Tracy Mumford: From the New York Times, it's the headlines. I'm Tracy Mumford. Today's Wednesday, March 11th. Here's what we're covering. The Times has learned new details about how the Trump administration miscalculated how Iran would react to the war, both in the scale of its response and how it would shake the global economy. Before the attacks began, the energy secretary, Chris Wright, said publicly he was not concerned a war would disrupt oil sales, pointing to the 12-day conflict with Iran last June when there was little disruption. Some of Trump's other advisers shared similar views in private, dismissing warnings that Iran could choke off the Strait of Hormuz that carries roughly 20% of the world's oil supply. But that is exactly what's happened now. Commercial shipping's come to a standstill in the Gulf. Oil prices have spiked and the administration's been scrambling to find ways to tamp down the crisis. Yesterday, the stock market loved it when Wright posted on social media that the Navy had successfully escorted a tanker through the troubled straight. Oil markets were reassured. He then deleted the post after administration officials said no escorts had taken place and markets once again went into turmoil.

Tracy Mumford: So, Brian, you did a a phone interview with the president of the United. What is his read on this? So I asked him, "How do you get that how do you get the prices down? I know how much you care about oil and gas." And he says, "President Trump himself has been frustrated by the situation." At one point earlier this week, he told Fox News that oil tanker crews should just go straight through. "Here's exactly what he said. These ships should go through the Strait of Hermuz and show some guts. There's nothing to be afraid of. They have no navy. We sunk all their ships." In interviews with a dozen US officials who asked for anonymity to discuss private conversations, the Times learned some military advisers did warn that Iran could launch an aggressive campaign in response to the US-Israeli attack. But other advisers were confident that taking out Iran's senior leadership, like Ayatollah Ali Ham, who was killed in the first wave of strikes, would lead to more pragmatic leaders who wouldn't keep a conflict going. big mistake by the Iranian regime to start targeting its neighbors. Indiscriminate targeting. Uh flailing recklessly. I can't say that we anticipated necessarily that's exactly how they would would react, but we knew it was a possibility. Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hgsth acknowledged that the Pentagon had not expected Iran to carry out as many strikes as it has on other countries throughout the Middle East, but he insisted it would backfire on them. And he said Iran's attacks are now slowing. "The last 24 hours have seen Iran fire the lowest number of missiles they've been capable of firing yet." In contrast, Heges said the US was launching more strikes than ever. Meanwhile, every night in the middle of the night in Thran, my WhatsApp starts buzzing with text messages from friends, from family who have access to internet, sometimes even from sources saying that the air strikes are really intense. Every night seems to be the most intense experience that they've had. The bombs seem to sound closer. The explosions are louder. And the sense of panic that I'm getting from the messages and phone calls is that the war is really just closing in. My colleague Farnaz Faci, who has covered Iran for more than two decades, says many people there feel helpless and trapped. People are saying that what terrifies them is that the war seems to not only be targeting the Islamic Republic's military and government infrastructure, but now it's expanding to oil refineries, gas depots, cultural sites. Some people were hopeful that maybe the war would bring an end to this regime, but that doesn't seem to be happening on the ground. I hear that in Thran at least there's very heavy presence of security on the ground. There checkpoints all over the place where they're searching cars and asking for ID cards. So people are not yet seeing any signs that this regime is collapsing or anything like that. And and that's a scary prospect. They're caught between a regime that stops at nothing for its own survival and a campaign of air strikes that's landing massive bombs on their cities. And they don't know how this is going to end. They don't know when this is going to end. They don't know once this ends. Is their country going to be in ruins?

Tracy Mumford: In Washington DC, Attorney General Pam Bondi has quietly moved from an apartment in the city to military housing because of safety concerns, according to sources familiar with the situation. One senior official said there have been growing threats since January when the US captured Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, who has been indicted by the Justice Department that Bondi leads. Bondi's also faced intense public criticism over how she's handled the Epstein investigation. A spokesman for Bondi did not comment on the matter. She is the latest Trump administration official to move into heavily guarded quarters at military facilities after citing danger from foreign adversaries, criminals, and protesters. One of President Trump's top advisers, Steven Miller, moved to a military base. So did Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the outgoing Secretary of Homeland Security Christy Gnome. While members of past administrations have done that, too, historians and former officials say the Trump administration is the first to provide this for so many political appointees with no direct connection to the military. It's unclear how much, if anything, officials are paying to live in the taxpayer funded accommodations. A spokesperson for Gnome said she was paying quote fair market rent for the housing last year.

Tracy Mumford: Across the country, homeowners are almost always required to get insurance when they buy a house and get a mortgage. How much they pay for that can vary wildly based on location, risks like flooding, fire, etc. But new research shows just how much people's credit scores are also driving insurance rates way, way up. Two recent studies found that American homeowners with weaker credit histories, usually from things like missed payments or having a lot of debt, now pay significantly more for home insurance. For example, two friends in northern Minnesota bought nearly identical houses in the same neighborhood. The friend with the higher credit score pays about $1,200 a year for her insurance premium. The friend with the lower credit score pays about $2,900. Overall, across the US, people with what are deemed fair credit scores are often paying double what people with excellent scores are paying. In some places, the disparity can be even higher, with people who have poor credit paying up to 12 times more for certain policies. According to an advocacy group, insurers have argued that it's worth considering credit history because people with low scores tend to file more claims, likely because they have less income, so when their homes get damaged, they can't pay out of pocket. But a handful of states, including California and Massachusetts, have limited or banned insurers from using credit data out of concerns about fairness and the potential for discrimination against low-income Americans and people of color. An insurance expert at a consumer advocacy group told the Times, quote, "When the government and the financial system mandate that we buy a product, there's a special obligation to make sure the pricing is fair."

Tracy Mumford: And finally, a lot of parents are trying to cut back on how much screen time their kids get. There's mounting evidence that screen time can contribute to anxiety and depression, can delay social and emotional skills, and decrease attention spans. But families are running into an unexpected challenge. Their kids schools. When I dropped off my son this morning, I noticed that the huge screen at the front of the classroom was already captivating the collective attention of the children. Parents have been showing up at schoolboard meetings across the country and lobbying principles for cutting back on screens in the classroom where devices have become the everyday norm in many cases. "Addictive entertainment apps do not belong in the school day. YouTube, video games, and other non-educational. Lots of kids have been given devices for educational purposes, but kids are kids." One parent told the Times she monitors her first grader's iPad activity while she's at school using an app and noticed she was watching Taylor Swift music videos in the middle of the day. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said that when students are using a screen, they should be engaged in critical thinking activities, not watching entertainment. The issue isn't going away anytime soon. 81% of elementary school teachers who were surveyed by the Times recently said that at their schools, students received devices in class by kindergarten. One parent said she didn't realize just how much content her daughter was watching in class until she tried to film a video of her dancing to send to her grandparents. And at the end, the kindergarter looked into the camera and said, "If you like what you saw, click below to subscribe." Those are the headlines. Today on the Daily, more on how the war in the Middle East is threatening to upend the global energy supply. You can listen to that in the New York Times app or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Tracy Mumford. We'll be back tomorrow.