Bring Back Communal Kid Discipline

On a trip to Prague a couple of years ago, my family piled into a rapidly filling metro car, and I wound up sitting next to my 6-year-old daughter, while her 4-year-old sister sat directly across from us, on her own. At one point, my youngest pulled a knee up to her chest and rested her foot on the seat. Almost immediately, a woman sitting next to her, who looked to be about 70, reached out and gently touched my daughter's foot, signaling her to put it down. My daughter was surprised, maybe a little embarrassed. But she understood and quickly obeyed.
For a split second, I wondered if I ought to feel chastised: Perhaps the woman was judging me for having failed at some basic parental duty. But something about the matter-of-fact, almost automatic way the woman had intervened reassured me that she wasn't thinking much about me at all. She was just going through the motions of an ordinary day on the train, in which reminding a child not to put her foot on the seat was a perfectly natural gesture.
Ultimately, I was grateful for the woman's tap on my daughter's foot. But the exchange also felt foreign. In my experience, that sort of instruction, from a random adult to a stranger's child, isn't much of a thing in America (or, for what it's worth, in the United Kingdom, where I currently live). Many people don't seem to think they have the authority to instruct, let alone touch, a kid who isn't theirs. They tend to leave it to the parent to manage a child's behavior—or they may silently fume when the parent doesn't step up.
To informally test that assumption, I created a short online survey and ended up interacting with a dozen people from around the United States. Some were parents; some were not. Every single one said that outside certain situations—where they were familiar with a kid's parents, or where a child's safety was in question—they would hesitate before telling someone else's kid what to do, for fear of upsetting the parent. Marty Sullivan, a technology consultant based in Tennessee, gave a representative answer: 'Generally I'd prefer to avoid risking escalation.'
These responses struck me as a bit of a shame, because the exchange between my daughter and the woman in Prague seemed to reflect something altogether good. And I know I can't be alone in that thought: Both historical precedent and cultural norms in other parts of the world reinforce the idea that a stranger's meddling in the disciplining of children can have significant merits.
The highly individualistic approach to managing kids' behavior in public is particularly American—and a historical anomaly. David Lancy, an anthropologist and a professor emeritus at Utah State University, wrote to me that for the majority of human existence, it was unquestionable that ''the whole village' participates' in child-rearing. 'Siblings, peers, aunts, grandmas,' he told me, 'all have distinct roles, including 'correcting.''
When I asked Steven Mintz, a historian of families and childhood at the University of Texas at Austin, whether child-rearing in the United States, specifically, had ever involved a more collective approach, he seemed almost tickled: 'Did it ever!' he wrote back. He recalled that during his own childhood, in the 1950s, he was 'constantly corrected' by people other than his parents for his poor posture, hygiene, grooming, and language. Child-rearing into the first half of the 20th century was, he noted, 'far more of a communal and public endeavor'—an approach that entailed a fair amount of what would, by contemporary standards, probably be considered intrusion. 'Neighbors, teachers, shopkeepers, and even strangers on the street,' Mintz wrote, 'felt empowered, and often morally obligated, to correct a child's misbehavior, scold a lack of manners, break up a fight, or escort a wandering child back home.'
Today, this sort of 'village style' oversight remains a norm in some pockets of the United States. Michelle Peters, a project manager in El Paso, Texas, whose family has roots in Mexico, told me that she has seen communities in both the U.S. and Mexico take a more collective approach to child-rearing. 'It is more common and more acceptable for adults to correct children who are not their own,' she said, and people feel 'a greater sense of social intimacy and immediacy,' which extends to caregiving in public settings. Yet in much of the United States, Mintz told me, the collective has given way to a 'privatized and protected model of parenting.'
[Read: The isolation of intensive parenting]
As in other aspects of parenthood, that closed-off approach gives parents more control but also puts them under more pressure. If you're the sole arbiter of your child's public behavior, you have to keep a pretty close eye on your kid at all times. That sense of responsibility can also produce anxiety: Rather than just parenting as I see fit, I often find myself guessing—and second-guessing—whether my kids are bothering people or violating some unspoken rule. (Is my daughter standing way too close to that guy? Does that shopkeeper mind that my kid is flipping through their magazines?) Amy Banta, a mom of three in Salt Lake City, told me that this is one reason she really appreciates it when other people step in to correct her kids. 'I cannot anticipate your every boundary that my child might possibly cross,' she said. 'You're gonna have to help me out.'
If the goal is to steadily acquaint children with the conventions of polite society, it isn't clear that filtering all guidance through parents is the most effective approach. For one thing, kids are smart. A child who knows that his parent or other caregiver is the only one who will ever correct him might reasonably conclude that he can get up to no good whenever that adult turns away. What's more, I have found that a stranger's gentle intervention—as opposed to my nagging—can be a more effective means of conveying to my kids that the people around them are real people, with their own needs, whose space and comfort one ought to respect. Another adult's nudging can function as a kind of 'social proof,' as Banta put it—a reinforcement of the lessons a parent is trying to impart.
[Read: A grand experiment in parenthood and friendship]
Banta told me about a time when she took her then-5-year-old to a community-theater performance and he struggled to sit still. 'I kept telling him that he couldn't wiggle in his seat, because he was shaking the whole row,' Banta recalled, but 'he didn't want to listen to me, because he was having so much fun bouncing.' At intermission, another woman in the row asked Banta's son to stop shaking the seats so much. 'I looked at my son and said, 'See? It's not just me,'' Banta told me. He was far more mindful of his movements during the second act, periodically checking to see if he was bothering the woman down the row—who gave him a big thumbs-up after the show ended.
The collective approach to correcting kids' behavior can have its drawbacks, of course. Plenty of people have truly unreasonable expectations about the way kids should act in public. Miranda Rake, a writer and mother of two in Oregon, told me that she thinks tolerance for ordinary kid behavior in much of America is too low. Even in Portland, which she considers quite laid back, she 'gets the stink eye' in many places and feels like she's 'on eggshells in a lot of coffee shops and certainly restaurants,' she said. 'There just isn't a culture of community around kids here.' In her view, that complicates the question of whether interventions from nonparents would make the environment more or less family friendly.
Rake's concern is not entirely unfounded. In the United States, collective supervision of children has typically coincided with community norms that 'could be rigid or exclusionary,' Mintz told me, 'and the authority of adults could at times be authoritarian or abusive.' Meanwhile, in many modern societies outside America, tolerance for childlike unruliness is part and parcel of the more communal approach to raising kids. (That was also the norm for most of our evolutionary past, Sarah B. Hrdy, an anthropologist who has extensively studied child-rearing dynamics in traditional hunter-gatherer societies, told me. Where instruction does occur in such cultures, it tends to involve subtle, often nonverbal guidance—of the sort I encountered in Prague—rather than scolding or censure.)
[Read: Is it wrong to tell kids to apologize?]
The challenge of balancing tolerance and discipline aside, both Hrdy and Mintz observed that in many ways, American society is simply not set up for a thriving culture of community oversight. Where such a culture once existed, it was propped up by various forms of social infrastructure—the kind that has been steadily hollowed out over the past several decades, Mintz told me. American neighborhoods used to be more tightly knit. A lower proportion of mothers were employed outside the home, which meant that neighborhoods were filled with adults during the day who could keep an eye on one another's children. A strongly ingrained cultural respect for adult authority meant that 'few questioned a neighbor's right to reprimand a child for rudeness or risk-taking behavior,' Mintz said, and the potential personal risks (legal or otherwise) of disciplining a child not your own were fewer: 'Adults could discipline, correct, or even physically intervene without fear of being sued, shamed, or filmed.'
In an era when fewer people know or interact with their neighbors, and social trust has waned, the thought of reviving collective child-rearing norms may seem a little far-fetched. And yet, the Americans I spoke with seemed, on the whole, largely open to being a bit more direct with other people's kids—if only they could have assurance that such involvement would be welcome. I'll come out and say it: I would certainly welcome it.
Article originally published at The Atlantic

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Post

26 minutes ago

• New York Post

Miranda Devine: Trump's ‘spectacular' Iran strike could carve his place in history as most courageous leader since Ronald Reagan

What an impressive sight it was Sunday, when the futuristic B-2 stealth bombers sliced through the powder-blue Missouri sky on their triumphant return to home base in the American heartland after dropping their Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs on Iran's underground nuclear sites. The strikes were 'a spectacular military success,' President Trump told the world Saturday night, after emerging from the Situation Room. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. Advertisement While Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan 'Razing' Caine said Sunday it was 'way too early' to know the full extent of damage at Iran's Fordow uranium-enrichment complex, satellite images show several large holes and a layer of gray-blue ash where all 14 massive 'bunker buster' bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds, hit their target Saturday night in Operation Midnight Hammer. The strikes were also a spectacular political calculation by the president who ran on no new wars, and managed to keep a poker face all week as he was given advice by all and sundry. 'Unconventional' He made the right decision, and it appears to have been executed flawlessly. A limited strike, in and out. Iran's nuclear capability has been eliminated or at least severely degraded. No regime change. If the nuclear threat from Iran is indeed neutralized, leading to the extension of the Abraham Accords and peace in the Middle East, Trump will have achieved what countless predecessors failed to do. Advertisement If he pulls it off, without embroiling us in a larger war, he will have carved his role in history as the most courageous and consequential leader since Ronald Reagan. The man who rose from the stage in Butler, blood pouring down his face, raised his fist in the air and said, 'Fight, Fight Fight,' is exactly who you want as commander in chief at a time like this, especially as it's not his first rodeo. Photographs released by the White House show a serious-faced Trump inside the Situation Room Saturday night, wearing his trademark suit and red tie, not cosplaying a flyboy as his more casually-attired predecessors liked to do. His only bow to informality was a red MAGA hat with '45-47' on the side, representing his bifurcated presidential terms and the relentless grit it took to come back from the political dead. Advertisement So much for 'TACO Don.' He outfoxed everyone. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, just after emerging from the Situation Room last week where he watched the president deal with the complexities of the Iran-Israel war, likened Trump to Winston Churchill. 'He has a strategy and it's not a conventional strategy, but what conventional person has ever done great things?' said Bessent, in an interview for my new podcast Pod Force One. 'Does anybody think that Winston Churchill was conventional? '[Trump is] also so flexible in terms of the way he looks at things,' Bessent said. 'We've just spent basically the past 24 hours in the Situation Room over the Iran-Israel conflict, and I can tell you that the American people should know, and the American troops should know, that Donald Trump is doing an incredible job looking after their interests in what could turn, without someone like him, could turn into a widespread conflict that US soldiers and interests could get sucked into.' New team Advertisement In one fell swoop, Trump also restored the prestige of the US military, which had plummeted under Joe Biden. Most welcome was the upgrade from Gen. Mark 'Thoroughly Modern' Milley of 'white rage' fame, whom Biden had to give a preemptive pardon on his way out the door, presumably for his Trump-deranged outbursts to the Chinese. In Milley's place we now have 'Razing Caine,' once a daring F-16 pilot, and as cool and contained a general as you could find. 'This mission demonstrates the unmatched reach, coordination, and capability of the United States military,' he told reporters in a Sunday news conference alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, another veteran whose rapport with 'war fighters' has helped revive recruitment to record levels. 'In just a matter of weeks, this went from strategic planning to global execution,' said Caine. 'As the president clearly said last night, no other military in the world could have done this.' Every week, Post columnist Miranda Devine sits down for exclusive and candid conversations with the most influential disruptors in Washington. Subscribe here! What a contrast to the previous administration. Under Biden, our military was humiliated. Preposterous wokery and weak leadership led to a breakdown in discipline embodied in online displays of perverts in uniform dolled up in kinky dog masks and bondage gear. Advertisement Under Biden, incompetence was the order of the day, from the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving behind $7 billion of equipment, to the failure to bring our astronauts home from the International Space Station, to the $230 million Gaza pier debacle which resulted in the death of one young soldier and dozens of troops injured while delivering minimal aid. The morale and reputation of our armed forces was severely depleted, making a mockery of Biden's frequent refrain' God bless our troops.' Under Biden, Obama's benighted Iran deal that Trump axed in his first term was reanimated. Trump 1.0 left Iran on its knees, unable to fund its proxies to attack Israel. Biden, in his wisdom, empowered and enriched Iran, reappointing Robert Malley, Antony Blinken's childhood friend from their prestigious Parisienne école, as Iran envoy. Malley was then suspended without pay pending an FBI investigation into an Iranian influence ring and his 'mishandling' of classified information. Naturally, the Ivy League came to his rescue, giving him gigs at Yale and Princeton. That is Biden's legacy. Advertisement But instead of thanking Trump for saving the world from a nuclear Iran, Democrats are pretending that he did something unconstitutional, and are whining because he didn't inform Democrat leaders in Congress before the top-secret operation. They only have themselves to blame for proving to be so unreliable with secrets in the past. Hello, Schifty Schiff. Dems were fine with Obama bombing Libya, Syria and Pakistan an estimated 13,000 times, killing thousands of people, without asking Congress for permission. Remember then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cackling over Libyan leader Moammar Khadafy's gruesome end when he was sodomized and brutalized to death on camera as she watched lasciviously from afar: 'We came, we saw, he died,' she said. Strong stance Advertisement Democrats should sit this one out. Despite their threats to impeach him, Trump has seized the moral authority and no doubt his already buoyant approval ratings will soar. That's the political dividend of strong leadership. What GOP senator could refuse to pass Trump's beloved Big Beautiful Bill now? And as with everything Trump does, the visuals were impeccable. The icing on the cake was his brand new 100-foot flagpole out the front of the White House, with Old Glory waving languidly in the night breeze as the B-2s worked their magic half a world away. Advertisement You're paying for radical Zoh New York, we have a problem. How could a candidate as toxic and radical as Zohran Mamdani be so close to victory in Tuesday's Democratic mayoral primary? An antisemitic socialist who is running to defund the police and raise more taxes for illegal migrants should be a political impossibility, yet he has surged to second place behind Andrew Cuomo in the polls. Attorney Denise Cohen, who writes a substack as 'Rational New Yorker,' has figured out this dangerous man 'could attain the highest office in NYC using public money that most of us didn't approve through a slush fund that we unwittingly paid for.' Mamdani has the highest social media engagement of all mayoral candidates with almost 6 million likes on TikTok, and has created the false appearance of a vibrant grassroots campaign with tens of thousands of small dollar donors, she writes. But he didn't amass a $8.4 million war chest from grassroots donations. Eighty percent of it came from taxpayers thanks to a New York campaign finance law in which the New York City Campaign Finance Board matches small donations by $8 for every $1 raised. If Mamdani wins, you and I probably paid for his campaign.

Yahoo

42 minutes ago

• Yahoo

As the UN turns 80, its crucial humanitarian aid work faces a clouded future

KAKUMA, Kenya (AP) — At a refugee camp in northern Kenya, Aujene Cimanimpaye waits as a hot lunch of lentils and sorghum is ladled out for her and her nine children — all born while she has received United Nations assistance since fleeing her violence-wracked home in Congo in 2007. 'We cannot go back home because people are still being killed,' the 41-year-old said at the Kakuma camp, where the U.N. World Food Program and U.N. refugee agency help support more than 300,000 refugees. Her family moved from Nakivale Refugee Settlement in neighboring Uganda three years ago to Kenya, now home to more than a million refugees from conflict-hit east African countries. A few kilometers (miles) away at the Kalobeyei Refugee Settlement, fellow Congolese refugee Bahati Musaba, a mother of five, said that since 2016, 'U.N. agencies have supported my children's education — we get food and water and even medicine,' as well as cash support from WFP to buy food and other basics. This year, those cash transfers — and many other U.N. aid activities — have stopped, threatening to upend or jeopardize millions of lives. As the U.N. marks its 80th anniversary this month, its humanitarian agencies are facing one of the greatest crises in their history: The biggest funder — the United States — under the Trump administration and other Western donors have slashed international aid spending. Some want to use the money to build up national defense. Some U.N. agencies are increasingly pointing fingers at one another as they battle over a shrinking pool of funding, said a diplomat from a top donor country who spoke on condition of anonymity to comment freely about the funding crisis faced by some U.N. agencies. Such pressures, humanitarian groups say, diminish the pivotal role of the U.N. and its partners in efforts to save millions of lives — by providing tents, food and water to people fleeing unrest in places like Myanmar, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela, or helping stamp out smallpox decades ago. 'It's the most abrupt upheaval of humanitarian work in the U.N. in my 40 years as a humanitarian worker, by far,' said Jan Egeland, a former U.N. humanitarian aid chief who now heads the Norwegian Refugee Council. 'And it will make the gap between exploding needs and contributions to aid work even bigger.' 'Brutal' cuts to humanitarian aid programs U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has asked the heads of U.N. agencies to find ways to cut 20% of their staffs, and his office in New York has floated sweeping ideas about reform that could vastly reshape the way the United Nations doles out aid. Humanitarian workers often face dangers and go where many others don't — to slums to collect data on emerging viruses or drought-stricken areas to deliver water. The U.N. says 2024 was the deadliest year for humanitarian personnel on record, mainly due to the war in Gaza. In February, it suspended aid operations in the stronghold of Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have detained dozens of U.N. and other aid workers. Proponents say U.N. aid operations have helped millions around the world affected by poverty, illness, conflict, hunger and other troubles. Critics insist many operations have become bloated, replete with bureaucratic perks and a lack of accountability, and are too distant from in-the-field needs. They say postcolonial Western donations have fostered dependency and corruption, which stifles the ability of countries to develop on their own, while often U.N.-backed aid programs that should be time-specific instead linger for many years with no end in sight. In the case of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning WFP and the U.N.'s refugee and migration agencies, the U.S. has represented at least 40% of their total budgets, and Trump administration cuts to roughly $60 billion in U.S. foreign assistance have hit hard. Each U.N. agency has been cutting thousands of jobs and revising aid spending. 'It's too brutal what has happened,' said Egeland, alluding to cuts that have jolted the global aid community. 'However, it has forced us to make priorities ... what I hope is that we will be able to shift more of our resources to the front lines of humanity and have less people sitting in offices talking about the problem.' With the U.N. Security Council's divisions over wars in Ukraine and the Middle East hindering its ability to prevent or end conflict in recent years, humanitarian efforts to vaccinate children against polio or shelter and feed refugees have been a bright spot of U.N. activity. That's dimming now. Not just funding cuts cloud the future of UN humanitarian work Aside from the cuts and dangers faced by humanitarian workers, political conflict has at times overshadowed or impeded their work. UNRWA, the aid agency for Palestinian refugees, has delivered an array of services to millions — food, education, jobs and much more — in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan as well as in the West Bank and Gaza since its founding in 1948. Israel claims the agency's schools fan antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiment, which the agency denies. Israel says Hamas siphons off U.N. aid in Gaza to profit from it, while U.N. officials insist most aid gets delivered directly to the needy. 'UNRWA is like one of the foundations of your home. If you remove it, everything falls apart,' said Issa Haj Hassan, 38, after a checkup at a small clinic at the Mar Elias Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut. UNRWA covers his diabetes and blood pressure medication, as well as his wife's heart medicine. The United States, Israel's top ally, has stopped contributing to UNRWA; it once provided a third of its funding. Earlier this year, Israel banned the aid group, which has strived to continue its work nonetheless. Ibtisam Salem, a single mother of five in her 50s who shares a small one-room apartment in Beirut with relatives who sleep on the floor, said: 'If it wasn't for UNRWA we would die of starvation. ... They helped build my home, and they give me health care. My children went to their schools.' Especially when it comes to food and hunger, needs worldwide are growing even as funding to address them shrinks. 'This year, we have estimated around 343 million acutely food insecure people,' said Carl Skau, WFP deputy executive director. 'It's a threefold increase if we compare four years ago. And this year, our funding is dropping 40%. So obviously that's an equation that doesn't come together easily.' Billing itself as the world's largest humanitarian organization, WFP has announced plans to cut about a quarter of its 22,000 staff. The aid landscape is shifting One question is how the United Nations remains relevant as an aid provider when global cooperation is on the outs, and national self-interest and self-defense are on the upswing. The United Nations is not alone: Many of its aid partners are feeling the pinch. Groups like GAVI, which tries to ensure fair distribution of vaccines around the world, and the Global Fund, which spends billions each year to help battle HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, have been hit by Trump administration cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development. Some private-sector, government-backed groups also are cropping up, including the divisive Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which has been providing some food to Palestinians. But violence has erupted as crowds try to reach the distribution sites. No private-sector donor or well-heeled country — China and oil-rich Gulf states are often mentioned by aid groups — have filled the significant gaps from shrinking U.S. and other Western spending. The future of U.N. aid, experts say, will rest where it belongs — with the world body's 193 member countries. 'We need to take that debate back into our countries, into our capitals, because it is there that you either empower the U.N. to act and succeed — or you paralyze it,' said Achim Steiner, administrator of the U.N. Development Program. ___ Chehayeb reported from Beirut and Keaten from Geneva. Associated Press writer Melina Walling in Hamburg, Germany, contributed to this report. Evelyne Musambi, Kareem Chehayeb And Jamey Keaten, The Associated Press

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

Oil Prices Jump, Stocks Fall After US Strikes Iran Nuclear Sites

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Oil prices surged and U.S. stock futures declined as global markets reacted to American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to the Associated Press. Brent crude oil, the international standard, rose 2.6 percent to $79 per barrel, while U.S. crude climbed 2.6 percent to $75.76 per barrel. Why It Matters The U.S.'s strikes on Saturday marked its entry into the Iran-Israel conflict and were the biggest escalation in the war since Israel first ignited it by striking at Iran on June 13. Iranian lawmakers voted to support closing the Strait of Hormuz in response to the strikes, which hit three Iranian nuclear and military sites. A final decision on the matter rests with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Nearly 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait or Hormuz, a narrow but highly strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction. Any closure of the channel is likely to result in a global spike in oil prices. What To Know There was some market uncertainty on Sunday evening, with futures for the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average slipping 0.3 percent, while Nasdaq futures fell 0.5 percent. Treasury yields remained little changed. The modest moves suggest markets are taking the latest developments in stride, though analysts expect continued volatility as the situation develops. Iran's strategic position controlling the Strait of Hormuz gives the country significant leverage over global energy markets. However, any Iranian retaliation that includes closing the waterway would likely be difficult to execute. Traders remain concerned that Iran could severely disrupt transit through the strait, potentially sending insurance rates spiking and making shippers nervous to move cargo without U.S. Navy escorts. Complicating Iran's decision is the country's own dependence on the waterway. Iran uses the strait to transport its own crude oil, mostly to China, and oil represents a major revenue source for the regime, creating economic incentives against closure. What People Are Saying President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, told Newsweek: "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples." Jorge León, head of geopolitical analysis at energy consultancy Rystad, told the Financial Times on Sunday: "In an extreme scenario where Iran responds with direct strikes or targets regional oil infrastructure, oil prices will surge sharply. Even in the absence of immediate retaliation, markets are likely to price in a higher geopolitical risk premium." Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday: "There are close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz right now. Looks like the oil industry is expecting the Strait to be blockaded in the coming days." The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) stands in lower Manhattan on June 18, 2025 in New York City. Traders are looking ahead to the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decision later today. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) stands in lower Manhattan on June 18, 2025 in New York City. Traders are looking ahead to the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decision later Happens Next Markets will closely monitor Iran's response as trading opens Monday, with analysts remaining divided on the likelihood of strait closure. The final decision about Iran's response will be made by Khamenei; the parliament's vote to close the strait merely advises him of the option to pursue. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article.