks would elicit limited retaliation, as for now Iran’s focus is likely to be on recovering from the recent war.
The long road to a lasting peace
Further out, the question is: how do we go from the events of the past few weeks to real stability, not another return to war? How, in other words, does stability return to the region?
The answer hinges on two major factors—one inside Iran, and the other to do with diplomacy between the U.S. and Tehran.
Domestically, beyond replenishing and rebuilding its military capacity, for there to be stablity in the Middle East, Iran has to address its greatest vulnerability: an angry population.
Iranians have been at odds with the country’s leadership for some time. Economic hardship and isolation have taken a toll, and an increasingly large number of Iranian citizens no longer subscribe to the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary values or support its foreign policy, which they blame for the country’s isolation and economic woes.
The more ambiguously stated objective of Israel and the United States during the war was to incite the Iranians to rebel and topple the Islamic Republic. Iranians did no such thing. Yet in the coming days, domestic popular anger at Israeli aggression and the consequent material and psychological loss that Iranians have suffered is likely to lead to serious questioning of the Islamic Republic’s policies.
After all, Iranians are patriotic but they also crave peace, security, and economic prosperity. Israeli attacks killed hundreds of civilians and injured thousands more, and destroyed or damaged hundreds of homes and civilian infrastructure, including oil refineries which have led to fuel shortages. The expected conversation and contestation between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic and the response of the regime will be important in determining how Tehran manages the ceasefire.
Beyond Iran, the ceasefire also presents a test for President Trump. He took a risk by getting the U.S. involved in the attack on Iran. As we have already seen, unease about the U.S. getting dragged into another brutal, expensive, and potentially long war in the Middle East created factures within his MAGA movement.
Now, with the ceasefire, President Trump has a direct stake in ensuring that the peace holds. To make it last, he needs to effectively manage Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who might see benefits in breaking the ceasefire to further establish military dominance over Tehran. It is also possible that he might break it to handicap any renewed diplomatic efforts between the U.S. and Iran over the latter’s nuclear ambitions.
But that is precisely what the U.S. must do now to create a pathway for a durable peace: work towards resuming nuclear talks with Tehran.
Even after this war, Iran still possesses its stockpile of 400 kilograms of highly enriched Uranium that, if still intact, could be used to build as many as 10 nuclear bombs, according to U.S. military estimates. And it retains the expertise to rebuild its nuclear program. The speed at which Iran could move toward weaponization—if it makes that decision—depends on how much of its highly enriched uranium survived the American and Israeli bombing of nuclear sites.
To learn that, the United States has to ensure ongoing access to nuclear sites by the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors ( the Iranian parliament has moved a bill to suspend cooperation with the IAEA). All this would have to be part of a nuclear deal.
Iran has been clearly weakened by this war but that won’t make its nuclear diplomacy with the United States straightforward or easy; it also understands that President Trump has a stake in maintaining the ceasefire and ensuring that there isn’t a resumption of a war that could easily spiral into a wider regional conflagration, exacting grave political costs for all involved.
And so, President Trump might now have to consider incentives other than coercion and the threat of further bombing Iranian nuclear sites.
This might mean offering Iran greater economic relief, giving it guarantees that the U.S. will not seek or support regime change, and provide a security guarantee against future Israeli attacks. Ultimately, the Iranians do not trust the U.S. leader. He walked away from the 2015 nuclear deal and allowed Israel to attack Iran while he was still negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran. So the bar for him to win their trust is very high.
This fraught history is bound to make renewed nuclear negotiations more difficult. Still, Iran needs to address its economic challenges, and Trump could offer the incentive of sanctions relief, guarantee that it would happen quickly, and won’t be easily reversed. And Trump too needs a deal to avoid the risk of entering the United States into yet another war. Successful nuclear diplomacy—hard as it might be—is still possible, and remains the best option for both Iran and the United States.
Florida has begun building a new migrant detention center deep in the Everglades, springing into action after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approved the development.
The detention facility, dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” due to its location, was spearheaded by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who said on Monday that the center is part of his aim to “support President Trump and [Homeland Security] Secretary Kristi Noem in their mission to fix our illegal immigration problem once and for all.”
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
The facility, located on an airstrip, will be used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to temporarily house migrants that are awaiting deportation. Currently, the site is equipped with “heavy duty” tents and trailers as the Florida summer is set to be even hotter than usual.
The DHS is partnering with Florida to fast-track construction. “We are working at turbo speed on cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people’s mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens,” Noem told TIME in an emailed statement.
Meanwhile, Uthmeier discussed the center during an appearance on The Benny Showpodcast on June 23, sharing that the goal is to build 5,000 beds by early July. He says the construction will be minimal, since the center is in the middle of the Everglades—a national park wetland in South Florida filled with alligators, snakes, and mosquitos. “We don’t need to build a lot of brick and mortar… thankfully. Mother Nature does a lot on the perimeter,” he said regarding security efforts.
Pictures of the site show the construction beginning on the environmentally-sensitive land, most recently known to be owned by Miami-Dade County, as law enforcement led in trucks carrying portable restrooms and industrial generators. According to the DHS, the facility will run at a cost of about $450 million a year, with the ability to seek reimbursement from the federal government, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has roughly $625 million in Shelter and Services Program funds that could potentially be allocated for this effort.
The facility is being built at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport, which Uthmeier describes as a “virtually abandoned airfield.” Activists, though, do not agree.
On June 22, protesters arrived at the Everglades to rally against the construction plans, as environmental activists emphasized that the wetlands form part of a protected and sensitive ecosystem. Jared Jacobs, a member of the Love The Everglades Movement, told local media at the demonstration: “[Alligator Alatraz] is not good for our people, it’s not good for our environment, it’s not good for our quality of life.”
Calling the center an “embarrassment” for South Florida and the country, he said: “It’s a trigger… of a much deeper systemic problem and we’re seeing it here being built literally in the middle of our Everglades right next to the Miccosukee [Tribe] homelands.”
The protest was organized by the activist group Friends of Everglades, alongside the Miccosukee tribe, who are native to the Florida region. One Miccosukkee Business Council member, Talbert Cypress, said via social media that the tribe strongly opposes the center, highlighting how it is set to be built next to 19 traditional Miccosukee and Seminole villages, as well as the Congressionally-authorized Miccosukee Reserved Area.
Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava has also expressed concern about the project, and asked for more details about the potential environmental impact on the Everglades, saying that it would require “considerable review and due diligence.”
This week, blistering temperatures could put more than 220 million Americans at risk. Extreme heat is the deadliest type of weather disaster in the United States—and one of the most underestimated. In my decades of climate resilience work in towns and neighborhoods, I’ve seen firsthand the pain, loss, and economic costs of extreme heat. Heat strains power grids, damages infrastructure, and worsens air pollution. It puts outdoor and commuting workers at risk, flares chronic health conditions, profoundly endangers mother and baby during pregnancy, and disproportionately harms children, older adults, and low-income families.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Yet as communities from the Eastern Seaboard to the Midwest are engulfed in record-breaking temperatures, the U.S. is now even more dangerously unprepared. The safety net we count on in moments of climate crisis isn’t just fraying—it’s unraveling. As a result, you are (or will soon be) forced to become your own first responder.
In its drive to slash the size and scope of the federal government, the Trump administration has weakened the very agencies and systems we rely on to prepare for and respond to disasters–including extreme heat. Cuts to NOAA’s forecasting programs weaken our ability to anticipate and plan for dangerously high temperatures while reduced support for programs like the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and slashed funding for public health efforts—like the CDC’s Climate and Health Program—leave states and cities without tools to protect residents before and during heat waves.
While these cuts may seem abstract or bureaucratic, their impact is personal. If you’ve ever checked the weather on your phone, you’ve depended on NOAA. These are the scientists who issue early warnings that save lives. When funding is slashed, those alerts may come too late—or not at all.
Even before summer officially began, Americans were grappling with the impacts—from International Falls, Minnesota, known as the “icebox of the nation,” where temperatures soared into the 90s in early May, to the Rio Grande Valley, which endured a mid-May heatwave that made it hotter than Death Valley. Alaska—yes, Alaska—issued its first ever heat warning this week.
While the administration claims it is shifting responsibility to the states, this blatantly ignores the reality that states lack the funding and infrastructure to manage on their own. Federal grants have been essential to states’ preparedness. Even cities widely regarded as leaders in disaster preparedness are strained. Miami-Dade County was forced to eliminate both its Chief Resilience Officer and Chief Heat Officer roles due to budget constraints, while Los Angeles’ proposed budget would eliminate its entire climate resilience office.
I work with under-served communities around the world, from the United States to India, and Mexico to Greece. I’ve sat in community centers where mothers have shared strategies on how to stay safe working outdoors while still earning enough to feed their families. I’ve walked through Sierra Leone outdoor markets and seen the benefit of simple shade structures to prevent heat stroke. These efforts are survival.
When governments can’t (or won’t) help us, we—our communities—become the first line of defense. As a first responder, here’s what you can do:
Know What’s Coming
It’s important to understand your local climate threats. Arm yourself with information on the early signs of heat illness: dizziness, headache, nausea, rapid heartbeat, and confusion. Heatstroke is a medical emergency that requires immediate action. Awareness saves lives and sparks action.
Plan Like It’s Personal
Heat doesn’t just affect “other people”—healthy, young individuals are now showing up in emergency rooms. Having a plan can save lives. That means staying hydrated, resting in shade or air-conditioned spaces, and scheduling strenuous outdoor activities early in the day. If you don’t have air conditioning, know where the nearest cooling center is and how to keep your home cooler—by closing blinds during the day and using fans or cross-ventilation at night, when staying cool is essential for the body to rest and recover.
Build a Check-In Culture
Loneliness can be lethal during a heatwave. Programs like Philadelphia’s Heat Response Program and Los Angeles’ senior outreach initiative show how check-ins save lives. But you don’t need a government job to do this. Create a phone tree or a group chat. Encourage people to “adopt a neighbor” during heat alerts. One call can make all the difference.
Turn Public Spaces into Lifelines
When government systems falter, schools, libraries, religious institutions, and shaded parks can become heat-safe hubs. I’ve helped cities pilot community cooling spaces that serve as a refuge for people without access to air conditioning and seen how, when designed thoughtfully, cooling centers are not just places to retreat—they are places to reconnect, reorganize, and rebuild.
While your new job as a first responder is critical, it’s not yours to keep — that’s the government’s. Until then, however, and while the safety net is burning, it’s on us to help put out the flames.
