Itemoids

White House

The Consensus on Havana Syndrome Is Cracking

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › international › archive › 2025 › 01 › havana-syndrome-russia-intelligence › 681282

Two years ago, U.S. intelligence analysts concluded, in unusually emphatic language, that a mysterious and debilitating ailment known as “Havana syndrome” was not the handiwork of a foreign adversary wielding some kind of energy weapon. That long-awaited finding shattered an alternative theory embraced by American diplomats and intelligence officers, who said they had been victims of a deliberate, clandestine campaign by a U.S. adversary, probably Russia, that left them disabled, struggling with chronic pain, and drowning in medical bills. The intelligence report, written chiefly by the CIA, appeared to close the book on Havana syndrome.

Turns out, it didn’t. New information has come to light causing some in the intelligence community to adjust their previous conclusions. And a new report reopens the possibility that a mystery weapon used by a foreign adversary caused Havana syndrome. At the White House, senior Biden-administration officials are more convinced than their colleagues in the intelligence agencies that Havana syndrome could have been the result of a deliberate attack by an American foe. The geopolitical consequences are profound, especially as a new president prepares to take office: If Russia, or any other country, were found culpable for violent attacks on U.S. government personnel, Washington would likely feel compelled to forcefully respond.

Starting about a decade ago, a small number of Americans, mostly federal employees and many of them working in intelligence, reported similar experiences in Havana. In an instant, they heard a painful ringing in their ears, followed by intense pressure on their head and disorienting vertigo, which was often followed by nausea. Some of the victims developed long-term problems with fatigue or mobility. Other officials later reported similar symptoms while in Russia and other foreign countries, and many concluded that they had been the victim of a deliberate attack with some kind of acoustic weapon.

Early signs of a fracturing consensus on Havana syndrome emerged this past November, when half a dozen victims—all current or former intelligence personnel—gathered in the White House Situation Room at the invitation of senior staff members on the National Security Council. The officials hosting the meeting had read the same intelligence that underpinned the earlier assessment, published in 2023, and thought that the authors had been too quick to rule out a deliberate attack. They also felt that the victims had been maligned, misled, and not given adequate medical care for their ailments, which had caused some of them to stop working, several people who attended the meeting told me. In a sign of respect, the hosts invited one man, regarded as the first known victim of Havana syndrome, to sit in a chair at the head of the Situation Room conference table, which is normally reserved for the president.

[Read: The case of the sick Americans in Cuba gets stronger]

The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to help write a guidebook for the incoming Trump administration on cases of “anomalous health incidents,” the anodyne label that the intelligence community has adopted for the syndrome. But the officials also had an update to share: New information undercut the 2023 assessment and would leave the victims feeling “vindicated,” Maher Bitar, a senior NSC official responsible for intelligence matters, told the attendees, according to some people who were present.

The attendees stressed that Bitar never disclosed any classified information, nor did he specify exactly what new intelligence had been discovered. The White House officials didn’t explicitly say a foreign power was responsible for Havana syndrome. But the victims felt that the president’s team believed that this was possibly the case, and that they intended to push the intelligence agencies to reconsider their position.

Marc Polymeropoulos, a CIA officer injured in Moscow in 2017, who attended the meeting, praised the NSC as “a long-standing champion” for victims, and credited them for their doggedness. Part of what had led to the intelligence community’s earlier, decisive conclusion about Havana syndrome was the assumption that the existence of an energy weapon—a device that could cause the kind of injuries Havana-syndrome victims suffered—was implausible and not supported by evidence. But the officials and victims assembled in the Situation Room considered whether this assumption was really valid. An independent panel of experts, convened by the intelligence community, had suggested that an energy weapon could use “pulsed electromagnetic energy, particularly in the radiofrequency range” to cause these symptoms. Some NSC officials have long believed that the experts’ opinion didn’t get enough attention and was unduly overshadowed by the CIA-led report.

I was briefed on that intelligence report when it was released in 2023, and at the time I was struck by how unequivocal the analysts were in their judgments. In my experience, analysts are reluctant to draw definitive conclusions and try to leave some wiggle room. The analysts in this case were more declarative than any I’d ever heard.

However, they did allow that the intelligence community remained open to new ideas and evidence that might emerge. For example, if a foreign adversary were seen making progress developing an energy weapon, or the technology to build one, that might change analysts' thinking.

That appears to have happened. Today, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released an update to the 2023 report. The intelligence agencies aren’t saying a foreign actor is to blame for Havana syndrome. But they are no longer so confident that one is not.  

[Read: How the U.S.-Russian relationship went bad]

Two intelligence agencies have now “shifted their judgment to reflect a greater possibility” that a small number of cases indeed were “caused by a foreign actor,” an intelligence official told reporters in a briefing. The agencies have examined new information that “foreign actors”—he didn’t say which—“are making progress in scientific research and weapons development.”

One of these intelligence agencies—again, he didn’t name them—determined that the chances that a foreign actor has used some novel weapon, or a prototype, to harm a small number of U.S. government personnel or their family members are “roughly even” with the odds that one had not. The other agency identified a “roughly even chance” that a foreign actor has developed a weapon that could have harmed people, but determined that any such device was unlikely to have been deployed yet.

This change may seem subtle. But it is significant. To move from the earlier position that no weapon existed, and no deliberate campaign targeted American personnel, to a 50–50 chance that these things might have happened, is a remarkable if narrow development. Five of the seven agencies that contributed to the report did not change their position, so the shift reflects a minority opinion. Sources close to the issue told me that one of the agencies that changed its tune is the National Security Agency, suggesting that intercepted communications may have revealed something about this “foreign actor’s” research efforts.

White House staffers and a few intelligence agencies aren’t the only ones who think there’s more to the Havana-syndrome story than previously understood. Last month, Republican Representative Rick Crawford released another report following an investigation by the House Intelligence Committee. The intelligence agencies’ conclusion that “foreign adversaries aren’t responsible for targeting U.S. personnel [is] dubious at best and misleading at worst,” the report said.

The Trump administration will have to decide how to respond to the new analysis, if at all. Concern about foreign attacks, and particularly care for victims—regardless of who or what made them sick— has broad bipartisan appeal. But in the closing days of the Biden administration, intelligence officials are making clear that they aren’t all on the same page.

Trump Criticizes Foreign Allies

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › national › archive › 2025 › 01 › trump-criticizes-foreign-allies-washington-week › 681294

Editor’s Note: Washington Week With The Atlantic is a partnership between NewsHour Productions, WETA, and The Atlantic airing every Friday on PBS stations nationwide. Check your local listings or watch full episodes here.

Some of Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet picks will appear before the Senate next week. Panelists on Washington Week With The Atlantic joined to discuss the tough questions that Democrats are promising.

Meanwhile, as Senate confirmations loom, Trump has taken to criticizing U.S. allies including Canada, Panama, and Greenland. These comments may, in part, be an element of the president-elect’s strategy, Tom Nichols explained last night. “We’re talking about things that are never going to happen: We’re not going to war with Denmark over Greenland; we’re not going to seize the Panama Canal,” he said. “This whole strange foreign-policy fandango has kind of obliterated a lot of other discussions.”

Ahead of his inauguration, Trump has also made many promises about how the government will work once he takes office for his second term. But, as panelists discussed, whether he will be able to deliver, and how his supporters and political opponents could react if he can’t produce his pledged results, remains to be seen.

Joining the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, to discuss this and more: Laura Barrón-López, a White House correspondent for PBS News Hour; Carl Hulse, the chief Washington correspondent at The New York Times; Tom Nichols, a staff writer at The Atlantic; and Vivian Salama, a national-politics reporter at The Wall Street Journal.

Watch the full episode here.

Eight Perfect Episodes of TV

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2025 › 01 › eight-perfect-episodes-of-tv › 681278

This story seems to be about:

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Welcome back to The Daily’s Sunday culture edition.

Few things are more satisfying than watching a show pull off a clever and high-octane episode. For those looking to revisit some greats, our writers and editors answer the question: What do you think is a perfect episode of TV?

The following contains spoilers for the episodes mentioned.

“The Panic in Central Park,” Girls (streaming on Max)

Maybe this is the former theater critic in me coming out, but the thing I love most is when a television series tells a complete story in miniature—a stand-alone short that puts a particular dynamic or relationship or cast member front and center. Girls, which revolves around four friends in New York City, has always been brilliant at this, and never more so than with “The Panic in Central Park,” a Marnie-centered episode that deals with the particular moment in young adulthood when fantasy becomes untenable.

“The Panic in Central Park,” like the best Girls episodes, is written by Lena Dunham and directed by Richard Shepard. It begins with Desi mournfully reproaching his “cruel” new wife, Marnie, for declining to go get a scone, ends with her asking for a divorce, and riffs on film history, romance, and codependency in between. The high-strung Marnie, out on a walk to clear her head, encounters her ex, Charlie, who’s almost unrecognizable. He whisks her away on a whirlwind New York City adventure involving a consigned red cocktail dress (Millennial Williamsburg’s answer to Pretty Woman), a fake identity, Italian food, a rowboat in Central Park, a robbery, and—finally—the revelation that Charlie is addicted to heroin. A sadder, wiser Marnie walks home barefoot, having accepted the idea that no one is going to save her. The episode is beautiful and incisive about the allure of the stories we wrap ourselves in and the power of shaking them off.

— Sophie Gilbert, staff writer

***

“If It Smells Like a Rat, Give It Cheese,” Survivor: Micronesia (streaming on Hulu and Paramount+)

If I could erase my brain in order to watch anything for the first time again, I would do it for the penultimate episode of Survivor: Micronesia. The 16th season of the reality game show is famously one of the best, and this episode is why. Watching it is like witnessing Alex Honnold climb El Capitan without ropes—except instead of sheer athleticism in the face of seemingly impossible odds, you’re seeing how master manipulators exploit social dynamics to get what they want. It’s the Olympics for those who prefer politics or gossip to sports.

People who haven’t watched Survivor often assume that it’s about “surviving” the wilderness, but it’s always primarily been about surviving human nature. Driven by power and social capital, the show has more in common with Game of Thrones than Naked and Afraid. Explaining exactly what happens in this episode would be like explaining an inside joke; you need to watch the whole season to get why it hits. Just know that it features Red Wedding–level of gameplay, setting the bar high for how far people will go to get ahead.

— Serena Dai, senior editor

***

“C**tgate,” Veep (streaming on Max)

Unlike a perfect movie, a perfect episode of television does not need to surprise you or make you cry. It just needs to move your beloved or loathed characters through the formula in an especially excellent way. But the element of surprise may be why I remember “C**tgate” so many years later. In this episode of Veep, Selina Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) orchestrates two tasks that are both impossibly monumental and petty. She has to decide if she is going to bail out a bank owned by her current boyfriend, and she must find out who on her staff called her a “cunt” so loudly in public that it was overheard by a reporter.

These interweaving plots alone would make a perfectly satisfying episode. What makes it golden are two of the funniest, most unexpected subplots in Veep’s run. One involves a focus group for the bumbling White House liaison Jonah Ryan, now running for Congress in New Hampshire, who is workshopping an ad. The second is a surprise announcement by Selina’s daughter, a recurring sad sack who can never get her mother’s attention. Guess who she’s dating?

— Hanna Rosin, senior editor

***

“Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose,” The X-Files (streaming on Hulu)

If you’re seeking out a perfect episode of TV, the richest cache to search is the “case of the week” entries of The X-Files. The show wove an elaborate arc about aliens on Earth but saved most of its best material for the smaller stuff. “Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose,” written by Darin Morgan, is a gothic short story, following FBI agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) as they investigate a murder with the help of a tetchy local psychic named Clyde Bruckman (Peter Boyle).

This being The X-Files, Mulder is immediately taken with Bruckman’s clairvoyance, while Scully is skeptical—but Morgan’s script resolves each of Bruckman’s predictions about the future in clever, tragicomic ways, reinforcing Mulder’s belief while also finding ways to affirm Scully’s cynicism. It’s funny, dark, and beautifully acted—particularly between Anderson and Boyle—with an elliptical plot structure that feels wonderfully complex even by today’s TV standards.

— David Sims, staff writer

***

“It’s the End of the World” and “As We Know It,” Grey’s Anatomy (streaming on Netflix and Hulu)

I’ve previously written that after more than 20 seasons, it’s time for Grey’s Anatomy to come to an end. But in its early days, the series was responsible for some of the most memorable episodes of television: The second season’s two-part storyline, “It’s the End of the World” and “As We Know It,” demonstrated the show’s mix of humor and drama at its best.

Colloquially known as the “bomb in the body cavity” episodes, they tell the story of a patient who comes in with live ammunition in his chest. At the same time, the show’s powerhouse resident Dr. Miranda Bailey goes into labor, and two other characters perform surgery on her husband, who crashed his car on his way in. In the midst of some very suspenseful plotlines, the dialogue explores the relationships among, and vulnerabilities of, the characters in a beautifully human way. On a show that’s known for putting people in harm’s way, this pair of episodes focuses as much on the emotions as on the drama: the fear of losing someone you care about, and what it really means to be in love.

— Kate Guarino, supervisory senior associate editor

***

Season 2, Episode 10, The Mole (streaming on Netflix)

The Season 2 finale of Netflix’s reboot of The Mole is made perfect if you first watch all of the other episodes. The show’s formula is simple: 12 people collaborate on Indiana Jones–style missions to earn money for a prize pot, but one of them is a “mole” hired by the producers to sabotage the other contestants. Elimination isn’t based on your performance in missions. It’s about how accurately you identify the mole, according to your answers on a quiz given each round.

What results is sumptuous chaos, set among abandoned buildings and real explosives that make you wonder what the release form for this show must look like. Everyone is pretending to be the mole (to mislead others) while testing their fellow players (to figure out who the mole is) and still, somehow, trying to collect money for the prize pot. Oh, and did I mention that Ari Shapiro of All Things Considered fame is this season’s host?

I won’t spoil the finale, but it involves minefields and three equally mole-like characters. There’s not a single weak link in this episode, and if you correctly guess who the mole is, you’ll have bested much of the internet.

— Katherine Hu, assistant editor

***

“Chocolate With Nuts,” SpongeBob SquarePants (streaming on Paramount+)

At about 11 minutes per segment, SpongeBob SquarePants doesn’t have much room to play around with. But its best episodes use that brevity to their advantage, stuffing in visual gags, one-liners, callbacks, goofy voice acting, and witty repartee. “Chocolate With Nuts,” from the third season, is the greatest example of the show’s “run out the clock” ethos: SpongeBob and his best friend, Patrick, become chocolate-bar salesmen to achieve “fancy living.” Their ensuing door-to-door journey introduces them to a cavalcade of bizarre Bikini Bottom dwellers, including a seemingly immortal, shriveled-up fish and a man who feigns “glass bones” syndrome in one of many efforts to dupe the boys into buying chocolate from him instead.

More than most episodes of this kids’ cartoon, “Chocolate With Nuts” threads the needle between the juvenile hijinks and some more adult themes: the empty promise of the good life, the uphill battle of entrepreneurship, the fallacy of “trust thy neighbor.” That headiness is all conveyed through SpongeBob’s elastic face and Patrick’s gobsmacking vacuousness—the best way to explore any nuanced concept, in my view.

But the primary reason I have been rewatching this episode for more than 22 years now is its unassuming density. SpongeBob is wonderfully breezy, but its hidden strength is how layered each joke is: I laugh at different things every time—a certain line delivery, a certain facial expression—and impulsively repeat its most memorable quotes. “Chocolate,” says the pruned old-lady fish, wistfully. “Sweet, sweet chocolate. I always hated it!”

— Allegra Frank, senior editor

Here are three Sunday reads from The Atlantic:

The anti-social century The army of God comes out of the shadows. The agony of texting with men

The Week Ahead

September 5, a drama film detailing an ABC Sports crew’s efforts to cover the massacre at the 1972 Olympics in Munich (in theaters nationwide Friday) Season 2 of Severance, a sci-fi series about a corporate employee who agrees to surgically “sever” his personal life from his work life (streaming on Apple TV+ on Friday) The JFK Conspiracy, a book by Josh Mensch and Brad Meltzer about the first assassination attempt on John F. Kennedy (out Tuesday)

Essay

Illustration by Jackson Gibbs

Parents Are Gaming Their Kids’ Credit Scores

By Michael Waters

Several years ago, Hannah Case decided to examine her personal credit history. Case, who was then a researcher at the Federal Reserve, hadn’t gotten her first credit card until she was 22. But as she discovered when she saw her file, she’d apparently been spending responsibly since 14.

Read the full article.

More in Culture

The reason The Brutalist needs to be so long The payoff of TV’s most awaited crossover What to read when the odds are against you September 5 captures a crisis becoming must-watch TV. The bizarre brain of Werner Herzog The film that rips the Hollywood comeback narrative apart

Catch Up on The Atlantic

Trump’s sentencing made no one happy. Trump is right that Pax Americana is over, Charles A. Kupchan argues. Why “late regime” presidencies fail

Photo Album

A man watches as flames from the Palisades Fire close in on his property in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles. (Ethan Swope / AP)

The Palisades Fire grew quickly in California, burning many structures and sending thick plumes of smoke into the air. These photos show parts of Los Angeles scorched by the wildfire.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.