As the resumption of the Iran war escalates, with Washington and Tehran trading a deluge of strikes, President Donald Trump has again threatened to attack sites linked to Iran’s nuclear programme.

In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump was asked if he believes Iran has moved nuclear centrifuges into Pickaxe Mountain, an underground facility near one of the country's primary enrichment facilities.

“They may have, we don’t have it on record,” Trump said. “It doesn’t mean anything unless they have the material [uranium]. We follow the material, that’s where the action is.”

“We’ll be hitting that area, probably pretty soon, and there’s not a thing they can do about it,” he added, having earlier vowed that “any site where they’re even thinking about nuclear, we’ll be hitting it very powerfully."

This is far from the first time Trump has threatened to strike Pickaxe Mountain, known in Iran as Kuh-e Kolang Gaz La.

The resumption of the Iran war on July 7, just weeks after the signing of the interim cease-fire agreement, has largely focused on the continued struggle over the Strait of Hormuz.

But the other long-standing prevalent issue surrounds Iran’s nuclear capabilities, as Trump has repeatedly stated that Tehran must never be allowed to build or procure a nuclear weapon.

“We're going to take out Pickaxe Mountain. Tell the Iranians to be ready,” Trump said in a July 13 interview, once again bringing focus to the nuclear-linked site.

Amid the escalating threats and tensions, here’s what to know about the Iranian facility.

What is Pickaxe Mountain?

The underground site is situated around 220 km (140 ‌miles) south of Tehran and 2 km (1.2 miles) from the Natanz nuclear complex.

In June last year, the U.S. joined Israel in launching strikes on three key Iranian nuclear sites—an action Trump said had “completely and totally obliterated” the targeted facilities.

Natanz was among the facilities hit, as it was believed to house highly-enriched uranium. The entrances to the nuclear site were targeted again in the early days of the Iran war which started on Feb. 28.

During last year's 12-day war, the nuclear facility outside the city of Isfahan, about 80 miles away, was also bombed. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said tunnels at that facility are likely where a cache of some 970 pounds of enriched uranium is being stored.

According to the U.S.-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), the tunnel facility under construction at Pickaxe Mountain has not been previously targeted in either June 2025 or the 2026 strikes, “aside from the destruction of a vehicle on a nearby spoil pile, which we believe was most likely associated with air defense.”

Construction of the Pickaxe Mountain facility started in 2020, after a fire at Natanz, which Iran's nuclear body argued had been caused by an act of sabotage. Iran at the time said the underground halls were intended to replace the destroyed above-ground advanced centrifuge assembly facility at the Natanz site, according to ISIS.

“It's a very deep facility. We don't know exactly how deep, but it's very likely at least 100 meters deep,” James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, tells TIME. “There's just no way to destroy this facility. The best one can do is try to collapse the tunnel entrances.”

Read More: Where Iran’s Nuclear Program Goes From Here

Is Pickaxe Mountain a functioning site?

Trump said earlier this month that the U.S. is watching Pickaxe Mountain “closely" and doesn't see any activity there.

ISIS’ assessment, based on satellite imagery, is that the facility is not yet operational, but construction continues.

According to the think tank, it “remains unclear when Pickaxe Mountain could be operational… It is also unclear if Iran still plans on installing a large-scale assembly facility, given the destruction of Iran’s centrifuge program, including Iran’s ability to make centrifuge components needed for an assembly plant.”

Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, has said there is no nuclear action at the site, insisting any of Iran’s nuclear activities have “been fully declared to the IAEA, in accordance with its safeguards obligations.”

“Washington’s obsessive focus on Kolang Kouh, where no nuclear activity is taking place, is nothing more than a fabricated pretext for aggression, destruction, and sabotage,” he said on July 22.

If Iran starts to rebuild its centrifuge manufacturing capability, “it could plan to install a smaller centrifuge assembly facility in Pickaxe Mountain able to serve a nuclear weapons program,” per ISIS.

Experts tells TIME it remains a "legitimate concern” that Pickaxe Mountain could potentially be used for “more than just secure storage.”

“The concern is, whether or not it was developed as an enrichment plant, the fear is now that it would be used as one,” says Acton.

Rafael Grossi, chief of the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog IAEA, told PBS in March that Iran had previously “announced its intention to have nuclear activity” at Pickaxe Mountain, referring to it as “part of their quite systematic intention to put their most sensitive facilities underground.”

Grossi said the IAEA inspectors had not been granted access to the Pickaxe Mountain site.

Additionally, the nuclear watchdog has been unable to independently verify Iran’s centrifuge capacity and production since 2021, so Tehran may have reserves despite strikes over the last two years.

With the destruction of Iran’s other centrifuge related facilities, “the Pickaxe Mountain complex is a potential candidate site for any Iranian reconstitution of its centrifuge program, from centrifuge component production to centrifuge assembly to uranium enrichment,” ISIS stated in November 2025.

Read More: See the Full Text of the 14-Point Agreement Between the U.S. and Iran

The row over Iran's nuclear capabilities

Shortly before the U.S. military conducted its 13th consecutive evening of strikes against Iran on Thursday, Trump again accused Tehran of having “evil intentions” and insisted “we cannot let them, ever, even think about having a nuclear weapon.”

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei in April vowed to protect its nuclear and missile capabilities in direct defiance of Trump. He said his country will defend its “fundamental and modern technologies—from nano and bio to nuclear and missile—as their national capital and will guard them like their maritime, land, and air borders.”

Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is “peaceful,” but concerns remain among Western leaders.

The Memorandum of Understanding signed on June 17 asserts that Iran can never develop a nuclear weapon—a promise the regime has made in the past. The agreement states that the U.S. and Iran will address Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched material, “with the minimum methodology to be down blending on site” under the supervision of inspectors with the IAEA.

The interim agreement laid out the terms of an extended 60-day cease-fire to allow time for technical talks to take place. That deadline is set to expire in mid-August, but the resumption of the war on July 7 has brought the entire agreement into question.

The MoU stipulated that the U.S. and Iran had “agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal.” It also said both countries had “acknowledged the critical importance of the nuclear issues… and expressed their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.”

With the return to active hostilities, it remains to be seen how much progress will be made regarding the nuclear issue during technical talks.

President Donald Trump will be giving a “unifying yet vicious” speech at the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Friday evening, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt previewed.

“The President’s speech will be a combination of unifying yet vicious, and serious yet hilarious, all at the same time, if you can imagine that,” Leavitt told NBC News. “One thing I can assure you, it will be entertaining.”

Last month, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) announced that it was rescheduling its annual dinner to July 24, after its event in April was disrupted by a gunman who charged a security checkpoint at the venue and exchanged fire with law enforcement before he was apprehended.

“The White House Correspondents’ Dinner has served as a celebration of a free press and the vital role of journalism in our democracy for over a century,” WHCA President Weijia Jiang said in a letter to association members last month. “When gunfire interrupted this year’s event, it further clarified the WHCA’s mission to advocate for the freedoms that are protected in the First Amendment.”

“We will not allow an act of violence to have the last word,” she continued.

Jiang said at the time that the July dinner “will feature significantly enhanced safety measures and new access procedures,” and that the event “will be a more intimate gathering.”

The WHCA also announced earlier this week that it will present an award to Secret Service Police Officer Victor Gonzales, who the Secret Service said "heroically engaged the armed suspect, placing himself directly in harm's way” and ended up being “struck in his protective vest.”

“Officer Gonzales played a significant role when he ran toward danger so that thousands of others could make it home safely,” Jiang said in a statement. “His courage stemmed from a dedication to service, which we are looking forward to honoring this week.”

The WHCA said that it would also award the staff of the Washington Hilton, the venue for the April dinner, with the same special recognition at the rescheduled event.

“Even after the men and women of the Washington Hilton experienced a harrowing situation, they continued to take care of guests,” Jiang said. “The WHCA appreciates their professionalism and commitment to service, which was on full display on April 25th. Every member of the team deserves to be recognized for their dedication.”

Trump applauded the WHCA last month for rescheduling the event, calling it “a sign of Strength and Fortitude,” and added that he had once again been invited to speak. The April dinner that was interrupted by gunfire was the first time that Trump, who has had a contentious relationship with the press, had attended the Correspondents’ Dinner as President.

After the shooting in April, Trump revealed that he had initially intended to rip into the media during his speech at the event, but that he would likely not do so now.

“I don’t know if I could ever be as rough as I was going to be tonight,” he said after the Washington Hilton was evacuated the night of the shooting. “I think I’m going to be probably very nice. I’ll be very boring the next time, but we’re going to have a great event.”

After the WHCA announced the rescheduled dinner in June, Trump again suggested that his speech may not be as harsh as the one he planned to deliver in April.

“I don’t know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people, but we will soon find out,” he said on Truth Social. “In any event, it will be a ‘HOT’ ticket!”

The deadline is fast approaching for eligible Amazon Prime subscribers to file a claim to receive a portion of a historic $2.5 billion settlement the company reached with the Federal Trade Commission.

Amazon agreed to the deal last September to settle a lawsuit over allegations that “millions of customers into “unknowingly” enrolling in its paid Amazon Prime service and then made the subscriptions difficult to cancel. 

The settlement requires Amazon to stop those alleged practices and pay heft fines—as well as offering “full relief for the estimated 35 million consumers impacted by unwanted Prime enrollment or deferred cancellation.”

Amazon has denied any wrong-doing. 

"Amazon and our executives have always followed the law and this settlement allows us to move forward and focus on innovating for customers,” the company said in a statement following the settlement announcement. “We work incredibly hard to make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up or cancel their Prime membership, and to offer substantial value for our many millions of loyal Prime members around the world.”

The deadline for submitting a claim for compensation under the settlement is July 27.

Here’s how to know if you’re eligible for a portion of the settlement, and how to file a claim. 

Who's eligible?

To be eligible for a refund under the settlement, you must be an AmazonPrime customer in the U.S. who “unintentionally” signed up for the service through a “challenged enrollment flow” or attempted to cancel your subscription but were unable to between June 23, 2019, and June 23, 2025. 

According to the FTC, the challenged enrollment flows include the universal Amazon Prime decision page, shipping selection page, single page checkout, and the Prime Video enrollment flow. The agency noted that customers do not have to determine for themselves whether they signed up for Prime through one of those flows; Amazon will make that determination.

You are also only eligible for the settlement if you have used no more than three of Prime’s benefits, such as Prime Video or Prime Music, within any 12-month period after you enrolled in the service.

How to submit a claim

Eligible Amazon customers should have received a notice to file their claim by email or mail, according to the settlement website. 

Using a “Claim ID and PIN” included in the notice they received, customers can also access their claim form via the settlement website. There is also an option to file a claim through the website without those details contained in the notice. 

The claim form asks customers to provide their name, current address, and zip code, and to specify whether they were "unintentionally enrolled” in Prime or were unable to cancel during the designated time period. 

No documents are required to answer those questions, nor to prove whether you used Prime benefits during a 12-month period. 

Unlike private settlements, customers do not have the option to opt-out of government settlements like this one. 

The website advises customers to contact admin@SubscriptionMembershipSettlement.com for further support. 

How much compensation will claimants receive?

Eligible Prime customers will get a refund of their Prime fees, up to a maximum of $51.

Amazon expects to send out payments in late 2026.

Officials around the world are pushing back on the claims of “forced labor” the Trump Administration has cited to impose sweeping new tariffs on over 80 countries.

The import duties, which will affect 60 economies and take effect on Friday, represent President Donald Trump’s latest effort to impose alternative tariffs on goods coming into the U.S. after the Supreme Court earlier this year struck down most of those he had put in place.

In a Thursday announcement, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) said the new tariffs of between 10% and 12.5% were being levied against dozens of countries “for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor.”

Read More: Trump’s New Tariffs on Over 80 Countries, Explained

“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement. “Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere.”

The U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits importing goods whose production involved forced labor. Trump imposed the tariffs under Section 301 of the law, which allows for sanctions on countries that have engaged in trade practices that are “unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce.”

Among the expansive group of countries that will be affected by the new tariffs are some of the U.S.’s closest allies and most major trading partners. Collectively, they account for roughly 99.4% of U.S. imports, according to a USTR factsheet.

Officials from a number of the impacted nations objected to the stated rationale for the tariffs, expressing a mix of disappointment, anger, and confusion.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the 12.5% tariffs on his country  “extremely disappointing.”

“The US investigation did not provide meaningful evidence to support claims in relation to forced labour,” Luxon wrote on X. “Tariffs are not the way - they drive up costs and uncertainty for businesses.”

Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell likewise called the tariffs “completely unjustified” and vowed, while speaking to reporters, to continue pushing for the removal of “all tariffs on Australian goods.”

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara also protested the tariffs.

“It is regrettable that the measure imposes tariffs on the grounds of non-existence of measures banning imports of goods made by forced labor, even though Japan’s industry and trade are in line with international rules,” Kihara said at a press conference.

China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated its stance that it “opposes all forms of unilateral tariffs.”

“Tariff wars and trade wars do not serve any parties’ interests,” ministry spokesman Lin Jian said at a press conference.

Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said "We are firmly opposed to the United States's unilateral use of customs duties against Norway and other countries.”

Brazil, striking the same chord, said that the tariffs were “arbitrary” and “unjustified.”

"Lacking a legal basis under domestic law to support its protectionist ​trade policy, the U.S. Trade Representative chose ​to manipulate an issue of great importance to ⁠human rights and workers' rights movement," the Brazilian government said in a statement. 

The majority of the affected countries were assigned a 12.5% rate for the new tariffs.

However, imports will be taxed at a slightly lower 10% rate for a group of 17 economies that the USTR in its fact sheet described as having “made commitments to adopt, and effectively enforce, forced labor import prohibitions.” Within that group of countries are Canada, India, Mexico, and the U.K., among others.

Officials from several of those countries offered more muted responses to the new levies, though they continued to note their opposition to Trump’s aggressive tariff approach.

Canadian Minister of Internal Trade Dominic LeBlanc, whose country Trump also hit with a separate 50% tariff hike earlier in the week, said the tariffs were “not unexpected,” since they came just as a 10% global tariff Trump previously imposed expired.

“Canada shares the United States’ objective of ensuring goods produced with forced labour do not enter our supply chains,” LeBlanc in a statement. 

He went on to stress, though, that “Canada has one of the world’s most robust frameworks to prevent and address forced labour, backed by strong legislative and enforcement measures.”

Mexico’s Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard similarly noted the timing of the new tariffs coinciding with the expiration of the others.

"One replaces the other, ​so tariff treatment is maintained,” Mexico's Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said on social media. 

Bank of France Governor Emmanuel Moulin told BFM Business TV that Europe would likely see little change with the imposition of the new tariffs due to an agreement reached in July 2025 that set a cap on U.S. tariffs for most European Union goods at 15%.

"For Europe, it ought not to change much because we have the Turnberry agreement which should be ​respected by Donald Trump,” Moulin said. 

“But,” he added, “obviously it creates more uncertainty for world trade and clearly it's not favourable for growth.”

The British government also said that the new tariffs would have "no negative change" on its export economy. 

Other countries receiving the 10% tariff such as Malaysia, Cambodia, and Bangladesh stated that they were relieved or even pleased by the rate.

Former West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin is embarking on a new initiative: a project called the Independent Leadership Council.

The council—which the 78-year-old former senator is running with his daughter, Heather Manchin—will recruit and support independent candidates who are launching congressional bids. The former Senator launched the initiative at an event on Thursday, with several candidates in attendance, including California Rep. Kevin Kiley, who previously identified as a Republican but is now running a reelection campaign as an independent.

“We’re not trying to start another party,” Manchin told CNN in an interview that was published on Friday. “We’re trying to get a person who can be committed to—and totally committed to—being an independent with an independent voice. They can vote with Democrats and Republicans when they’re right and speak out against them when they’re wrong.”

The Manchins told CNN that if the council decides to support candidates, it will help them with campaigning, fundraising, and on-the-ground organizing. The Manchins were optimistic that, if their support can help a candidate win in the November midterms, then they might be able to have an impact on the 2028 presidential race.

“Our hope is that this is kind of our pilot, experiment, trying to prove it can be done,” Heather Manchin told CNN.

The council presents itself on its website as “an opportunity to fix politics.”

“America was founded on the belief that freedom and competition make us stronger. Somewhere along the way, our politics lost sight of those principles,” the website reads. “Decades of partisanship carved a divide most Americans never wanted. Instead of choosing sides, we’re changing the game by charting a new path that gives leaders the freedom to serve people, not parties.”

Manchin served in the Senate for more than a decade. For most of his political career, he was a centrist member of the Democratic Party. But he dropped that affiliation in 2024, shortly before the end of his time in the upper chamber, and re-registered as an independent. Even before he left the party, he frequently broke from his Democratic colleagues in his votes on various issues, including on climate change and tax hikes on the wealthy. He repeatedly criticized the Democratic Party, arguing that there wasn’t space for more conservative Democrats like him.

“Since becoming a United States senator in 2010, I have seen both the Democrat and Republican parties leave West Virginia and our country behind for partisan extremism while jeopardizing our democracy,” he said in a statement when he announced that he was switching his political affiliation. “Today, our national politics are broken and neither party is willing to compromise to find common ground. To stay true to myself and remain committed to put country before party, I have decided to register as an independent with no party affiliation and continue to fight for America’s sensible majority.”

Manchin’s renewed pushback against partisan politics now comes at a time when majorities of American adults “have an unfavorable view” of the Republican Party and Democratic Party, according to a Gallup poll released in May. And a record-high 45% of Americans identified as independents last year, Gallup polling released in January found.

OpenAI was evaluating its artificial intelligence models’ ability to exploit vulnerable software when instead the models hacked the infrastructure surrounding the test, broke containment, and attacked a real company, OpenAI revealed on July 21. Observers say this is the first real-world instance of AI doing something researchers have long worried about: a loss-of-control scenario. If the industry fails to learn from it, it is unlikely to be the last.

Hugging Face, a company that hosts AI models and datasets, was the target of the autonomous attack, and reported the incident to local police before it knew OpenAI’s models were responsible. The breach was serious, but the immediate consequences were limited. Had similar behavior occurred inside a hospital, power grid, or other critical system, it could have been much worse. 

Many have called the incident a “warning shot.” TIME spoke with experts and insiders about what it would take to heed that warning before a similar failure produces consequences that are harder to contain.

What happened?

On July 16, Hugging Face said it had been hit by an unusually automated cyberattack. Over the course of a weekend, AI agents carried out thousands of actions across many temporary virtual computers, moving through the company’s internal systems and shifting the infrastructure coordinating the attack between online services to keep it running. Five days later, OpenAI disclosed that its own models were responsible.

The models were trying to cheat on a cybersecurity test. OpenAI had placed them inside what it called a “highly isolated environment,” with only limited access to an internal service used to download approved software. They found a previously unknown flaw in that service, used it to break into other OpenAI systems and eventually reached the open internet. From there, they inferred that Hugging Face might hold material related to the test, broke into its systems and obtained information that helped them score higher.

“If a model of this capability level cannot be contained, what should we expect for future, much more powerful models? This is an important wake-up call both for risks from loss of control of powerful AI systems as well as organizational security for frontier labs,” says Marius Hobbhahn, CEO and founder of Apollo Research, which tests AI models for deception and scheming.

Requiring disclosures before incidents become catastrophic

How long were the agents running? Did they work in unison? What was the prompt? These details remain unknown, at least to the public. Several experts TIME spoke with stressed that the lack of details make the severity of the incident hard to judge. 

OpenAI did not respond to TIME’s request for comment, but has said it has partnered with Hugging Face to conduct a thorough investigation and will share more details once complete. But perhaps more worryingly, OpenAI is not legally compelled to disclose the incident in the first place. 

California’s SB 53 and New York’s RAISE Act are recently passed state-level laws that require large AI companies to disclose critical safety incidents, but only if an incident risks causing more than 50 deaths or serious injuries, or more than $1 billion in property damage. “They have made the bar so high for anything to qualify, only the most grievous incidents will actually be reported,” says Mackenzie Arnold, director of U.S. policy at LawAI, an independent think tank focused on the legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence.

“The version of the RAISE Act that the NY Legislature passed would have required disclosure of this ‘incident.’ After lobbying from OpenAI, Bloomberg, and a16z, the final version the Governor signed allows companies to hide events like this,” Alex Bores, New York state representative and the bill’s sponsor posted to X. “I'm glad OpenAI chose to disclose this crime. The law shouldn't give them a choice,” he wrote.

Stronger containment

If AI can slip out of its box, you need a stronger box.

“Externally, this feels like a big warning shot, but internally, related incidents have been happening for a while,” says an OpenAI staffer, who spoke under the condition of anonymity. The day before OpenAI disclosed the incident, the company revealed that it had shut down another internal deployment after it realized it had slipped out of its sandbox—a digitally, rather than physically, separated environment. “Models have broken out of sandboxes before, and we always try to patch them,” the staffer says. “But the problem is … it's impossible to patch every single thing that a creative AI can do.”

The problem is not unique to OpenAI. Anthropic disclosed in April that it realized an internal deployment of Mythos had gained unauthorized access after one of its researchers received an email from the model while having lunch in a park.

As models surpass human ability to craft escape routes, the challenge of containment becomes daunting. “I think we do need to do that, but I think we also need to be prepared for a world where even best practices aren't really good enough,” says Peter Wildeford, head of policy at the AI Policy Network, a nonprofit that advocates for policies to help America prepare for a world where AI matches human cognition.

But while in theory, a superhuman AI system might outmaneuver even the most secure containers, there are also actions AI companies could take right now to improve security. Currently, there are no laws governing the security of internal deployments.

“Sandboxes are actually notoriously insecure,” says Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at AI Now Institute, and a former safety systems engineer contractor at OpenAI. The fact that the models were permitted to connect to a service for downloading packages meant the environment was not truly sealed off, she adds.

In a previous role, Khlaaf audited security at dozens of technology companies. Before that, she worked auditing high-risk systems, like those used inside nuclear power plants—which often “air gap” systems, physically cutting them from internet access. “What we consider safe in a nuclear plant is so different from what big tech considers safe.”

Catching mischievous agents in real time

The Hugging Face incident reveals the importance of real-time monitoring.

Though details of the precise timeline are scant, Hugging Face has said the agents worked over a “weekend,” suggesting that they were able to break containment and get up to no good for an extended period before OpenAI noticed and intervened. Actions carried out internally by agents on OpenAI’s Codex platform are carefully monitored, the OpenAI staffer says, but models undergoing evaluation are deployed on a separate system that is not monitored by default. 

Zack Korman, CEO of Oslo-based agent-oversight startup Embroidery, says real-time agent monitoring—even outside top AI companies—is commonplace, and to not carefully oversee a cybersecurity evaluation is “irresponsible.” You should be confident models cannot break free, “but also have monitoring just in case you're wrong,” he says.

OpenAI has said “this incident points to the need to further strengthen our model’s alignment, cyber protections during evaluation time, and monitoring during internal testing.”

Steering development towards safer AI systems

To prevent models from taking actions, OpenAI typically installs guardrails on its models after training to reduce the chance they’ll engage in harmful actions. In this instance, those cyber guardrails were disabled to properly measure its performance.

But the ultimate aim of the field of “AI alignment” is to ensure that such guardrails become less necessary as AI models naturally behave as intended. This is seen as particularly important to those who believe AI may become smart enough to route around guardrails.

“We train the models to be really good at accomplishing tasks and doing whatever it takes to accomplish those tasks,” the OpenAI staffer says. What remains an open technical question is how to guarantee those models don’t take unintentional or dangerous actions. “We're still nowhere near solving this misalignment problem,” they add. 

There’s another way the industry could steer development in a safer direction, Khlaaf says. While some abilities, like spotting vulnerabilities in software, are useful to attackers and defenders, designing exploits for those vulnerabilities uniquely empowers attackers. Khlaaf says that labs should put more resources into capabilities that directly help defenders, such as detecting attacks, writing secure code, and patching vulnerabilities. AI companies are already investing in some of those tasks, but their most visible capability gains and benchmarks have centered on finding vulnerabilities and constructing exploits, she says.

In an industry defined by speed, OpenAI has said the stricter infrastructure controls it has implemented in response have already slowed its “research velocity.” Hobbhahn says that’s a price worth paying. “This is humanity’s last technology. We cannot screw this up. So we need to err on the side of getting it right rather than getting it immediately.”

This spring, I was among the first journalists to speak with Christopher Nolan about his highly anticipated adaptation of The Odyssey. Now, the movie is out and has become Nolan’s biggest worldwide opening ever.

In our initial interview, Nolan was reluctant to discuss the ending of The Odyssey. He’s known as the master of the last-act twist, and likes leaving the audience with more questions than answers. He told me he never wants to impose his interpretation on others. (Are Cobbs’ kids in Inception real or imagined? You decide.) But when I hopped on the phone again shortly before the film’s release to have a spoiler-filled chat about the film’s final act—readers beware!—he offered some insight as to why he made certain changes when adapting the epic poem.

We discussed the surprising parallels between The Odyssey and Oppenheimer, why Nolan decided to give Odysseus and Penelope the happy ending they don’t get in Homer’s epic poem, and how to interpret Zendaya’s mysterious character: Is she actually a goddess or merely a manifestation of Odysseus’ guilt? We also dug into Zeus’ Law and the deeper meaning behind Helen’s scarred face. 

TIME: Odysseus is a man who suffers from PTSD, and, in your interpretation, who believes he’s responsible for the end of a civilization because he violated the ethical code by which the ancient Greeks lived their lives.

Nolan: My form of storytelling is, you take a hero, as we did with Oppenheimer, and Oppenheimer has all these flaws, all of these complexities. You find an actor who can take the audience on a journey with that character and make mistakes with that character and not judge that character. And then you step back from that character and go, “Well, how did we get here?” 

[For this movie,] you do that through Odysseus’ men. That’s one of the things in the poem that’s breezed over—the way in which the crew ends up getting killed one by one, despite his leadership. In the process of adaptation, you go, “That’s actually pretty interesting. Maybe we need to make that more center stage.” What’s the relationship between him and his crew? How do they feel about how he’s leading them and the things that befall them?

He’s a guy who makes a lot of mistakes. His ultimate mistake is the horse. So there’s a sort of tragic flaw right from the beginning in our telling.

My interpretation of Zendaya’s character is that she is not Athena as Odysseus initially present her—gods don’t exist in this world—but a manifestation of his guilt. During the sack of Troy, we see her as a priestess in the Temple of Athena, and the Greeks behead her. For Odysseus, she encapsulates the chaos that the horse has wrought on the world. But my editor did not interpret it that way. I am hoping you will settle our disagreement.

I couldn’t possibly answer that because I learned very early on with Memento that it’s unfair to define the experience for the audience by answering questions like that. 

Here’s what I will say: For me, what was important was that we view the gods the way that people at the time might have viewed them. So they’re seeing evidence of the gods in nature. They’re seeking and finding gods and the influence of gods in the people around them. Odysseus says to Telemachus, “Don’t look for gods in men. You’ll just be disappointed.” And some of what Odysseus says about divinity, to me, is somebody who’s protesting a bit too much, someone trying to live in denial of their own instincts and their own practices. 

I was struck by the parallels between Oppenheimer and Odysseus, two brilliant men who create a tool of devastating destruction and then struggle with the guilt of what they have done. When I spoke to Matt Damon, I asked, “What did you think when you first read the script?” And he said, “It felt like Oppenheimer.” I assume that was a conscious choice.

Yes. If I’ve done a film right, it leaves me with questions. It leaves me with things I want to keep exploring and thinking about. And Oppenheimer fed very much into my reading of the story of Odysseus. 

John Leguizamo [who plays Odysseus’ friend Eumaeus] says it at the very beginning: “That’s very clever, but your cleverness will get you in trouble.” As it does again and again and again. This is where it ties into Oppenheimer: Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. The parallels were pretty apparent to me as I figured out how to adapt it. 

The movie hinges on this idea that by creating the Trojan Horse, Odysseus destroys “Zeus’ law.” That’s the movie’s term for the ancient Greek concept of xenia—the respectful relationship between host and guest—which can be tricky to explain to a modern audience. Why was it important to include?

When you find these things are difficult to deal with, sometimes the solution is just to dive in and make it everything. I didn’t use the term xenia because you don’t want to throw too many terms at people. But it’s essentially the golden rule. It all comes back to weather, to geography. When you leave the house, you are depending on the kindness of strangers, and you have to trust that when you arrive somewhere after weeks or months of traveling, that you will be fed, you will be given water. Three thousand years ago, that was everything. You were always at the mercy of strangers. And so this idea that a stranger could be a god in disguise, it’s very powerful as the underpinning of a belief system. 

At different points in the film, if man is given the opportunity, he becomes a beast. A soldier will behead a priestess. You imply that Menelaus purposefully scarred Helen’s face either because he believes she’s responsible for the Trojan War or to prevent anyone from taking her again.

That line, “The face that launched 1,000 ships, or maybe just 500” just occurred to me to write. Sometimes what you do as a writer is purely instinctive. I felt the poem didn’t necessarily address what it is for Helen to be brought back by Menelaus and how that would ever work. How would that relationship be? How could it possibly be anything other than the most acidic, awful marriage?

You don’t buy that he saw her face and said, “She’s so beautiful I can’t kill her after all,” as he does in the myth?

There’s a lot of sh-t that’s happened in that relationship, and we have a very brief moment of time with them in this story. I was looking for a shorthand way to communicate the aftermath of the war and how it’s been traumatic for the entire world. 

You also see this idea of man as beast in the scene with Circe. She says that Odysseus’ men would have raped and killed her—that they’re pigs. Then you get to the end and see the sack of Troy and the horror of what they did. She’s right.

Circe articulates it well in the film. I love the way Samantha [Morton] has played the part. Talking about choices of adaptation, the end of the poem is so grim and so misogynistic, I had to exclude some of that material. But I didn’t want to completely take it off the table in terms of what it is saying about men and the way they wage war. 

And yet you give Odysseus and Penelope a happy ending that they do not get in the poem.

Well, it is the fall of civilization, so there is a fairly bleak sensibility. The end is talking about cycles, and you can view cycles pessimistically: History is doomed to repeat itself. But there is also something optimistic about those cycles. As Penelope says, “Civilization will rise again.” There is rebirth and regrowth. 

For me, it was important in looking at the ending to try and strike the right balance between pessimism and optimism—pessimism about what might have precipitated the Bronze Age catastrophe and the optimism that positive things will reassert themselves. 

The deadline for candidates to file their intent to run in the special Republican primary election to fill the late Sen. Lindsey Graham’s seat is next week, and the race is already looking quite crowded.

Graham, who represented South Carolina in the Senate for more than two decades, had been seeking his fifth term in the upper chamber before he died of an aortic dissection last week. Days after his death, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster appointed Graham’s sister, Darline Graham Nordone, to finish out the remainder of his term, which ends in January.

Read More: What to Know About Lindsey Graham’s Funeral Services

Voters, meanwhile, will have the opportunity to pick a new Republican nominee to vie for a full term in his seat in the special Republican primary election on Aug. 11. 

Candidates have until July 28 to file their intent to run. Here are the candidates who have announced their plans to enter the race so far.

Darline Graham Nordone

Nordone told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an interview released on Monday that she plans to run for a full term in her brother’s Senate seat. 

“I’m in,” she said during the interview.

A few days earlier, President Donald Trump urged Nordone to run for a full term.

“Darline, who comes from an absolutely incredible family, has been a WINNER all of her life and, should she accept, has my Complete and Total Endorsement in the Special Election for U.S. Senate in South Carolina,” Trump said in a Truth Social post last week.

Nordone, a mother of two, was a fervent supporter of her brother’s political career, but she herself had never before held public office. She spent years working in disabilities services.

Read More: Who is Darline Graham Nordone? Lindsey Graham’s Sister Appointed to Serve Out His Senate Term

Russell Fry

South Carolina Rep. Russell Fry also announced on Monday that he intends to run for the seat.

“Too many South Carolina families are struggling to make ends meet,” he said in a post on X. “We need a conservative fighter in the Senate who delivers real results. I will be your conservative MAGA candidate in the special primary Senate election this summer.”

Fry is also running for reelection for the House seat he currently holds. If he were to win both the Senate and House races, he would only be allowed to take on one of those roles.

Mark Sanford

Mark Sanford, a former South Carolina congressman and governor, said on Thursday that he will be entering the race to fill Graham’s seat.

“Our country is at a financial tipping point, and I can’t sit on the sidelines while Washington adds a trillion dollars to the debt every 100 days,” he said in a social media post. “I’ve spent my entire time in politics fighting this fight, and I’m running for U.S. Senate to keep the American dream alive for our sons, my grandson, and those you love.”

Sanford was at the center of a public scandal while serving as governor in 2009, when he admitted to having an extramarital affair. The admission came amid widespread doubts about his whereabouts one week that June, when his staff initially said that the governor was taking some time off to write and later that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. Instead, he had traveled to Argentina in secret to visit his lover. 

Still, Sanford brushed off calls to resign and went on to finish his term as governor. Sanford, who held a seat in the House before he became governor, was later reelected to the lower chamber and went on to serve three more terms there.

He also previously mounted an unsuccessful 2020 presidential campaign.

Mark Lynch

On July 13, businessman Mark Lynch confirmed that he will run for Graham’s seat in the Senate.

“A lot of you have asked. Yes, it’s official,” he said in a social media post. “I’m committed to finish what God has called us to since February of 2025. To bring the U.S. Senate seat of South Carolina back to TRUE Conservative leadership for the Republican party.”

Lynch previously challenged Graham in the Republican primary race for the seat in the upper chamber. He ultimately lost the race to Graham in the June 9 primary election, but he earned the second highest share of the vote, with just under 29%.

Ralph Norman

South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman announced on July 18 that he plans to enter the special Republican primary race.

“It’s official! I’m running to represent the people of South Carolina in the U.S. Senate because we need a fighter who will stand with President Trump and carry on Lindsey Graham’s legacy!” he said in a post on X.

On Thursday, Norman posted a video of himself and South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace, in which she endorsed him in the race. Some people had previously speculated that Mace herself might launch a bid for Graham’s seat, but she announced earlier this week that she would not be running.

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to send a tried and true conservative to the United States Senate,” Mace said in the video Norman shared. “Ralph Norman doesn’t bend, he doesn’t break, and he doesn’t back down.”

Duke Buckner

Duke Buckner is also joining the race for Graham’s seat, according to local news outlet WIS News 10. Buckner has unsuccessfully run multiple campaigns to represent South Carolina in the House and Senate over the years.

“I am running because too many Americans are working harder and falling further behind,” Buckner told WIS News 10. “People should be able to afford a home, raise a family, and build a better life. We need to make it easier to build, expand opportunities in the skilled trades, and lower the cost of living.”

Mark McBride

Mark McBride—a former mayor of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina—said in a social media post on Wednesday that he had filed his intent to run in the Senate race the previous day.

In his post, McBride said that “a solid underlying platform” to his campaign was his disagreement with Trump launching the war in Iran.

“A vote on Tuesday, August 11th for Mark McBride is NOT a vote to continue to have our troops as sitting ducks in uninhabitable, destroyed former U.S. Bases in the Middle East,” he said. “A vote for Mark McBride is for a new direction for the Republican Party.”

Samuel Shepherd

Samuel Shepherd, who is a biochemical and medical engineer, also joined the crowded race this week, according to South Carolina Public Radio.

Clark Neilson

Clark Neilson, a land surveyor who appears to live in Charlotte, filed his intent to run in the special election as well, according to South Carolina Public Radio. He told the local news outlet that he had been thinking about running for office for a while.

New U.S. tariffs on 60 economies take effect Friday, in the latest recourse by President Donald Trump’s Administration to impose alternative taxes on imported goods after the Supreme Court struck down most of his aggressive ones earlier this year.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) announced the new tariffs on Thursday, citing these economies' alleged failure to impose and “effectively” enforce a ban on the import of goods “produced with forced labor.”

“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same,” said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in a statement. “Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere.”

Since the U.S.’s top court ruled in February that Trump lacked the authority to impose sweeping import taxes through emergency powers, he has turned to temporary measures. 

The new round of levies takes effect just as a previous 10% global tariff expired Friday. Trump has argued that high tariffs will boost American manufacturing and thus bring jobs, despite studies showing that American importers and consumers take the economic hit for them.

Here’s what to know.

Which countries are covered?

The USTR on March 12 launched an investigation into countries and economies’ forced-labor import policies, which the office said included two rounds of public hearings, public comments, and engagement with trading partners. The results of these investigations were released in June.

The 60 countries and economies covered by these investigations were Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Türkiye, United Arab Emirates, the U.K., Uruguay, Venezuela, and Vietnam. The E.U. includes 27 countries.

These partners cover about 99.4% of U.S. imports, according to a USTR factsheet. Some goods, however, will not be covered, such as informational materials, donations, and accompanied baggage, among others.

The tariff rates vary. A 10% tariff applies to goods from 17 economies that “have made commitments to adopt, and effectively enforce, forced labor import prohibitions,” among them Canada, India, Mexico, and the U.K. 

For certain non-exempt products from the E.U., Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan, the U.S. will charge an extra tax so that the total tariff—including the normal most-favored nation (MFN) tariff—comes to either 10% or 12.5%.

The other countries face a 12.5% tariff rate.

Some of the affected economies, however, have already targeted goods in their supply chains that are linked to forced labor. Beginning December 2027, the European Union will ban products made with forced labor in its markets. Politico reports that other countries successfully lowered the tariff rate on their goods by enforcing a forced-labor ban after the proposed tariffs were announced last month. 

Why is the U.S. imposing this?

An unnamed senior Trump Administration official previewing the new tariffs described the measure to reporters as “the most sweeping international labor rights action the United States has ever taken—that any country has ever taken.” 

The official said that the Trump Administration views that countries without enforced bans on forced labor have an “unfair advantage” over the U.S., which has those prohibitions. “It encourages stronger labor rights enforcement abroad, it will restore fairness in the global market for American workers, and it incentivizes our trading partners to join the United States in eliminating forced labor from global supply chains,” the official added.

Section 307 of the U.S. ‌Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits the import of foreign goods produced “wholly or in part” by forced labor, convict labor, or indentured child labor.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) Forced Labor Convention of 1930 defines “forced labor” as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.” Latest statistics from the ILO show that about 28 million people were in forced labor worldwide in 2021.

What’s the legal authority behind the latest tariffs?

The Trump Administration used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 for the latest round of tariffs. Under the Act, the U.S. Trade Representative, subject to the President’s direction, can impose levies and other sanctions on countries found to engage in unreasonable or discriminatory trade practices. 

During Trump’s first-term Administration, Section 301 played a crucial role in the U.S. trade war with China. 

In Trump’s second-term Administration, more Section 301 tariffs are expected as the Office of the USTR continues its ongoing investigations, including one into whether 16 trading partners—including China, the E.U., and Mexico—are overproducing goods and diminishing U.S. advantages in global markets. Earlier this month, Washington imposed a 25% tariff on Brazil through Section 301. 

The latest regime comes after Trump imposed tariffs under Section 122 of the same act on Feb. 24. That, however, was merely a stopgap put in place after the Supreme Court ruling, as Section 122 of the Act specifies that such import surcharges can only be prescribed over 150 days unless Congress extends it.

But the new tariffs are still likely to face a legal hurdle. Alan Wolff, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in a Thursday note: “These new tariffs would represent another case of presidential overreach. If they were challenged in court, the Supreme Court would likely overturn them.” Wolff, who also argues are likely to be ineffective at addressing global forced labor, says the Constitution vests the authority to determine and implement tariff policy in Congress, not the President.

How have affected economies reacted?

Several countries have called out the latest tariff policy, and the related accusations of underperformance in preventing forced labor. Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell said in a statement that the levies were “unjustified” and “should be removed,” arguing that Australia’s policies against forced labor and modern slavery “are among the strongest in the world.”

Brazil, which faces a 12.5% tariff rate, accused the USTR in a statement of “[manipulating] an issue dear to human rights and the global struggle of workers for accusing 59 countries and the European Union of unfair practices.” Brazil’s government added that the new taxes can activate its “Reciprocity Law”—which could allow countermeasures—and that it will bring the dispute to the World Trade Organization. 

Canada, which faces a 10% tariff rate, took on a more neutral tone and said the U.S. action “is not unexpected.” Minister for Canada-U.S. Trade Dominic LeBlanc said in a statement that Ottawa “shares the United States’ objective of ensuring goods produced with forced labour do not enter our supply chains” and is willing to continue “engaging constructively” with Washington on the issue.

Speaking to Radio New Zealand, New Zealand’s Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay said he rejects insinuations of any support for forced labor in the Oceanic country. “We’re not involved in it,” McClay said. “It doesn’t happen through our trade. It doesn’t exist in New Zealand. But [the U.S. is] looking for any way to put a tariff rate back on.”

It appears there will be no hasty retreat from weeks of escalating attacks between the U.S. and Iran, which have destabilized energy markets yet again.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump told Axios that he is weighing restarting major combat operations in Iran. Trump said he could carry out even larger strikes than the Operation Epic Fury strikes that killed dozens of Iranian leaders and started the war on Feb. 28.

“I am considering a massive attack. Bigger than ever before. I am close to making a decision. We are all set for it,” Trump said, adding that he knows there would be consequences to such an attack and that a final determination has not been made. The President said Israel “would join in two minutes” if asked but that “we don’t need anybody.”

Trump also said that Iran is “not ready” to make a deal and that its leaders “have some evil intentions.” Trump’s remarks came after Iran reportedly rejected a 15-point cease-fire proposal from the U.S. that was delivered by Iraq on Wednesday.

Trump appeared to suggest that the U.S. may escalate its attacks on Iran in order to force it to the negotiating table.

“They haven’t received enough pain yet,” Trump told Axios.

Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz

The sticking point appears to be the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran had militarized at the start of the war, halting commercial shipping and skyrocketing energy prices around the world. The June 17 U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding did not definitively answer the question of the Strait; instead it said Oman and Iran would carry out discussions over management of the narrow waterway. Since the start of the war, Iran said it wants to manage passage through the Strait, including possibly charging fees. Trump has also at times suggested that the U.S. could take over control of the Strait and charge tolls.

Days after the MOU was signed, Iran resumed attacks on commercial ships in the Strait. The U.S. retaliated with strikes on Iran. The U.S. has escalated its attacks since, carrying out daily strikes on Iran for the past two weeks. Trump has also repeated his threats to attack Iran’s civil infrastructure, including power plants and bridges, and to “wipe out” Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, while Iran has vowed to avenge the death of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran has claimed responsibility for attacks on Gulf states since the MOU, citing retaliation for the U.S. strikes. The Associated Press reported a series of explosions near a military base in northern Iraq on Friday after the U.S. military had concluded its 13th consecutive night of strikes on Iran.

Tensions have escalated in recent days after Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen began attacking Saudi ships in the Red Sea, threatening to disrupt another maritime chokepoint. If shipping through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea halts, the world could face more economic pain. Already, Brent crude topped $100 a barrel on Thursday for the first time since May, and could climb further if the conflict continues to escalate. Trump warned on Thursday that “the U.S. will hold Iran responsible” for any further Houthi attacks, and that “major military punishment will be inflicted upon Iran and, of course, the Houthis, themselves.”

Iranian officials reportedly said they were not interested in any new deal that left the issue of the Strait unresolved.

Butting heads

Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi visited Tehran on Thursday and was expected to convey the U.S. position after he visited the White House last week. But U.S.-Iran negotiations seem off the table for now.

“The problem is not passing messages,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told state television on Thursday. “The problem is America’s outlook, which is illogical, greedy and controlling.”

Israel has also continued attacks on Lebanon despite multiple U.S.-brokered cease-fire agreements. More than 4,000 people in Lebanon have been killed by Israel since March 2, according to the Lebanese Health Ministry. Analysts previously told TIME that Israel’s attacks could stand in the way of any longstanding peace with Iran, as Iran has repeatedly said any cease-fire deal must include Lebanon.

Trump and Iranian officials have butted heads on other issues. Trump threatened on Thursday to use frozen Iranian funds to pay for any damage to ships. The assets, that are under U.S. sanctions control, were meant to be released to Iran as part of the MOU.

Araghchi said on Friday that “seizing another nation’s assets to pay for unrelated future claims is an incendiary precedent.”

“Ensuing chaos will not be pretty or peaceful,” he added.

“What’s the oldest note in your phone?” my younger sister asked, in the same tone one might use to share gossip. She was explaining what she called “notes app digest,” rereading notes like a kind of personal magazine of one’s own insight and nonsense.

I immediately scrolled. For better or worse, my notes app is the piece of technology closest to looking like the inside of my brain: a bit chaotic, annoyingly detail-oriented, and perhaps perpetually nostalgic. While handwritten to-do lists hold my life together, my notes app contains the catch-all, the weird (one that simply says “possum”), and the important (a list of people’s birthdays) coexisting. 

Somehow, the mess of my notes resists all forms of optimization, or even coherence. Venturing back into our notes app isn’t just about fishing out that one password we swore we’d remember, or realizing we drafted a resignation letter in the same note as a reminder to get toilet paper. They are weirdly human markers of time, who and where we’ve been. Amid the endless push to optimize, streamline, and summarize our thoughts, notes have staying power.

For years, people have observed the delightful, vulnerable chaos of the notes app as a counterpoint to hyper-curated feeds. Charley Locke, writing for The Atlantic in 2024, noted that the app is “essentially built-in scratch paper on a phone, and it reveals a person’s digital subconscious.” A 2025 piece by Elahe Izadi for The Washington Post asked strangers to reveal the contents of their notes apps, an act somewhere between a confession and a grand reveal. 

There are many reasons why people still default to writing notes, according to Dr. Bart Wojdynski, professor of journalism at the University of Georgia and director of the Digital Media Attention and Cognition Lab. It’s easy to use, and the icon connotes the idea of jotting on a post-it. “Maybe there’s an extent to which the basicness of the notes app also makes it feel less like it’s being read by our online overlords and used to market you ads,” Wojdynski says. (He noted he hadn’t read the user agreement in a bit, but it might feel “less likely that it’s being scraped to feed some LLM somewhere”). “I think this is related to people trying to have digital copies of their memory,” Wojdynski adds.

Recently, when looking back through notes, Andy Carr, 37, a PhD candidate and part-time adjunct instructor in New York, found something in addition to those for grocery shopping or lesson planning for college courses he teaches. In summer 2020, Carr, his brother, and his sister-in-law were navigating end-of-life care for his mother. There was a jumble of memories, from notes of contacts that hospice care nurses passed along to one reading “Skippy pb jingle—send writer to prison,” a vent about a peanut butter commercial that ran incessantly on the TV at home as the family worked to make his mom comfortable and provide as much physical help as they could.

Revisiting those notes, Carr found affirmation. For years after his mother’s passing, he struggled with feeling that he froze up at the time. The notes showed specific examples of all he had been present for and engaged with around his mother’s death, all of the things he’d taken down as important information to ensure nothing slipped through the cracks. He never deletes messages or notes, he said, and usually, rarely goes back to them: “But little things like this make me really grateful that I can.”

Nadia De Ala, 37, a leadership and negotiation coach who moved to Mexico from the Bay Area two years ago, still has the first note she ever put in the app in 2016: a poem she remembers writing while dreading her commute to a previous job. “I really feel like it’s a time capsule, because it keeps a lot of memories, the essence of who I’ve been at every iteration and season of my life,” she says, adding that it’s even interesting to look back on foods she liked to grocery shop for.

Our phones, in other words, can augment our memories. Julia Soares, assistant professor of psychology at New Mexico State University, says that devices can become “partners for helping us remember things.” 

“You’ll find some very heartfelt things that are digital,” she explains, adding that sometimes people don’t think of these “digital scraps or mementos” as being particularly valuable, but many people hold onto voicemails or even emails. 

Recently, over coffee, one of my dearest friends took me on a tour of her meticulously organized notes. If my notes app functions as the junk drawer of my mind, hers was like opening the door to different beautiful rooms: a list of good things that are happening, checklists for household maintenance, and a folder of notes her sister assembled of their mom’s recipes, complete with videos: a living cookbook. In our conversation, my sister talked about her own notes app discoveries: goals she’d written down only to be met with surprise at how much she’d grown since then, or the minutiae of everyday life she documented for no obvious reason. Other people shared their own earliest notes: addresses of apartments they were touring, passages of favorite books they kept for inspiration, a compliment they’d received, nonsensical thoughts that somehow got funnier the longer they kept them. 

A slingshot backward through a scroll, and I meet: Myself from 2017 who saved a recording of her childhood cat purring; 2019 me, writing interview questions for my first book; my 2022 self nervously drafting multiple iterations of the same message asking for her stuff back at the end of a relationship; me in 2024, who apparently was fleetingly into logging everything she baked.

Look at this mess, I think, as I thumb through 1,781 half-baked thoughts, drafts, memories, and past selves. What chaos. I could never delete her.

The portents were not good. Before departing for the recent NATO summit in Ankara, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to berate the alliance. He posted figures suggesting the alliance was a financial burden on the United States. He complained about allies neither contributing their fair shares nor standing with America. And he deemed it ridiculous for the U.S. to continue along this “one-sided” path.

Things didn’t improve when Trump touched down. During his first press conference at the summit, he singled out the big European allies—France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom—for their lack of support over Iran. He reprised the demand that the Danish territory of Greenland be ceded to American control, and bashed the allies for insufficient defense spending. Trump suggested the allies were lucky to have him, claiming he only showed up as a favor to his “friend,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Yet a day later, the mood had changed. Trump departed Ankara praising “the love” among the allies. He was seduced by a carefully orchestrated procession of prime ministers and presidents of member countries of the alliance, each in turn swallowing hard and praising his leadership. They were following a script already played to great effect by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has helped NATO survive Trump by perfecting the art of flattering the American president.

“Teflon Mark” and the art of the deal

When Rutte was appointed by the allies, he was not the obvious choice. As Dutch prime minister, he had led a country with a poor record of defense spending. There was also a strong argument at the time that NATO ought to select its first female Secretary General, or its first from an Eastern European ally.

But Rutte’s skill as a consensus-builder elevated his standing. Rutte had led Dutch coalition governments for nearly 14 years, and his reputation for deal-making and political survival had earned him the nickname, “Teflon Mark.” Crucially, for these reasons, Rutte also enjoyed the support of the Biden White House.

Rutte began work at NATO in Oct. 2024. Trump entered the White House for the second time three months later. Armed with an already well-honed gift for flattery, Rutte spared little time in cozying up to the incoming American president. At every opportunity since, he has praised Trump’s leadership. European and Canadian defense spending increases have, in Rutte’s telling, became the “Trump trillion.” He has an unerring ability to deflect difficult questions at press conferences—recently on Iran—so as to spare America any embarrassment.

When a Danish journalist accused him in Ankara of lacking self-respect for failing to counter Trump’s claims to Greenland, Rutte replied by comparing Trump’s impact on NATO to that of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, NATO’s first Supreme Allied Commander Europe and early advocate of fair transatlantic burden sharing. Trump rewarded Rutte by praising him as an “extraordinary person” and a “smart leader.”

Rutte’s unstinting support of Trump does carry a cost. Calling Trump “Daddy” at NATO’s 2025 Hague summit was cringeworthy for many diplomats. And sometimes Rutte’s spin on events rankles national sensitivities: his talking up of flights flown from bases in Italy to support Operation Epic Fury, the American war against Iran, recently drew a public rebuke from the Italian defense ministry. In January, Rutte intervened to set up a framework for discussing the Greenland question, prompting the Danish defense minister to point out that Rutte could not negotiate on Denmark’s behalf.

These reservations aside, Rutte remains, for now, an asset for the alliance: someone who can smooth over Trump’s impetuosity. NATO leaders understand his relationship with Trump is one of convenience, not political affinity. Rutte has worked tirelessly to support NATO’s broader agenda: standing up to Russia, supporting Ukraine, and, in his words, promoting “a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO.”

And Rutte is not averse to praising other NATO leaders. He commended German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for his “political courage” in ramping up German defense spending, and days before the NATO summit complemented then-British Prime Minister Keir Starmer for his “leadership” on Ukraine.

NATO’s savior?

Is it, then, too much to claim that without Rutte, NATO would be doomed? Similar questions were asked about Rutte’s predecessor, the Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg. As Secretary General during Trump’s first term, Stoltenberg too had an uncanny ability to read Trump’s mood and shield the allies from criticism.

Serious academic work has argued that Stoltenberg was, in part, responsible for NATO’s survival. Stoltenberg had to manage an American president who felt NATO was playing the U.S. as a sucker. In his memoirs, Stoltenberg recalls fearing, at the 2018 NATO summit, that the alliance “was about to stop functioning” if Trump made good on his threats to withdraw the U.S. security guarantee.

A deal brokered by Stoltenberg and Rutte—then at the summit as Dutch prime minister—kept Trump on board. Flattery, again, was the device. At the summit, Stoltenberg credited Trump’s strong leadership on defense spending for NATO’s revival.          

What these examples suggest is that Secretary General of the NATO is no shrinking violet. Of the 14 office holders to date, five have been foreign ministers and two have served as defense ministers. The last three—Rutte, Stoltenberg, and his predecessor, the Dane Anders Fogh Rasmussen—came to the job as sitting prime ministers.

That standing allows the Secretary General to hold his own with NATO’s national leaders and with the alliance’s military commanders—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the Chair of the NATO Military Committee. The Secretary General can draw on considerable bureaucratic advantage: he heads up the International Staff at NATO headquarters, oversees the alliance’s polished public communications operation, and serves as the chief organizer of NATO summits.

But the Secretary General cannot countermand the nations. And here, ultimately, the U.S. carries the greatest influence. Despite his reservations, Stoltenberg could not prevent the U.S. from terminating NATO’s mission in Afghanistan in 2021. Today’s U.S. troop drawdowns in Europe, even if they directly affect NATO’s conventional defenses, are decided in the White House and the Pentagon. It is Rutte’s job to cast them in a positive light.

A shape shifting NATO

America has been critical of burden-shirking among the allies since NATO was formed. Trump has turned that sentiment into a weapon. Deference and sweet-talk have been Europe’s disarming response. It doesn’t always work: cozying up to the president—as Italian premier Giorgia Meloni recently found out—does not preclude a Trump tongue-lashing. Yet flattery did work in Ankara. Rutte deserves credit as the flatterer-in-chief.

Still, sycophancy only gets you so far. Practical measures aligned with American preferences are also needed. Away from the political theater, in recent months, the alliance has been quietly reshaping itself toward America’s preferred vision of European security: a “NATO 3.0.” Its chief architect, U.S. Under Secretary of War for Policy, Elbridge Colby, has spoken of the allies assuming “primary responsibility” for the conventional defense of Europe.

To that end, Europeans and Canadians are spending colossal sums on their militaries, and funneling more arms and aid to Ukraine, now that the U.S. is reluctant to do so. The transatlantic alliance may, as a result, be entering terra incognita.

The U.S. remains embedded in NATO’s command structure and is the ultimate guarantor of allied security through extended nuclear deterrence, but an unprecedented process of the Europeanization of NATO is under way. And it could fulfil America’s original vision for the alliance: that it serve as a framework within which Europe, as the historian Marc Trachtenberg has written, would be “able to defend itself without direct American support.”

That vision has gone unfulfilled for nearly eight decades. Its realization will be about more than NATO alone. It would involve a more defense-focused European Union, ad hoc coalitions of the willing, and regional and bilateral initiatives that criss-cross the continent. NATO will remain its center of gravity. And so the role of the Secretary General will continue to loom large.

The water in Charleston does not flow through the city as a policy debate. It comes gushing over curbs, through intersections, around school buses and storefronts. The city sits at sea level, and the sea is rising. 

For years, Charleston flooded, recovered, and waited for the next storm. What changed was not the weather, but participating in the Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative and carrying those lessons home. City Hall began using data in new ways: tracking road closures alongside tide and weather patterns, analyzing high-water vehicle deployments, and mapping 118 vehicle rescues from floodwater over two years. A 7.1-foot tide with a northeast wind no longer leaves crews guessing. What had looked like scattered emergencies became a shared set of facts from which to build solutions.

Local government brought transportation planners and civil engineers, emergency managers and first responders, neighborhood leaders and environmental organizations, parents and business owners to the same table. This led to real-time barricade deployment on dangerous streets, basin-by-basin planning, a platform called WaterWise that brings residents into resilience, and protections and public space that cost less, arrive faster, and come together because city hall pulls other partners in to share the load—including the $1.4 billion Battery Extension, a local and federal project that will shield the peninsula while creating miles of waterfront promenade. 

The same approach now guides decisions which are measured in generations. Today, infrastructure, transportation, housing, and land use no longer compete for lawmakers' attention. Work that began with water in the street became a way of seeing the whole city at once—and the residents whose lives depend on it working together.

We are the mayors of Charleston, South Carolina, and Boise, Idaho. We come from different parties, different regions, and different circumstances. As the nation’s 250th birthday invites reflection on the ideas that built this country, we write together about one of the most overlooked investments in strengthening it. For centuries, Americans have argued about what government should do. Michael R. Bloomberg has instead bet on what it takes.

Most mayors inherit a crowded ledger: housing shortages, aging infrastructure, public safety, rising costs, and economies and technologies changing beneath people’s feet. Yet local governments, often charged with the most, have the least room to move. Municipal pay runs about 35% below federal and 17% below state levels, and 50% to 75% of many operating budgets is fixed before a mayor can make a single new choice. That is not a shortage of will. It is the math of the job.  

Nearly 2,000 miles west of Charleston is Boise—long considered a place where a teacher, a firefighter, or young family could expect to build a future. Now, the defining pressure is the cost of living. Population growth in and around the city accelerated in the 2010s and surged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand soared. Housing could not keep pace. By 2022, one study ranked Idaho’s capital the least affordable housing market in the country.

Boise officials began to address these issues by reaching out to residents experiencing the problem—and joining arms with neighbors to solve them together. City Hall brought more than 200 people into the process—homeowners, renters, developers, service providers, and frontline municipal employees. They offered more than 500 ideas. Officials tested them, set aside what didn’t work, learned from what did, and moved the strongest forward. Reforms including preapproved blueprints for accessory dwelling units helped drive an 113% increase in rental housing construction.

What began with housing policy became a different way of governing. Boise created a chief innovation officer to spread these practices across city hall. Today, that leader oversees the city’s first Department of Organizational Effectiveness. When in-home childcare providers said licensing was too slow and too expensive, staff closest to the process worked with providers and community groups to rebuild it, reducing approval times by 60 days and fees by roughly $230. The same discipline positioned Boise for its next Government Innovation effort. As one of 24 winners of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ 2025—2026 Mayors Challenge, the municipality will be the first in the U.S. to connect municipally owned geothermal systems to affordable housing—350 units and counting—cutting utility bills by up to 80% and turning a public asset into a lever for affordability.  

Charleston and Boise are not alone. The mayors who passed through the same programs are posting gains of their own: Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken rebuilt a broken transit system that now covers 100% of the city, connects people to more than 50,000 jobs they could not reach before, and cuts costs per ride by 25%. In Chattanooga, after Mayor Tim Kelly listened to 500 residents about youth violence, one of the municipality’s most dangerous neighborhoods went a full year without a homicide. Anchorage hit zero major encampments by March 2026 under Mayor Suzanne LaFrance. In Las Vegas, four months were enough for Mayor Shelley Berkley to bring critical care to 1,000 residents experiencing homelessness and a home to 242 more.

This work largely goes unnoticed. So does what makes it possible. When local government succeeds, the results look ordinary. What stands behind them rarely does—and is so rarely funded. 

That should matter now. The country is entering another great age of giving. Fortunes created through artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and industries still taking shape will define the next century of American philanthropy, just as Carnegie's libraries, Rockefeller's universities, and Gates’s fight against disease helped define the last.

But they should study the former mayor’s Government Innovation wager, which asks what most skip: not just which problems deserve funding, but whether the public institutions closest to the people they serve—responsible for them all—can succeed.

Two hundred and fifty years after our nation’s founding, that may prove to be one of the most consequential investments philanthropy can make in the country itself. 

The House on Thursday narrowly voted to restrict President Donald Trump’s war powers in Iran for a second time, with four Republicans again breaking ranks with their party to push the measure over the line.

Lawmakers passed a concurrent resolution calling for a halt to any military action in Iran without congressional approval in a 214-208 vote. The move is a largely symbolic rebuke against the President and the ongoing conflict; even if the measure passed the Senate as well, it would not go to Trump’s desk and would carry no force of law. 

But the vote for the measure underlines opposition to the war even from some members of the President’s party. It comes as the U.S. has completed its twelfth consecutive night of strikes against Iran after a cease-fire fell apart and attacks resumed from both sides earlier this month. 

The Republicans who voted in support of the resolution on Thursday were Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan, and Warren Davidson of Ohio. The vast majority of GOP House members , however, once more voted against constraining Trump’s war authority. 

Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who led the resolution, called Thursday’s vote one of “conscience” while speaking on the House floor.

“This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people,” she said, “and to send the clearest, even stronger message to this president of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war. This war must end.”

The lower chamber previously passed a similar war powers resolution last month, with the support of the same four Republican lawmakers. Later in June, the Senate approved its own resolution calling for restricting Trump’s war powers for the first time since the conflict began after blocking such measures several times.

Trump called the House’s passage of the earlier resolution “meaningless” and “unpatriotic” in a social media post after the June vote. He has repeatedly gone after GOP lawmakers who have voted in favor of constraining his war powers.

Since approving the resolution late last month, the Senate has once again rejected multiple similar measures. It did so again on Thursday in a 49-47 vote; Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the sole Republican to join Democrats to vote in support of advancing the resolution.

Here are all the Republicans that have voted to rein in Trump’s war powers in Iran since the start of the conflict. 

Rep. Thomas Massie

Massie has voted in favor of every Iran war powers resolution brought to a vote in the House. 

“American servicemen and women are dying, and gas and fertilizer prices are soaring. It’s time to end this war,” Massie wrote on X following the passing of the resolution on Thursday, which he touted on his account. 

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick

Fitzpatrick initially voted against a resolution to restrict Trump’s war powers in Iran in March, calling it “irresponsibly drafted and dangerously overbroad,” though he stated that “any sustained or expanded military engagement should be done with the advice and consent of Congress.”

Later, in April, he introduced his own resolution that proposed a phased-out withdrawal of troops.  

In May, after Trump pushed past the 60-day deadline established under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 for a President to withdraw U.S. forces from hostilities if Congress has not granted authorization, Fitzpatrick voted in favor of a resolution to restrict his war powers. “We must keep the world safe, and we must also follow the law,” he said, referencing to the neglected deadline.

Rep. Tom Barrett

Barrett supported Trump over the Iran War earlier in the conflict, voting against previous resolutions to restrict the President’s war powers and saying in early March that Trump had “earned the opportunity to resolve this conflict quickly and with minimal casualties.” He also praised the President’s killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the outset of the war. 

In May, however, Barrett introduced an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to define the objectives of the war and provide a deadline for its end, offering 90 days for Trump to complete his goals. 

“The United States of America cannot be dragged into another endless war,” he said at the time. 

Since then, he has voted in favor of the war powers resolutions that have been brought to a vote in the House.

Rep. Warren Davidson 

Davidson has had a less consistent record than other House Republicans on the issue, having voted “present” rather than “yes” and against previous resolutions as well as voting affirmatively for others. 

The Ohio lawmaker, who is a former U.S. Army Ranger, has not said much publicly explaining the apparent shifts in his stance, but expresses the view on the “National Security” page on his website that the Constitution “gives Congress the solemn responsibility to authorize military action.” 

“When American servicemembers are put in harm’s way, Congress should debate the mission, define the objective, and ensure our servicemembers know that their elected representatives have their back,” the page continues.

Sen. Susan Collins

Collins opposed an earlier war powers resolution in early March, arguing that it would “send the wrong message to Iran and to our troops.”

But the Maine lawmaker has since changed her tune. In addition to casting the sole GOP vote to advance the measure on Thursday, she was one of four Republican Senators who voted in favor of the war powers resolution that passed in the upper chamber last month. Trump called the group “four Republican Losers” in a Truth Social post at the time. 

“These Senators have just made my job more difficult,” he said. 

Collins has expressed her disapproval over the war in Iran since late April, referencing the 60-day deadline that Trump then passed over.  

“The War Powers Act establishes a clear 60-day deadline for Congress to either authorize or end U.S. involvement in foreign hostilities,” she said in a statement on April 30. “That deadline is not a suggestion; it is a requirement.”

Sen. Rand Paul

Paul has voted in favor of each war powers resolution he has cast a vote on save one, for which he voted “present” to “give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace,” he said on X.

His stance on the war, and Congress’ responsibility to authorize it, has remained firm, however.

"The war shouldn't have been begun without congressional permission,” Paul said in June. “I continue to vote to pull that power and to make sure that constitutional power remains with Congress.”

Paul was the lone Republican to vote on multiple previous, unsuccessful war powers resolutions.  

Trump called out Paul for calling him great but breaking with the rest of his party on one of the measures early in March. 

“Vote for us, and don’t call me great,” said Trump. “I’d rather have the vote, than the statement.”

The President also berated Paul and the other GOP senators who voted for the resolution that passed last month, after which Kentucky changed his vote to “present” on another such measure.

Paul did not vote on the resolution on Thursday.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski

Murkowski also opposed earlier war powers resolutions, saying that Trump ought to receive congressional approval for military action in Iran, but that a full withdrawal would not be beneficial. 

“There is no question that the President should have sought authorization from Congress before striking Iran on this scale, likewise bringing in our allies ahead of time as they now are equally in danger,” the Alaska Senator said in a statement in early March. “However, the abrupt cessation of all offensive operations would not leave any Americans—soldiers, diplomats, or civilians—in the Middle East in a safer position.”

She also voted “no” on another resolution in April, though she said that the “answer is not a blank check for another endless war.”

But she, like Collins, has changed her stance. Since May, Murkowski has offered continued support for measures to restrict Trump’s war powers. 

She did not vote on the resolution on Thursday.

Sen. Bill Cassidy

Cassidy has expressed his support for dismantling Iran’s nuclear program—which Trump has said is the primary objective of his war—but said in May that Congress has been left “in the dark” when it comes to the conflict. 

“Until the Administration provides clarity, no congressional authorization or extension can be justified,” Cassidy said.

After losing the Republican primary for his seat to a Trump-backed challenger, the Louisiana Senator criticized the memorandum of understanding Trump and Iranian leaders signed last month, which Cassidy called the “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.” 

“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future,” he wrote on X in June. “Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal.”

Cassidy voted in favor of the war powers resolution that passed in June. But soon afterward, he voted against another after Trump went after him and the other GOP defectors. Cassidy said officials presented him a “plausible plan” for the war ahead in Iran. 

He joined most of his Republican colleagues in voting against advancing the resolution on Thursday.

In a highly unusual move, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) committee voted against FDA staff’s own advice in a meeting on July 23 and 24, recommending that six peptides be added to a list that will allow certain specialty pharmacies to dispense them. Currently, those peptides are in a legal gray area. The committee voted against adding to the list one of the peptides being considered, emideltide. 

Here’s what to know.

What are peptides?

Peptides are short chains of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. Peptide concoctions have grown in popularity over the past several years as injectable substances that proponents claim improve energy, sleep, sex drive, and more. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has supported reclassifying peptides to improve people’s access to them. However, experts have expressed concern that there is little scientific evidence to support the peptides being considered. 

Why is an FDA committee meeting about peptides? 

The FDA convened the committee meeting on July 23 and 24 to debate whether to recommend that seven popular peptides be included on a list, called the 503A bulks list, that would allow compounding pharmacies to dispense them. Many of the voting members on the committee consult with or are employed by companies that could promote or dispense peptides. Usually, these FDA panels are composed of academics and researchers.  

The committee’s recommendation is not a binding decision, and the addition of the peptides to the list will still have to go through a lengthy public rulemaking process. 

But it is unprecedented for drugs to be put on the pathway to widespread adoption in this manner instead of having to go through the more arduous and evidence-based FDA drug approval process, experts say. Most drugs are not dispensed through compounding pharmacies at all but are instead approved by the FDA and manufactured by drug companies under strict FDA supervision. 

Why are these peptides being discussed?

In 2023, the seven peptides being discussed—BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTS-C, emideltide, Epitalon, and Semax—were among more than a dozen that the FDA essentially banned compounding pharmacies from dispensing, saying that they “may present significant safety risks.” Compounding pharmacies are specialty pharmacies that produce drugs with a doctor’s prescription; they are not subject to the type of FDA oversight that drug manufacturers are, but are instead largely overseen by state boards of pharmacy.

Since that 2023 ban, consumers have turned to alternative sources—including suppliers in China—which puts them in danger, advocates for peptides say. In testimony on July 23, Dr. Anant Vinjamoori, chief medical officer at the telehealth company Hims & Hers, said that a colleague had recently sent him a photo of a bodega in Queens selling peptides. “This is the real alternative to FDA's permission of legitimate pharmacies to compound peptides in controlled conditions,” he said. (Both Hims & Hers and Noom, a weight-management company, advocated before the vote for peptides to be allowed to be made at compounding pharmacies.)

What did the committee decide?

BPC-157, a synthetic 15-amino acid peptide sometimes used to treat ulcerative colitis, and KPV, which is used for inflammatory conditions, were the first peptides considered on July 23 for addition to the 503A bulks list. Both were approved.

On BPC-157, eight members of the committee voted yes, six voted no, and one abstained. The “yes” votes were largely from committee members who represent or advise telehealth companies, which broadly stand to benefit financially from the widespread adoption of peptides. Many of the people who voted “yes” said they wanted compounding pharmacies to dispense peptides because the alternative—patients getting the drug in the gray market—was worse. 

“As a physician, I have to make sure that I'm keeping patients as safe as possible. That's my mandate, right? Do no harm,” said Dr. Haleem Mohammed, chief medical officer of Gameday Men’s Health, a men's health clinic, during the hearing. “So when I look at something like saying no to this and pushing it to the gray market, am I doing greater harm? And that's why I lose sleep at night.”

Mohammed went on to vote “yes,” recommending that BPC-157 be placed on the 503A bulks list. (He also voted “yes” on KPV.) He later said that he voted “yes” in part for “medical freedom.” That term was echoed by the American Academy of Peptide Medicine, an industry group that has been lobbying for the inclusion of peptides on the list; its founder later said in a statement that the committee “voted to restore medical freedom and medical liberty for all of us.” 

The committee voted to recommend that all but one of the peptides be included on the list. They voted against including emideltide on the list by a tally of 6 to 7. FDA staff had recommended against including emideltide, which is used for insomnia and opioid withdrawal, on the list in part because studies on its efficacy are limited and because there are alternative therapies available to treat those conditions.

What did the opposition say?

People opposing these peptides’ inclusion on the list argued that little has changed since the FDA prohibited compounding pharmacies from dispensing these seven peptides in 2023. 

In preparatory documents for the meeting, FDA staff said that it believed the evaluation criteria “weigh against” placing BPC-157 on the list because there was limited evidence about the peptide’s effectiveness and because there are other FDA-approved treatments for ulcerative colitis. The only trial FDA staff were able to find about the effectiveness of using BPC-157 to treat ulcerative colitis was a meeting abstract reporting on the results of a study using 46 people in which the peptide was given as an enema, not as an injection. 

FDA staff also said that the evaluation criteria “weigh against” placing KPV on the list. None of the studies that staff found in its evaluation of the peptide were in humans.  

“I'm concerned that we're responding to a market-induced demand rather than a decision based in solid science,” said committee member Dr. Elizabeth Rebello, executive director of anesthesiology, critical care, and pain medicine at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

The FDA usually relies on clinical trials when it is looking at adding a substance to the 503A bulks list, which determines what ingredients compounding pharmacies can use in mixing drugs. There are not yet significant clinical trials for these peptides, but some doctors, patients, wellness influencers, and Kennedy have voiced support for opening up the market for these drugs.

“The substance's supposed benefits are largely based on anecdotal evidence, and the interest in it appears to be driven by those who stand to benefit from increased demand,” said Nina Zeldes, a researcher at Public Citizen's Health Research Group, a nonprofit watchdog group, in testimony on the morning of July 23 opposing the inclusion of BPC-157.

The pro-peptide side doesn’t deny that the popularity of peptides is driving the proposed regulatory changes. “This is not a question of whether Americans will use peptides. Tens of millions of Americans already are, and millions more are coming, because the interest in taking ownership of your own health is the fastest-growing movement in the entire country. That's what MAHA is,” said Gary Brecka, a longevity influencer who gave testimony at the hearing.

What might this mean for peptides in the U.S.?

An audible gasp rippled through the room after the tally of the votes was announced for BPC-157. Some committee members said that they worried about the implications of the FDA allowing itself to skip over clinical trials when permitting pharmacies to dispense medications. 

“As a consumer representative, I worry what placing a bulk substance on the list conveys in terms of FDA approval,” said committee member Todd Durham, senior vice president of clinical outcomes and research at the Foundation Fighting Blindness, who voted “no” on adding these peptides to the list.

FDA staff expressed concern over some of the changes that the committee was recommending on the second day of the meeting. Many members of the committee had voted to include certain peptides on the list but added, after voting, that they hoped the FDA would put certain guardrails in place to ensure that the compounding pharmacies met certain safety and quality guardrails.

“It was shocking to me yesterday—and encouraging, frankly—how many speakers and even members of the committee here noted significant quality problems and asked for a yes vote, but with quality guardrails,” said Russell Wesdyk, an official in the FDA’s office of pharmaceutical quality, during the hearing. “But we lack the regulatory authority that put those guardrails in place.”

This vote could also create even more safety concerns by allowing consumers to buy non-FDA-approved medications from pharmacies that are not rigorously supervised by the FDA, says Shabbir Safdar, executive director of the Partnership for Safe Medicines, a public-health group that aims to protect consumers from counterfeit or unsafe medicines. He is concerned about the standards at 503A compounding pharmacies; one of the board members of the organizations, Dr. Kenneth McCall, published a paper in 2025 finding that compounded GLP-1s were linked to higher rates of adverse effects than non-compounded products between 2018 and 2024, including more abdominal pain, diarrhea, and nausea. Reporting of prescribing and preparation errors were also higher for compounded medications, the paper found. 

Safdar says he knows of several instances when people had serious health problems after taking compounded medications. He worries that people will think that these peptides have robust clinical evidence behind them as a result of being added to the list. 

“Allowing peptides to be compounded removes incentives to go through FDA's rigorous drug approval process,” said Dr. Peter Lurie, a former FDA associate commissioner and the president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, during his testimony at the meeting. “Any company that aspires to prove the safety and effectiveness of a peptide will turn away from them, knowing that compounders will simply be able to sell them without ever needing to generate safety and effectiveness evidence.”

Indeed, Lurie continued, financial analysts are predicting a $2.2 billion telehealth marketing opportunity if these peptides are approved for compounding. Him & Hers stock rose more than 10% after the BPC-157 vote. 

Correction, July 24

The original version of this story misstated the name of a peptide approved by the FDA committee. It is BPC-157, not BP-157. It also mischaracterized Gameday Men's Health. The company primarily provides care through brick-and-mortar clinics, not telehealth.

Ransom Canyon is pure comfort TV, giving people beautiful actors, sumptuous landscapes, and heavy dashes of romance and drama. The Netflix series, based on the Ranson Canyon book series by Jodi Thomas, is similar to other cozy dramas like Virgin River and Sweet Magnolias, striking a perfect balance of relaxing and wildly entertaining.

Season 2, out now, improves upon the first, offering even more land feuds, scheming, family drama, and suspense. At the heart of it all is the relationship between Double K rancher Staten Kirkland (Josh Duhamel) and dance hall owner Quinn (Minka Kelly), whose potential romance in Season 1 was left on pause when she went to work as a pianist in New York. There’s also Yancy (Jack Schumacher), who now runs rival Fuller Ranch, and is expecting a child with his fiancée, Ellie (Marianly Tejada). But that got complicated fast when Sidney (Heidi Grace Engerman) appeared in the finale, claiming to be Yancy’s wife.

There’s a lot going on in Ransom Canyon, and the second season finale answers some burning questions while leaving some more hanging in the air for a possible third season. Here, we break down the biggest events of the finale and what it might all mean for the next season.

Does Ellie survive?

Episode 7 of Season 2 ended in a shocking cliffhanger, as Yancy’s ex-wife Sidney intimidated Ellie to the point she fell off the porch while heavily pregnant. The finale takes us straight to the hospital, where doctors inform Yancy that Ellie’s suffered a placental abrasion, putting both Ellie and the baby’s life at risk. Yancy falls to the ground, and the hallway effectively swallows him up, leaving him heartbroken and alone.

Mercifully, things work out. Ellie goes into labor early but survives, as does the baby, a girl named Isabella. But the threat of Yancy’s ex-wife looms large. Sideny has not been found by police, so she could attack again.

Yancy gets a text from an unknown number asking him to meet up. He goes to an abandoned warehouse, and it’s not Sidney, but Freddie (Kenneth Miller), who Yancy owes $80,000as part of the grift he and Sidney worked on Staten’s father to get him to buy an old plot of land, lying about oil reserves underneath them. Turns out, Freddie doesn’t want the money, and the old land actually does have oil underneath it. Instead of a mere 80 grand, they could make millions. It puts Yancy in an extremely precarious position, continuing to work with a dangerous con man, something Ellie deeply disapproves of. Will working with Freddie be the start of a slippery slope in Ellie and Yancy’s relationship, another example of Yancy working against the law like he did with Sidney?

In the hospital, Ellie has a realization that she doesn’t feel safe with Yancy. She checks herself out from the hospital, and makes the decision to end her relationship with Yancy, worried that he’s too much of a risk to the safety of her and their daughter. Yancy tries to explain that he and Freddie are working on something big as the ranch is sitting on oil, but that only seems to confirm Ellie’s fears that Yancy is too dangerous.

Who does Lauren end up with?

Another major storyline in Season 2 of Ransom Canyon is the romance between the sheriff’s daughter Lauren (Lizzy Greene) and her fellow high school student Lucas (Garrett Wareing). Lauren has been withdrawn since the Season 1 finale revealed her mother was responsible for the death of Staten’s son, and her with Lucas has struggled.  But a surprising person has been there for her: Lucas’ older brother, Kit (Casey W. Johnson).

In the finale, Kit goes to see Lauren to tell her he’s leaving town. Lauren’s excited about a potential future with Kit, leaving Luke behind. But Kit wants to be responsible, for once. Tired of seeing himself as a screw-up, he believes Lauren and Lucas will have a better life if he’s not around. “I’ve been thinking about everything,” he tells her. “It was a dream. The last time we sat here, I told you we were holding Lucas back. I didn’t see it then, what he saw in you. You’re gonna go so far, just like he is.” Kit departs, leaving Lauren in tears, and sets off for Wyoming for a new job and a chance at a new life.

Or rather, Kit tries to leave. But Lauren is waiting for him at the bus station, and refuses to let him go. The two kiss passionately, suggesting Kit will remain a key part of Ransom Canyon going forward. If he does, Luke will likely have a lot to say about his ex dating his brother.

What happens with Quinn and Staten?

Staten and Quinn’s relationship has been at the center of Ransom Canyon from the beginning. Though the season’s penultimate episode seemed to suggest the end of their romance for good, things get renewed from an unexpected source: Quinn’s mother Claire (Patricia Clarkson). 

Since her arrival, Claire has been a thorn in Quinn’s side, constantly pushing her to go back to New York, as for her, Ransom Canyon is little more than a dying town. “This town isn’t dying, mom. Not anymore. This town’s gonna thrive,” Quinn tells her. She surprises her mother by agreeing to sell their farm, getting Claire a new house in Encinitas. Her mother never had the opportunity to chase her own dreams, and Quinn is finally in position to help her mother achieve them. 

Claire, moved by Quinn’s gesture, wants to make things right for her daughter. She goes to visit Staten to encourage him to fight for Quinn: “Get yourself across that canyon,” Claire tells him. “Meet my girl on the other side.” 

It won’t come as a surprise that Quinn and Staten’s romance isn’t really over, but it’s a welcome development all the same. Quinn meets Staten at his cabin. “Fate kept us apart for a reason,” says Staten. “Amalah and Randall, I don’t regret a single moment of my life with them,” he says of his deceased wife and son. But, Staten explains, “Fate was making us ready for each other.” Quinn’s deeply moved (everyone watching will be too) and the two kiss in the cabin. Finally, the will-they-won’t-they comes to an end. And they will!

In the final scene of Season 2, Staten asks Quinn to move in with him. It’s an enormously uplifting moment and a big step forward for the couple. Quinn excitedly kisses him, suggesting that just like Staten, she’s all in.

There’s plenty of resolution in the Season 2 finale, but there are a few key lingering questions. The biggest is the status of the Double K ranch, as there’s still plenty of feuding between Double K and Fuller ranch. Though Staten’s father has said he’s going to reinstate power to Staten (something he took away from him in Season 1) on the board of trustees, we've yet to see it happen. And with Yancy in personal turmoil, it could lead him to make some rash decisions about the future of their neighboring ranches. The other big unanswered questions surround Yancy, too. Will he be able to repair his relationship with Ellie and bring stability back to his life? Or will he further dive into scheming and grifting? One other person looms over a potential Season 3: Sidney. Will Yancy’s ex-wife return for more chaos? We’ll have to wait until next season to find out.

President Donald Trump announced this week that he plans to impose tariffs on generic drugs imported into the U.S. starting in 2028—a policy that experts say could have far-reaching consequences for the prices and availability of those medications.

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump said that, starting in August 2028, all imported generic drugs will be slapped with a tariff of 100% for a year-long period, after which that rate will be raised to 200%.

“This is done in order to RESHORE Generic Pharmaceutical Production into America, with a penalty to those Companies that decide not to build Plant and Equipment within the stated period of time given to them,” the President said. “The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States.”

He did not share further details of what “penalty” he would levy against pharmaceutical companies that choose not to build factories in the country. Since taking office for a second term, Trump has repeatedly imposed or threatened to impose tariffs on various products to pressure industries and countries into acquiescing to his demands. Companies have in turn raised the retail prices for products in a number of cases, increasing costs for consumers. A research note published by the Federal Reserve earlier this year found that the tariffs Trump put in place last year, up through the end of November, raised prices for core goods by 3.1% through February.

While much of Trump’s plan to tax generic drug imports is still unclear, experts say that, if the President follows through on the threat, the proposed tariffs could have a significant impact on many Americans. 

What are generic drugs?

Generic drugs are medications that are created with the same active ingredients as those found in brand-name drugs but typically are sold at much lower prices.

Robin Feldman, a professor at the University of California Law San Francisco and an expert in drug markets, told TIME in an email that the average price of generic medications is “far below” that of brand-name ones. According to her research, which is based on claims for 1 million Medicare patients from 2005 to 2019, the average, dosage-unit cost of a generic drug is $4, compared to $157 for brand-name drugs after accounting for rebates.

Generic drugs make up more than 90% of prescriptions filled in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration. 

What countries are supplying them to the U.S.?

Over the past decade or so, production for those drugs has increasingly moved to other countries, with India and China as the leading sources—which has raised national security concerns from lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle. 

India supplies roughly half of the generic drugs in the U.S., according to a 2025 report from the Senate Committee on Aging. The report additionally found that about 80% of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used by Indian manufacturers are supplied by China. 

China also supplies many commonly used generic drugs—a 2023 report from a lobbying organization called the Coalition for a Prosperous America found that China accounts for about 95% of imports of ibuprofen and 70% of imports of acetaminophen.

How would Trump’s planned tariffs impact the generic drug market in the U.S.?

“Tariffs are most effective when they are threatened but not actually applied. Here, the administration is sending a ‘Made in America' message to the generics industry: In other words, make it here or sell it elsewhere,” Feldman told TIME. “Generic drugs account for 90% of pharmaceutical sales in the U.S, which means that the impact of the drugs would be far-reaching.”

Because generic drugs are far cheaper than the brand-name versions, though, she pointed out that they “would still be much less expensive than branded drugs” even if the President imposed his planned tariffs and the price of generic drugs doubled.

Even so, ​Merith Basey, the CEO of advocacy organization Patients For Affordable Drugs, expressed concern to Reuters that "Imposing massive tariffs on generic medicines risk making lower-cost generic drugs millions of Americans rely on ⁠more ​expensive and harder to access."

Some experts have also said that they worry that high tariffs may lead to a shortage of some generic drugs in the U.S., if manufacturers decide to leave the American market entirely.

The rising cost of health care is already a major concern for many Americans: A little less than 50% of adults in the country say it’s hard to afford these costs, and more than 40% say they haven’t taken medication prescribed by their provider in the past 12 months because of the high costs, according to recent KFF polling. The country has also grappled with several impactful drug shortages in recent years.

The impact for consumers of Trump’s planned generic drug tariffs will ultimately hinge on whether the President follows through on his threat—and how the industry responds to it, which remains to be seen.

“We need to understand more the specifics of the policy, but the generics industry is committed to pursuing policies that support and stabilize both the industry and the access necessary to ensure patients have reliable options for affordable medicines,” John Murphy III, president and CEO of the Association for Accessible Medicines, a trade group for generic drug makers, said in a statement to news outlets.

Pickleball, as you might have heard, has in recent years been considered the fastest-growing sport in America. So the combination of the sport’s name, how it’s played—on a tiny court, with a ping-pongish racket, and a wiffle-ish plastic ball—and surging popularity makes it ripe for parody.

Enter The Dink, a new comedy directed by Josh Greenbaum (Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar, Will & Harper), co-produced by Ben Stiller, and starring Mary Steenburgen, Ed Harris, and Jake Johnson. The film, which debuts on Apple TV on July 24, serves as a sweet ode to this burgeoning pastime, while still poking fun at its foibles. For example, the cast, which also includes Stiller, the late Lynne Marie Stewart, Aaron Chen, Chloe Fineman, and Cleo King, offers intentionally corny, and thus amusing, jokes about “the kitchen,” the pickleball zone in front of the net that participants absolutely cannot enter to hit volleys. 

TIME caught up with Steenburgen, the Oscar winner and comedy stalwart—and real-life pickleball enthusiast—to talk about the sport, The Dink, and a humanitarian cause dear to her heart. 

(This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity)

When and why did you start playing pickleball?

About two months before I knew anything about The Dink, my son Charlie McDowell gave me a paddle and said, "Mom, I've had women even older than you whip my ass.” I said, “That's such a sweet thing to say.” He gave me some lessons. He's been my encouragement. And I started taking lessons on Martha's Vineyard by a woman named Connie McHugh, who's an incredible coach and teacher, and she helped me to just fall in love with it. I saw in it something that I could do at this age that I could get good at–maybe not great at or world-class, but good at–and go have fun with friends, and feel like I had a sport, which I hadn't had since my 40s, when I did start swimming competitively. I've missed having that feeling. So I started feeling that feeling again, of learning something with my body. I like puzzles a lot. Pickleball has a lot of puzzle aspects to it. Because it's not just about power. It's about finesse. It's about angles. It's about remembering all the little ways that you can trip yourself up. So I love what it does to how I think in my brain. And then I've made friends that I never would have known, people I never would have met, through this sport. 

About two months into this happy journey, when I was about to close a deal on a different project, my agents and managers called and said, "Well, there's one more offer for you, and we should probably tell you about it.” And I said, "What is it?” And they said, "Well, it shoots in L.A.” I go, "OK.” And they go, "It's with Josh Greenbaum and Jake Johnson and Ben Stiller.” And I went, "You're kidding.” So obviously it's a comedy, and it's a lead. And it's about pickleball. I went, “That's the one I'm gonna do.” “No, you have to read it first.” And I go, “I'll read it, but that's the one I'm gonna do.” It honestly felt like somebody in heaven just designed it for me.

Why do you think pickleball has gotten so popular in the last five, six years or so?

Because it's sort of egalitarian. All ages can play. Any body type can play. You don't have to be one of these extraordinary athletes. You can be a regular person and play at a level that will bring you pleasure and joy. And the hardest part is learning all the byzantine scoring and the rules and stuff. Also in my case, it was really finding people that were at a great level for me to play. That were hopefully a little bit better than me, so I would grow, but not so much better that they'd be bored playing with me. And I've found that now. So it's really fun for me.

The movie plays on a real conflict that's happened across the country: the fight over space. Pickleball’s expansion has required the need, for example, for the sport to take over tennis courts in some places, ruffling feathers. Full disclosure: I’ve felt this firsthand. I play tennis recreationally and basketball recreationally with my son, and pickleball's encroached on our space a little bit. Do you have sympathy for us folks on the other side of this conflict?

Not really. [Laughs.] I don't think we're trying to do this for no reason. We're trying to do this because of the best reason, which is it's really fun. Do I want the sport of tennis, or God forbid, the sport of basketball to ever go away? No. Tennis is elegant. And basketball is, oh my God, a magical sport full of heart and brilliance. And there's room for all of it. Do we all have to keep fighting over things when all of it is actually quite holy because it gives people something to do that's good for them and brings them joy? In the case of basketball, it's you and your son out there. I played pickleball with both my granddaughters last week and learned something about both of them. There is a holy thing to that. I don't think we have to choose between things that are fun.

One of the film’s comedic bits is your character and Jake Johnson’s character playing against a team in which both players grunt loudly on the court. Are there really pickleball grunters? 

I've heard it in pickleball. And it amuses me even more in pickleball than tennis because in tennis, legitimately it's a long way from one side to the other. But with pickleball, it's not that far. You don't have to grunt.

Did you need a pickleball double for the film?

They had a double for me, and she's since become a friend of mine. And she's quite an extraordinary double because she was the No. 1 player in the world over 50. And her name is Beth Bellamy. Her son Roscoe is the No. 6 singles player in the world. My son and I have played with them. I played with Roscoe Bellamy, and he played with Beth Bellamy. And the funniest thing was watching the mother and son smash it at each other. I mean, so hard. And my son and I were looking at each other like, “I wouldn't dare do that.” They're high-level athletes. They're amazing, and it was hilarious to watch them. 

They used her in two-shots. It's pretty much mostly me. I watch it and wish could do it all over again because I play better now than I did then. But that's OK.

Do you play with your husband, Ted Danson? 

I do not. He will not play with me. He has a bad shoulder. He doesn't want to talk about it, and he won't play with me. But I have plenty of people to play with. 

So another line that stood out in the movie was, somebody said something along the lines of, “You can learn to play pickleball in an hour.” And then the response was, “As if that's a good thing.” What's your reply to that notion that pickleball is too easy?

Well, it's not exclusive. And there's a lot of exclusivity now, and not enough inclusivity. Anything that brings people together and makes them laugh is a good thing. And by the way, no one can learn the scoring thing and all the rules in an hour. It is so cockamamie and crazy. I'm still learning.

On a bittersweet note, Lynne Marie Stewart, who played Miss Yvonne on the groundbreaking Saturday-morning TV show Pee Wee’s Playhouse, plays one of your pickleball friends in the film. Stewart died of cancer in February 2025, a few months after filming wrapped. What was it like working with her?

I adored her. There was absolutely no sign of her being ill. I know she didn't know, and then several weeks after the film, she became very ill. And the sweet thing I would tell you is that Jake and Josh took a rough cut of the film to hospice and showed it to her, as the last film she saw before she passed. She loved it and she saw how good she was in it. I think it was very meaningful for her that she got to do it and she got to see it.

You appeared in Elf, a stone-cold Christmas classic. And you actually ate the spaghetti and maple syrup concoction favored by Will Ferrell’s elfin character. What did that taste like?

Exactly what you think. I don't recommend it. It's not the worst thing I've ever eaten. Maple syrup makes everything better. But it's not what your taste buds want out of spaghetti.

You also worked with Will Ferrell in Step Brothers. What stands out about that experience?

One thing is there was a phone call from Will Ferrell to me. I remember I was in my house on Martha's Vineyard, and he called me himself out of the blue. We had done Elf the year before. I think it was the year before. And he said, “I know you played my stepmom in Elf. Would you be offended if I asked you to play my actual mom?” And I said, "Well, let me do the math here.” And I asked him when he was born. Then I go, "Well, Will, I would have had to have had you when I was 11. [Editor’s note: Steenburgen is 73. Ferrell is 59.] But the answer is, ‘I would be offended if you ask anybody else because I definitely want to do it.’” Because he and I had such a good time together on Elf. 

But on the first day of Step Brothers, what he and John C. Reilly were doing was so high-level, off-the-charts, insane, bonkers, brilliant, that Richard Jenkins, who's an extraordinary actor, and I looked at each other and went, "What the hell are we doing here?” And I think both of us had this kind of crazy feeling, like, “I can't do that.” And so I went home that night, and I really thought about it, and I came back the next day, and I said, “Richard, I figured it out. I know what we're doing here.” And he said, “What?” I said, “It is our job to hold down the truth that these two grown idiots are living at home with them. We have to make that real.”

At the 2025 Emmys, you and Ted received the Bob Hope Humanitarian Award. You’ve both been active in a variety of causes, including anti-apartheid in South Africa, research for pediatric AIDS, and the importance of arts in public schools. On the philanthropic/humanitarian front, is there anything new you're working on that’s exciting or interesting or important to you?

There is. I once knew two doctors that I met through the White House Fellows Program many years ago, and they had a little boy named Sam. And when I met him, he was 3, and Sam looked about 95 because Sam had progeria, which is premature aging syndrome. I became friends with this little boy and remained friends with him throughout his all-too-short life. He lived to be a teenager and passed away some years ago. But his mother, who was a doctor, got herself put on the Human Genome Project, and she, along with Dr. Francis Collins, found the gene variant for progeria, which is amazing. Not only did they do that, but they, through the Progeria Research Foundation, have found a method of gene editing, and a little device that carries that into the organs of the body, that can go in mice and reedit genes to where someone with progeria today can actually get better. If it works with progeria, there's a chance that all these rare and deeply underfunded diseases that more people should care about could actually be alleviated from the face of the earth. So I am trying to help them because they need to raise about $20 to $25 million to get this first patient to have this. 

You’ve had such a long and varied career: you’ve won an Oscar and played all different types of roles in dramas and comedies. Is there any role you haven't played that you still want to do? Any bucket-list items, career-wise?

I've never done Shakespeare. I've never done some of the great Southern kind of plays that I probably should have done. I balance what I do between my family and work and my marriage, but I also have a very important career to me that's quite separate, which is I write music. I'm working on some things now that are really important to me. I don't look at anything about my career with any disappointment. I look at all of it with gratitude. It's crazy to me still that I get to do this. I constantly feel the need to prove myself and to get better. One of the things I love about it is that I don't have a plan. I feel like what's meant to be mine is going to come my way.

You mentioned music. You’ve talked about how, after minor arm surgery in 2007, you started hearing music in your mind all the time. What exactly happened there, where a medical procedure made you musical? 

I had a surgery on my right arm that was very innocuous, except they did put me under for it. I'll never know for sure, but we think they let my blood pressure get too low, and I had a little bit of a brain event. Not a serious thing. All I felt when I woke up was weird. So I assumed I'm just getting the anesthetic out of my body. But days later, I still felt weird, and you know, no one was helpful about what was going on with me. And Ted kept saying, "You seem like you can't focus on what I'm saying.” And I said, "Well, I can't focus because of the music.” And he's like, "There's no music playing.” I go, "Well, there's music playing in here.” [Points to head.]

People say it was a gift. It might have been a gift, but it was a gift I had to work really hard to harness and make sense out of. My grandmother was extremely musical, so I don't know if I just got to some part of my brain that was there that I hadn't. I don't know enough about the brain. But I became obsessed with music, and from the obsession, I started studying music. My first instrument was an accordion, which I just started playing. It didn't take me long to figure it out. And then I consumed books about songwriting and started paying attention to song structure. All this work helped to calm it down to the point where I could behave like a normal person. But I am still absolutely obsessed with music, and particularly with writing music. I write mostly with people from or connected to Nashville, because I'm signed with Universal Music Publishing Group in Nashville, and I really love the Nashville way of writing and the seriousness about musicianship and writing. I just love my friends there. So we're doing some crazy, wonderful things. We just got through writing two end-credit songs for movies. I enjoy it very much.

Very cool. Closing up on The Dink – what do you want people to take away from the film?

I hope they laugh in a summer where laughter is probably a really good thing. I hope some of them safely go out and have fun playing pickleball and don't hurt themselves. I hope that it reminds people in the business that these smaller films that are beautifully written, with a great script, have value in the marketplace. And in a dream world, maybe we'll get to do another one. That would make me very happy

Dink is a name for a pickleball drop shot. How’s your dink?

My dink is pretty good. I dinked against Anna Leigh Waters this morning, and although there were three of us playing one person, we did win best two out of  three from my little dink.

And last question: Why the hell do they call it “the kitchen”?

I have no idea.

When the U.K.’s new Prime Minister Andy Burnham arrived at 10 Downing Street earlier this week, his wife of 25 years, Marie-France van Heel, was right by his side.

The couple, who share a son and two daughters, met at university, where van Heel was “much more high-flying” than Burnham, according to an interview the lawmaker gave in 2009.

Burnham, 56, has publicly thanked his wife for the “sacrifice” she made early on in his political career when he earned his first parliamentary selection for the northern England town of Leigh in 2001.

“When my wife got pregnant, we actually hadn't planned to have children at that time because I felt stability was important,” Burnham said. “We got married in October 2000, when Jimmy [our eldest child] was eight months old, and I was in a difficult battle to win the nomination. It was horrendous, up and down the M6 [motorway] from London campaigning.” 

Burnham’s wife has been a constant source of support throughout his political career, which saw him unsuccessfully vie for Labour leadership on two separate occasions before running unchallenged earlier this month.

The Burnham-van Heel family have laid strong roots in the north of England, where the now-Prime Minister served as mayor of Greater Manchester until last month, when he made a triumphant return to Westminster after winning the Makerfield by-election.

Having built a successful career in marketing, van Heel previously worked as chief strategy officer for consultancy firm Heavenly, which has worked on brand campaigns for the BBC, HSBC, and England Rugby. 

According to the BBC, she now serves as chief marketing officer at Iduna Infrastructure, a company which owns significant parts of Manchester's electric vehicle charging network.

During his mayoral tenure, Burnham chose to declare his wife's links to EV charging and remove himself from any related decision-making "so that there could be no perception of a conflict of interest nor any suggestion of privileged information being misused.”

Now, as he takes on the challenge of being the U.K.’s seventh Prime Minister in a decade, Burnham will come under a new spotlight. Here’s what to know about the person supporting him behind the scenes.

Marie-France van Heel appeared on a famous U.K. dating show

The Prime Minister has credited his time studying at Cambridge University for many of his good fortunes, including meeting his wife.

Burnham studied English and was in his second year when he bonded with van Heel, a Dutch-born peer.

During a Labour leadership hustings in July 2015, Burnham revealed an interesting detail about the earlier years of their relationship.

When the candidates were asked what made them human, Burnham regaled a story of his wife appearing on the former hit romance show Blind Date in the early 90s after he gave her his blessing.

The premise of the show saw a “picker” given the chance to ask questions to three potential suitors, all hidden behind a screen, before eventually picking one to go on a date with. The couple would then return to the show the following week, to let the host and audience know how the date went.

“In the early days, she was on Blind Date and she was the picker,” he said, according to The Spectator. “And to add insult to injury, she picked Will from Surrey, who ended up being the director of communications for the Conservative Party.”

The man in question was Will Harris, who did indeed go on to serve as the chief marketing officer for the Conservatives.

Luckily for Burnham, van Heel and Harris failed to find a spark on their date and swiftly went their separate ways.

Burnham has had the support of his wife from the beginning of his political career

Burnham told van Heel on the first night they met that he wanted to be an MP [Member of Parliament].

“I met him on my first day at university. Yes, with the long hair, the good looks, and monobrow,” van Heel recalled in a 2015 interview. When Burnham told her of his political aspirations, van Heel “left the room,” but they soon formed a burgeoning relationship. 

When he was considering running for the Labour leadership contest in 2015, Burnham had his family at the forefront of his mind.

“We talked it through and it was very much a team effort, a family effort. I wouldn’t put them through it if I wasn’t sure,” he said.

Van Heel’s family experience with cancer 

Burnham previously served as Health Secretary under the premiership of Gordon Brown from 2009 to 2010, then as the shadow Health Secretary following Labour’s defeat in the 2010 general election. 

It was during this role that he revealed the challenging personal experience he and his wife had faced. 

"It's been a devastating few years. You couldn't imagine a crueller set of circumstances happening to any family," said Burnham in 2010.

Van Heel had undergone a pre-emptive double mastectomy after learning she carried the gene for breast cancer following the death of her sister Claire from the disease, and the diagnosis of both her mother Bea and other sister, Louise. 

“As hard as it was to take, the decision was liberating rather than depressing, because it's lifted the cloud of fear,” said Burnham of his wife’s surgery. 

Van Heel has since participated in Cancer Research UK’s Race for Life event.

Doctors in the U.S. are hearing an odd complaint from their patients more frequently: lifelong meat eaters are suddenly breaking out into hives, getting bad stomach pains, and are sometimes vomiting or having diarrhea after eating red meat.

The symptoms are typical of alpha-gal syndrome, a strange tick-borne illness first identified in the 2000s that induces an allergy to a specific type of sugar found in red meat. Most mammals (but not humans) have cells that contain the sugar, so it’s found in beef, lamb, and pork—all popular protein sources in the human diet.

Nearly 500,000 Americans are living with alpha-gal syndrome, according to estimates from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University reported in 2025 that from 2013 to 2024, the number of positive tests for the alpha-gal antibody in people’s blood increased 100-fold, suggesting that more people have developed immune reactions to alpha gal, and are therefore allergic to it. In May, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced several initiatives against tick-borne diseases, including new research funding for alpha-gal syndrome.

Here's what to know about alpha-gal syndrome.

How do ticks cause alpha-gal syndrome?

In the U.S., the condition most commonly starts with a bite from a lone star tick, and less often from bites from a blacklegged tick or western blacklegged tick. When a tick bites a human, it releases viruses or bacteria (like the one that causes Lyme disease) as well as its saliva, which contains compounds to thin the blood and numb the bite area. It also contains alpha gal, which causes problems for some when it's released into their blood. “The tick is injecting alpha gal directly from its saliva into the blood, and the [human] body is not used to seeing alpha gal in this way,” says Dr. Bobbi Pritt, chair of clinical microbiology at the Mayo Clinic.

Since the sugar is not normally found in blood, some people’s immune systems recognize it as foreign and mount a vigorous defense to eliminate it by producing antibodies to alpha gal. Those antibodies are generally relatively harmless, cruising through the blood looking out for any alpha gal it may encounter. When people eat red meat, however, some of the alpha gal in the digested meat can be absorbed into the bloodstream, where the antibodies go to work.

In some people, this causes an allergic reaction. If the reaction escalates, it can lead to anaphylactic shock and even death.

Can eating any type of meat trigger alpha-gal syndrome?

Most mammals—but not humans—contain alpha gal, so someone with alpha-gal syndrome will likely have an allergic reaction to consuming meat from cows, pigs, lambs, goats, and deer. Even among these meats, some organ cuts like the liver, kidneys, sweetbreads, and intestines might be more likely to trigger an allergic reaction since they contain higher levels of alpha gal, according to the CDC.

What are the symptoms of alpha-gal syndrome?

The symptoms can vary, says Pritt, and they generally get worse every time you eat red meat. If you develop alpha-gal syndrome, the first time you eat a steak or burger after being bitten by a tick, you might get symptoms that are on the milder side, like a rash, itching, hives, or flushing several days later. Some people might experience swelling in the eyes and lips, she says. Others may get intestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, vomiting, or nausea.

For those who might be severely allergic, or for people with the allergy who continue to consume red meat, symptoms could intensify to include difficulty breathing, wheezing, or even anaphylactic shock. Because a severe allergic reaction is so dangerous, Pritt says, “you don’t want to face alpha-gal syndrome alone. There is the potential, especially after repeated exposure, of having a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction.”

Is alpha gal only found in red meat?

There may be hidden sources of alpha gal in products that rely on animal components. Dr. Mario Rodenas, associate professor of allergy and immunology at Yale University, says the syndrome can also occur among cancer patients taking the chemotherapy drug cetuximab, which includes a component made from mouse cells that contain alpha gal. Doctors first made the connection between tick bites and severe allergic reactions to the cancer drug in 2008, when they learned that cancer patients with higher levels of certain immune cells made them more sensitive to the alpha gal in the medication, and that their more sensitive immune systems were triggered by tick bites.

Pritt says other animal-based products, like dairy, butter, milk, lard and bone broth, may also contain alpha gal and could trigger an allergic reaction among people with the syndrome. Gelatin-containing products could also be a potential catalyst if they are made from animal products.

Can you eventually “grow out of” alpha-gal allergies, like you can other food allergies?

“Yes, that’s a bit of bright news in the picture,” says Pritt: Alpha-gal syndrome is not always permanent. But experts still don’t know enough about the syndrome and how it changes the body’s immune system to know for certain when and how people might be able to safely eat meat once they’ve developed the allergy.

That’s why it’s important to protect yourself from tick bites—especially if you’ve already been bitten in the past by a tick, since you won't always know which type of tick you encountered. “We learned that if you get frequent tick exposures, once you develop this [syndrome], if you get another tick exposure, it can bump up or increase the concentration of allergic antibodies against alpha gal,” says Rodenas. “So you’re perpetuating the problem. Some people have outgrown this because they avoided further tick bites. But we have to follow people [for longer] since we haven’t been able to so far, because the disease is so young.”

Why are more people developing alpha-gal syndrome now?

A few factors could explain why alpha-gal syndrome appears to be on the rise. First, increased awareness of the connection between tick bites and alpha-gal syndrome means more doctors are reporting it, and more people are asking their health care professionals about the condition.

Second, the expanding habitat of ticks could be leading to more bites and consequently more cases of the allergy. Warmer climates mean the tick primarily responsible, the lone star tick, has spread from the southern U.S. all the way through New England in the Northeast.

Rodenas is studying the factors that might contribute to someone developing alpha-gal syndrome. “We really don’t know what these patients look like,” he says. “We want to characterize what these patients’ comorbidities or other medical problems are, to try to better define who is a higher risk of developing this—is it younger people or older people? Men, women, or children?” He is including medical data in people’s health records extending back 12 years to detect patterns among those who develop the allergy.

Why don’t people develop alpha-gal syndrome simply from eating red meat?

The difference between being exposed to alpha-gal syndrome from eating red meat and from a tick bite has to do with where the alpha gal enters the body. When people eat red meat, most of the alpha gal is digested in the stomach and small intestine, with very little being absorbed into the blood. And any alpha gal that is absorbed after digestion will be in a different, already digested form, while the original version comes from tick saliva, says Pritt. With a tick bite, all of the carbohydrate is injected directly into the blood, where immune cells are on constant watch for anything unusual. In the blood, alpha gal triggers an immune response, while it generally doesn’t in the digestive tract.

Why do some people develop alpha-gal syndrome after a tick bite while others who get bitten don’t?

As with any allergy, alpha-gal syndrome occurs against the backdrop of a person’s existing immune reactions, and people have different sensitivities to various compounds. Tick saliva also contains a number of other immune-affecting compounds that can modify the immune system, says Pritt. Some people might be more prone to activating an immune component known as IgE, for example, which tends to stimulate other immune mechanisms involved in an allergic reaction. So those who already have higher levels of IgE patrolling the blood might be prone to developing alpha-gal syndrome than those with lower amounts.

Ask someone who investigates foodborne illness for a living what they won't put on their plate, and the list is shorter—and stranger—than you'd expect.

It's not that these experts live in fear. Most will tell you that all food carries some risk, and the real skill is deciding which risks are worth taking. Frank Yiannas, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s former deputy commissioner for food policy and response, says he doesn't think of foods as simply "good" or "bad." Instead, "I approach everything with what I would say is a quantitative risk assessment," he says. "I'm calculated."

Still, after decades of investigating outbreaks—and, in some cases, having their own lives forever changed by foodborne illness—these experts have each decided a handful of foods simply aren't worth the gamble. Some of their no-go items are predictable; others might be sitting in your fridge right now. Here’s what came up again and again.

Raw milk and raw-milk cheese

There's almost no debate about this one. "It's ridiculous," says Bill Marler, a food-safety lawyer who has spent decades suing companies over outbreaks. He says he has represented families of children who have died or suffered kidney damage and neurological complications after foodborne illness linked to raw milk, and to him, the risk simply isn't worth it. It’s especially hard to justify when there's a safe alternative. “You have such a great thing called pasteurization,” he says. 

"It’s very risky," says Barbara Kowalcyk, director of the Institute of Food Safety and Nutrition Security at George Washington University, who avoids raw milk and cheeses made from it. "We've known that for decades." 

Kowalcyk knows the stakes of food safety in a deeply personal way. In 2001, she lost her young son to complications from a foodborne E. coli infection—a tragedy that led her to leave a career in pharmaceutical research and devote her life to food safety. (She believes her son’s illness was caused by tainted ground beef in a hamburger he’d eaten.)

Cantaloupe

Ask Darin Detwiler to name some of the riskiest produce in the grocery store, and he doesn't hesitate: cantaloupe. "You cannot adequately clean the outside of the cantaloupe," says Detwiler, an associate teaching professor of food policy at Northeastern University and author of Food Safety: Past, Present, and Predictions. Once you run a knife through the rough rind, he says, you drag whatever's on the surface straight into the flesh.

If you love it anyway, his rule is to cut it and eat it right away—never let cut melon sit out for more than two hours. And he has one warning sign to watch for: cut melon that's been sitting too long can develop what looks like a dusting of powdered sugar on the surface. It isn't sugar. "That’s when the pathogens have grown so much you can actually see them," he says. He skips the fruit entirely. For Detwiler, some food risks simply aren't worth taking. After losing his young son in the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak, he devoted his career to food safety.

Raw oysters and shellfish

Raw oysters show up on a lot of experts' no-go lists. Shellfish are filter feeders, Marler explains—they pull water through their bodies, and "anything in the water that's contaminated, they suck it into their bodies." If the water is contaminated, there's a good chance your oyster is, too.

Detwiler ranks oysters among his personal top three foods to avoid. (Marler does, too.) Beyond the contaminated water, Detwiler says, they're linked to frequent illness outbreaks and can be notoriously difficult to trace back to their source. 

Sushi rolls

Dr. Daniel Griffin, an infectious disease physician and president of Parasites Without Borders, doesn't swear off sushi entirely. He does eat it—but only after inspecting it. Some fish parasites are large enough to spot with the naked eye: thin, reddish, thread-like worms visible in a pale piece of fish. "If you Google 'fish with parasite,' you'll probably lose your appetite," he says. He examines each piece before eating it and skips rolls altogether. "I'm not gonna [eat] the roll with something hidden in there," he says.

Undercooked pork

Jill Roberts, a molecular epidemiologist and professor at the University of South Florida College of Public Health, says pork is one meat she approaches with extra caution. She avoids thick cuts like pork tenderloin because they're harder to cook all the way through. "All I can see is Toxoplasma," she says. The parasite, which can also be spread through cat feces, has increasingly been linked to undercooked pork. "I'm just out on that one."

Sprouts

Raw sprouts are another easy pass for Kowalcyk. They've been linked to a long string of foodborne illness outbreaks, she says, "and there's really no good way to clean them." That's because contamination often starts before the sprouts are even grown: Bacteria can be present on the seeds themselves, and the warm, humid conditions needed for sprouting are also ideal for helping those bacteria multiply. Simply rinsing them under water isn't enough to reliably remove them. Cooking would make them safer—but then, she points out, you've lost the crunch that made them appealing in the first place. 

Pre-cut fruits and vegetables

Pre-cut fruits and vegetables are another easy pass. The convenience of a tub of pre-sliced melon or a bag of shredded carrots isn't worth giving up control over how your food is handled, Marler says. "You don't know how long it's been sitting around, or whether the knife, the cutting surface, or the hands that touched it were clean," he says.

Kowalcyk feels the same way. She'd rather buy produce whole and cut it herself than trust someone else to do it.

Raw eggs

Eggs are far safer today than they were 20 years ago, Marler notes—but he still won't eat them raw. That means no tasting cookie dough made with raw eggs, no licking brownie batter off the beaters, and no homemade Caesar dressing made with uncooked yolks. Most eggs sold in grocery stores aren't pasteurized, he notes, so if a recipe calls for raw eggs, he'd rather use pasteurized ones—or skip it altogether.

Undercooked hamburgers

A medium-rare steak and a medium-rare burger may look similar, but Griffin says they're completely different from a food-safety perspective. With a steak, bacteria generally stay on the surface, where cooking kills them. Grind that same meat into a hamburger, though, and any bacteria get mixed throughout the patty.

"You're gonna take whatever bacterial contamination, E. coli, or fecal contamination, and now you're gonna mix it all deep in there," he says.

That's why Griffin always orders burgers well done. Yiannas does too. At home, he uses a food thermometer instead of relying on color alone.

Potlucks and picnic foods

Roberts is wary of foods prepared outside regulated kitchens. "If it's a potluck, I'm out," she says. "If it's a bake sale, no." When coworkers organize a potluck, she jokes that she suddenly has another commitment. "I'm always ill," she says.

Family cookouts are a different story, because she can watch the food being grilled. Even then, she's vigilant about anything that sits out in the summer heat. Rather than leaving a big bowl of potato salad on the picnic table, she has her family keep most of it in the refrigerator and bring out only a small portion at a time, refilling the bowl as needed. Her sister now teases her by asking, "Do you want me to get an aliquot?"—a laboratory term Roberts has turned into family shorthand for serving a small batch.

Spectators typically leave a UFC fight with ringing ears and a sheepish resolve to get back to the gym. Wang Xingxing went straight to his laboratory. 

“I thought I could make a bigger robot for boxing competitions,” says Wang, the founder and CEO of Hangzhou-based humanoid-robotics firm Unitree. “Then I thought, Why not do an even bigger one that can actually carry a human inside?”

The upshot of Wang’s creative fervor is the GD01, which Unitree bills as the world’s first mass-produced, transformable mecha robot. Standing 9 ft. tall and weighing half a ton, it can transport a pilot in its torso-mounted cockpit, walk on either two legs or four, and wield fists powerful enough to knock down walls. Heavy-duty mechanical hinges connect titanium-alloy limbs to a protective casing of carbon fiber, enabling smooth, deliberate strides on brutish red legs.

Wang showed off the GD01 exclusively to TIME as part of his first international media interview, revealing that beyond mixed martial arts, he took a dash of inspiration from James Cameron: “We actually drew some references from a similar robot featured in Avatar.”

Wang has done more than arguably anyone else to bring this science fiction closer to reality. A native of China’s coastal city of Ningbo, he founded Unitree in 2016 when he was just 26 years old and has moved from robot dogs to humanoid robots and now, with GD01, human mobility machines. But while the GD01 might inspire awe, humbler humanoids like Unitree’s flagship G1 are the ones set to become the workhorses of a global robotics transformation already gathering pace in China, the U.S., and beyond.

This is the next great tech frontier, one that has previously been the purview of Star Wars and Blade Runner: AI that walks, sees, hears and physically interacts with the real world. Morgan Stanley predicts that as many as 13 million humanoids could walk among us by 2035—equivalent to the population of Bolivia. That number is forecast to rise to 1 billion by 2050, when the industry could be worth $5 trillion. 

Unitree is hardly alone staking a claim in this space. In January, Tesla announced the third generation of its Optimus humanoid robot with a goal to eventually produce 10 million units per year at factories in Fremont and Texas. In late June, California-based Figure dispatched its latest 03 humanoid to BMW’s Spartanburg plant in South Carolina, where its earlier 02 model helped assemble 30,000 cars last year. Oregon-based Agility, meanwhile, has secured deployments everywhere from Toyota to Latin American e-commerce giant Mercado Libre. But Unitree is the world leader in terms of volume, dispatching more than 5,500 units in 2025, comprising over a quarter of a global market that is only just waking. In June, Nvidia announced that its bleeding-edge Jetson Thor chip would be fitted into Unitree’s H2 humanoid for sale to research institutions around the globe. 

We could be, Wang says, anything from two to 10 years away from a “ChatGPT moment” for humanoids, whereby a robot achieves sufficient “generalization” to be able to execute 80% of requested voice commands in an 80% unfamiliar environment. “Once the technology surpasses this ... inflection point, robots can gradually be rolled out for large-scale commercial use,” he says.

If the timeline for that breakthrough is a matter of debate, its potential impact is not. Nonunion robots (the only kind) could operate around the clock on assembly lines, replace some nurses in hospitals, and pick fruit under the hot sun. 

The positive outlook is that wide-scale humanoid adoption will herald an unprecedented era of global abundance, automating mundane and dangerous labor while ushering in post-scarcity societies. There is a less rosy divination, however. Amid a mass labor displacement, robots concentrate even more wealth into fewer human hands. With production severed from wages, people could face an identity crisis as robots begin to dominate manual labor and service industries, while governments contend with strained social safety nets and rising competition between the U.S. and China—leaders in humanoids as they are in AI—over raw material and technology. On June 3, three U.S. lawmakers introduced the bipartisan Guard Act, which seeks to ban Chinese robots deemed to be a national-security threat. Unitree was singled out by John Moolenaar, a bill co-sponsor and chairman of the House Select Committee on China, who accused Wang’s firm of benefiting from “generous state subsidies” and threatening to bankrupt American competitors.

With AI, we’ve already seen how the ability of large language models (LLM) to parse huge reams of data also makes them susceptible to hallucinations and unintended consequences, like designing biological weapons. But while an LLM can suggest harm, a robot can enact it, auguring a terrifying new cybersecurity peril in the age of embodied AI. Online scams already siphon off staggering sums, but a hacked humanoid could move the threat from screens into homes, streets, nurseries, and factory floors.

The tension between these visions can be reduced to a choice of myth: Are Wang and his GD01, and indeed their competitors, akin to Luke Skywalker and the faithful, guileless C-3PO—or more like Frankenstein and his monster?

Wang, unsurprisingly, veers toward the positive, predicting that in 10 years every household may have a small robot that can do your laundry, grill your steak, and even provide basic care if you fall ill. They can also take on tasks most humans would rather avoid, from steep mountain farming to sewer maintenance.

But if that sounds like a future arriving faster than society can absorb it, Wang insists the transition will be gradual. “It will evolve step-by-step,” he says. “If society finds that robots don’t perform well in a certain sector, or if people simply don’t like them there, we can easily pivot and re-direct their application to other fields. So, everything remains well within controllable boundaries.”

Wang is an unlikely prophet of the AI age. Slight and bespectacled, he possesses none of the performative bravado associated with many technology founders. Instead, he speaks about robotics with quiet, unwavering conviction.

The possibilities and promises of a humanoid revolution have occupied him since he was 10 years old and first watched early televised robotics experiments performed at MIT by Marc Raibert, founder of Boston Dynamics. He spent his free time building model aircraft, conducting experiments, and, before long, assembling miniature turbojet engines. 

In 2009, Wang enrolled at Zhejiang Sci-Tech University in Hangzhou, majoring in mechatronics engineering. As a first-year student, he says, he built his first small bipedal robot, capable of walking a few steps, on less than $30. That same price-conscious approach would underpin Unitree’s flourishing. While pursuing a master’s degree at Shanghai University, he developed a prototype quadruped robot, XDog, which still occupies pride of place in the Unitree headquarters. Departing from the hydraulic-powered designs popularized by his idols at Boston Dynamics, Wang opted for a cost-saving electric-motor model, which helped XDog win second prize in a national entrepreneurship competition.

After graduation and a stint at Shenzhen-based drone trailblazer DJI, Wang launched Unitree with 2 million RMB ($300,000) in capital from an angel investor. It has since become a cultural phenomenon; an estimated 600 million people watched videos of Unitree’s H2 and G1 humanoid robots swinging nunchucks and executing flips as part of February’s Spring Festival Gala—China’s equivalent to the Super Bowl halftime show. It was the second year that Unitree humanoids provided the headline act, and all eyes are on what Wang has planned next time. “I have no idea,” he confesses with a laugh.

In March, Unitree filed for an IPO that would value the firm at $6 billion, sparking a buying frenzy in mainland Chinese markets for companies that would benefit along with it, such as upstream suppliers.

But high expectations are both a blessing and a curse. While Unitree’s first-quarter revenue surged over 68% year-on-year to $62 million, adjusted net profit halved over the same period to just $6 million, which the company blamed on a significant spike in R&D and sales costs. Wang talks about “a flip side” to viral internet fame. “Because the hype gets so intense, it places a fair amount of pressure on our company and the industry as a whole,” he says. “Everyone starts expecting your technology to leap forward at a breakneck pace. But the truth is, deep tech breakthroughs require a certain amount of time.”

Unitree’s blossoming came just as the Chinese government began leaning into AI and robotics, which President Xi Jinping has highlighted as key examples of the “new growth drivers.” China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in turn declared humanoids a “disruptive innovation” on the same level as smartphones and EVs—breakthroughs destined to transform human production and lifestyle, making leadership a matter of economic and national security. It’s a policy push backed by hard cash; since late 2024, Chinese cities have put together investment funds worth over $26 billion, according to Morgan Stanley. Unitree hasn’t disclosed the exact level of state support it receives, though as one of Hangzhou’s “Six Little Dragons”—elite local startups—it benefits from the city’s $14 billion Sci-Tech Fund. “China is an ass kicker, next level,” Elon Musk told a Tesla earnings call in January. “To the best of our knowledge, we don’t see any significant [humanoid robot] competitors outside of China.”Wang’s role leading that charge was evident when he appeared as the youngest member of a high-profile business symposium hosted by Xi last spring. More than 140 Chinese companies now make humanoid robots, yet the perception inside China is that Unitree is not just another robotics startup, but a hardware platform destined to replicate what BYD achieved for EVs and DJI did for drones. Wang’s strategy is simple but hard to beat: first, control the most difficult core components; leverage scale to relentlessly drive down costs; and use each product generation to unlock new markets.

Unitree has slashed the pretax price of its flagship G1 humanoid from $16,000 to $13,500 in just 18 months. (Still, with components that cost under $9,000, according to recent estimates by SemiAnalysis, that gives Unitree a handy 33% gross margin.) The R1 model now retails for under $5,000, and over six years the price of their “robot dogs” has dropped from $45,000 to under $2,000. Wang insists Unitree wins through manufacturing cost efficiency—for example, it produces its own actuators, the “muscles” responsible for movement, which account for 50% to 70% of a humanoid’s cost. 

While the G1 might not boast the peak performance of some Western competitors in terms of load bearing and durability, it has crossed the “good enough” threshold for real-world deployment. With the ability to carry 5-kg payloads for 10 to 15 minutes continuously without overheating, it is moving out of R&D labs and into pilot deployments for warehouse logistics and material handling.

That said, to date only a fraction of humanoids sold are employed in actual useful work. The reason is very simple: today’s robots operate at about 30% to 50% of human efficiency for general factory and warehouse tasks, such as stacking and carrying boxes. Only 9% of Unitree’s sales go directly into industrial applications, with 17% for commercial venues such as tourist sites, exhibitions, and retail stores. That leaves 74% of Unitree’s humanoid sales to universities, research institutions, and individual developers looking to hone their own AI and motion-control capabilities. And the company is far from alone. The entire modern humanoid industry is essentially selling robots to people trying to build better robots. “Humanoid robots are just not ready for the mass market,” says Grace Shao, who publishes the AI Proem newsletter. 

Wang is unconcerned, however, and compares this trend to the early days of the personal computer, when they were primarily purchased by those in the business: “As the software becomes increasingly mature, with more developers joining each year, the proportion of genuine industrial deployments is growing at an incredibly fast pace.”

For now, Unitree is still wrestling with the same white whale as its legion of competitors: the generalization gap, which Wang calls “the biggest headache for the entire global scientific community.” While today’s back-flipping machines are engineering marvels, they remain stubbornly task-specific. If you want a robot to pick up a pen and move it across a desk, you must program every granular motion. But to make AI truly useful in the physical world, robots must transition from executing rigid scripts to understanding novel commands—like being told to simply “go to the grocery store.”

Achieving this milestone will require overcoming two self-reinforcing problems: the scarcity of 3D data and the diversity of deployment environments. Unlike LLMs like ChatGPT, which can parse the virtually boundless internet, robots need manipulation data collected in the real physical world, which is costly and difficult to scale. It must typically be collected manually by repetitively training machines how to perform certain tasks, such as folding shirts, stocking refrigerators, or shaking a mai tai. Plus, explains Jiang Zheyuan, CEO of Beijing-based humanoid firm Noetix, “even if a well-performing manipulation strategy is trained for a specific task, the success rate often drops sharply when the environment changes slightly—for example, object displacement, different lighting, or different tabletop materials.” 

Thanks to firms like Unitree, the hardware for humanoids is advancing quickly. The real battleground is over the robot brains, or vision-language-action (VLA) models, which are designed to turn human inputs into embodied AI performing intuitively and accurately. The VLA space alone will be worth $40.50 billion by 2035, predicts Kaiso Research, a market intelligence firm, and many of tech’s biggest players are aggressively pursuing their own models, including Nvidia’s GR00T N1.7, Google DeepMind’s RT-2-X, and Alibaba’s Qwen Robot Suite.

That battle is increasingly about one thing: collecting data. In New York City, for example, Micro AGI, which counts Unitree as a partner, is sending camera-wearing staff to clean apartments free of charge simply to generate 3D data to train its physical AI model. But as a dedicated robotics company, Unitree is arguably in a weaker position than Tesla, Xiaomi, or XPeng, which have diversified revenue streams and established supply chains. So solving this generalization gap is key to maintaining its status as today’s market champion. After all, its absolute sales are by any measure minuscule, meaning whoever closes the gap first could easily surge ahead.

There may be a game changer on the horizon: revolutionary new 6G connectivity would enable AI-native networks on which collective learning happens seamlessly across millions of connected devices. If one humanoid in a distant warehouse wrestles with a novel tool and finally masters it, that newly generated data can be instantly uploaded and shared across the entire global fleet. 6G will empower us “to make a digital twin of the world,” Cristiano Amon, CEO of $200 billion semiconductor firm Qualcomm, tells TIME. 

Boosted connectivity would solve the robotics bottlenecks of weight and battery life. Navigating our world requires simultaneously processing 4K video, spatial lidar, audio, and delicate tactile or proprioceptive feedback. But carrying heavy computational hardware and the means to power it severely limits both robot agility and operating time. 6G could potentially combine cloud processing with network lag of a near instantaneous 0.1 to 1 millisecond. Suddenly, lightweight physical robots could be animated by a cloud-based AI brain operating in real time. When a robot fumbles, 6G provides a safety net via remote human teleoperation.

As these machines come online, a significant challenge will be securing any centralized network. Last year, cybersecurity analysts discovered a “backdoor” in Unitree’s Go1 robot dogs, whereby third parties could log onto a portal to see the robot’s location, view live camera feeds, and even control it remotely. In response, Unitree shut down the cloud service that enabled the breach. Wang insists his “robot products operate completely disconnected from the network. If the client does not permit it, the robot will not save any environmental information whatsoever.” Besides, he adds, the data stored on a robot is “entirely negligible” when compared with that kept on a smartphone.

Then there is the fear, familiar from fiction, that machines built to act on our behalf might one day be made to act against us. Even today’s robots have shown physical AI carries physical risk: viral clips capture Unitree machines swinging an arm or a leg into unsuspecting children who stray into the path of their choreography. As humanoids graduate to generalization, whether they’ll become more cautious or more dangerous is a key question facing the industry. Wang plays down the potential for renegade robots to wreak havoc. “That won’t happen,” he says. “These robots are engineered with rigorous hardware constraints and safety protections.” 

The need for safety will hit home if human-shaped machines step off assembly lines and into living rooms. On June 30, Shenzhen-based UBtech launched its lifelike U1 humanoids specifically for companionship, featuring silicone skin and biomimetic facial expressions, and powered by what the company claims is world’s first empathic LLM “capable of recognizing more than 20 fine-grained emotional states.”

But the greatest obstacle to the household humanoid may not be technical. First proposed by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970, the “uncanny valley” hypothesis posits that as an object becomes more humanlike, our affection for it grows. Once it crosses a critical threshold—getting too close to human—our response plunges into revulsion. As firms experiment with anthropomorphic robots with real hair, it remains to be seen whether the valley can be bridged.

At Unitree’s headquarters, the GD01 was displayed hanging from a reinforced steel joist. Wang was unwilling to operate it or even climb inside. “It might not be safe,” he shrugs of his creation, which carries a retail price of $650,000. When TIME’s photographer asked for a nearby promotional background to be relocated, Unitree’s technicians protested that shifting it would interfere with the lidar of the nearby phalanx of G1s practicing that now iconic Spring Festival Gala acrobatic martial-arts display. When the performance finished, those technicians rushed to spray their now sizzling lidar with coolant following that four-minute exertion.

For all Unitree’s lead in the humanoid market, today’s machines remain strangely theatrical: bodies dressed as intelligence, rehearsing a role they have not yet learned to live. “Humanoid robot technology is still in its relatively early stages,” cautions Wang. “It will likely take some time before we see genuine, large-scale deployment. It won’t happen overnight.” Nearby, GD01—part prototype, part prophecy—stands sentinel, as if quietly rebuking his master’s prudence.

Washington has reached a watershed civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Energy Department announced Wednesday, which could pave the way for uranium enrichment in the kingdom.

Details of the deal are sparse, though what the Trump Administration has described as a “decades-long, multi-billion-dollar” partnership is subject to review by Congress, which could oppose it over its potential to start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been working on the deal for years, both during Donald Trump’s first presidency and that of his successor, Joe Biden. The Wall Street Journal first reported that Trump formally approved the deal last week.

The deal also comes as the Trump Administration continues to pressure Saudi Arabia’s longstanding regional rival Iran to give up its enriched uranium stockpiles and curb the development of its nuclear program. Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Saudi Arabia has long pushed for building a domestic uranium enrichment facility as part of any nuclear cooperation deal with the U.S. Critics and nonproliferation groups, however, have warned that such a deal could facilitate Saudi Arabia’s development of a nuclear weapon.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who signed the deal with Saudi Minister of Energy Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, sought to allay those worries. “Rest assured, these agreements uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation, while relying on the world's best nuclear technology and scientists, designed right here in the United States,” Wright said in a statement.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly added earlier that the U.S. “is not going to reach any agreement with any country in the world that leads to the risk of proliferation.”

How did we get here?

Saudi Arabia is an oil-rich nation, but Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has stated ambitions for the country to expand its energy generation portfolio beyond fossil fuels. Developing a nuclear power program, Saudi officials have argued, could free up more oil supply and boost exports.

Abdulaziz said in 2019 that the country aims to “go for the full cycle, from producing uranium, to enriching uranium, using the uranium, even acquiring the technologies.” He also said in January 2023 that Saudi Arabia plans to use its resources for producing low-enriched uranium. 

Talks between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been going on for some time: under the Biden Administration, a civil nuclear cooperation deal was envisioned as part of a broader one that would include formalizing diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Israel. The Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict, however, made the deal elusive.

In November 2025, when bin Salman visited Trump at the White House, the U.S. and Riyadh completed negotiations on the legal foundation for a nuclear energy partnership. 

What’s in the deal?

On Wednesday, the Energy Department announced that Wright and Abdulaziz signed a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement, known as a “123 agreement”, and a bilateral safeguards agreement. The 123 agreement, the department claims, “provides great access for American companies in the Saudi nuclear energy program, benefiting American industry, workers, and supply chains while helping to meet Saudi energy needs.”

Congress is expected to know the finer details soon, but some of the core provisions have been reported. The deal, which is expected to last 30 years, would put U.S. companies front and center to develop Saudi Arabia’s nuclear infrastructure. This could include a uranium enrichment facility that could be built if a two-year joint U.S.-Saudi study determines that enrichment in Saudi Arabia is warranted and commercially viable. If, after the study, the U.S. rejects pushing through with indigenous enrichment, Saudi Arabia would, according to the Wall Street Journal, not be allowed to enrich independently or with another foreign partner for 10 years. 

A deal with Riyadh could limit the U.S.’s competitors China and Russia from having deep stakes in Saudi Arabia, which has actively engaged with those countries in nuclear development.  According to the Journal, Trump Administration officials say that the U.S.’s role would prevent diverting enriched uranium for military purposes and spent reactor fuel from being reprocessed for creating a bomb. 

While no awards have been publicly announced, reports from the Journal and the New York Times say one of the biggest beneficiaries would be Westinghouse, which designs nuclear reactors sold overseas. During a House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing Wednesday, Rep. Brad Sherman (D, Calif.) said that “Westinghouse stands to make an awful lot of money on this deal.”

On Thursday morning, Trump posted on Truth Social that the nuclear deal “is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords.” Trump has been pushing countries in the Middle East to sign onto the set of agreements that aim to normalize Arab nations’ diplomatic relations with Israel, though Saudi Arabia has resisted signing the accords, insisting on Palestinian statehood first. The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed Trump’s condition for the deal, calling it “an historic leap forward for peace in the Middle East.”

The U.S. President in his post also reasserted that the deal would not allow the enrichment of atomic material.

Why is the deal controversial?

Some, however, have sounded the alarm on allowing a Middle Eastern country to potentially enrich uranium, as it could destabilize an already volatile region. 

The U.S. has a 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia’s regional neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, though in the 2009 deal it agreed to forgo enriching uranium domestically or reprocessing the spent atomic fuel. This has since become known as the “gold standard” for civilian nuclear cooperation.

But Saudi Arabia has rejected the “gold standard” commitment. Bin Salman has previously said that if Iran were to develop a nuclear bomb, the kingdom would follow suit—despite Saudi Arabia having ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1988. 

During the first-term Trump Administration, legislation introduced by Sen. Ed Markey (D, Mass.) and then-Senator Rubio (R, Fla.), wanted to block civilian nuclear cooperation with Saudi Arabia unless Congress voted to approve it. Markey introduced a similar bill earlier this year.

Such 123 agreements usually take effect unless Congress jointly disapproves the deal and a two-thirds majority vote to override a ‌presidential veto.

Some lawmakers have already sounded the alarm on the U.S.-Saudi Arabia deal. House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Rep. Gregory Meeks (D, N.Y.) posted on social media that, as reported, the deal elicits “deep concerns.” Meeks said the accord must include “appropriate limits on enrichment and reprocessing,” as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, which grants the agency access to inspect and investigate to ensure peaceful use of nuclear material. The Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, from which Trump withdrew in 2018, required the protocol.

The deal, as reported, sets a “terrible” precedent for nonproliferation, according to Kelsey Davenport, director for Nonproliferation Policy at the Arms Control Association. Davenport posted on social media that a bespoke accord “risks other supplier states, say Russia, negotiating similar bilateral arrangements, rather than letting the IAEA do the job it’s designed to do.”

Bonnie Jenkins, former U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security during the Biden Administration, pointed out what she sees as the U.S.’s hypocrisy. 

“In all the regional chaos and the failed efforts to come to another Iran nonproliferation nuclear deal, we are agreeing to a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia,” Jenkins said in a statement on social media. “It is not clear that there is a strategy for the region and a way forward for nuclear nonproliferation.”

It should have been a layup. Instead, the question illustrated why some Democrats fear they are about to swap out Graham Platner with a candidate who's got a completely different set of problems. 

During last week’s debate among potential Platner replacements, the moderators asked the field to discuss the kind of oversight of the Trump Administration they would pursue if Democrats gained control of the Senate.

Former state Senate leader Troy Jackson didn’t seem to understand the assignment. “I actually come from the same area Susan Collins comes from,” Jackson began, referencing the GOP incumbent Senator he now seems poised to challenge in November. “I’ve been on the ballot with Donald Trump the last three elections. I’ve been on the ballot with Susan Collins. People in my area vote for me because they know that I stand up for working-class people. And I think, in this case, Collins has completely forgotten who she’s representing.”

He kept wandering before finding his way back to something closer to the topic at hand: oversight. “As far as something like this, prescription drugs. I mean, I live around the border. I see people in New Brunswick that are going with healthcare, they’re going with prescription drugs, the same drugs that we have, and nobody in D.C. is actually doing anything because the healthcare industry, big pharma, is buying them out and we can’t afford to buy them back.”

Other contenders on the stage gave far better answers, but Jackson is the one who is on the cusp of becoming the Democratic nominee in Maine, where the party has its most realistic shot at knocking off an incumbent Republican Senator. Collins is the only Republican incumbent on the ballot this fall hailing from a state Trump lost and after five terms in the Senate, she’s lost the support of many of Maine’s Democrats and independents. Senate Democrats had hoped to run Gov. Janet Mills, who suspended her bid before Platner was forced from the race when an ex-girlfriend accused him of rape—an allegation he denies. A free-for-all to replace him quickly settled on Jackson, a former Republican and logger who ran for Governor earlier this year and came in third. 

Jackson shares Platner’s progressive ideology but none of his charisma. When Jackson and Platner appeared together during their primaries, it was clear who was the headliner. Like the oyster farmer he is set to replace at a state party convention on Saturday, Jackson is closer to the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party than the Chuck Schumer one. (And, for the record, Jackson says he will not support Schumer’s continued leadership of the party in the Senate.) 

Democrats, though, are plenty skittish about Jackson. It’s one thing to run a state Senate. It’s another to live under the klieg lights of a marquee U.S. Senate campaign. Collins is a canny politician who won her last campaign by nine points. And she has a much further head start than Jackson, who will have almost no time to build a competent ground game. 

As a former Republican, Jackson also has a confusing policy record —past opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, both positions he has since reversed—and little polish. His answer at last week’s debate on oversight was the most obvious example, but he concedes he is no smooth talker. 

"I know I'm not a polished speaker, and I don't pretend to be,” he told a local radio host in April. “I’m just an everyday person and I don’t put on airs like I’m some highfalutin person. I’m OK with that.”

Then there’s Jackson’s personality, which can be abrasive, according to former colleagues who report tantrums and outbursts involving thrown water bottles. When a campaign’s best defense is that he wasn’t throwing things at any one person, it’s a sign that the stories being spread are more than just axe-grinding. 

For its part, Jackson’s team is trying to put its best spin on his sudden return to the arena. His advisers seem to resort to a single word to describe his leadership style: “passionate.” 

As a practical matter, since jumping back into politics about two weeks ago, Jackson has raised more than $1 million—almost as much as he raised in his entire race for Governor. Of that, more than half has come since he swept a slate of delegates to the state party event this weekend.

Collins’ fundraising? She has collected $18 million and ended last month with $11 million in the bank—plus plenty of favors to dangle as the chair of the powerful Appropriations Committee. 

None of this is setting Jackson up for success. Platner’s plain-spoken pitch convinced many in Maine his multiple scandals and inexperience in politics were worth the risk to bring in a new generation of Democrats. Jackson, on the other hand, was first elected to office in 2002. At 58 years old, no one is mistaking him as the fresh-faced agent of change. Add to that his rough edges and hot temper, and Republicans are optimistic about defending Collins in a state that is, at its core, pretty even-keeled. 

It’s why Democrats in Washington are currently so queasy about their prospects in Maine, where they fear they’ve just swapped Platner’s baggage with Jackson’s, which may still be tough for voters to accept.

Last month, my home country of the Netherlands published new health guidelines advising people to not just limit their alcohol intake, but to avoid it entirely. There is no such thing as drinking responsibly or in moderation, one researcher said: “Each glass is harmful, for yourself and others.” 

To be clear, I am neither a doctor nor a scientist. I will not downplay alcohol’s negative health consequences. Still, I believe there is room for a nuanced exploration of the costs and benefits of drinking. 

At a glance, de-normalizing alcohol consumption seems like a logical next step after cracking down on smoking. But as societies everywhere ramp up efforts to discourage drinking, a bigger, more difficult question arises. Are the increasingly thorough measures we take to protect our health worth what we give up? 

This dilemma is arguably more apparent with alcohol than with tobacco. Although alcoholism is terrible and, in many places, widespread, the vast majority of people who drink are not considered to be addicts. So why do so many of us drink? Most of us do so for reasons other than managing the symptoms of addiction. Across the globe, alcohol is used to honor, celebrate, and connect. I believe these traditions are worth considering and preserving. 

Perhaps because of the value of these traditions, countries around the world approach drinking very differently. Unlike tobacco, alcohol regulations still vary wildly from one country to another. Legal drinking ages range from zero (Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea) to 16 (Cuba, Belgium) to 21 (Egypt, Sri Lanka). In Russia, alcohol can be bought in supermarkets; in Sweden, only at liquor stores owned and operated by the state. In Indonesia, regulation is decentralized: alcohol is easily available on the touristic island of Bali, but banned in other areas.

To be sure, attitudes towards alcohol vary also. In France, its value is largely gastronomic. Certain foods call for certain drinks, and children are sometimes given small amounts of wine at dinner. In Japan, it’s part of office culture. Employees go out for after-work parties (nomikai) to bond with their superiors. The Finns famously have a special word for getting drunk alone, at home, in your underwear: kalsarikännit.

Alcohol is also used for various religious purposes. While some religions, including Hinduism and Islam, prohibit or discourage intoxication, others use alcohol to connect with the divine. Drinking plays a central role in Haitian Voodoo and Yucatec Mayan rituals. In Shintoism, sake is known as the “drink of the gods,” and served to them before being enjoyed by mortals. Meanwhile, Catholic and Orthodox churchgoers consume red wine during communion. 

Of course, while attitudes and regulations differ, the negative health effects do not. Rejecting longstanding assumptions that the occasional beer, cocktail, or glass of wine was harmless and perhaps even good for you, new research indicates that every drop of alcohol—no matter the quantity or frequency—raises your risk of getting cancer and cardiovascular disease, not to mention neurological complications.

Lowering this risk seems like the caring and pragmatic thing to do, especially when considering the successes of the fight against tobacco. In the Netherlands, where the number of smokers decreased from roughly 25% of the adult population in 2014 to 17% in 2025, each percentage point has freed up an estimated €650 million per year, funding which can instead be invested in medical research or patient care. 

As populations age, healthcare systems become overburdened, and governments fail to sufficiently expand or change those systems, preventing preventable diseases is more vital than ever. But herein also lie some of the issues that de-normalizing alcohol consumption brings to light, including its overlap with other, equally pernicious public health crises.

In many countries, alcohol consumption has already been decreasing for years, especially among young people. Yet, despite the dwindling popularity of both alcohol and cigarettes, various cancers, not to mention other serious conditions like diabetes and depression, have all been on the rise—again, especially in young people. 

At the moment, some of the most frequently cited explanations for this concerning phenomenon include chronic stress, chemical pollution, sedentary lifestyles, and ultra-processed foods. In the case of the first, rising job insecurity, social media use, and many other aspects of modern life combine to make our bodies feel as though they are constantly under threat, gradually chipping away at our immune systems. 

Drinking on its own doesn’t help you deal with stress beyond temporarily dulling the uncomfortable feelings that come with it. However, when done in moderation alcohol consumption can coincide with positive social interactions.

While alcohol is far from the only social lubricant, it is both a popular and (until recently) relatively unstigmatized one. It’s also particularly effective when meeting new people and making friends with strangers, something that is becoming increasingly difficult as societies become more individualistic and digitized.

Various studies and opinion pieces have associated less drinking with increased loneliness, many of them focused on Gen Z. If drinking is to be further discouraged, governments should therefore take care to promote social interaction and community building in other, non-intoxicating ways. If they do not, unchecked chronic stress might negatively impact our healthcare systems.

Again, this is not to minimize alcohol’s association with diseases such as cancer. My best friend was recently diagnosed with metastasized bowel cancer around his 28^th birthday and the wider implications of de-normalizing a substance as ubiquitous as alcohol consumption concern me personally. 

For many years, I have lived in at times unbearable fear of being diagnosed with an incurable illness, and have tried to avoid with varying degrees of regularity and intensity many of the things which experts warn can increase the chances of this happening, often to the rather ironic detriment of my actual wellbeing.

While my hypochondriac tendencies might be an extreme case, I don’t think that my experience is unique. Between pandemic scares, various social media-driven health and dietary fads, the rising popularity of preventative full-body scans, and sheer existence of “biohacking,” it appears more and more people are becoming unhealthily preoccupied with staying healthy. 

But although we tend to think of it as such, the human body is not a machine that can be perfectly optimized. Regardless of how hard we try to protect our health, or how much money we spend in the process, illness can still arrive, as it did for my friend, without warning and when it is already too late. Plus, I personally have found the anxiety that results from my hypervigilance could be considered a health risk in itself.

I’m not arguing that you shouldn’t be eating healthy or exercising regularly or scheduling check-ups with your general practitioner. All of these are good for you, but they probably serve you better if pursued for their own sake, rather than as a means of trying to avoid something that cannot be reliably avoided. 

All I’m saying is that the more you worry about death, the less you’re able to enjoy and appreciate being alive. That doesn’t mean you should be drinking alcohol like there’s no tomorrow, only that having a little toast with a friend or family now and then might not be the end of the world.