Below the Antarctic ice lies a treasure trove of minerals, including copper, iron, gold, silver, platinum and cobalt. Warming temperatures due to climate change could unearth these minerals and, in turn, fuel future geopolitical conflict, potentially leading to a reversal of the current Antarctic drilling ban. If the ban is lifted, there could also be an increase in emissions. Those emissions would raise temperatures even more.

Iced out

Though under 0.6% of Antarctica is estimated to be free of ice cover today, scientists predict there will be up to a 550% increase during the next 30 years, according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Climate-driven melting will lead to a “likely rise in the economic viability of Antarctic mineral resources over the coming centuries.” New accessible resources could pose problems in the future in determining whether these minerals can be mined and by whom.

A country’s interest in Antarctic mineral resource development may be “linked to whether it holds a territorial claim, the economic value of mineral resources within that claimed territory and the extent of land emergence,” said the study. The largest land emergence in Antarctica is “likely to occur over territories claimed by Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom,” said Eos. But, “all territorial claims on Antarctica were suspended by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty and are not recognized by other nations,” said The New York Times

Global copper demand is “currently at 28 million metric tons and is expected to jump to 42 million metric tons by 2040 as demand for electricity grows,” said the Times. Access to resources is going to become more important than ever. Changes to Antarctic ice cover could “put pressure on the region’s legal framework surrounding mineral resource activities,” said Eos. And interest may come from “states without territorial claims or non-state actors,” said the study.

Melting the ice

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 as a response to World War II and global interest in keeping Antarctica unmilitarized. The agreement stipulated that Antarctica should be “used for peaceful purposes only” and that “no acts or activities taking place while the present treaty is in force shall constitute a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty,” said the treaty. It also bans any mining or drilling activities for commercial purposes.

These provisions may change in the future. Nations, beginning in 2048, will be able to request adjustments to the Antarctic Treaty. Along with Argentina, Chile and the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, France and Norway also made formal land claims to Antarctica before the treaty. “Major powers like the United States and Russia, though not formal claimants, retain strategic interests and could play a key role if rules around resource extraction change,” said Money Control.

Drilling in Antarctica can have significant negative environmental impacts, including the release of trapped greenhouse gases. Increased greenhouse gases would lead to worsening climate change, which would cause additional ice melt. In the future, “environmental impacts of mineral resource extraction activities will be weighed against societal pressure for sustainable resource development,” said the study.

Nonetheless, the ice melt is ”unlikely to trigger a major change to Antarctic governance on its own,” Tim Stephens, a professor of international law at The University of Sydney Law School, said to Eos. “The continent will still remain a very challenging environment for mineral resource extraction.”

Should Democrats shun Hasan Piker? asked Lauren Egan in The Bulwark. The irreverent, far-left livestreamer, who has nearly 5 million subscribers between his YouTube and Twitch channels, has become a “litmus test” for the party. Some progressives view Piker, a 34-year-old video gamer and gym bro, as a “liberal Joe Rogan” who can reach “tuned out” young white men. “Operatives have hustled to get their candidates booked on his stream,” which runs eight hours a day, seven days a week. Recent Democratic guests include Tom Steyer, who’s running for governor of California, and Abdul El-Sayed, a U.S. Senate candidate in Michigan who invited Piker to campaign with him on college campuses.

But many Democrats say Piker’s extremism should be disqualifying: A self-described Marxist, he has said that it didn’t matter “if rape happened on Oct. 7,” and that “Hamas is a thousand times better than the fascist settler colonial apartheid state” of Israel. Piker has also used the C-word and other misogynistic slurs.

Piker’s language sometimes is unfortunate, said Aaron Regunberg in The New Republic. But moderate “Third Way” Democrats have, “in bad faith” and without context, seized on a few moments from “almost 20,000 hours of entirely unscripted, off-the-cuff streaming.” The son of Turkish Muslim immigrants, he is an anti-Zionist but not an antisemite, and in fact has warned that antisemitism is “a canary in the coal mine of fascism.” Piker didn’t condone Hamas’ sexual violence against Israeli women, but argued that the attacks didn’t justify Israel’s subsequent bombing and killing in Gaza.

Why any Democrat would want to associate with Piker “is baffling,” said Michael A. Cohen in MS.now. A recent poll found that just 55% of Democrats have ever heard of him, and of those, “only 13% view him favorably.” Given his history of toxic comments, going on his livestream show is “a potential liability.” Sure, Piker can be “an insufferable jerk,” said Jesse Singal in his Substack newsletter, but Democrats he interviews don’t need to endorse his views. Piker appeals primarily to young, disillusioned males “who are looking to rebel.” In 2020, many in this cohort voted for Donald Trump. “It’s unfortunate” that young dudes are drawn to transgressive loudmouths, but to win back power, Democrats must “go to war with the potential voters they have, not the potential voters they want.”

Pam Bondi has discovered that “loyalty can get you a job with President Trump,” said Lindsey Granger in The Hill, “but it certainly won’t help you keep it.” The attorney general was fired earlier this month despite trying to do everything the president wanted. Over her 14-month tenure she purged scores of career prosecutors perceived as insufficiently MAGA, shuttered Justice Department offices that had probed Trump and his pals, and conducted lawfare against his political opponents. “But in the end, that just wasn’t enough.” Sources said the president was especially frustrated that Bondi hadn’t been more successful in prosecuting foes like former FBI boss James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Never mind that those cases “didn’t fail for lack of effort—they failed because they were weak.”

With Bondi ousted just weeks after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, other top administration officials are now wondering if they’ll be next to hear “You’re fired,” said Matt Dixon and Peter Nicholas in NBCNews.com. Trump advisers say National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick are all at risk of being booted.

Bondi’s real sin in Trump’s eyes was that “she couldn’t make ‘it’ go away,” said LZ Granderson in the Los Angeles Times. “And you know what I mean about ‘it.’” She fueled the public obsession with Jeffrey Epstein by telling Fox News in early 2025 that the sex trafficker’s “client list” was “sitting on my desk right now.” There was no client list, and the resulting furor led to a bipartisan law that forced the release of the DOJ’s Epstein files—which contain hundreds of references to the financier’s former friend, Donald Trump. Bondi was an incompetent lackey, said the New York Daily News in an editorial. But “her firing bodes ill for the state of our democracy” because whoever comes next could be even worse. Acting DOJ boss and former Trump lawyer Todd Blanche has already declared his hostility to the rule of law, saying that it’s the president’s “duty” to influence investigations against his political opponents.

Can anyone succeed at the Justice Department “given Trump’s expectations?” asked The Wall Street Journal. The president wants an AG who’ll twist the law to his whims, but judges and juries will still refuse to play along. Trump needs an attorney general who will give sound legal advice, and—as then-AG Bill Barr did in 2020 when Trump demanded the Justice Department unearth nonexistent evidence of election fraud—say no. But that’s a word the “boss doesn’t want to hear.”

How common is execution?

It has varied over the decades, as public opinion sways for and against it. Hangings were frequent in colonial times, but by the mid-1800s some states had abolished the death penalty altogether. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia’s death penalty as then applied was arbitrary and discriminatory, forcing all states to rewrite their laws and beef up their systems to provide for death row defense lawyers. Executions then resumed in 1977, when double murderer Gary Gilmore was put to death by firing squad. A steady rise in state-level executions followed, reaching a peak of 98 in 1999 and then declining again. In recent years, the number of states abolishing the death penalty has grown, yet executions have surged in a handful of the 27 states where it remains legal. Last year, 11 states carried out 47 executions, the most since 2009. At the federal level, President Trump broke a 17-year moratorium in the final months of his first term, when he approved 13 executions in rapid succession. “We owe it to the victims and their families,” said then-attorney general Bill Barr, “to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system.”

Why did Trump bring it back? 

He’s always been in favor of the ultimate punishment. In 1989, long before he entered politics, Trump bought full-page newspaper ads calling for New York to “bring back the death penalty” after five Black and Latino teenagers—all of whom were later exonerated—were arrested on suspicion of raping a woman in Central Park. During his 2024 presidential campaign, he promised to “vigorously pursue the death penalty to protect American families and children from violent rapists, murderers, and monsters.” Last year, he instructed the Justice Department to pursue federal death sentences when possible and to assist states in carrying out executions. After Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, was stabbed to death on public transit in Charlotte last August, Trump called for her killer to be quickly sentenced to death. “There can be no other option,” he said.

How have states responded?

North Carolina, which has not carried out an execution since 2006, swiftly passed what legislators called “Iryna’s Law,” expediting the execution process and broadening available execution methods. Ron DeSantis, Florida’s Republican governor, has been in “lockstep” with Trump’s pro-death-penalty agenda, said Maria DeLiberato of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Last year, Florida overtook Texas in carrying out the most executions, accounting for 19 of the 47 state-level executions in 2025. So far this year, Florida has executed four death row inmates; a fifth is scheduled for execution later this month.

Is Florida an outlier?

Pretty much. Upset after three jurors voted to spare the life of the Parkland school shooter, who had killed 17 people in 2018, state legislators passed a new law requiring only eight of 12 jurors to authorize a death sentence. That’s the lowest bar for execution of any state. Florida also passed the TRUMP Act, which mandates a death sentence for undocumented immigrants who commit capital crimes. Yet outside of Florida, the death penalty has been “losing its legitimacy,” says the American Civil Liberties Union’s Cassandra Stubbs. Last year, juries returned 23 death sentences nationwide; 30 years ago, the figure was over 300. While capital punishment is practiced by fewer jurisdictions, those that do it use it often. Just 2% of U.S. counties, most of them in the Southeast, account for 60% of America’s death row inmates.

What do Americans believe?

Public opinion is currently split, but support for capital punishment is waning. Some 52% of American adults back the death penalty for convicted murderers, according to a 2025 Gallup poll, down from 80% in 1994. But younger Americans are markedly less supportive than older ones, and the share of adults who believe the death penalty is applied unfairly has risen steadily and is now also right around 50%. Kirk Bloodsworth, a former death row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence in 1993, told National Geographic that people often rethink their stance on criminal penalties when they learn “how easy it is” to be convicted of a crime you didn’t commit. Still, pro-execution sentiment remains strong for particularly heinous crimes with clear perpetrators. “How much worse would the crime have to be to warrant the death penalty?” said Annika Dworet, whose son Nicholas was killed in the Parkland shooting at age 17.

Why is support declining?

Because faith in the system is, too. More than 200 death row inmates have been exonerated since 1973, thanks to DNA analysis and other investigative advancements. Blacks and Latinos make up 34% of the U.S. population but account for 53% of death row, which suggests there is racial bias in sentencing. The cost of maintaining death row prisoners and a number of botched executions in recent years—lethal injections or gas administrations that take far too long to work, for example—have also undermined confidence. Meanwhile, the U.S. rate of homicide, the crime most likely to engender a death sentence, is at its lowest level in at least 125 years, according to the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. And despite the upsurge in executions in a few jurisdictions, juries across the U.S. are returning fewer new death sentences. “Today’s death sentences are tomorrow’s executions,” says Corinna Barrett Lain of the University of Richmond School of Law. “If you don’t have new death sentences feeding the machinery of death, the death penalty will die on the vine.”

What happened

The U.S. military this week pulled off an audacious rescue of an Air Force colonel stranded 200 miles into mountainous Iranian territory, one of the most complex and dangerous special ops missions it had ever undertaken. An Iranian missile downed the weapons officer’s F-15E Strike Eagle—the first U.S. fighter jet lost to enemy fire in the war—forcing him and the pilot to eject. Officials said the pilot was rescued within hours, but the weapons officer could not be located for nearly two days. Injured and armed with only a pistol, he trudged up a 7,000-foot peak to make contact using his emergency beacon before hiding in a crevice to evade Iranian drones scouring the area. The CIA bought the military some time by spreading word in Iran that the airman had already been rescued, while the military used top-secret CIA tech to pinpoint the officer’s location.

The resulting nighttime exfiltration involved hundreds of special ops
troops and 155 aircraft. An official said it took several “excruciating” minutes for Navy SEAL Team 6 to find the airman and get him into a helicopter. “We just really wanted to get our guy out of there,” the official told CBS News. After they got to a temporary airstrip in Iran, their escape was delayed for hours because the transport planes were stuck in loose soil. Replacement aircraft were called to take everyone to safety in Kuwait. There were no additional U.S. casualties during the operation, though Iran downed an A-10 Warthog plane—its pilot ejected safely—and American helicopters sustained fire during the initial search.

A triumphant President Trump called the mission an “Easter Miracle,” and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth drew parallels to Jesus’ resurrection story. “A pilot reborn,” Hegseth said. “A nation rejoicing.” Trump then threatened to prosecute media outlets unless they revealed who leaked the information that the F-15 had been shot down. “Give it up or go to jail,” he said.

What the columnists said

There’s only one possible response to this amazing story, said Jeffrey
Blehar in National Review. That’s to “stand up and cheer.” You’ll be able to do so in the theaters when this inevitably hits the big screen “in a year or two.” It should be an easy lift for screenwriters: The operation played out like “a triumphant Hollywood action flick,” with thrilling details that “will revive your flagging hopes” about “America’s continued logistical and problem-solving excellence.”

No wonder the Trump administration is exulting, said Katherine Krueger in The Intercept. It hopes the happy ending will distract Americans from its “failing” and “deeply unpopular” war. Despite the ceasefire, the U.S. hasn’t secured a permanent opening of the Strait of Hormuz or a solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Don’t worry about that,” the administration seems to say, “check out this action sequence.”

Even the successful rescue demonstrated that Hegseth’s “repeated claims of air dominance come with serious caveats,” said John Hudson in The Washington Post. It turns out Iran is capable of shooting down U.S. aircraft after all. And while Hegseth told us last month that Iran’s missile and drone programs had been “overwhelmingly destroyed” by Israel and the U.S., an American intelligence assessment now says that “more than half” of Iran’s missile launchers and thousands of its kamikaze drones are intact.

Still, there’s no doubt that the U.S. scored a huge win by plucking the airman out of the heart of enemy territory, said John Sakellariadis in Politico. Had Iran gotten to him first, it would have had “a powerful bargaining chip.” Tehran, after all, has a history of taking hostages and using them to political advantage. What wouldn’t the U.S. have agreed to in order to get our man back? That would have been “a significant political embarrassment for the Trump administration.”

Strategic consequences aside, the airman’s rescue was “a victory of values,” said Mary Julia Koch in The Wall Street Journal. It was a reminder of the American military’s “sacred pledge of ‘No Man Left Behind.’” That doctrine has critics, who argue that it’s “outdated for modern, asymmetric warfare and can endanger more lives.” But it is what underpins U.S. troops’ pride and morale, what helps make them the most formidable force in the world. As one senior defense official said: “The notion that we will come and get you any time, in any place, no matter the cost, is an incredibly powerful thing.”

What happened

President Trump recently claimed a “total and complete victory” after Iran agreed to a 14-day ceasefire with the U.S., a fragile deal that both sides presented in starkly different terms. The agreement was struck just hours after Trump threatened to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” and a day after he threatened the “complete demolition” of every bridge and power plant in the country unless it agreed to a deal and reopened the Strait of Hormuz—a Persian Gulf channel through which 20% of the world’s oil flowed before the start of the six-week war.

Trump’s threat to target civilian infrastructure, a likely war crime if carried out, drew condemnation from figures ranging from Pope Leo XIV to podcaster and former MAGA ally Tucker Carlson, who pleaded with White House aides to keep the president away from the nuclear football. But shortly before Trump’s 8 p.m. deadline, he announced a Pakistan-brokered deal for the ceasefire. Trump called the agreement a landmark that could pave the way for “the Golden Age” of the Middle East. Iran’s security council, meanwhile, hailed the agreement as an “undeniable, historic, and crushing defeat” for the U.S.

Questions remained about the shape of the deal. Trump called a 10-point Iranian plan “a workable basis” for upcoming peace talks in Islamabad. But he then said a version of the plan released by Iran—which called for the lifting of all sanctions and the payment of war damages by the U.S.—wasn’t the one he’d agreed to. Trump hailed the “complete” and “immediate” opening of the Strait of Hormuz, but Iranian officials said transiting ships would have to arrange passage with Iran’s military and pay tolls to Tehran. Trump also said the U.S. would work with Iran to “dig up and remove” its stockpile of 970 pounds of enriched uranium that was buried under joint U.S.-Israeli attacks last summer. But Tehran’s 10-point plan includes U.S. acceptance of Iran’s right to enrich uranium.

Amid the wrangling, Lebanon emerged as a flashpoint. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the ceasefire applied everywhere “including Lebanon,” but Israel, which is battling Iran-backed Hezbollah there, and the U.S. insisted otherwise. Israel hit Lebanon with scores of air strikes in a single day, killing at least 250 people, according to local officials. Trump said the issue will “get taken care of.”

What the columnists said

Trump’s retreat followed a “chaotic” blitz of negotiations, said Barak Ravid in Axios. After U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff flatly rejected Iran’s initial 10-point peace proposal, it set off a fevered round of amendments, passed by Pakistani mediators between Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with Egyptian and Turkish officials helping to “bridge gaps.” Once they landed on a ceasefire proposal, it was greenlit by Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, whom China was advising “to seek an off-ramp.” Next was Trump, who was urged to reject it by “hawkish allies and confidantes.” Even some close associates thought he’d spurn the offer “right up until he took it.”

Trump thankfully backed off his “genocidal threats” said Jennifer Rubin in The Contrarian. But that shouldn’t diminish their “horror.” A man who holds the nuclear codes threatened the vaporization of a nation of 93 million people in starkly religious terms, warning in one post that “Hell will reign down” and “Glory be to GOD!” It was “a mortifying intersection” of Christian nationalism, “pathological narcissism, and fascist warmongering.” This deeply sick man endangers not just our national security but the “stability of the planet.” Congress must remove him from office.

The president’s rhetoric was “condemnable,” said Noah Rothman in National Review. But to project “unflinching determination” amid a “contest of wills and hard power” has undeniable benefits. And it “forced the Iranians to blink,” said Eli Lake in The Free Press. They’ve agreed to ease their blockade of the Strait of Hormuz based on nothing but an agreement to negotiate. Meanwhile, having lost its navy, most of its missile launchers, and its top political and military leadership, the Islamists in Tehran have “never been poorer, weaker, or more isolated.”

This was a straight-up “surrender,” said William Kristol in The Bulwark—but by Trump, not Iran. Just a month ago he was demanding Iran’s “unconditional” capitulation. But the mullahs and Revolutionary Guard still control Iran. The regime still has its enriched uranium and “functional missile and drone capabilities.” And it now has unprecedented control over the waterway through which its Gulf Arab neighbors export oil and natural gas, and has shown the devastation it can inflict on those countries and the global economy in any future conflict.

Selling this as a win won’t be easy, said Jack Blanchard and Dasha Burns in Politico, but that’s clearly Trump’s intention. Given the public opposition to the war, spiking gas prices, and “the rapidly worsening global economic outlook,” he’s anxious to move on. And because stock markets surged following his ceasefire announcement, it’s hard to imagine he’ll resume the bombing. So “brace yourselves” for a barrage of messaging that “America won.”

Let’s count the cost of this debacle, said Anthony L. Fisher in MS.now. Thirteen U.S. service members are dead along with at least 32 people in Gulf Arab nations, 20 Israelis, and more than 1,600 Iranians, while the rest “remain under the yoke of a sadistic theocracy.” With his warmongering, flip-flops, and unhinged threats, our unstable, amoral president has done “irreparable damage to America’s reputation” and “upended” the postwar global order. “I’m not feeling any safer. Are you?”

What next?

President Trump will send a team led by Vice President JD Vance to Pakistan to “negotiate an end” to the war, said Steven Nelson in the New York Post. Special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner will also join the weekend talks. Iran’s participation “is in flux,” because it has told mediators it won’t attend without a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Reopening the Strait of Hormuz is “only the first step” toward “getting more energy flowing through the Persian Gulf,” said Rebecca F. Elliott and Ivan Penn in The New York Times. Dozens of refineries, storage facilities, and oil and gas fields across the region were hit during the conflict, shutting down “10% or more of the world’s oil supply.” Reversing that requires replacing equipment and “recalling employees and ships that have scattered across the globe.” With the ceasefire “on shaky ground,” the timeline is “highly uncertain,” but even under positive conditions, recovery will be “a months-long process.”

Climbing gas prices can put a major crimp in your budget, especially if you have a long commute or live in a car-reliant location. Just cents more per gallon can quickly add up to a higher total gas bill, and when the price per gallon skyrockets by a dollar or more — as it did in some areas in March amid the Iran war — that can make every fill-up feel like a nail-biter.

Common solutions to higher gas prices are often tied to driving habits, whether that means relying less on your car and more on public transportation, or finding someone to carpool with on your way to work. Those gas-saving strategies are certainly valid, but they are not your only option, particularly when gas prices are getting especially steep. Another hack might already be in your wallet, or could be a smart addition to it: a gas rewards credit card.

How can credit cards help offset higher gas prices?

Gas credit cards offer “rewards on fuel purchases, which can help reduce the cost,” said U.S. News & World Report. These rewards may come in the form of points or a percentage cash-back on every fuel purchase.

Many of today’s top gas credit cards “offer around a 3%-5% (or 3x-5x) return on your gas station spending,” said Yahoo Finance. And while this may not seem like much, it can “add up over time, especially while fuel prices are high.”

Are there any risks or drawbacks to using credit cards to cover gas?

Perhaps the biggest caveat is that gas rewards cards tend to be best for those who can afford to pay off their credit card balance in full each and every month. Given steep credit card APRs, “any rewards you might earn by paying with plastic would likely be overshadowed by the interest you’d rack up in just a single billing cycle,” said NerdWallet. Some cards may also charge annual fees, which can also eat into the rewards you earn.

Additionally, it is worth noting that cards may put a cap on the rewards you can enjoy in a certain period. “Depending on how much your regular gas bill is, these caps could make a difference in how much you can earn,” said Yahoo Finance.

How can you find the best gas credit card?

To get the most out of a gas rewards credit card, you need to know what to look for. There are two main types: specific “co-branded gas cards — those affiliated with a particular company such as Exxon or Shell,” and “general rewards credit cards,” said NerdWallet. The former “tend to offer incentives on fuel bought at those specific stations,” whereas general rewards cards allow you to earn rewards “on gas purchases made anywhere, not just with one specific brand,” and often at a higher rate. (There are, however, exceptions here, such as “cards affiliated with wholesalers like Costco and Sam’s Club, whose gas prices tend to be lower than average,” said NerdWallet.)

That said, when choosing a card, it is also important to note any associated costs. That could be a membership fee, as with the aforementioned wholesalers’ cards, or an annual fee.

For a general rewards credit card, you should also take a look at the card more holistically in terms of your financial habits. If you can “find a card that helps you save on gas along with your other regular budget items, you can save even more over time,” said Yahoo Finance.

The Department of Justice has opened a probe into the National Football League, exploring whether the sports juggernaut engaged in anticompetitive practices through the various streaming packages it offers viewers. While the league’s increasingly complex subscription structures may represent a legally actionable transgression, the DOJ’s investigation does not exist in a bubble. It follows years of hostility between the president and the NFL.

‘Fragmented viewing experience’

The Justice Department is investigating whether the NFL’s “deals with streaming services are leading fans to pay too much to watch pro football on TV,” said NPR. The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 permitted the league to let teams “negotiate for the media rights together,” but critics argue that more regulation may be necessary, as “this isn’t the same marketplace anymore.”

The rising costs of airing high-profile events are being “propelled in part” by demand from “deep-pocketed tech companies hoping to woo subscribers and advertisers,” said The Wall Street Journal. To meet that demand, the NFL has “increasingly sliced off smaller packages of games” for individual streaming services, resulting in a “more fragmented viewing experience” for consumers.

Within the NFL, there’s a sense that the Murdoch family, which owns Fox Corporation, is the “key driver behind the DOJ probe,” said ESPN. Murdoch’s media empire has “turned the cost of streaming into a hobby horse issue,” said league insiders to the outlet. This comes amid a “growing bipartisan anti-streaming sentiment in Washington” and during a Trump administration that has “at times targeted the league.”

‘Revenge tour’

Trump has a “long history” of “weighing in on the fortunes of football,” said The Independent. He condemned former quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for the national anthem and demanded the Washington Commanders return to their racially insensitive original name. But Trump’s “grievance” with the league “stretches back further, to at least 1984,” when he unsuccessfully attempted to launch a new franchise for the sport.

Trump has “tried to get into the NFL a couple times since then” — defeats that now fuel the president’s “revenge tour for the league humiliating him and permanently barring him from the cool kids’ table,” said Above the Law. “If they screw me over, I’m gonna show them,” Trump allegedly said in 2014, broadcaster Stephen A. Smith told ESPN. “I’m gonna get them all back. I’m going to run for president of the United States.”

The NFL is “absolutely using its power to squeeze the media,” and the media, in turn, is “passing that on to the consumer,” said Above the Law. But this administration let Ticketmaster’s monopoly “walk” and put itself behind a “consumer-crushing media merger” on behalf of Paramount’s purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery. In that context, Trump and his administration “don’t care about sports fans getting gouged.”

The difference between federal officials moving against the Sports Broadcasting Act now and Trump’s other tangles with the NFL is that there are Democrats “aligned" with the Department of Justice in this instance, said ESPN. Congress could repeal and pass new laws to further regulate NFL viewing options, but the lengthy legislative and legal process means fans “might not notice any significant difference to the way they watch games anytime soon.”

The majesty of the natural world and the incomprehensible vastness of space are almost infinitely rearrangeable variables for documentarians. We are lucky to have a long (and still-growing) library of superb television series that explore the landscapes, creatures and philosophical underpinnings of both the known and the unknown. Done right, the way these acclaimed series are, documentaries can be just as thrilling as any fictional narrative.

‘Cosmos’ (1980)

One of the most-watched documentary series in history, “Cosmos” leans heavily on the charisma and chops of its presenter, astronomer and public intellectual Carl Sagan. Its 13 episodes tackle everything from the Cambrian explosion to the nature of time and space.

It also presents a plea for people to take care of the planet while acknowledging our relative insignificance in the context of the universe. “There’s never a dull moment” in what emerges as a “complete science course, encompassing not just cosmology but also chemistry, physics, biology and the history of human discovery,” said James Kingsland at The Guardian. (Internet Archive)

‘The Blue Planet’ (2001)

A spiritual successor to “The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau,” this BBC production outclasses its predecessors in every conceivable way. It introduces viewers to complex concepts like ocean currents and ecosystems like coral reefs, with narration from David Attenborough.

The 10 episodes took years to complete and, at the time, made up the most expensive nature documentary ever produced. The series is “unabashedly, poetically awestruck, yet unsentimental,” said Julie Salamon at The New York Times, featuring “images demonstrating the interconnectedness of life in the starkest terms.” A second season, “Blue Planet II” was released to great acclaim in 2017. (discovery+)

‘Planet Earth’ (2006)

The “11-part mother of all nature series” uses “helicopters, long lenses and all manner of cutting-edge film techniques to bring us the photographic spoils of a five-year global odyssey,” said Susan Stewart at The New York Times. It “often encourages you to root for the predator rather than the prey: fitting at a time when the planet itself seems as vulnerable as a newly hatched penguin.”

Rather than honing in on a particular animal or region, the series takes a kaleidoscopic look at life on Earth by visiting different ecosystem types, including plains, mountains, jungles, forests and the mysterious depths of the ocean. Collectively, the series leaves the viewer with a truly globe-spanning understanding of our home planet. It was followed by two additional series, “Planet Earth II” in 2016 and “Planet Earth III” in 2023. (HBO Max)

‘Frozen Planet’ (2011)

The forbidding landscapes and wildlife of the polar regions get the glowed-up documentary treatment in the BBC’s “Frozen Planet.” Attenborough narrates for the BBC, but the American version released on the Discovery Channel was recut with voice work by Alec Baldwin.

Episodes follow animals like polar bears through multiple climatic seasons, and the series is full of awe-inspiring observations about the critical importance of the region to the Earth’s general health, like the fact that a third of the trees on the entire planet exist in the circumpolar belt called the Taiga. “Frozen Planet” is “gorgeous to behold: lump-in-throat, tear-in-eye beautiful,” said Robert Lloyd at the Los Angeles Times, “made to reveal a world few people will ever see.” (HBO Max)

‘Wonders of the Universe’ (2011)

A series presented by the “incongruously boyish and immediately watchable Professor Brian Cox,” this BBC production is meant to show us “just how insignificant our little solar system is when presented with the enormity of space and time indefinite,” said Luke Holland at Den of Geek. Cox’s “deft ability to simplify a concept without patronizing an audience” results in a “profound triumph.”

The four-part series tackles the origins of the universe, the pivotal role of stardust in all living things, and the nature of space-time, among many other cosmic mysteries. Buoyed by sharp special effects and meditative insights, “Wonders of the Universe” is gripping television. (Prime)

‘Africa’ (2013)

This is yet another stellar series from the BBC, coproduced with the Discovery Channel and narrated by the extremely prolific Attenborough, who turns 100 on May 8 this year and is still working. The six episodes of “Africa” each look at one of the continent’s regions, starting with a tour of the forbidding Kalahari and Namib Deserts and traveling through the Congo Basin, the southern tip of the continent, and the savannahs of East Africa.

Forest Whitaker deftly presents the series in the U.S. market. The series “abounds in jaw-dropping visuals on a scale that, like the best fictional dramas, infuses the epic with the up-close-and-personal,” said Sheri Linden at The Hollywood Reporter. (HBO Max)

‘The Hunt’ (2015)

Viewers might want to steer little kids out of the room before pressing play on BBC’s “The Hunt,” which takes a long look at the dance between predator and prey in different kinds of environments, like grasslands and coasts. It’s not ideal for people who are sensitive to violence and gore, but it is riveting. Some cherished illusions will be shattered, including what chimpanzees eat, which is not exclusively fruit but sometimes other, weaker primates like red colobus monkeys.

If you can stomach it, “The Hunt” is full of such revelations, rendered lovingly and narrated by (who else?) Attenborough. “The footage is truly extraordinary and gorgeous and, for the most part, artfully edited,” said Ken Tucker at Yahoo Entertainment. (HBO Max)

‘Our Planet’ (2019-2023)

You will never guess who narrates this Netflix production about habitat loss and the consequences of human encroachment on the natural world. Attenborough, well into his 90s when the series was shot, did some of the best voiceover work of his long career here. The series’ 12 episodes across two seasons visit a dizzying array of locales, from the Congolese rainforest to the Arctic, where polar bears are struggling to adapt to climate change and the loss of their icy homes. A series that “plays notes of an elegy,” it also “contains the saddest scene perhaps ever shot in a nature documentary,” depicting an “enormous gathering of walruses that have been forced onto a tiny stretch of dry land due to the shrinking sea ice in the Arctic,” said Brian Resnick at Vox. (Netflix)

‘Hardly anyone checks this little box on their tax return. Why keep it?’

Adam Lashinsky at The Washington Post

There “was a time when nearly a third of U.S. taxpayers checked that little box on their income-tax returns authorizing the Internal Revenue Service to allocate $3 of their taxes” to “help pay for presidential campaigns,” says Adam Lashinsky. But now Americans “are — quite rationally — unwilling to fork over the cost of a Snickers bar to help elect the leader of their country.” Congress “ought to simply junk the checkoff as the relic it is.”

Read more

‘Democrats need to start planning now for a return to power’

Symone D. Sanders Townsend at MS NOW

Democrats “are already talking about a wave election,” and “people are starting to ask: What would Democrats do with that power?” says Symone D. Sanders Townsend. It’s a “more important question now than ever because, this time, winning will come with more risk and more responsibility.” A Democratic win “will not just be a rejection of President Donald Trump. It will be an expectation that they can use power in a way that actually changes people’s lives.”

Read more

‘Kalshi is half right about prediction markets and gambling’

Aaron Brown at Bloomberg

Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour “has an argument why prediction markets shouldn't be regulated as gambling,” says Aaron Brown. Sportsbooks “profit from customer losses, making them structurally predatory. Kalshi, by contrast, operates as a peer-to-peer exchange.” He is “right about the business model distinction. He’s wrong that it answers the regulatory question.” What Mansour is “describing — a balanced book, fees on both sides, no house risk on outcomes — has been the operating model of sports betting, both legal and illegal.”

Read more

‘Women’s brains are a $1 trillion opportunity’

Lisa Mosconi and George Vradenburg at Time

Nowhere is the “cost of ignoring women’s health more visible or more correctable than in the brain,” say Lisa Mosconi and George Vradenburg. Closing the “women’s health gap could add $1 trillion in annual incremental GDP to the global economy.” This should “reframe how every boardroom and budget office thinks about women’s health.” Researchers “need to mandate sex-disaggregated data and fund women-focused trials for brain disease,” and policymakers “need to recognize women’s brain health as a core input to labor force productivity.”

Read more

The divide between the American president and the American pontiff has exploded into view. Pope Leo has repeatedly rebuked President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and war in Iran, and Trump is now returning the criticism. Could the division prefigure a split in the Catholic Church?

Leo on Sunday delivered his “strongest condemnation yet” of war in a peace vigil at St. Peter’s Basilica, said CBS News. “Enough with war!” he said during the public service. Real strength is “manifested in serving life.” The president did not take kindly to the critique. Leo is “terrible for foreign policy” and should “get his act together as pope, use common sense, stop catering to the radical left,” Trump said on Truth Social.

The exchange followed a “bitter lecture” during a January meeting between Pentagon appointees and a Vatican diplomat, said The Free Press. The message from Defense Department officials: The church “had better take its side” on the world stage. One unnamed U.S. official “went so far as to invoke the Avignon Papacy,” the 14th-century period in which the French monarchy forcibly moved the papacy from Rome to France. Both sides downplayed the Free Press report. Even so, tension between Catholic leaders and the White House has “only risen since the start of the war with Iran,” said The Atlantic.

What did the commentators say?

“There will be no second Avignon,” Christopher Hale said at the newsletter Letters from Leo. Officials invoking that 14th-century history were making a “threat against the conscience of the world,” but the White House will be unable to repeat it.

A recent favorability survey published by NBC News found Leo finished first in a ranking of “14 public figures, institutions and political groups” by a wide margin. That makes him the “most popular public figure on earth.” Trump cannot compete. “The American people stand with Pope Leo XIV.”

Leo has “resisted Trump like a protester at a ‘No Kings’ rally,” said Gustavo Arellano at the Los Angeles Times. Critics will accuse the pope of “Trump derangement syndrome” and note that he stands “athwart the desires” of the 55% of Catholics who voted for the president in 2024. But Trump’s administration has pulled funding from Catholic charities and criticized bishops who dissent. Leo’s role is to “bear witness to the words of Christ,” who spoke more about caring for the poor than waging war. Unlike Trump, Leo “urges us to stand for something other than ourselves.”

What next?

The debate over the war is spilling into the wider religious sphere, “driving a wedge” between the president’s pro-Israel evangelical supporters and the Catholic commentators who are “increasingly hostile to Trump’s foreign policy agenda,” said Vox. The “Avignon-gate” report will continue to raise tensions “within the U.S. Catholic community and within the MAGA movement.”

Leo, meanwhile, will not return to the U.S. for the country’s 250th birthday celebrations in July, choosing instead to minister to migrants in Italy. Leo’s priority is to “be with those who are downcast and marginalized,” said Cardinal Blase Cupich on “60 Minutes.”

What happened

President Donald Trump on Sunday sharply criticized Pope Leo XIV, an increasingly vocal opponent of his Iran war. The first U.S.-born Catholic pontiff is “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” and “thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon,” Trump said on social media. “I’m not a fan of Pope Leo,” he told reporters. “He’s a very liberal person.” Shortly afterward, Trump posted an AI-generated image “depicting himself as a Christ-like figure healing a sick person with American flags and eagles in the background,” CNN said.

Who said what

Trump’s “angry counterpunch to the soft-spoken Leo” starkly “illustrated how differently two of the world’s most powerful Americans handle conflict,” The New York Times said. Trump’s broadside came after the pope held a vigil for peace at the Vatican on Saturday and suggested that a “delusion of omnipotence” was fueling the war. “Enough of the idolatry of self and money!” Leo said. “Enough of war!”

It’s “not unusual for popes and presidents to be at cross purposes,” The Associated Press said, but it’s “exceedingly rare” for them to openly criticize each other. Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a statement he was “disheartened” at Trump’s “disparaging words about the Holy Father.”

What next?

Trump’s “extraordinary public criticism” of the pope could put him “at odds with some Catholics, tens of millions of whom live in the U.S.,” The Wall Street Journal said. Pope Leo leaves Monday for a four-country tour of Africa, Catholicism’s fastest-growing region.

What happened

President Donald Trump on Sunday threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz after peace talks with Iran in Pakistan failed to produce a breakthrough. The U.S. Navy will blockade “any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait,” he said on social media. But U.S. Central Command had a different interpretation of Trump’s order, saying it would block only vessels entering or departing “Iranian ports and coastal areas,” starting this week.

Who said what

A U.S. naval blockade would cut off a “key source of financing for Iran’s government and military operations,” CNN said. But a blockade could be a “blow to the rest of the world as well,” exacerbating the “war-driven global energy crisis” and raising U.S. gas prices, The Washington Post said.

The problem for Trump is that “Americans have a much lower threshold of pain than the Iranians,” Andreas Krieg, a security expert at King's College London, said to The Associated Press. The Iranians “can sustain this for far longer than the world economy” and “the Americans,” and Trump doesn’t have “any tool in the toolbox in terms of the military lever” he can use “to get his way.”

What next?

The face-to-face peace talks, led on the U.S. side by Vice President JD Vance, “were the highest-level negotiations between the longtime rivals” since 1979, the AP said. Iran said it was open to continuing the talks, and “neither indicated what will happen after the ceasefire expires on April 22.”

What happened

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán conceded defeat Sunday night after his far-right populist Fidesz party lost decisively to Péter Magyar and his center-right, pro-Europe Tisza party. Turnout was a post-Communist high of nearly 80%. As of Monday, Magyar’s alliance is on track to win 138 of the 199 seats in Parliament, exceeding the two-thirds supermajority needed to “change the constitution and unravel key pillars” of the “illiberal democracy” Orbán built over his 16 years in power, Politico said.

Who said what

“The election result is painful for us, but clear,” Orbán told supporters at Fidesz’s campaign offices. “We have liberated Hungary,” Magyar told cheering crowds gathered on the banks of the Danube in Budapest. “Hungarians said yes to Europe today, they said yes to a free Hungary.” European leaders, long frustrated by Orbán, rushed to congratulate Magyar.

Orbán was a “lodestar for MAGA culture warriors and right-wing populists in Europe,” The New York Times said. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin both supported Orbán’s candidacy and offered financial backing if he won. But Trump’s “several personal endorsements,” backed by a visit from Vice President JD Vance, could “do nothing to swing a contest that was shaped by growing public frustration over Hungary’s ailing economy, and the corruption and cronyism associated with Orbán,” Politico said.

What next?

Magyar called on Fidesz loyalists in key state positions, including the president, to step down or face expulsion by his parliamentary supermajority. “We will never again be a country of no consequences,” he said, vowing to set up an “office for the restoration of national wealth” to investigate and recover looted state assets and prosecute corruption.

The price of crude oil could rise to $150 a barrel under a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Jorge Montepeque, managing director of oil traders Onyx Capital Group, said prices “should be $140, $150” if the naval blockade goes ahead, said The Telegraph.

The US blockade was due to begin at 3pm today UK time. Writing on social media, Donald Trump said that the US was going to start “BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” and will “interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran”.

How will it work?

Under Trump’s plan, instead of having navy ships escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, US forces will board and potentially seize any vessels that pay Iran’s toll, a move that would effectively close the strait off entirely.

The US Central Command said that its forces would not impede the freedom of vessels travelling to and from non-Iranian ports. It also pledged that it would release additional information to commercial mariners.

The president warned that “any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL”, but “at some point” an agreement on free passage would be reached. He said that other countries would be involved in blockading the strait, but did not specify which. Keir Starmer said the UK would not join the blockade.

What will the effect be?

The consequences for the global economy could be serious. There’s “little clarity” about how the US navy will take control of the strait without “reigniting” the conflict with Iran and “causing another shockwave” in the money markets, said Michael Evans in The Times.

The blockade “might risk worsening a war-driven global energy crisis”, said The Washington Post. Although Iran would “potentially suffer the most economically”, it may also “come as a blow to the rest of the world”, particularly nations in Asia, which “rely heavily” on oil and gas from the Gulf.

So the president is “once again playing loose with the fortunes of financial markets and the global economy as he struggles to find a way out of the war”, said Australia’s ABC News.

As for Trump, the plan “reflects his hope” that he can repeat the “model of his intervention” in Venezuela, said the Financial Times. There, the US “seized” the then president Nicolás Maduro in a military operation after a naval blockade of the Latin American nation.

“You saw what we did with Venezuela,” Trump told Fox News. “It’ll be something very similar to that, but at a higher level.”

What did experts say?

Initially, Trump’s plan will only affect the small number of vessels that are still navigating the waterway, shipping expert Lars Jensen told the BBC. If the US does blockade the strait, it will “halt a very tiny trickle” of vessels and “in the greater scheme of things, it doesn’t really change anything”.

But three legal experts in the US said the blockade could violate maritime law. One of them suggested the blockade, which will be enforced militarily, would violate the current ceasefire agreement.

The blockade is a good “counterpoint” to Iran’s closure of the strait, Dennis Ross, the former senior US diplomat and Middle East negotiator, said on X. It puts “greater pressure on Iran” and “great pressure on China to pressure Iran”.

But Vali Nasr, a former US official and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, told the Financial Times that the plan will be “fine by the Iranians” because it “prolongs the chokehold on the global economy”.

Tehran might respond by shutting down the Bab el-Mandeb, a chokepoint off the coast of Yemen, said Nasr, and “then the US will have to deal with that”.

Viktor Orbán once described Hungary under his premiership as a “petri dish for illiberalism”. The end of his 16-year reign is, for many in the West, a sign that his Maga-style politics is on the way out. But Hungary’s future under new prime minister Peter Magyar, once a staunch Orbán loyalist, is far from certain.

Magyar only joined the centre-right Tisza party in 2024. “He has built an opposition movement at amazing speed,” Gábor Győri of Budapest think tank, Policy Solutions, told The Guardian. “Never”, since the fall of Soviet-based communist rule in 1989, has Hungary “seen a party rise this quickly”.

What the commentators said?

“Short of offering a bonanza of free oil,” it’s hard to see how Donald Trump could have done more to “shore up” Orbán, his “closest ideological ally in Europe”, said Oliver Moody and Michael Evans in The Times. He promised to strengthen Hungary with “the full economic might” of the US, and even parachuted J.D. Vance into Budapest to stand at Orbán’s side. But Hungary’s rejection of Orbán is a reflection of the broader sentiment across Europe, as “the populist right is either distancing itself from Trump or suffering by association with his brand”.

“There is no question that Orbán’s downfall is a loss for Maga-style politics,” said Alexander Burns on Politico. But “the sharpest message from Budapest should be for the Democrats” in the US. Orbán’s defeat is “a new triumph for a particular brand of disruptive politics”, in which reformists “launch new parties and blow up old ones, winning elections by rendering traditional political structures obsolete”. Currently, “there is no equivalent figure among Trump’s American opponents”.

There are warnings, too, for those in Europe who see Magyar’s win as a victory for liberal politics. Orbán’s fall “​​does not mean that Hungarian voters have rejected his tough-on-immigration, pro-natalist or Brussels-critical policies”, said The Telegraph’s deputy comment editor Michael Mosbacher. A former member of Orbán’s Fidesz party, Magyar is a social conservative who “on effectively every issue” comes down “firmly on the right of European politics”. Orbán may have been the EU’s bête noire over financial support for Ukraine, but his successor has said in the past that he is against sending weapons to Kyiv and opposes Ukraine’s push to join the EU.

What next?

“Despite more than two years of campaigning and a 240-page election manifesto, the details of what exactly Magyar will do remain vague,” said The Guardian. “He is very much a dark horse,” Győri told the paper. “We don’t know much about him.”

“There are both question marks and exclamation marks” about the consequences of Magyar’s victory, said Ákos Hadházy, an independent Hungarian MP and a long-time critic of Orbán. “But Hungarian society has accepted this.”

With its “green, rolling hills” and “patchwork of pinot noir and chardonnay vineyards”, Oregon’s Willamette Valley has been compared to Burgundy, said National Geographic.

The valley is home to 11 designated grape-growing regions with diverse terroirs, spanning all the way from Portland to Eugene. In recent years, the “cool nights and warm summer days” here have provided the perfect conditions for some “top-notch sparkling wines”. Grape varieties used in champagne like pinot meunier have been “thriving” here.

Method Oregon is a non-profit established by a coalition of producers to ensure high standards and help place their wines on the map. Bottles carrying the stamp must be “100% fermented, bottled, riddled, and disgorged in Oregon”, use the traditional method that requires sparkling wines to go through a “natural secondary fermentation in a bottle”, said National Geographic, and be aged for no less than 24 months en tirage (“the crucial stage where wines are aged on yeast”) to develop a complex flavour.

Gran Moraine’s sparkling brut rosé is “exquisite, rich and lovely”, said Clive Pursehouse on Decanter. The delicate wine spent six years en tirage and is bursting with “floral notes of apple blossom, sweet lemon cream, and ripe, fleshy pears”.

But chardonnay remains the “king of Oregon white wines”, said Mike Desimone on Robb Report. For a special occasion, consider splashing out on a bottle from Eyrie Vineyard where winemaker Jim Maresh makes “small-batch, high-quality wines from estate-grown grapes under his family label”.

Or, you can’t go wrong with a Résonance chardonnay, said Vine Pair. When renowned French winemakers come to Oregon “you know to pay attention”. That’s exactly what happened when Thibault Gagey and Jacques Lardière embarked on their “first project outside of Burgundy” in the Willamette Valley – and this bottle is an “excellent example” of how the chardonnay grape variety is flourishing in the cool climate. Expect refreshing mineral notes, hints of “ripe pear and crisp apples”, with a “wonderfully balanced” palate.

Airlines are feeling the strain of swelling oil prices resulting from the Iran war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. To deal with higher operating costs, many companies are making changes that shift the burden to consumers, including higher baggage fees, more fuel surcharges and canceled routes.

How are higher gas costs affecting airlines?

Airlines and their customers across the U.S. are being impacted but especially those based in four major hubs: Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York City. In these locations, the average price for a gallon of jet fuel is currently $4.25, according to the aviation trade association Airlines for America. On Feb. 27, the day before the war in Iran started, the average price was only $2.50. Airlines are also “facing an increase in the amount of fuel their aircraft use because of extra miles required to avoid flying over the conflict zone,” said The Guardian.

Fuel is already an expensive cost for aviators and is “generally airlines’ largest expense after labor,” said Quartz. Airlines are feeling the pressure as a result. If prices were to stay at their current level, it would mean an “extra $11 billion in annual expense just for jet fuel,” said United CEO Scott Kirby in a memo to employees. For “perspective, in United’s best year ever, we made less than $5 billion.”

How are airlines adapting?

Many are adding “extra fees and surcharges onto already rising ticket prices” to “recoup costs as the war in Iran causes fuel costs to surge,” said The New York Times. Luggage is one common area where airlines are bumping up the price. Delta and Southwest announced they would “start charging $10 more to check a bag on U.S. domestic flights,” days after United and JetBlue said the same.

The company with the most notable baggage changes may be American. The airline said it would “raise the fee by $10 each for the first and the second checked bag for travelers booking domestic and short-haul international flights,” said The Detroit News. The company also “increased the cost of a third checked bag by $50 to $200” for fliers and additionally announced an upcoming $5 increase on checked bags for passengers flying economy.

Some airlines are also including pricing for the fuel itself. Canada’s second-largest airline, WestJet, announced it would “add fuel surcharges of up to 60 Canadian dollars, or about $43, to some flights,” said the Times. Air Canada unveiled surcharges of 50 Canadian dollars to certain warm-weather destinations. For passengers, the decisions from airlines resulted in “rising fares and fees, fewer flight options and difficult decisions about whether a trip is worth the cost,” said The Associated Press.

Airlines are also cutting the number of places they go. Several Asian airlines have stated they would “cut flights to mitigate fuel shortages and mounting costs,” said Business Insider. Ryanair, Europe’s largest carrier, is also “considering reducing routes,” while Lufthansa could ground up to 40 planes. Air New Zealand will “cut about 5% of its flights, or about 1,100, at the start of May,” and in the U.S., United and Delta are both cutting routes.

As the world creeps toward peak travel season, industry leaders are taking notice of the fuel shortages. ACI Europe, an association representing airports in the European Union, notes these shortages could “hit within three weeks, disrupting summer travel and ‘significantly’ harming the European economy,” said CNBC. For people who still want to fly, experts say “flexibility and careful planning can help offset these costs,” said the AP, and “fare-tracking sites can alert travelers to price changes.”

Dover, Vt.

Sleepy Bear Farm, a 2004 timber-frame five-bedroom home on more than 90 acres, features two rustic post-and-beam bunk rooms—one with six double beds. The great room has cathedral ceilings, a two-sided double-height hearth, and French doors to a stone patio.

A lower level has media and wine rooms. Close to Mount Snow, the property includes trails, a brook, fruit trees, and a swimming hole. $3,300,000. Story Jenks, LandVest/Christie’s International Real Estate, (802) 238-1332

Wilmington, N.C.

Built in 2010, this West Indies–inspired waterfront home includes a bunk room with four beds, built-in shelves, and shiplap walls. The five-bedroom
features coffered ceilings, walnut floors, a fireplace, French doors, and a kitchen with a stove nook, a pot filler, and a butler’s pantry.

Outside are an infinity pool, a spa, a fireplace, a putting green, and views of the Intracoastal Waterway and Atlantic Ocean. Downtown Wilmington
is about 20 minutes away. $8,000,000. Nick Phillips, Landmark
Sotheby’s International Realty, (910) 620-3370

Mabank, Texas

On Cedar Creek Lake, this 2019 contemporary has two double bunk rooms with water views and en suite baths. The four-bedroom includes rustic beams, wood floors, a chef’s kitchen, and a white stacked-stone fireplace.

The property spans more than three waterfront acres, with a patio, pool, boathouse, yards, and a deck. Community access to riding, pickleball, and trails is included; Dallas is about a 45-minute drive. $3,500,000. Debbie French, Ebby Halliday Realtors/Luxury Portfolio International, (903) 340-7747

Truckee, Calif.

Set in the Martis Camp community about 20 minutes from Lake Tahoe, this 2014 lodge-style five-bedroom includes a six-person bunk room, as well as hickory floors, vaulted ceilings, exposed trusses, and a kitchen with a SubZero fridge and Wolf range.

There’s also a media room and billiards table. The lot, at just over an acre, includes a firepit, a built-in grill, and access to a shared beach, tennis courts, a lodge, and golf. $8,695,000. Dominic Cristalli, Martis Camp Realty, (206) 412-2493

Montrose, Colo.

This seven-bedroom modern farmhouse on nearly 15 acres has an eight-bed bunk room with tongue-and-groove walls. The 2006 home features exposed metal trusses, a stone fireplace wall, a 16-seat bar, and a chef’s
kitchen with a walk-in pantry.

Surrounded by the Uncompahgre National Forest north of Telluride, the property has a patio with a fireplace, an alfresco dining area, a putting green, firepits, shuffleboard, and a hot tub. $8,250,000. Kevin Holbrook,
LIV Sotheby’s International Realty, (970) 729-1601

Minneapolis

In the North Loop’s 1922 Soho Lofts building, this rustic modern studio loft has two bunks with four double beds, clad in barn-style wood. The condo has exposed brick and ducts, high ceilings, a large window, a reading nook, an open kitchen with concrete counters and a beverage fridge, and in-unit laundry.

Parking and a storage locker are included. Coffee shops, dining, and green space are steps away. $299,900. Joe Grunnet, DRG, (612) 244-6613

In 2022, Shan Hanes, the chief executive of the Heartland Tri-State Bank in Kansas, met a friendly investment adviser from Australia on WhatsApp. The adviser persuaded Hanes to invest a few thousand dollars in an online cryptocurrency-trading platform, which generated impressive returns. Hanes ended up investing all his own money, $60,000 from his daughter's college fund, $40,000 from his local church and $47 million from the bank he ran.

The “adviser” was, it transpired, not in Australia but most likely in Asia; the “trading platform” was fake; and Hanes had become the highest-profile US victim of a practice known in Chinese as sha zhu pan, a “pig-butchering scam”. Some money was recovered, but investors lost $9 million, the bank collapsed, and Hanes was sentenced to 24 years in prison.

How do the scams work?

“Long cons” have been around for ever, but these – in which the scammers invest a lot of time in building a relationship with the victim, a process they liken to fattening a pig for slaughter – have distinctive features.

Scammers actively seek out victims on social media: pig-butchering originated on regional Chinese dating sites around 10 years ago, but it has since spread to platforms such as Telegram, WhatsApp and LinkedIn. They create trusting relationships with their victims, sometimes of a romantic nature; one former scammer told The Economist she’d been trained to target people who were “rich but not good-looking”.

They rely heavily on crypto, which is easy to launder and difficult to recover. These and other online scams are increasingly run out of Chinese-linked “scam hubs” or “fraud factories” in Southeast Asia.

How did such operations develop?

Gambling – illegal on mainland China – is one of the main revenue streams for domestic and foreign-based Chinese mafias. Casinos and online gambling hubs for Chinese-speakers, based in Cambodia and Myanmar, were one of their main enterprises until 2019, when Cambodia tightened its regulations; Covid lockdowns then emptied the casinos. The criminal syndicates refitted their properties as centres where teams of workers – often trafficked and coerced – run online scams at scale.

Chinese citizens were their original targets, followed by Chinese communities around the world. But they soon expanded to other nationalities, which also meant expanding their trafficking activities. In the four years from January 2020, at least $75 billion was taken in crypto scams; estimates suggest the industry generates over $500 billion a year, comparable to the global drugs trade.

Why do they traffic people?

Many of the gangs’ voluntary workers went home during Covid; not enough locals had the necessary language and computer skills, and recruiting people into cybercrime isn't always easy. The scammers’ solution was to lure people – typically young graduates from developing countries – to cities such as Bangkok with fake offers of legitimate employment, then drive them to compounds in Myanmar, Cambodia or Laos, and put them to work under threats of torture, organ harvesting and sexual slavery.

A UN report this February found that there is a workforce of at least 300,000 people from 66 countries, about 75% of them in the Mekong River region of Southeast Asia. Many live in vast compounds, like self-contained towns – some over 500 acres in size, heavily fortified, with armed guards. It's unlikely that all the workers are coerced, but many of them certainly are; some families have had to pay ransoms in cryptocurrency to get them out.

What are the nations doing about it?

Weak local governance, along with easy access to China, is the reason the gangs set up shop in the Mekong region in the first place. Myanmar's military junta doesn’t control the whole territory; much of it is controlled by insurgent groups and warlords; while Cambodian politics has been dominated by one family since the 1980s. Transparency International ranks both governments among the most corrupt in the world. Analysts calculate that Cambodia’s scam hubs generate earnings worth about 60% of the nation's GDP. According to the US Treasury Department, the Huione Group, a financial conglomerate with ties to Cambodia’s ruling Hun family, has provided the gangs with financial and practical services. Like Latin American “narco-states” before them, these countries are well on the way to becoming “scam states”.

Is there international pressure to close them down?

Influenced partly by stories like the kidnapping of the actor Wang Xing, and even a popular film about scam hubs, “No More Bets”, China has launched an aggressive crackdown. There have been heavily publicised rescues of coerced workers in the Mekong countries; under Chinese pressure, local law enforcement has dismantled notorious scam hubs like the KK Park complex in Myawaddy, Myanmar, thought to have been run by Macau-based triads. Thai forces shelled several other hubs during a border conflict with Cambodia last year. China has arrested hundreds of thousands of people over scams, and in January it executed 11 members of the “Ming family” crime group, who had been extradited from Myanmar.

Is the situation improving?

Experts worry that police raids on compounds in Cambodia and Myanmar are largely for show: the bosses are often tipped off in advance. In any case, they have globalised their operations, popping up as far afield as Peru and the Philippines. Police even closed down an operation targeting Chinese citizens on the Isle of Man in 2024. But developments in AI may mean that the scammers are getting less reliant on human trafficking for language skills. One report on AI-assisted scams found that they rose by 450% in 2024-25 compared with 2023-24. The scammers now often use “deepfakes” of increasingly good quality to groom their victims.

In shops, offices and bars across Spain, a single story has been monopolising conversation, said Enrique Aparicio in El Público (Madrid). The case of 25-year-old Noelia Castillo, whose life was ended by euthanasia in a Barcelona hospital last month, has “stirred the entire country”, sparking a fierce debate about an assisted-dying law introduced in 2021.

Castillo had had a troubled life; she'd spent her teen years in state-run foster care, had suffered several sexual assaults, and in 2022 was gang raped by three men. Days after that, she threw herself out of a fifth-floor window. The suicide attempt left her paralysed and in chronic pain with depression: insisting that her life was no longer worth living, she asked that it be ended. However her father, backed by a religious advocacy group called Christian Lawyers, claimed that given her fragile mental state, she was in no position to give meaningful consent to an assisted death.

‘Unnecessary suffering’

It's appalling the way in which Castillo was denied the right to a dignified death, said El País (Madrid). Her euthanasia had been unanimously approved, as the law requires, by two doctors, a lawyer and a review and oversight body; and it had been scheduled to take place on 2 August 2024. But then the legal challenges started to roll in, and it was only on 10 March this year, when the European Court of Human Rights rejected the final appeal by Christian Lawyers, that they came to an end. And so her “unnecessary suffering” was prolonged for a “devastating” 601 days, and in the full glare of media attention.

No, that puts everything the wrong way round, said Javier Redondo in El Mundo (Madrid). The assisted-dying law was supposed to provide a “dignified death” for terminally ill patients languishing “bedridden, paralysed and intubated; in agony”. It was not meant for young people like Castillo, who “lacked hope for the life ahead”. This case has fundamentally shifted the “boundaries of euthanasia”.

‘Abandoned’ by society

Indeed, the noise of this scandal should reverberate “far beyond the borders of Spain”, said Laurent Frémont in Le Figaro (Paris). It lays bare a society that no longer knows how to look after its most needy citizens. At every turn, Castillo was failed by the state: it took her from her family when she was a teenager and put her in foster care; she was still in the state's care when she was gang raped; and finally, instead of providing the psychiatric care she so badly needed, the state granted her a medically assisted death. In short, she was “abandoned by the institution” meant to take her family's place.

We need to be careful here, said Pedro García Cuartango on ABC (Madrid). I myself am morally opposed to euthanasia, and I too view Noelia Castillo's death as a societal failure. Yet we must acknowledge that the assisted-dying law was passed by an absolute majority in parliament and thus has full political legitimacy. We may hate the outcome, but in the clash between the law and our moral convictions, we in the end have to accept the law.

“WE GOT HIM!” Donald Trump’s announcement on Sunday that the second of two US airmen had been rescued from “deep inside” Iran struck a “triumphant” tone, said Jonathan Sacerdoti in The Spectator – and no wonder.

The rescue brought to an end an episode that had begun on Friday, when a US air force F-15E Strike Eagle was shot down over southwestern Iran – the first time a US fighter jet had been downed by hostile fire since the 2003 Gulf War. Both crew members had “ejected safely”. But while one was quickly recovered by US forces, the second, a weapons systems officer, was stranded for 36 hours, as the two sides raced to find him.

Iran, eyeing a propaganda victory, offered a £50,000 reward for his capture, said Paul Nuki in The Telegraph. Washington, in turn, was desperate to avoid a humiliation evoking memories of the botched US attempt to rescue 53 embassy staff held hostage by Iran in 1980. In the end, Trump was able to celebrate what he called “one of the most daring search and rescue operations in US history”.

“Deep behind enemy lines”, seriously hurt, and armed only with a pistol, the officer had been in a terrifying position, said Guy Adams in the Daily Mail. But his “survival, evasion, resistance and escape” (SERE) training kicked in, and he scaled a 7,000ft ridge in the Zagros Mountains, before hiding in a crevice and using a satellite device to report his location.

The CIA, meanwhile, hatched a “deception plan”, spreading word in Iran that it was moving the airman out of the country on the ground, said Greg Jaffe in The New York Times. Then, on Saturday night, the US launched a “vast and complex” rescue mission. Two MC-130 troop planes carrying more than 100 special forces commandos landed on a disused airfield near Isfahan, which they used as a forward operating base. Drones and jets provided air cover, striking Iranian forces that came near. Then commandos used mini-helicopters to reach the mountains, extract the weapons officer, and fly him back to the airfield.

It was here that a major hiccup occurred, said Dan Sabbagh in The Guardian. The troop carrier planes became bogged down in the soil and had to be destroyed by the US to avoid them falling into enemy hands, while new planes were flown in. Although the US did get all its troops out, suffering no casualties, it lost hardware worth about $250 million (£185 million). The episode as a whole was a reminder that, for all America’s military superiority, Iran “can fight back” – and it would only need to “get lucky once” in this asymmetric conflict to secure a major propaganda victory.

Might the war in Iran “do what even Vladimir Putin couldn’t and blow up the North Atlantic Treaty alliance”, asked The Wall Street Journal. It’s “no longer an idle question”. Last week, President Trump vented his deep frustration with Nato, dismissing it as a “paper tiger” and declaring he is now “strongly considering” pulling the US out. If he does, it would be the “dumbest alliance breakup in modern history” – and it would be Europe’s fault.

‘Two-way street’

Spain and Italy blocked US military flights from their bases and Emmanuel Macron prevented use of France’s airspace. “Add its reluctance to help clear the Strait of Hormuz, and Europe is playing into every Maga stereotype about a one-sided Western alliance.” Europe’s reluctance to get involved is understandable, given Trump’s erratic policies and his failure to consult allies about the war. But it could have been more helpful. After all, it has its own interests to protect in the Middle East, and it would have shown that the alliance is “a two-way street”.

Our so-called “allies” have spent decades “free-riding on the US security umbrella”, said Josh Hammer in Newsweek: Trump is just saying so plainly. The “imbalance is staggering”: US defence spending accounts for 60% of Nato’s total. It’s clear that the “status quo is no longer defensible – and deep down, everyone knows it”.

Despite America’s frustrations, maintaining the alliance is still in its interests, said Con Coughlin in The Daily Telegraph. Nato gives the US access to a large network of naval, air and ground force bases – Nato’s top commander in Europe, an American, has gone so far as to say that US power projection depends on its European allies. Nevertheless, European leaders must convince the Trump administration that it is in Washington’s interests to stay in.

Damage is done

The severity of the threat should not be underestimated, said Roland Oliphant in the same paper. The US is not just the biggest member, it is “the lynchpin”, around which the whole edifice is constructed. It has capabilities, in satellite and signals intelligence, in missile defence, that the rest rely heavily on. If it abandons the alliance, the chances of Putin taking a gamble on attacking Europe “would increase substantially”.

“In literal terms, it would be near-impossible” for Trump to leave Nato, said The Independent. In 2023, Congress passed a law that means the US can only leave with the approval of the Senate, and there is little appetite among Republicans for this. But that wouldn’t prevent the US from “quiet quitting”. It could withdraw troops from Germany or simply “ignore its Article 5 duties to defend, for example, Estonia”.

The damage is already done, said Rafael Behr in The Guardian. Trump hasn’t just undermined Nato’s collective security guarantee; he has betrayed Ukraine and threatened to invade Greenland. “Trust is gone.” Europe must build up its own security arrangements immediately. There is no guarantee that Europe “will have an ally across the Atlantic” again any day soon.

A chorus of high-profile right-wing figureheads including Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones recently criticized President Donald Trump’s ongoing Iran war. The president responded by denouncing them as “NUT JOBS” and “TROUBLEMAKERS” in a lengthy social media statement, essentially making them persona non-MAGA. But as the president struggles to contain blowback from his Middle Eastern adventurism, the MAGA fault lines are only growing.

The ‘biggest break thus far’

After several MAGA figures denounced the president’s actions in the Middle East and, in some cases, his presidency overall, Trump responded with a “blistering” 482-word Truth Social post that insulted them in “starkly personal terms,” The New York Times said. Trump’s missive came after “weeks of criticism” from the consortium of conservative figureheads, which he had “largely ignored” before this latest outburst. Jones, Kelly, Carlson and former Charlie Kirk collaborator Candace Owens are the “opposite of MAGA,” Trump said, before he began “insulting the pundits personally,” said The Hill.

Trump has “repeatedly dismissed suggestions” of an alleged “fissure in his MAGA coalition,” Forbes said. But criticism from MAGA notables “intensified” after Trump “threatened to wipe out Iranian civilization,” NBC News said. There is now a “growing schism within Trump’s base” over the Iran war, “particularly” given his campaign pledge of “no new wars.”

While Carlson in particular has been “highly critical” of the Iran conflict and “somewhat more gently critical of Trump the man, at least publicly,” the “gloves were off” this week “like never before,” said CNN. The result is “perhaps the biggest break thus far” between Trump and a “leading conservative influencer,” even as the GOP has “done its best to forestall these kinds of splits.” Carlson’s critiques won’t “suddenly equally divide Trump’s base,” but they are an “inauspicious sign” and “not helpful” for the party.

‘Deep anger’ and ‘quick rebukes’

Trump’s attacks on this batch of newly minted detractors reflect what seems to be a “deep anger” at once-loyal supporters, said Politico. The opprobrium runs both ways, as the targets of his ire offered “quick rebukes” to Trump’s attacks. “It may be time to put Grandpa up in a home,” Owens said in a “one-line quip” on X, said Forbes. “I’m just so sad that whatever’s happened to him has totally changed the man he once was,” said Jones in a video response on the same platform.

Iran has clearly “emerged as a growing weakness” for Trump, said CNN. While some MAGA supporters are “overwhelmingly on board,” the president’s wider base is “increasingly on a different page.” For Trump, the danger in rebukes by Carlson and other media figures is that it gives Republicans “skeptical of the war license to tilt into outright opposition to him.”

Visiting a public garden is one of the best ways to get outside. You feel the sun’s warmth on your skin as you stroll by the trees and flowers in bloom, appreciating every leaf and petal. Give yourself the gift of fresh air and time well spent by taking a trip to one of these splendid gardens.

Edward James Sculpture Garden, Las Pozas, Mexico

During the 1960s, “eccentric” British poet and Surrealist art patron Edward James traveled to the Mexican rainforest and created this “otherworldly” sculpture garden, said The New York Times. More than 30 “elaborate” and often “nonsensical” statues and structures, with curious names like “The House of Three Stories That Could Be Five,” are scattered about, surrounded by massive ferns, orchids and waterfalls. Every area vies for your attention; exploring this topsy-turvy landscape feels like “stepping into a dream.”

Gardens by the Bay, Singapore

A 250-acre “fantasy land” of “space-age biodomes” and “whimsical sculptures,” Gardens by the Bay is known for its over-the-top features, said Lonely Planet. The “astonishing” Cloud Forest, with its 114-foot waterfall and aerial walkways through the trees, feels straight out of the tropics, while the Flower Dome “replicates the dry Mediterranean climates found across the world.” Once the sun sets, the giant trees of the Supertree Grove slowly illuminate for Garden Rhapsody, a nightly light and music show.

The High Line, New York City

Manhattan’s urban landscape is on “full display” at the High Line, said Condé Nast Traveler. This former freight rail turned “elevated, mixed-use public park” is a prime example of New York City “cleverly” turning “old spaces into exactly what you want them to be.” More than a dozen garden zones can be found along the 1.45-mile-long stretch, where perennials, grass, trees and shrubs come together in “perfect unkempt harmony.”

Kirstenbosch National Botanical Garden, Cape Town, South Africa

This trailblazing botanical garden, established in 1913, was the first in the world to focus solely on indigenous plants. It sits in a lovely spot on the eastern slope of Table Mountain, and though the garden “showcases more than 7,000 species,” a “high priority” is given to plants in the fynbos biome, like “stiff, structured proteas” and “shaggy, flowering ericas,” said The New York Times. Get a bird’s-eye view by taking the Tree Canopy Walkway, a curved bridge that offers “mountain vistas and sweeping forest views.”

Longwood Gardens, Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Conservatories, topiaries, aquatic plants, meadows, dazzling fountains and more await at the spectacular 1,100-acre Longwood Gardens. The collection of plants is “incredible,” as is the main conservatory filled with “lush” displays that change seasonally, said USA Today. Variety is key to Longwood Gardens’ success, as visitors have plenty of sections to wander, including the spacious new Orchid House, tranquil Bonsai Courtyard, verdant Waterlily Court and the modern Cascade Garden, designed by Roberto Burle Marx.

Marqueyssac Gardens, Vézac, France

Nearly four miles of pathways wind their way through this enchanting garden, where more than 150,000 boxwood trees are “meticulously laid and manicured” to “create mesmerizing patterns,” said Veranda. Marqueyssac sits on a cliff overlooking the Dordogne Valley and offers impressive views of the land and river below. Peacocks roam freely and are often spotted enjoying the garden’s beauty.

Royal Botanic Garden Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Pack a picnic, don comfortable walking shoes and prepare to spend all day at Australia’s oldest botanic garden. Spread across 74 acres, Royal Botanic Garden Sydney is home to more than 5,000 native and international species and “adorned with ornamental plants, rolling lawns and ancient trees,” said Condé Nast Traveler.

Highlights include the Cadi Jam Ora garden, which “shares native, Aboriginal plants and those brought from Europe by Britain’s First Fleet,” and The Calyx, a “living art gallery” and one of the largest green walls in the southern hemisphere. Leave enough time to see the ancient Wollemi pine, one of the rarest plants on Earth.

Wrest Park, Bedfordshire, England

The grand gardens at Wrest Park date back hundreds of years, giving visitors the chance to go on a “journey through three centuries of landscape design,” said The Times. The formal gardens showcase English, French, Dutch and Italian landscaping styles and “ornate” sculptures, but “venture beyond the pretty parterres and perfumed borders” and you’ll find far less manicured woodland trails. For fans of “Bridgerton,” if the grounds look familiar, that’s because scenes for season two and three were filmed on the property.

‘I’m a WNBA player. Don’t use athletes like me to exclude trans women.’

Brianna Turner at USA Today

The IOC “recently announced a binding policy requiring every woman who seeks to compete in the Olympics to undergo sex verification testing,” but the “final hurdle to represent your country should not be proving to a panel of strangers that you are the woman you say you are,” says Brianna Turner. This mandate “ignores established medical and human-rights guidance, and rejects the science that says physical appearance, chromosomes or individual traits do not determine athletic performance.”

Read more

‘New England considers the nuclear option’

Andrew Fowler at The Wall Street Journal

A “bipartisan coalition of all six New England governors has reached a conclusion that until recently would have been politically unthinkable: renewable energy alone can’t deliver the affordable, reliable power the region needs,” says Andrew Fowler. Against “this backdrop, nuclear energy is re-emerging as a practical solution.” New England’s “nuclear facilities such as Connecticut’s Millstone Power Station help maintain grid stability,” but “regulatory barriers have long limited the development of new nuclear capacity.” That is “beginning to change.”

Read more

‘Power, minerals and the AI race — America must win in Africa’

John Giordano at Newsweek

The United States “must secure the critical mineral and energy supply chains that advance economic prosperity,” says John Giordano. One “such jurisdiction, and potentially one of the most consequential on the African continent, is Namibia.” The country is a “model for governance and stability on the continent, operating with regulatory frameworks capable of supporting large-scale development.” It “holds an outsized position on the global minerals and energy map,” but “supply security ultimately rests on infrastructure.”

Read more

‘The ethics of using AI in newsrooms: a work in progress’

Jim Boren at The Seattle Times

The public is “looking for clear guidance on how newsrooms are using AI to report the news,” but “most news organizations are still developing their policies, and few have fully resolved these complex questions,” says Jim Boren. AI “can free journalists to focus more on investigation, verification and storytelling,” but “most newsrooms draw a firm line: AI should not be used to write stories.” This “reflects a broader concern that AI systems can produce convincing but inaccurate or misleading information.”

Read more

Elon Musk always does things in a big way. The same is true of his plans to take SpaceX public. But how investors will make out could depend on how much they like him. As Musk works to convince buyers that his rocket company could be valued at as much as $2 trillion, SpaceX is earmarking up to 30% of shares for “nonprofessional, noninstitutional investors” and “banking on the popularity” of the tech billionaire to help it raise as much as $75 billion from the stock offering, said The Guardian. And the so-called “retail” trade by his fans will be a “critical part of this and ​a bigger part than any IPO in history,” Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen told a meeting of bankers on April 6, per Reuters.

SpaceX is more than just rockets. It now includes xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence company, along with Starlink, Grok and the X social media network. Money raised from the IPO would help SpaceX finance “launching artificial intelligence data centers into orbit, creating a colony on the moon and getting humans to Mars,” said The New York Times. But those are “expensive and unproven” technologies that could take “years and billions of dollars to achieve.”

What did the commentators say?

IPOs “used to fund growth,” Brad Badertscher said at The Conversation. Going public helped “young, cash-strapped companies” like Amazon and Apple get traction, and “much of their dramatic growth” happened afterward. These days, most companies “can now raise billions privately” and, like SpaceX, only go public after they have entrenched themselves in the marketplace. Investors are not getting in on the ground floor. Most “explosive growth in corporate value” comes while “companies are still private.”

The SpaceX IPO could “showcase the free market at its best,” Matthew Lynn said at The Washington Post. The company is “pioneering innovative technologies and generating jobs and wealth.” Bringing along ordinary investors might add to those accomplishments. Giving regular people ownership of stocks gives them a “stake in the free market” and makes them “far more likely to support the system.” Musk’s stock offering could convince Americans that “free-market, risk-taking entrepreneurship isn’t such a terrible thing after all.”

A “bumper crop of mega initial public offerings” is expected over the next year, Jonathan Levin said at Bloomberg. History suggests investors should “tread very, very carefully” when evaluating companies like SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic. Mega IPOs have “underperformed the market” on average in recent years. But some investors will inevitably decide that Musk’s company and its peers “are in a league of their own.”

What next?

SpaceX “could trade like a meme stock” after the IPO, said MarketWatch. Stocks driven by “social media trends” are often prone to “high trading volumes and price volatility.” The Musk-helmed company “clearly has some of the ingredients” to fit that profile, Roundhill Investments CEO Dave Mazza said to the outlet.

The countdown to the closure of the SAVE plan has at last begun. The student loan repayment plan, which aimed to offer lower monthly payments and a faster path toward forgiveness for borrowers, almost immediately faced pushback when introduced by the Biden administration in 2023, with several Republican-led states suing. For a while, this ongoing legal battle left borrowers in limbo. But with the recent arrival of a decisive, plan-ending judgment, followed by a deadline set by the Trump administration for those who are enrolled to exit, borrowers are now in a position where they must take action.

What is happening to the SAVE plan?

After a roughly two-year legal battle, a decisive judgment has arrived for the federal SAVE, or Saving on a Valuable Education, plan. As of March, the “Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals put an end to a legal challenge of the SAVE student loan repayment plan and instructed a district court to approve a proposed settlement between the Trump administration and the state of Missouri that would end the program,” said Yahoo Finance. In short, the program is “permanently eliminated.”

Following this, the Department of Education sent out a notice informing borrowers “they would need to switch to a different federal repayment plan by the end of September,” said NerdWallet. As of that announcement, “over 7 million borrowers” were still enrolled in the plan, which “offered lower monthly payments than other income-driven repayment plans,” as well as the opportunity for faster loan forgiveness.

What will happen to borrowers enrolled in SAVE?

Up until this point, while litigation has been ongoing, borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan have been in “an administrative forbearance without payments due since the plan was challenged in court in the summer of 2024,” said CNBC, though interest began accruing in August 2025. But as of July 1, these remaining enrollees can expect to receive an email from their servicer instructing them to leave the SAVE plan and offering instructions for how to enroll in another repayment option. They will have 90 days to do so, or until the end of September.

Those who do not switch over will be automatically enrolled in the 10-year standard plan, “which would result in considerably higher payments in many cases,” said U.S. News & World Report.

What alternative repayment plan options do borrowers have?

With SAVE now officially off the table, borrowers have the option of existing income-based repayment plans, which can offer more affordable payments than the standard 10-year repayment plan. Another option is to wait to enroll in RAP, or the Repayment Assistance Plan, a new repayment plan established under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This plan moderates payments based on income, though a minimum payment is required, and offers forgiveness after a longer period of 30 years.

Regardless of the option borrowers choose, “it’s likely that any new plan will mean higher payments,” said U.S. News & World Report. The SAVE plan “was the most affordable option for most people.”

What happened

Two once-harmonious groups of chimpanzees in Uganda’s Kibale National Park suddenly became estranged and have spent the past eight years engaged in a bloody conflict, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science. This first-ever observation of animal “civil war” indicates that “group identities can shift and escalate into lethal hostility in one of our closest living relatives” without the “cultural markers often thought necessary for human warfare,” the researchers wrote.

Who said what

Researchers are “still trying to figure out what set off the conflict” in 2015 between the rival chimpanzee factions in the park’s Ngogo area, The New York Times said. But by 2018, “the hostilities began in earnest,” The Wall Street Journal said. The smaller Western cluster “launched coordinated lethal attacks” against their Central cluster rivals, killing at least 28 males, including infants.

One theory is that the schism came after “several male chimps who had bridged cliques within the larger group died from disease, weakening social ties,” said the Journal. It’s also possible “the apes were victims of their own success,” seeing “increased competition for food and mates” even though “resources were abundant.”

What next?

Further study of the Ngogo chimpanzees “may shed light on the roots of warfare in our own species,” the Times said, though the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts have “cast doubt on whether the research will continue.”

What happened

First lady Melania Trump on Thursday denounced “unfounded and baseless lies” connecting her with “the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein,” calling unspecified reports and online images “mean-spirited attempts to defame my reputation.” Addressing reporters at the White House, she also called on Congress to hold a “public hearing specifically centered around the survivors,” allowing those who wish to have their sworn testimony “permanently entered into the congressional record.”

Who said what

The first lady’s “seemingly out-of-the-blue” remarks caught “the White House — and indeed, all of Washington’s political world — by surprise,” The Associated Press said. It was “not clear why she chose to speak out now,” The New York Times said, but her comments are “sure to supercharge” a “scandal” her husband “has been struggling to make go away since last summer.”

The Epstein controversy had been “fading from public discourse amid the war with Iran,” CNN said, and some White House officials were “stunned by the timing of the remarks, which sparked rumors that the first lady was trying to get out ahead of something.” Sources close to Trump insisted she was just “increasingly frustrated by the online chatter.”

What next?

Congressional Democrats and some Republicans welcomed the call to let Epstein’s survivors speak. “We encourage” GOP leaders to “respond to the first lady’s request and schedule a public hearing immediately,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) on social media.

What happened

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Thursday threw out Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s revised effort to restrict press access at the Pentagon, saying the Defense Department “cannot simply reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking ‘new’ action.” Suppression of “political speech is the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy,” U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman wrote in his opinion, siding with The New York Times for the second time in a month in its challenge to Hegseth’s restrictions on reporters’ access to Pentagon sources and information.

Who said what

Almost all reporters in the Pentagon press corps walked out in October after Hegseth tied their credentials to an agreement to “publish only information preapproved by Department of Defense channels,” Politico said. Friedman found that unconstitutional in a March 20 ruling, and on Thursday he “voided the key parts of the revised policy,” including banning all unescorted movement through the Pentagon and evicting reporters from their longtime Correspondents’ Corridor offices to an “annex that has yet to be opened.”

“The curtailment of First Amendment rights is dangerous at any time, and even more so in a time of war,” Friedman said. Hegseth is trying to “dictate the information received by the American people” and “control the message” they “hear and see,” he added. “The Constitution demands better. The American public demands better, too.”

What next?

Frieman ordered the Pentagon to “fully restore Times reporters’ access,” The Washington Post said, and to “file a sworn declaration from a department official by April 16 detailing compliance.” A Pentagon spokesperson said the department will appeal the ruling.

Find out how closely you’ve been paying attention to the latest news and other global events by putting your knowledge to the test with our Quiz of The Week.

Recent violence in the Middle East had some of Dubai’s wealthy British expats rushing to bunkers, but in the longer term they might be seeking shelter in a famous Italian city.

Milan is becoming the preferred destination for the wealthy who are “abandoning” Dubai because of tensions and violence in the Gulf region, said British Asian newspaper Eastern Eye.

Restlessness and reinvention

Italy’s flat-tax regime means that foreign residents can pay €300,000 (£259,620) a year on all overseas income, which is “small change for the world’s wealthiest”, said The Guardian. Even prior to the fighting in Iran, interest in Italy took off after Britain scrapped its non-dom status and Portugal tightened its own rules.

But “tax policy alone does not explain the surge”, said the Economic Times. Italy’s “strong legal framework, EU membership, and relatively stable economy” make it a “compelling choice” for the privileged.

As wealthy families move to “safer European bases”, Milan is enjoying “historic spikes” in luxury real estate sales, from its “renovated palazzi to modern high-end apartments”. Property prices in Milan have risen by 38% over five years.

“Unlike more poetic cities like Rome or Venice”, Milan “actually works” and doesn’t have an issue with “overtourism”, said The Times. Its “strategic location” offers “easy access to the lakes, mountains and coast” and there’s a “restlessness” and an “obsession” with “reinvention”, meaning there’s “always something new to see or do”. It is home to the Borsa Italiana stock exchange, leading banks and global fashion houses.

A new “superfast” railway links the city centre and Linate airport, you can “whizz around the city quicker than ever” on the “tap-in tap-out” metro, and there are new hotels, restaurants, bars and private members’ clubs, which are “cranking up the standards of hospitality” from “perfectly good” to something closer to those of London or New York.

Tax dumping

Can Milan really dethrone Dubai in the affections of the “global elite”? That “remains to be seen”, said The Guardian. Armand Arton, who helps multimillionaire and billionaire families to relocate through investment citizenship schemes, said he’s “positive” that Dubai will “rebound from the current question of doubt around security”.

There are “still questions” about “how far Italy can push its advantage”, said the broadsheet, and the former French prime minister François Bayrou accused Italy of “tax dumping”, an allegation that Giorgia Meloni dismissed as “utterly baseless”.

Italy is not fully replacing Dubai, said Eastern Eye, but it has become a “strategic second home for global elites”. Experts believe the Italian city “offers a compelling alternative for those prioritising European stability”.

Is Viktor Orban about to lose power? Why are stalking offences on the rise? And would you choose to be dissolved after death?

Olly Mann and The Week delve behind the headlines and debate what really matters from the past seven days.

A podcast for curious, open-minded people, The Week Unwrapped delivers fresh perspectives on politics, culture, technology and business. It makes for a lively, enlightening discussion, ranging from the serious to the offbeat. Previous topics have included whether solar engineering could refreeze the Arctic, why funerals are going out of fashion, and what kind of art you can use to pay your tax bill.

You can subscribe to The Week Unwrapped wherever you get your podcasts:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• Global Player

The deep, blue sea is becoming deeper — in color, that is. Climate change, along with human development, has reduced how much light can filter through the water. Reduced light can significantly disrupt the marine food chain as well as lead to the large-scale worsening of climate change.

Zoning issues

Ocean darkening occurs when “changes in the optical properties of the oceans reduce the depth to which sufficient light penetrates to facilitate biological processes guided by sunlight and moonlight,” said a 2025 study published in the journal Global Change Biology. The color shift can make the water look more opaque. The part of the ocean that sunlight is able to penetrate is called the photic zone and it is “home to 90% of marine species,” said the World Economic Forum. Organisms like phytoplankton also “convert sunlight and CO2 into energy, producing nearly half the planet’s oxygen and absorbing vast amounts of carbon emissions” in the photic zone.

Rather than just some patches of darkening, the phenomenon has affected “large, connected regions,” Tim Smyth, a marine scientist at Plymouth Marine Laboratory and co-author of the study, said to New Scientist. “Roughly one‑fifth of the world’s oceans have darkened in some way.” Already, the depth of the photic zone has reduced by more than 10% “across 9% of the global ocean,” said the study.

In coastal areas, darkening is “closely linked to changes in the rivers that flow into the sea,” Smyth said. “Shifts in land use affect what becomes dissolved or suspended in the water, which, in turn, alters the optical quality of the water entering the ocean.” In addition, “fertilizers used in industrial agriculture are washed into rivers, stimulating phytoplankton growth,” which reduces “how deeply light can penetrate the water column.”

However, darkening is not limited to the coast. The open ocean has also increased in opacity, which “may be linked to shifts in phytoplankton blooms driven by climate change.” There have been “rising ocean temperatures, more frequent marine heatwaves and changes in salinity in some regions.” Such changes “influence large‑scale ocean circulation patterns.”

Light direction

Dark oceans are bad news and the consequences have already begun to appear. As the photic zone shrinks, “many marine species are forced to move closer to the surface in order to survive,” said Diario AS. This “pushes large numbers of organisms into a much smaller space, increasing competition for food, raising biological stress and leaving them far more exposed to predators, including human fishing vessels.”

Along with disrupting the marine food chain, ocean darkening hinders the ocean’s ability to perform photosynthesis, weakening the “ocean’s role as a carbon sink, its natural capacity to capture and store the carbon dioxide that warms the planet.” If the ocean isn’t helping to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, climate change will worsen at a faster rate.

Some of the main culprits of ocean darkening are “sediment runoff from agriculture, deforestation and development,” especially in coastal regions, said the World Economic Forum. Improved land management can play a large role in reducing the level of darkening. This includes reducing fertilizer use as well as encouraging conservation efforts. In the open ocean, the problem is much more difficult to tackle as “even if global emissions dropped to net zero tomorrow, the ocean would take decades, if not centuries, to respond,” said Smyth. The good news is that the ocean “still has a remarkable capacity to heal itself. Give marine ecosystems a little room to recover and they often respond with surprising speed.”

As part of AI company Anthropic’s Project Glasswing initiative, the new general-purpose model Mythos is uniquely powerful in the artificial intelligence industry and is causing concern among even people who are normally trusting of AI. The company, which also makes the AI model Claude, has claimed that Mythos is currently too advanced for public release, and is instead entrusting the model to cybersecurity experts for the time being. Some are worried this could pave the way for even more nefariousness in the AI space.

‘New era of hacking’

Mythos’ AI programming is able to find potential weaknesses in cybersecurity, and it can “detect thousands of high- and critical-severity bugs and software defects, with vulnerabilities identified in most major operating systems and web browsers,” said NBC News. Some of these vulnerabilities “had been undiscovered for decades,” according to Anthropic’s experts. The company found that Mythos’ “cybersecurity capabilities in particular were surprisingly advanced” compared to similar general-purpose AI models.

But there are also fears that Mythos “could usher in a new era of hacking and cybersecurity,” said NBC News. Mythos is “capable of advanced reasoning,” which could allow it to “identify and exploit a growing number of software vulnerabilities” if it were to fall into the wrong hands. To stave off these fears, Anthropic is allowing certain tech firms to access Mythos. But the company “does not have plans yet to release Mythos to the general public,“ said Bloomberg, a move that will ensure the AI ends up “in the hands of defenders first,” officials with Anthropic said.

The tech firms are expected to use Mythos as part of a project called Glasswing to “hunt for flaws in their products and share findings with industry peers,” said Bloomberg. It is a notable change because it will be the “first time a leading AI lab has built a frontier model and simultaneously decided the public cannot use it,” said Forbes. Anthropic’s position remains “straightforward: The model’s cyber capabilities are too dangerous for general availability.”

‘Humanity’s most devious behaviors’

In addittion to hacking vulnerabilities, some experts are concerned about Mythos’ capabilities. Anthropic released a safety evaluation for Mythos that shows a “striking leap in scores on many evaluation benchmarks,” the company said. In some instances, the evaluation “reads like a thriller about an AI that has learned some of humanity’s most devious behaviors,” said Axios.

At least one of the tests performed by Anthropic showed Mythos “acting like a cutthroat executive,” said Axios, doing things like “turning a competitor into a dependent wholesale customer, threatening to cut off supply to control pricing and keeping extra supplier shipments it hadn’t paid for.” The AI had instances where it “used a prohibited method to get an answer, then tried to ‘re-solve’ it to avoid detection,” though these were limited to “less than 0.001% of interactions.”

These issues have not stopped companies from working with Mythos, as “approximately 40 organizations involved in the design, maintenance or operation of computer systems are said to have joined Glasswing,” said The Guardian. This includes major firms like Amazon, Apple, Google, JPMorganChase and Microsoft. And while Anthropic has previously sparred with the Trump administration about its implementation in the Defense Department, the company has also “had discussions with the U.S. government regarding Mythos.”

‘What the verdict against Meta and Google says about the way we live now’

Jeannie Suk Gersen at The New Yorker

For “decades, the understanding was that social media companies were essentially immune from legal liability,” says Jeannie Suk Gersen. If parents “have in the past felt they were competing with bad influences on children — questionable friends, shady neighbors or profanity-laced music among them — the core anxiety in this era is that algorithms have made it so that there is no competition at all, undermining parents’ opportunity to steer their children right.”

Read more

‘In Texas and beyond, a political impulse: If you don’t like it, leave.’

Mark Z. Barabak at the Los Angeles Times

There is “no end of hurdles” that “would have to be surmounted for a partial Texas-New Mexico merger to occur,” says Mark Z. Barabak. But the “impulse to bust up, break away and move on is as old as America itself and, at the same time, as fresh as the latest provocation to pass the lips of the nation’s frothing commander-in-chief.” Secession “has long been the dream of dissenters, of the discontented and those who feel put upon.”

Read more

‘Freedom itself is at stake in Hungary’

Martin Wolf at the Financial Times

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is “not a man of small influence,” and “for many so-called ‘national conservatives,’ notably in the U.S., he defines a successful and admirable form of right-wing politics,” says Martin Wolf. That “makes the parliamentary elections on Sunday far more important than the modest size of Hungary would suggest.” The “defeat of the man who embraced the notion of ‘illiberal democracy’ might mean a great deal for the survival of the threatened ‘liberal’ version.”

Read More

‘Less than 10% now smoke, but we’re still far from finished’

Mario Danek at The Hill

The U.S. “crossed a milestone that sounds like the beginning of the end for cigarette smoking: Fewer than 10% of American adults now smoke,” says Mario Danek. But “percentages can obscure as much as they reveal.” Even at “9.9%, that still represents tens of millions of Americans who continue to smoke.” The “progress is real and should be applauded. But the harder question is what it will take to reach those still smoking and whether we’re ready for that.”

Read more

President Donald Trump loves raging against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, regularly chiding the military partnership for alleged financial delinquencies while at the same time boosting the interests of NATO’s primary antagonist, Russia. Now, as the U.S.’s war on Iran continues, NATO’s ostensible neutrality in that conflict has prompted him to renew his threat of leaving the organization altogether. Trump often tries to dictate reality by presidential fiat, but the legal process for leaving NATO is largely out of his hands and in Congress.’ The result is a Trump who’s more constrained on paper but not without a toolbox of other, less absolute options.

Why can’t Trump just leave NATO?

Trump has often threatened to leave the military alliance, but he has his own Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to thank for the legal inability to do so. In 2023, Congress enacted what “appears to be the first statute prohibiting the president from unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty (specifically, the North Atlantic Treaty),” said the government’s Congressional Research Service in a February 2026 report. This “might be understood as a rejection” of the position that presidents possess “exclusive power over treaty withdrawal.”

The bill ensures presidents cannot exit NATO “without rigorous debate and consideration by the U.S. Congress with the input of the American people,” said co-sponsor Rubio in a statement on Senator Tim Kaine’s site; Kaine (D-Va.) was the amendment’s other sponsor. Before this, any member nation could exit the treaty one year after notifying the U.S., which would then “inform the governments of the other parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation,” said the NATO charter.

Per the bill, a bipartisan effort for which Rubio partnered with Kaine and others from across the aisle, a president may only exit NATO “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the senators present concur or pursuant to an Act of Congress.” This is a virtual impossibility, given the Democrats’ current holdings in the upper chamber.

The 2023 effort was “spurred by worries that Trump, if he returned to power, might try to quit the alliance,” said The Washington Post. Fast forward three years, and Trump “insists he would be able to do it anyway,” said Deutsche Welle.

What can he do then?

While it’s possible a constitutional challenge to Rubio’s 2023 bill would “likely favor the power of a president,” there are still “plenty of ways” Trump could “kneecap” the treaty “without leaving” or complying with the congressional restrictions, said DW. Even without an “official exit,” Trump’s “increasingly hostile stance toward the alliance may leave it weakened,” said CBS News.

If other member nations “can’t trust” that the U.S. will honor the treaty’s Article 5 mutual defense pact, then the alliance is “already broken in the way that matters most,” said political scientist Ian Bremmer on X. As soon as the group’s mutual defense pact is “questioned,” NATO “loses its potency” as a Russian deterrent, said Politico. Trump has, in that respect, “turned doubting NATO into official policy.”

The president is also “considering a plan to punish” some NATO member nations he deemed “unhelpful” during the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, said The Wall Street Journal. This would involve relocating some of the 84,000 American troops stationed in Europe and deploying them to “countries that were more supportive,” including Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

Trump could also withdraw American military assets entirely and shut off funding for NATO operations. Or if he wants to be “very dramatic,” he might even “decide not to staff the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe,” a post traditionally reserved for American officers, said DW.

The president could “just downgrade our participation,” said Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon official who oversaw Europe and NATO policy, to Politico. He could skip summits, and the secretary of defense “won’t go to defense ministerials.”

With the “language” of its 2023 bill, Congress has “prevented” a “total” and “formal withdrawal from NATO,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to Politico. But the U.S. could “still be in NATO” with a president grasping “many different levers” so that the country’s impact would nevertheless be “diminished significantly.”

In a world full of influencers and trending aesthetics, figuring out your personal style has become both easier and overwhelming. While there is nothing wrong with taking inspiration from fashion icons, finding your signature aesthetic requires a touch of introspection. Here are some tips for navigating the personal journey toward landing on your own, very individual style.

Start with your closet

Your first thought may be to buy new clothes, but before you start refreshing your closet, take stock of what you already have. Begin from the “left side of your wardrobe and commit to wearing each item every day,” CNN said. Consider whether to “save it for evening wear or chuck it altogether.” This will give you a “clearer view of what does and doesn’t work, as well as what you’re missing.”

Everyone has a go-to outfit, “something you know works and makes you feel good,” Vitor Arruda, a personal stylist and content creator, said to The Guardian. Once you identify that outfit, “figure out what it is that makes you like it so much,” the outlet said. After you figure that out, you can search for “clothes that look or feel similar.”

Go window shopping

Shopping sprees can be fun, but they aren’t “always productive to finding your style,” said The Every Girl. There are “crowds and long lines for dressing rooms,” and sometimes the “chaos can make you pick up things you don’t actually love.”

Instead, spend your time “looking at clothes, not buying clothes.” Pick a day and “commit yourself to not swiping your credit card.” Instead, spend a “no-pressure day getting a better grasp of what you like.” You can also “test drive new pieces” by using a clothing rental service like Armoire, Nuuly and Rent the Runway. This way, you can “bring some of your style inspiration to life” without needing to “commit to new pieces that might not actually resonate with you in the long run."

Make a mood board

Mood boards and Pinterest are great ways to visualize your style ideas. If you’re a “tactile person,” you can “absolutely print and paste pictures, words, vibes together,” said The Good Trade. If you’re more tech-savvy, you can do this in Photoshop or Canva. Laying your inspirations out visually is a “great way to see commonalities in who and what you are drawn to.” Any kind of media or color swatches that catch your eye can be included. Once you put your vision board together, “you can see what aligns with what you already own and what feels far off.”

Don’t hyperfixate on your body

Many of us are conditioned to “believe that our body shape and size dictate what we wear,” said The Guardian. But this undermines the premise of personal style. Fashion advice devoted to dressing for your body type “creates a misconception that your body is wrong or that you have to hide certain parts,” Arruda said. When you do this, “you’re dressing with shame and fear,” which will “never allow you to be your true self and develop a style.”

It’s hard to “build perspective” when your “top concern is that every garment you wear makes it clear exactly how your waist is shaped,” or if you’re “worried about looking short in a long coat,” Lizzie Wheeler, a vintage expert, said to The Guardian. Don’t be afraid to experiment with shape, volume and proportion.

Learn to ride the wave

Personal style isn’t “something you find overnight,” Amanda Murray, a creative consultant, said to CNN. “It’s something you arrive at.” Over time, through “living, failing, heartbreak, love, wanting, shedding,” you will “understand what feels true on your body and what doesn’t.”

Your aesthetic is not just a reflection of your current life but “the life you’re aspiring to or think you deserve,” Jalil Johnson, writer of the fashion Substack Consider Yourself Cultured, said to CNN. Much like our “ever-evolving and changing lives,” our style “evolves too, and that evolution is not only natural but necessary.”

Several thousand people have been killed in Iran since the U.S.-Israeli war broke out, and the conflict has created an additional humanitarian crisis: delays and shortages of medical supplies. Hospitals and health care clinics throughout the Middle East are reporting critical lapses in supplies, which experts fear could lead to a surge in deaths even as the U.S. agreed to a temporary ceasefire.

What did the commentators say?

With the war in a state of flux, humanitarian centers “across the Middle East, Asia and Africa are facing the risk of running out of basic medication and food” due to the “restriction of shipments in the Strait of Hormuz,” said NPR. Some of this food, especially dry and canned goods, can “be stored for a long time,” Bob Kitchen, the vice president of emergencies and humanitarian action with the International Rescue Committee, said to NPR. But health care supplies are a different story, as most of the “medicines or treatments for malnutrition will expire.”

Many of these countries rely almost entirely on foreign aid for medical supplies. Sudan, for example, has “no manufacturing capacity and is entirely dependent on imported medication,” Omer Sharfy of Save the Children in Sudan said to NPR. This means health care workers “won’t be able to find alternatives in the local market.” The war has also “disrupted the movement of medical supplies from WHO’s global logistics hub in Dubai,” said the World Health Organization. By March 11, just 12 days into the war, over “50 emergency supply requests, intended to benefit over 1.5 million people across 25 countries,” were “affected, resulting in significant backlogs.”

Even countries far away from the conflict are bearing the brunt of these scarcities. Fears of syringe and IV shortages in South Korea are “spreading through Korea’s health care sector, prompting authorities to urge medical providers to refrain from stockpiling,” said The Korea Times. The problem is not that the Persian Gulf countries are “major drug producers. They’re not,” said health care news nonprofit Healthbeat. But these nations do “form ‘a critical pharmaceutical transit hub,’ where drugs and their basic ingredients from India, Europe and China routinely pass before heading to Africa, Asia and the United States.”

What next?

Some are hopeful that the two-week ceasefire, announced by President Donald Trump and initially agreed to by Iran, will allow the flow of medicine to restart. But while the U.S. has backed a ceasefire, Israel has continued its assault on the region, carrying out a series of strikes in Lebanon. Iran reclosed the strait in “response to Israeli attacks against the Hezbollah militant group,” said The Associated Press. Iran later accused the U.S. of also violating the deal and claimed that a long-term ceasefire was “unreasonable.”

Even before the strait was closed again, experts say it is unlikely its opening would have made a huge difference in moving global medical supplies. The ceasefire deal would not lead to a “‘mass exodus’ of ships through the Strait of Hormuz,” said The Guardian. The deal also allows Iran and Oman to “charge a fee of up to $2 million a ship on vessels transiting through the strait,” which could further limit the amount of supplies that are able to pass.

With no end to the larger skirmish in sight, fears persist that the shipment of medical supplies could remain at risk. All of these events are happening in an industry that was “decimated by funding cuts from the United States and Europe last year,” said The Washington Post, and is “now straining to meet demand that grows with each additional day of war.”

We’ve recently checked off another year of inaction on the sinking ship known as Social Security, said Brenton Smith in MarketWatch. New projections from the Congressional Budget Office reveal that the trust fund will now run out of money by 2032, “resulting in benefit cuts of 22.5% in 2033.” As they’ve done for the past 40 years, our lawmakers are likely to continue to react to this slow-moving disaster “with the rhetoric of empty politics” and no real solutions. Voters, too, have consistently “responded with systemic denial.” Seniors continue to “recycle the tired cliché of indifference, ‘We paid for our benefits,’” and resist any effort to protect future generations. A 2% increase in the payroll tax in 2005 would have extended the program for another 75 years. Now the cost to achieve the same result is 4%. “If fixing Social Security were easy, it would already be done.” But hard choices must be made.

Here’s one way to “help restore sanity to a program millions of Americans depend on,” said The Washington Post in an editorial. “There’s no reason” Social Security should be sending $100,000 checks to wealthy Americans. But the way the program is constituted, couples who have continually met the taxable maximum on their earnings can become eligible for the maximum benefit, upward of $101,000. The rising costs of living will only “keep boosting payments” as time goes on. A “Six Figure Limit,” as proposed recently by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “is the right idea.” A $100,000 cap would erase “one-quarter of the shortfalls and save $190 billion over the next decade,” said Shawn Tully in Fortune. But that would only delay insolvency by seven years. “It will take additional modest, and also more radical, fixes to bridge the yawning gaps.”

“OK, now take a breath,” said Pat Regnier in Bloomberg. Solving the shortfall may come down to a “nail-biter,” but few experts expect Congress to allow dramatic cuts to this “wildly popular” program. If the Six Figure Limit isn’t enough, other solutions “are simple in terms of math if not politics.” Lawmakers can make up for the shortfall with taxes, such as by raising the amount of income subject to a payroll tax (currently $184,500). Or they can reduce benefits “by raising the age for full retirement” again, or “changing the formulas for calculating benefits or cost-of-living adjustments.” But those nearing retirement should not panic. Even if the trust fund runs out in 2032, “major benefit reductions likely would be gradual and not kick in for at least a decade.” Social Security is going to last, but “having an aging society is expensive no matter what, and it’s going to leave a mark somewhere in the coming decades.”

The fuel crisis sparked by the war in Iran has reached the airline industry, said Will Gottsegen in The Atlantic. In addition to oil and gas, much of the world’s supply of kerosene—the base product for jet fuel—passes through the Strait of Hormuz. But with the waterway effectively closed since early March, jet fuel prices have soared by more than 58%. Airlines, “which have always had razor-thin margins,” immediately felt the strain. They have already needed to reroute many flight paths away from the war-torn Middle East, “using up more fuel and putting more pressure on airlines to compensate elsewhere.” Travelers are now seeing the turmoil show up in their ticket prices. United Airlines chief executive Scott Kirby this week warned fliers to book their “summer travel as soon as possible, before prices go even higher.”

The jet fuel crisis is so dire that “airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights” if the war drags on, said Christopher Jasper in The Telegraph (U.K.). There is particular concern about the ability for some planes to refuel after long-haul flights to southeast Asia, a major Gulf oil importer, “potentially leaving aircraft stranded” at far-flung locales. “Because no one has a crystal ball, what this all means for travelers is up in the air,” said Aarian Marshall in Wired. But if the war continues for weeks or even months, “bigger changes—and inconveniences—might be headed to an airline near you.” Carriers could raise ticket prices, eliminate less profitable routes, or experiment with new fees—as they did during 2008’s “major and sustained” fuel shock, when charging passengers for luggage became the norm.

Wondering about the war’s impact on vacations “might seem distasteful,” said Andrea Felsted in Bloomberg. But it’s a serious problem for the tourism industry, which was “already at risk from a slowdown following the post-Covid travel boom.” Certain tourist spots like Dubai, the fifth-most visited travel destination last year, are a no-go now with the war happening. Another important global tourist spot, Mexico, is simultaneously witnessing “a wave of violence” following the killing of a Jalisco cartel leader, which will undoubtedly give travelers more pause. “While the super-wealthy will continue to travel, the simply comfortable might vacation closer to home, or not at all, particularly if the cost of energy deepens the cost-of-living crisis.”

The travel industry’s problems run deeper than the cost of jet fuel, said Ganesh Sitaraman in The New York Times. In recent weeks, travelers have endured thousands of canceled flights, hours-long lines at TSA checkpoints, and multiple safety crises, including a tragic crash at LaGuardia Airport. “Flying hasn’t always been like this,” and the culprit for America’s mess in the skies is deregulation. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 eliminated route and price regulation, setting the stage for the current era of “fortress hubs dominated by just one airline” at the
expense of smaller communities, as well as the relentless cost cutting that has made flying miserable. “Politicians need to learn the lessons of hundreds of years of infrastructure policy” and embrace “a regulatory and industrial policy that will once again make our air transportation system the envy of the world.”

What happened

Rex Heuermann, the Long Island architect long suspected of the so-called Gilgo Beach killings between 1993 and 2010, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to strangling seven women and dismembering some of them. He also confessed to murdering an eighth woman, Karen Vergata, in 1996. Heuermann initially pleaded not guilty following his 2023 arrest. The remains of several of the women were found near Long Island’s Gilgo Beach in 2010 and 2011.

Who said what

Wednesday’s guilty pleas “bring finality to a case that bedeviled investigators, tormented victims’ families and tantalized a true-crime obsessed public for years,” The Associated Press said. The investigation was long “delayed by dysfunction, disarray and corruption,” The New York Times said. It finally ended with Wednesday’s “extraordinary proceeding,” where Heuermann “maintained a normal demeanor, as if having a morning chat,” while confessing to serial murders. He “walked among us play-acting as a normal suburban dad” while “obsessively targeting innocent women for death,” Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney said at a post-hearing press conference.

What next?

Heuermann will be sentenced in June to life in prison with no possibility of parole. As part of his plea deal, he also agreed to be interviewed by the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Units profilers, potentially helping “investigators hunt down others with similarly violent minds,” the Times said.

What happened

The Justice Department on Wednesday told the House Oversight Committee that ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi will not honor its bipartisan subpoena to sit for a deposition on her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, citing her firing last week. The notification “set off frustration” among lawmakers “clamoring for answers” about why she had not, “in their view, fully complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act,” USA Today said.

Who said what

Bondi “cannot escape accountability,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) said on social media. The subpoena “was for Bondi by name, not by title.” If Bondi “defies the subpoena, we will begin contempt charges,” Rep. Robert Garcia (Calif.), the committee’s top Democrat, said in a statement. “The survivors deserve justice.”

Mace and four other Republicans “joined Democrats to force the subpoena” over the objection of committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), and lawmakers were “concerned” Bondi “would try to avoid the deposition” even before President Donald Trump fired her, The New York Times said. Comer last month promised to honor the subpoena, but according to sources, he and Bondi “had been quietly working together to avoid the deposition.”

What next?

The committee will contact Bondi’s “personal counsel” about “scheduling her deposition,” a spokesperson said.

What happened

The two-week ceasefire announced by President Donald Trump and Iranian officials earlier this week faltered Wednesday as the U.S., Iran and Israel argued over whether it covered the Israel-Hezbollah fight in Lebanon. Iran also accused the U.S. of violating several tenets of the agreement, and closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to Israeli strikes on Lebanon that killed at least 254 people and wounded 1,100 more.

Who said what

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, a key mediator of the ceasefire, said it applied to “everywhere, including Lebanon.” Israel said Lebanon was not included, and President Donald Trump agreed Wednesday. U.S. allies, including the leaders of France, Australia and Spain, said Lebanon needed to be covered by the ceasefire.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Lebanon was included, and the “ceasefire terms are clear and explicit: the U.S. must choose — ceasefire or continued war via Israel.” Vice President JD Vance called the dispute a “legitimate misunderstanding.” Iran likely “thought that the ceasefire included Lebanon, and it just didn’t,” he told reporters, adding that Israel nonetheless “actually offered to be — frankly, to check themselves a little bit in Lebanon.”

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “faced swift criticism from political opponents on the left and right” over the U.S.-Iran deal, Politico said. “The ceasefire stopped the Israeli military campaign much sooner than Israel wanted,” and while Netanyahu had “no choice but to go along,” he can claim ongoing Lebanon strikes “as a victory with the Israeli public.”

What next?

Despite Wednesday’s “dueling threats to resume attacks if the ceasefire fell apart,” The New York Times said, Trump “seemed determined to plow ahead” with diplomacy, saying Vance would lead a delegation to Islamabad for peace talks starting Saturday.

For a play that famously ends with the suicides of its two teenage protagonists, Robert Icke’s production of “Romeo & Juliet” feels “outlandishly joyful” and “profoundly alive”, said Alice Saville in The Independent.

Fuelled by fizzing performances from its “duo of stars”, Sadie Sink (from “Stranger Things”) and Noah Jupe (“Hamnet”), this is a “richly emotional, brilliantly intelligent take on a classic – one that’ll plunge a knife into your heart so skilfully that you hardly notice the pain”. Sink, already a Broadway veteran at 23, is “magnificent” – with a “steely passion”, quick wit and unguarded physical abandon, said Nick Curtis in London’s The Standard. And she’s well matched by Jupe, who makes a consummately assured stage debut as a boyish and impetuous Romeo.

The two leads are terrific, agreed Houman Barekat in The New York Times. So sincere and touching are their performances that we almost forgive the quirks that threaten to overbalance the play.

In “Romeo & Juliet”, “fate is a matter of bad timing”: the young lovers are confounded by bad luck as much as warring clans. “Urgent communications don’t get through; realisations come too late.” Icke draws attention to this with a giant digital clock, counting down the hours, that appears above the actors; at times it rewinds, and scenes replay with slight variations. It’s all rather “gimmicky”, generating only a “cheap, slightly hammy suspense”.

There are a lot of distractions in this modern-dress staging, agreed Clive Davis in The Times. It too often lapses into broad comedy; at times it seems as if we’ve stumbled into “an entirely new play called ‘Two Geezers of Verona’”. Kasper Hilton-Hille’s Mercutio “can’t stop baring his bottom”, and there’s “precious little sense of a city at war with itself”.

It would have made for a more elegant production had Icke not made so many directorial “interventions”, said Andrzej Lukowski in Time Out – but “auteurs are gonna auteur”. And the cast is truly excellent: from the leads to Clare Perkins’ Nurse, and Clark Gregg as Juliet’s father Capulet, through to the minor characters. Reined in a little bit, this could have been an all-time great “Romeo & Juliet”. Instead, “we’ll have to settle for one that’s merely very good”.

Harold Pinter Theatre, London SW1. Until 20 June.

“No other film this year will make you feel as uncomfortable as ‘The Drama’,” said Clarisse Loughrey in The Independent. It’s a “provocative and compulsively watchable” romcom – albeit one that “obliterates the very meaning of the word”.

Zendaya and Robert Pattinson star as Emma and Charlie, a pair of gorgeous young Bostonians who meet in a café, fall in love and are now in the run-up to their wedding. So far so good, until “an idle, drunken conversation” one night with their closest friends (Mamoudou Athie and Alana Haim) leads to a round of confessions about the worst thing they’ve ever done. It’s all laughed off – until Emma’s turn. Without giving away any spoilers, “what she says next immediately sucks the air from the room”.

People are going a “little cuckoo” over this movie, said David Fear in Rolling Stone. Emma’s bombshell is “the point of no return for the characters” – and, for some audiences, the moment “The Drama” “loses them”. It certainly walks “a thin line between thought-provoking and trolling”; you do wonder “if the sudden introduction of an issue much, much bigger than the film itself isn’t simply a shock value masquerading as shock therapy”.

The film is also tonally uneven, said Nicholas Barber on BBC Culture. Oddly, it devotes more energy to “awkward cringe comedy” than to the characters and their feelings; it’s hard to believe, for instance, that Emma and Charlie would only have “a few faltering chats” about her confession, rather than discussing it properly.

Still, ‘The Drama’ is “beautifully made”, and most people who see it “will end up having in-depth debates, even if the characters themselves don’t manage it. The first great cinematic conversation-starter of 2026 is here.”

Alan Bennett once said that “if you live to be 90 in England and can still eat a boiled egg, they think you deserve the Nobel Prize”. Well, here he is at 91, serving up “another volume of his punctiliously kept and endlessly diverting diaries”, said Nick Curtis in The Independent.

“Enough Said” covers the years 2016 to 2024: “the pandemic, the rise of populism, and the likely last spurt of his formidable creative output”, with the play “Allelujah!”, the film “The Choral” and the novella “Killing Time”.

The general theme is of loss and “diminution”, as deafness, lack of mobility, cataracts and other medical problems intrude.

The “dramatis personae of his life” are dying off: Maggie Smith, his “adored” friend and collaborator; Jonathan Miller, an old friend and rival from his “Beyond the Fringe” days; and Queen Elizabeth II, his subject in the play “A Question of Attribution”. Revolted by Brexit and Boris Johnson, Bennett feels that his version of England is dying too, “its libraries closing and its churches unappreciated”. But he and his partner Rupert Thomas “still rummage through junk shops”, “frequent out-of-the-way churches” and eat fish and chips.

More than once, Bennett “apologises to the reader for saying things he’s said many times before”, said Philip Hensher in The Spectator. And he certainly does often return “to his most treasured material – family, and his exemplary standing as the grammar school boy who brought off an Oxford first”. (“Does it mean you’ve come top?” his mother asked when the results arrived.)

His memories of his Yorkshire boyhood are “wonderfully evocative of a lost world”. Rather less rewarding “are his highly conventional opinions” on politics, which “are precisely the same” as those of every other millionaire Londoner “living between Primrose Hill and Hampstead Garden Suburb”.

But his “relish” for spoken language is still there. He notes a woman in a Yorkshire newsagent, seeing news of a lightning strike, admitting cheerfully: “I love it when they have it nasty down south.”

Even as a young man, Bennett was a bit of a fogey, said Johanna Thomas-Corr in The Sunday Times. Back in the 1980s, he wrote about the elderly “with piercing tenderness” in his “Talking Heads” series. “So old age feels like a homecoming, a phase for which he has been practising all of his life.” Yet he’s still suffering “adolescent doubts”. When he enters a room full of people, he feels about 16. He worries about whether he has made his mark; he fears being remembered as a “chronicler of the toasted teacake”. “In an age of curated self-belief, his vulnerabilities feel refreshing, his reticence almost radical.”

The countdown has begun to the introduction of new rules on how pensions are treated after someone dies.

In the “biggest shake-up of inheritance rules in a generation”, said The Telegraph, the value of a pension will, from April 2027, form part of someone’s estate after they die.

This could mean an inheritance tax bill for one in five households, said The Times, so “the countdown is on to protect their family wealth”.

What is the pensions death tax?

Putting money into a pension has traditionally been “one of the most tax-efficient ways to pass wealth on to loved ones”, said Rest Less. But any unused money in the pot from next year will fall into the scope of inheritance tax, “potentially reducing the amount families receive when someone dies”.

The proposals were announced in the October 2024 Budget by Chancellor Rachel Reeves. They aim to address concerns, said Dentons, that pensions were “increasingly being used as vehicles for inheritance planning, rather than for their primary purpose of providing retirement income”.

Who will be affected?

Inheritance tax is paid on the value of an estate above £325,000. Additionally, there is a £175,000 allowance for your main residence.

The tax “isn’t going to be an issue for most people”, said Royal London, but you may be affected if you own your own home and the value of your pension is added due to the potential total amounts.

The changes will still affect “most individuals” who have unused pension benefits when they die, said Tax Adviser. This means pensions can no longer be relied on as an “efficient means of passing” on wealth such as to your children. This could apply to millions who were previously free of it.

Inheritance tax receipts have already been rising due to “years of property price growth, asset inflation and frozen tax thresholds”, said The Times, so including pensions “will accelerate the trend”.

Beyond the potential charge, “of greatest concern”, said Wedlake Bell, is that payment of inheritance tax on pension assets will remain six months from the end of the month when the deceased died and interest on unpaid inheritance tax is currently running at 7.75%. The government has rejected calls to give bereaved families more time to pay.

Many families could face paying interest, said MoneyWeek, “due to administrative jams” involved in finding pension information and getting the right valuations.

How to prepare for the changes

If you are retired “it might make sense” to prioritise taking money from your pension before other assets, said Grovely Financial, especially if your goal is “inheritance tax mitigation”.

Another option, said MoneyWeek, is to “give away money while you are alive” so you can watch your loved ones enjoy it.

Up to £3,000 per tax year can be given as a financial gift, and tax-free gifts can be made to your children worth up to £5,000 for a wedding or civil partnership or £2,500 for a grandchild or great-grandchild.

Any money given outside of the gifting allowances is tax-free as long as you live for seven years after transfer. Gifting allowances can be used to pass cash on to loved ones, or alternatively, for extra net income.

Alternatively, there are life insurance policies that pay out to cover the cost of inheritance tax. They work in a similar way to other life insurance products: you pay premiums while you are alive “and there will be a payout when you die”, said The Independent.