The war in Iran, AI, and countries’ growing debt burden all sat at the top of the agenda as leaders of the world’s international financial institutions gathered in Bangkok this week for the fall meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). 

Even with some bright spots, the picture is challenging. The war has driven up fuel prices, leading to inflation. Meanwhile, public debt is soaring, a development the IMF warns is unsustainable. And the enormous investment in AI is a positive development keeping the bottom from falling out—though only in certain economies. 

At a first glance, climate change, once touted as a key priority by the two most influential international financial institutions, has fallen off the agenda. But take a closer look and it’s hard to miss how climate change—and the related deployment of clean energy—will play an important role in economic performance. Climate events have worsened the debt challenge in developing countries. Clean energy, on the other hand, has served as a critical defense mechanism that has kept the energy price crisis from getting worse in places where it has been deployed at scale. 

A report from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released this week alongside the fall meetings gets at the heart of this challenge while barely mentioning climate change at all—at least in those words. The report points to what it describes as a “triple shock”: high borrowing costs, the energy price spike, and extreme weather events driven by this year’s El Niño, which is on course to set records. 

The policy responses aren’t coded climate policy—and in many cases they’re actively bad for climate efforts. The most common response cited by the report is fuel price support, think of subsidies or fuel tax reductions. An IEA survey cited by the report identified 95 countries with such policies. Explicit fuel subsidies could surpass $1 trillion this year globally, according to the UNDP. But, as the report notes, such an approach isn’t sustainable. Backlash to higher prices persists even as governments spend to keep citizens happy. In a smaller group of countries, mostly those most dependent on imports, longer-term, structural changes are emerging: investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electrification. Think of subsidies for electric buses or cutting tariffs on solar panels. 

But not every country can afford to remake its energy system with structural changes. Heavy indebtedness and high interest rates are key factors. So too is El Niño and broader climate shocks, which make it harder for countries to pay for new infrastructure that reduces exposure to fossil fuel volatility. 

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook is similarly light on climate talk. But follow it to its logical conclusion, and it takes the UNDP argument even further. Indebtedness makes it more difficult to invest in AI infrastructure necessary to compete in the emerging economy. It plots countries’ AI preparedness alongside the non-fossil share of their energy supply, suggesting that energy security and the capacity to adopt AI may increasingly intersect. After all, dependence on volatile imported fossil fuels only compounds this challenge given AI’s energy needs.

This emergent growth dynamic comes with important implications. For one, it adds yet another layer to the argument for non-fossil energy in emerging markets. But it also shows how complicated achieving that end will be. Cheap clean tech hardware isn’t enough. 

After riding a series of escalators to the fifth floor of New York’s Museum of Modern Art, I stepped into a gallery where, on display, were a dozen paintings and lithographs by late-nineteenth and early twentieth-century artists, including Pablo Picasso, Paul Cézanne, and Georges Seurat.

But most visitors were gathered around one explosively colorful painting in swirling shades of light and dark blue, bottle green, and pale gold. 

Instantly recognizable. 

One of the most famous paintings in the world. 

The Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh.  

These were the early days of my research about a little-known woman who is key to shedding light on three inevitable questions when it comes to Vincent van Gogh. Why did he cut off his ear? Why did he commit suicide? And how, after dying in obscurity, did he eventually become regarded as one of the world’s greatest artists? 

Gauging Van Gogh

Watching and talking to people as they engaged with this particular masterpiece seemed an apropos way to gauge the interest of Van Gogh lovers.

I, for one, could remember, as a child, first seeing The Starry Night reprinted in one of my parents’ art history books. It was my modern art “aha” moment. No one was standing over my shoulder telling me to pay it special attention, but I was mesmerized. The painting became imprinted on my young imagination, and I never forgot it.

As I observed the gallery, I quickly learned my reaction is hardly unique. 

A man from Southern California named Paul Duelo was laughing. “I know this painting, and I don’t know anything about art,” he said with a chuckle, nodding at the crowd standing around The Starry Night.  “Look at everyone!”

A woman from Seattle stood gazing quietly with her arms folded. Sheri Larison first saw a picture of The Starry Night more than 30 years ago in her high school art class. A reproduction of the iconic painting hung in her office. This was her very first time seeing the original.

“It’s overwhelming,” Larison whispered, with tears in her eyes. “It evokes something. It’s magical.”

She was interested in the painting’s origin story. “His mental health was declining,” she said, and that was true, although perhaps also misleading.

Van Gogh painted The Starry Night in June of 1889 during a year he spent in a mental asylum in the south of France.  

It does not represent an actual place but a compilation of elements—a village, starry sky, moon, dark hills, and a cypress tree—all things that Vincent had seen at one time and brought together in this composition. The sight of stars, he said, always made him dream. 

Hanging just to the left of The Starry Night was a Paul Gauguin’s painting, The Moon and the Earth. The juxtaposition provoked a curious thought. Gauguin and Van Gogh lived and worked together in Vincent’s yellow house in Arles in the south of France for several weeks. What would the hot-tempered, competitive Gauguin have thought seeing so many people gathered around Vincent’s painting at this moment while his was comparatively ignored? And what would Vincent have made of all the attention given to The Starry Night?

It is generally believed that it was an argument with Gauguin, who was threatening to quit Arles (in effect abandoning Van Gogh), which spun the mentally unstable Vincent into such a state of despair and frustration that he mutilated himself by slicing off his left ear.  

The fine art of family matters

But, as I was learning, family matters also very likely played a part in the most notorious instance of self-harm in art history. 

It’s a tragic story of dependence and the limits of love. And it’s where Jo van Gogh-Bonger comes in. Biographical details about her—revealed in her diaries and letters—have only recently been made public by the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. They paint a picture of a determined woman to whom the world of art owes a tremendous debt.

Jo was married to Vincent’s younger brother, Theo, who was an art dealer in Paris and Vincent’s only source of income. Theo supported Vincent with a monthly allowance, and in exchange Vincent gave Theo his paintings to try to market and sell. The financial arrangement, as it would in most families, put an emotional strain on both brothers. Theo was not rich, and Vincent constantly complained about being broke, with not even enough money for food, and often practically begged his brother for more money. 

Over the course of 10 years, Vincent created more than 800 paintings and 700 drawings, desperately hoping for financial independence and commercial success. But in Vincent’s lifetime, Theo is known to have sold just one painting: Red Vineyard at Arles.

In July of 1890, believing himself a failure as an artist and a man, Vincent shot himself in the chest. He was only 37.

Six months after Vincent’s suicide, Theo died from the ravages of syphilis, leaving Jo a young widow with a baby to support, not much money, and an unusual inheritance—Vincent’s paintings—more than 400 in total. 

They filled the walls of their Paris apartment, were stored in closets, under beds, and at a nearby art supply store. The Potato Eaters, Irises, Sunflowers, self-portraits, and The Starry Night. Celebrated as masterpieces today, at the time they were regarded as the unpolished works of a depressed, crazy man and commercially worthless. Jo thought differently. She had no formal art training, but she loved his work and her instincts told her that Vincent was (as Theo had come to believe) a genius. 

Jo also inherited hundreds of letters that Vincent wrote and received, most exchanged with Theo. Jo read and re-read those letters, initially to feel closer to Theo, but she was also captivated by Vincent’s compassion and intelligence. She decided the world should read them too. It was part of her plan: to organize exhibitions, lobby critics, and publicize the letters, which showed how vulnerable and anguished Vincent was, yes, but also how deliberate he was in his craft and how close Vincent and Theo were to each other. Eventually, in 1914, Jo succeeded in publishing Vincent’s letters in an ambitious three-volume book, which today is considered one of the most revealing and important works of art history. 

An infamous ear

As much as she would play a vital role in propelling him to fame, Jo was also someone who unwittingly played a part in Vincent’s self-destructive descent, something she at times admitted feeling guilt about after his death. Jo understood Vincent was lonely and that he became more isolated after she married his brother. 

That infamous act of self-mutilation, when Vincent cut off his ear, happened the very day Vincent likely received the surprising news that Theo and Jo were engaged, triggering what some Van Gogh experts, including Martin Bailey, suspect were unquenchable fears that Theo might eventually abandon him.

And Vincent shot himself just days after a stressful visit with Jo and Theo in Paris. Theo was thinking about quitting his job to start his own business, which meant, for a time, no income. The couple (who by now had a baby son they named after Vincent) hoped to rent a better apartment on a lower floor. But budgets were tight, arguments ensued, and Vincent eventually rushed out of the apartment, unable to shake the thought that he was a burden that Theo would or could no longer bear. 

Jo didn’t seek to put herself at the center of this story, but she is there, nonetheless. A surprisingly relatable woman (at times insecure, at times doggedly persistent), she courageously stood up to the male-dominated art world as a champion for Vincent and spent 30 years of her life promoting his work and life story in Holland, Germany, France, England, and even, for a time, in America. 

Interestingly, of all the paintings Jo inherited, no one—not Jo or Theo or Vincent—considered The Starry Night one of Vincent’s best. Vincent didn’t even sign it. Research recently published by the Van Gogh Museum points out that Vincent signed only about 16% of his paintings, hypothesizing he did so usually when he was completely satisfied or wanted to make them a gift to friends or family. In the brothers’ correspondence, The Starry Night was referred to rather than named. Theo called it simply “the village in the moonlight,” critically writing to Vincent that “I feel that the search for style takes away the real sentiment of things.” 

Vincent conceded the painting lacked character and considered it a mistake that “…once again I’m allowing myself to do stars too big…new setback, and I’ve had enough of that.” 

Jo also didn’t seem to consider The Starry Night as especially important. She sold it early on but reacquired it briefly in time for a major exhibition she organized in Amsterdam in 1905. It was painting number 199, called De Sterren (The Stars), and it changed hands two more times before MoMA acquired it in 1941. By then, it had been rechristened The Starry Night. The name stuck. 

There is a world of personal stories behind the paintings of Vincent van Gogh, and they reaffirm an old adage: we can’t separate the art from the artist. I believe Jo would agree. 

Paul Duelo, the man from California I met while admiring MoMA’s The Starry Night, lit up when I told him about Jo van Gogh-Bonger. 

He had never heard of her before. 

But he wanted to know more. 

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental-health crisis or contemplating suicide, call or text 988.

Approaching life with positive expectations, a get-up-and-go attitude, and eagerness is related to many good things in life. This individual asset is often referred to as zest, and it can be purposefully developed to assist us in managing daily stressors as well as creating meaningful lives. 

True zest is not due to hyperarousal or too much caffeine. It is a cultivated cheerfulness and joy. When we are stressed or not feeling well, it’s hard to avoid doing things halfway or halfheartedly. But there are ways we can increase zest even when it seems like the deck is stacked against us, the world is filled with conflict, and our social media feeds are thick with chaos and gloom. 

Psychologists Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman pioneered the field of positive psychology, the scientific study of human flourishing. One of the highlights of their initiatives was published in 2004, Character Strengths and Virtues, a groundbreaking text on the 24 universal character strengths. Zest is one of the 24 strengths.

When you cultivate zest, you’ll want to fully engage in life and not just view it from the sidelines, look forward to each day, and wake to anticipation over the day’s possibilities. Zest has also been referred to as vitality, exuberance, and joie de vivre, the French phrase for the joy of living. 

In an analysis of data from 130 studies involving more than 275,000 people around the globe, most character strengths were associated with greater mental health. But zest was one of just two strengths (the other is hope) that had the strongest relationship to mental well-being across countries and age groups. Zest contributes to life satisfaction among children, adolescents, and adults. In addition, in a study of nearly 10,000 employed adults, those who scored high on zest had higher work satisfaction and were more likely to view work as a calling. People who score high on measures of zest are also more likely to view their lives as meaningful. 

I reached out to Ryan Niemiec, a psychologist and author of several books, including The Power of Character Strengths and Character Strengths Interventions: A Field Guide for Practitioners. Niemiec is the chief science and education officer at the VIA Institute on Character, a non-profit focused on the science and practice of character strengths. I asked him about the most effective ways people can increase zest in their own lives. 

“In terms of boosting zest, I turn straight to behavioral activation, one of the most proven strategies for depression,” Niemiec said. “In practical terms, this means to take action in some way to boost oneself—to take that one step forward in lifting one’s energy.” He encouraged people to engage every day in one healthy pleasure, one form of physical activity, and one action that makes you feel like you accomplished something. 

Some of us seem to naturally have this irresistible aliveness, often invigorating those around us. Others work hard to cultivate zest. Research supports the idea that we are never too old to change. And we can learn how to cultivate zest. 

We can learn to savor pleasures, set good intentions, and try to view life as an adventure. Other intentional ways to potentially lift our spirits include taking a brisk 10-minute walk every morning, doing cardiovascular or strength-building challenges, practicing Reiki or yoga, laughing with friends, and engaging in stimulating tasks and work. The VIA Institute on Character has activities, workbooks, videos, webinars, and courses—some of them free—on improving all the character strengths, including zest. 

To be sure, practicing a zest for life can be harder for those who have physical illness and pain and those who engage in unhealthy lifestyle behaviors. And those striving for zest under these circumstances may benefit from assistance from a mental health professional like a psychologist, a physical health provider like a physician, or a personal trainer or fitness instructor. 

For some of us, being hard on ourselves is second nature. We expect our mental health to stretch under strain. Rather than exclusively focusing on what’s wrong with our mental health, one approach is to develop skills, traits, and perspectives that can help us. Acquiring zest is a worthwhile investment and may help us not only through challenging times, but also help us to see beauty and soar in our lives and workplaces.

In 1972, filmmaker William Greaves arranged what we now know was one of the great parties of the 20th century: He commandeered the Harlem apartment of Duke Ellington and arranged for a special group of old friends and colleagues, many of whom had not seen one another in 50 years, to reconnect. The invitees were key figures of the Harlem Renaissance, including muralist Aaron Douglas, poet and novelist Arna Bontemps, society editor Gerri Major, jazz pianist and composer Eubie Blake, and many more. Greaves’ aim was to film the event—he appointed his son, David, as one of the cinematographers—and turn it into a documentary that would serve not just as a record of how these people lived and what they accomplished, but as a way of thinking about how we honor those who are a repository for our past. For a few hours in 1972 Harlem, it was circa 1925 again. This group of people laughing, arguing, and reminiscing about a great era of American history—and also about members of their cohort who were long gone—recaptured lightning in a bottle. And yet the resulting film, Once Upon a Time in Harlem, is one we almost didn’t see.

Greaves, who’d made a name for himself with experimental documentaries like Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take One (1968), as well as establishing the pioneering public television program Black Journal, considered his Harlem Renaissance film to be one of the most important projects of his life. But although he worked on it off and on for years, he wasn’t able to complete it before his death, in 2014. At last, the film he envisioned has been brought to life by David Greaves and his daughter—William’s granddaughter—producer Liani Greaves. Once Upon a Time in Harlem is one of the great documentaries of its era, and certainly of this year. It’s history that breathes.

Ellington's elegantly appointed flat fills up quickly; for the viewer, it’s like dropping into a party right in the middle, as clusters of beautifully dressed people greet one another, embracing, laughing, talking. (Ellington himself was ill and unable to attend.) The guests make themselves at home: Photographer James Van Der Zee, who took extraordinary portraits of the major “show people” of the 1920s, as well as everyday citizens of Harlem, steps up to Ellington’s piano and runs through a few graceful, rippling phrases. We learn that he was trained as a classical musician before turning to photography, just one reminder of the ways people in the arts often need to find a means to support themselves—and sometimes those means can leave us with a lasting record of an era, as we can see from Van Der Zee’s gorgeous, expressive portraits, which flash on the screen like a blessing. Painter and activist Richard Price Nugent, when asked what it was like to be a part of the Renaissance, can’t really say. “While you’re living it, it is the now,” he reflects. Actor Leigh Whipper, the first Black man to join Actors Equity and one of the oldest in the group, and publisher and bookseller Richard B. Moore, recite long poems and passages from the era by memory. Moore calls up Claude McKay’s brilliant, lacerating poem “If We Must Die” as if he’d just learned it yesterday, but you know he’s been living with it for years.

Conversations swell through the room in waves, often prompted by Greaves himself, who was not just a filmmaker but also a poet and sculptor, a man who acted and danced. (The film has been brilliantly edited by Anne DeMare and Lynn True.) Ida Mae Cullen, the peppery widow of poet Countee Cullen, pipes up to remind the group, vigorously, that the Harlem Renaissance really lasted for just one decade, the 1920s, though its ripples began years before and resonated for decades after. For this group, politics and art are so entwined as to be indistinguishable. At one point, a vigorous yet civil cross-talking argument breaks out over the principles and philosophy of Back-to-Africa activist Marcus Garvey: there’s mutual respect in this room, but no such thing as consensus. Among other things, Once Upon a Time in Harlem might make you yearn for an era when people, including intellectuals, really knew how to dress: society editor Major, resplendent in a bold, patterned dress, sports about 10 glittery bracelets on each wrist and pulls it off with aplomb.

What’s striking about Once Upon a Time in Harlem is the seemingly casual quality most of these captured conversations. But casual isn’t the same as insignificant. Regina Andrews, a regal woman decked out in a white lace dress and vivid turquoise earrings and necklace, speaks of the job she started as a young woman, as a librarian at the 135th Street branch of the New York Public Library. Shortly after she was hired, her superiors explained that certain poets and authors would often come to the library to work; they had special rooms reserved for them. She and her roommate became friendly with many of these luminaries, among them Cullen and Langston Hughes, and would often host little get-togethers in their apartment. The problem? They didn’t have enough dishes to go around. And so one New Year’s Day, when Andrews and her friends set out on a tour of the area’s Chinese restaurants, the men—unbeknownst to her—collected a few plates here and a few cups there. Suddenly, Andrews had enough dishes and cutlery for everybody, pieces she treasured for years.

Maybe that sounds like a minor thing, having enough dishes to entertain your friend group of poets and writers. But as Andrews tells that story, it feels anything but small. “It was just the joy of living and creating together,” she explains—as good a summation as any of what it must have been like to be alive in such a glorious time, a “now” that, thanks to Greaves and his family, becomes a part of our lives too.

When news got around that a new movie version of Sense and Sensibility was in the works, cries of dismay rang forth from Bath to Brooklyn. How could anyone dare try to top Ang Lee’s 1995 adaptation, penned by—and starring, alongside Kate Winslet— Emma Thompson? But the idea that fine adaptations of great books need to be stopping points, rather than springboards, is alarming by itself. Why is a new adaptation of any Jane Austen novel such a bad thing? There are always new movie audiences, eager for their own fresh take. And just as important, why shouldn’t another generation of actors have a crack at these roles? Our ability to stream anything we want, whenever we want, hasn’t necessarily made us more adventurous; sometimes it’s just a way of clinging to familiar favorites at the expense of welcoming anything new. Austen herself, with her aversion to sentimentality, would have disapproved.

Then what would she make of Georgia Oakley’s amiable, if occasionally a little sluggish, reading of her debut novel, published anonymously in 1811? It’s hard to say for sure, but there’s nothing that’s offensive about this new Sense and Sensibility, and plenty that’s lovely. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Esmé Creed-Miles play Elinor and Marianne Dashwood, sisters in a close-knit family whose temperamental differences temporarily drive them apart. As the film opens, Elinor and Marianne, along with their mother (Caitríona Balfe) and younger sister Margaret (Bodhi Rae Breathnach), are just learning that they’ll soon have to vacate the airy, comfortable house they’ve called home for years. The girls’ father has just died; his property will not go to his daughters, but to his son from a previous marriage, John (Tom Brooke), who nevertheless hopes to do right by making sure his father's second family well provided for. But his disagreeable wife Fanny (Stacy Martin), feels differently, and to maintain their pride, the Dashwood women choose to move into far more modest quarters, in an arrangement brokered by a family friend, Mrs. Jennings (a blissfully dithery Fiona Shaw).

Mrs. Jennings is also an unrepentant meddler, and she believes she can easily marry off the two eldest Dashwood girls. Ever-sensible Elinor, who never asks for much, has already met, and fallen for, Edward Ferrars (George MacKay), Fanny’s brother, as kind and modest as Fanny is arrogant. And Marianne, a dreamer who lives for music and books, has her sights set on flirty, fun Mr. Willoughby (Frank Dillane): He loves to laugh and sing and dance, and Marianne is sure he’s perfect for her, though another potential suitor, the stalwart and rather dull Colonel Brandon (Herbert Nordrum), is also circling. If you’ve never read Austen’s lively and perceptive novel—or seen either Lee’s 1995 version or the 2008 BBC miniseries adaptation—you’re left to guess which men the sisters will end up with, which is just one of the story’s delights.

But as always with Austen, there’s more to love than romance: The economics of “making a good match” are always, by necessity, lurking somewhere in these characters’ minds. In the case of the sisters Marianne and Elinor—one too dreamy, the other perhaps not dreamy enough—the differences in what they look for in a partner are almost enough to pull them apart. Oakley, who previously directed the 2022 drama Blue Jean, has a deft touch with the material and a deep respect for the English countryside setting. There are drowsy closeups of wildflowers, and shots of placidly grazing deer; a country dance feels lively and lived-in, contrasted with a later ball, set in London, where the steps are more formal and regimented—Oakley leaves no doubt as to which is more fun. Shot by Arnaud Potier, the film has a handsome, genteel look. And if at times the movie comes off as a bit decorous and stiff, the actors, particularly Edgar-Jones and Creed-Miles, do their best to keep the proceedings whirring. Creed-Miles shows that there’s a slightly self-centered quality to Marianne’s romantic preoccupations—she takes pride in wearing her heart on her sleeve, though in some sense it’s also a means of getting her way. And yet as Creed-Miles plays her, it’s impossible to dislike her. When Marianne become truly hurt, we hurt for her, thanks to the bruised anguish in Creed-Miles’ eyes.

And Edgar-Jones plays Elinor, the practical sister, with just the right amount of subdued fire. Elinor is the one who always matches her expectations with reality, and as much as she loves Edward Ferrars, she doesn’t put up much of a fight when she learns she might have to give him up. Edgar-Jones gives us clues to Elinor’s submerged longing, but only in flashes. And in a pivotal scene, where Marianne accuses Elinor, angrily, of “always being right,” we can see how wounded she is, even as she recognizes that Marianne is onto something: Elinor would rather be correct than look foolish. Edgar-Jones plays Elinor as reserved without making her recessive; we can see the ways in which she wants to want more. In an age of lowered expectations—for movies, for romance, for just about everything—maybe she’s the Austen heroine we need, ready to break out of the box she’s drawn around herself. Austen knew what she was talking about, and time hasn’t eroded her wisdom.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Thursday warned that the United States is trying to sow discord as he urged Albertans not to vote for a separation referendum.

“The stakes are high. This referendum, it comes at the worst possible time. The world has become more dangerous and divided,” Carney said at a rally in Calgary ahead of Monday’s vote, which will see residents decide whether the oil-rich province should hold a referendum on independence. “There are some outside our borders who are working to break us, so they can own us.”

While Carney didn’t explicitly name the U.S., the remarks echoed his previous warnings of the dangers of American dominance. Carney's statement came a day after U.S. President Donald Trump revisited his ambitions to annex Canada, telling the crowd at a rally in Arizona that the country will “end up being the 51st state, because it's the only way it works.” Trump again accused Canada of treating the U.S. “very badly” and vowed he won’t allow it to happen anymore as “it’s a whole different ballgame now [that] Trump is in town.”

The U.S. and Canada remain in a contentious trade standoff after negotiations collapsed in August. Canada’s retaliatory tariffs came into effect last month, matching the economic pressure imposed by the U.S. Carney has encouraged Canadians to band together and take back their economic power by choosing Canadian products over those made in the U.S. The trade tussle comes after months of Trump repeatedly threatening Canada’s sovereignty—a move that has stoked tensions between the U.S. Administration and Canadian officials.

In light of Trump’s most recent remarks about possible annexation, Canada’s former deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said it would be dangerous to deepen or maintain close economic ties with a neighbor that “openly says they want to take you over.”

Carney admitted in an interview with the New York Times last month that he had studied the risk of a U.S. invasion, given Trump’s charged rhetoric. “I think you have a responsibility in these roles to look at extreme tail risk,” he said. “That’s just risk management. That’s not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to [prepare].”

Amid the U.S.-Canada tensions, Carney is desperately trying to promote his “Canada Strong” strategy—one that he hopes will very much include Alberta. Polling conducted by 338Canada suggests that as of Oct. 11, 75% of Albertans would vote to remain part of Canada. But Carney’s resolve is being tested on more than one front, after the separatist Parti Québécois won Quebec's provincial election earlier this month. Incoming Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has already stated his intention to hold a referendum on Quebec independence. While he has vowed not to initiate a vote so long as Trump is in office, the looming presence of a separatist movement undoubtedly complicates matters for Carney at a time when he is striving to show that Canada is strong enough to prosper without relying on the American market.

With the U.S. and Canada locked in a trade stalemate, and with annexation threats once again dominating the conversation, here’s a look at the reality Carney is facing as he deals with both domestic and international pressures.

Trump's remarks complicate Carney’s unity efforts

Trump’s accusations that Canada has taken advantage of the U.S. on matters of trade and security date back to before Carney became Prime Minister in March 2025, meaning the friction we’re currently seeing goes deeper than a simple clash between Trump and Carney. Trump would often refer to Carney's predecessor Justin Trudeau as the "governor" of the "great state of Canada."

In terms of any physical threat facing Canada, Patrick Leblond, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa, says that Carney “put it best when he talked about tail risk” in his interview with the Times. “It’s the financial term for something that has potentially high impact, but low probability,” Leblond explains.

Trump’s economic actions and threats have proven to be far more damaging than his annexation remarks, experts note.

“He has weaponized market access to the U.S.,” says Leblond. “What we can expect is more economic pressure from the White House in the coming months. Trump and his acolytes certainly [appear to] see Canada as a small, weak country that the United States should try to squeeze further.”

The U.S. is Canada’s largest trading partner, with almost $2.6 billion worth of goods and services passing across the border daily in 2024. According to the Office for the U.S. Trade Representative, trade between the two was down 4.6% from 2024 to 2025, but still saw $872.3 billion worth of goods and services cross the border.

Still, there are concerns that any suggestion of annexation, however unlikely it may be, could damage Carney’s high-stakes domestic campaign to unite the country.

On the home front, the success of a separatist party in Quebec is another threat to the unity that Carney is striving for. However, despite the Parti Québécois' victory (they fell five seats short of securing a majority government), the desire for separatism among Quebec residents remains low—with only 31% in favor of sovereignty for the province, according to data from 338 Canada released on Oct. 11.

“If Quebec is on a path to separation or not, it would never be because they were looking for further alignment with the United States,” argues Lori Turnbull, a professor in political science at Dalhousie University. “Quebec has a variety of cultural protections in the Canadian federation. They would have none of that in the United States.”

The more immediate risk for Carney lies in Alberta, with residents preparing to vote on whether the province should hold a referendum on independence.

Carney, who was raised in Edmonton, Alberta, on Thursday framed the referendum as an opportunity for voters to “stand up for Alberta, the heart of Canada” and “recognize that we're all responsible for each other.”

How Trump’s threats could also help Carney

The pressure and rhetoric from the U.S. could actually work in Carney’s favor, experts tell TIME.

“The effect of Trump's comments has been unifying,” says Turnbull. Despite discussions of independence in Alberta and Quebec, she says “there isn't widespread panic that the country is coming apart.”

In fact, research conducted by the Environics Institute for Survey Research in 2025 found that “in almost every province, the proportion of residents who are very attached to Canada is greater than the proportion who are very attached to their province.”

Between Trudeau’s resignation on Jan. 6, 2025, and a federal election in Canada months later on April 28, Carney’s Liberal Party went from 20% to 42.8% in the polls, according to CBC, with Carney’s message of defiance in the face of Trump proving to be a rallying point.

This falls in line with depleting favorable views of the U.S. among Canadians. In July, 44% of Canadians had a favorable opinion of China compared to 33% of Canadians who held the same view of the U.S., according to a Pew Research Center survey. “When China is more popular than the U.S. in a country like Canada, you have to ask yourself: ‘What's going on?’” says Leblond.

Continued annexation threats could bring Canadians even closer together.  “Already, trust is very low, and [more threats] would confirm even more that the United States is [perhaps] not a trustworthy partner at this time,” Leblond argues.

Since the U.S.-Canada trade war reignited in August, Carney has seen his domestic approval rating bounce back up. On Oct. 15, it stood at 62% according to Poliwave, compared to 56% in mid-July. Carney’s resistance against American economic pressures could help his cause, particularly in possible separatist provinces.

“In August, when Carney walked out of the negotiations with the U.S., the highest levels of support for him were found in Quebec,” says Leblond. Indeed, Carney’s approval rating in Quebec grew from 76% to 80% between Aug. 17, and Sep. 7, the highest in any province, according to Liaison Strategies.

Turnbull says the support behind Carney’s decision to walk away from negotiations prompted a strong sense of “patriotism and loyalty.” 

That attitude among Canadians has been reflected in the burgeoning “Buy Canadian” movement, in which consumers across the country have joined a boycott of U.S. products in an effort to feed back into the Canadian economy. 

Carney strengthens international alliances to end reliance on American market 

In September, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen invited Canada to work toward becoming the bloc’s first “associate member,” in what she described as an “urgent” reimagining of partnerships.

While addressing the European Parliament as a guest of honor in Strasbourg, France, Carney insisted “Europe and Canada are stronger together” and said “Canada and the European Union can anchor our ground to hold our values while forming a protective canopy under which our citizens can thrive.”

Trump called the unique membership proposal “laughable” and has threatened economic punishments if the E.U. moves forward with von der Leyen’s plan.

Carney’s shift towards other partnerships “doesn't mean that Canada is not going to do business with the U.S., but it's no longer a preferred partner,” says Leblond, noting that Carney wants to build relations with partners that “share the same values in terms of rules-based trade and investment.”

In January, after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Carney announced a new strategic partnership with China, focused on “energy, agri-food, and trade.” Carney agreed to cut his country’s 100% tariff on Chinese electric cars in return for lower tariffs on Canadian farm products, including canola seeds, a major Canadian export.

These stronger international ties that diversify trade and security away from the U.S. are proving popular on the homefront, according to data. 

According to Abacus Data, a survey conducted in September found that 49% of Canadians would support Canada joining the E.U. An Ipsos poll conducted in January, in light of Carney’s visit to China, found that 54% of Canadians also said they support stronger trade ties with China.

Warning: This post contains spoilers for Whalefall, now in theaters.

It's been a big few months for Austin Abrams moaning and groaning his way through some of the worst situations imaginable. First, as medical courier Bryan Hodukavich in Resident Evil, he was forced to contend with an onslaught of mutant zombie monsters. Now, as Jay Gardiner in Whalefall, he spends the majority of the film's 106-minute runtime getting repeatedly maimed inside the belly of an 80-foot-long sperm whale that weighs 60 tons.

Directed by Brian Duffield (No One Will Save You, Spontaneous) and co-written with Daniel Kraus (the author of the best-selling 2023 novel on which the movie is based), Whalefall follows Jay as he plunges into the treacherous depths off Northern California's Monastery Beach to retrieve the unrecovered remains of his late father Mitt (Josh Brolin), a legendary local diver who became severely ill from advanced, terminal Mesothelioma. The movie's opening scene shows Mitt leaving sealed letters for his wife and three children in a cooler on his boat before taking his own life by strapping diving weights to himself and jumping into the ocean. A year later, Jay still hasn't opened his letter when he is swallowed by a massive whale who's on the hunt for a giant squid in those same waters.

With just about an hour of oxygen left in his diving tank, Jay must endure a series of increasingly agonizing ordeals as he searches for a way to escape his terrifying predicament. There's a nasty encounter with the giant squid's razor-sharp beak, exposure to corrosive stomach acid, and the ever-present threat of being crushed by the whale's constricting organs or suffocating on the toxic, unbreathable methane gas inside its body. Amid the visceral horror of Jay's ingestion, we learn more about his complicated relationship with Mitt, a harsh and often emotionally abusive man, through a series of flashbacks.

Eventually, the whale breaches the surface and Jay nearly manages to break free by climbing out of its open mouth. But he ends up tumbling back inside the whale as it dives deep down into the ocean, causing Jay's eardrums to explode and him to start to hallucinate from lack of oxygen and panic. It's then that Jay, believing he is likely going to die, begins hearing his late father's voice speaking to him through the whale. As the whale is attacked by orcas, saved by its own pod, and returns to the surface, Jay is forced to process his trauma, confront the guilt and grief he feels over not visiting his dad before he died, and come to the realization that the only way he's going to survive is by applying the tough-love diving lessons Mitt drilled into him as a child to his current situation.

"The whole story is based on his relationship with his father, and not being able to take in what his father is trying to impart because of his father's personality and the way that he does it," Brolin told the Direct of Whalefall's overarching message. "And I think what the whale represents a symbol of how to get out of our own way in order to inhale those gems that you need, because I think the father really wants him to become self-sustaining, and he does it in a way that's almost paranoid. So the son can't hear it, and then when the son needs it, you see that he heard it. He just didn't hear it in the way that [his father] wanted him to, and I don't blame him, by the way."

In the end, Jay is able to escape the whale, who has already succumbed to its orca injuries, by managing to blow it up from the inside. The whole thing is overly sappy and obviously a bit preposterous, but if you're able overlook the absurdity of the premise and some particularly cheesy lines of dialogue, then you may be left feeling some type of way about the meaning of unconditional love. As the whale version of Mitt somberly reminds Jay, "The whale is forever."

Katie Zacharia is exiting her job as White House Press Secretary after just five days in the position, according to a person familiar with the situation. President Donald Trump on Friday said to reporters that he told Zacharia to reconsider her role, amid reports that she had already been relieved of the job.

“I said to her honestly, if I were you, I'd reconsider,” Trump said outside of the White House, adding, “Katie, do you need this? I don’t think you need this.”

Trump said that the decision was ultimately hers, and that he would speak with Zacharia following a trip to Georgia. “I just want her to be happy,” he said.

Zacharia’s brief stint as press secretary is bound to draw comparisons to Anthony Scaramucci’s 11-day run as Trump's White House communications director in 2017. Then-White House Chief of Staff John Kelly fired Scaramucci after he had given a fiery interview to The New Yorker in which he attacked his colleagues. In Washington parlance, the tenures of prominent White House officials have since been jokingly measured in “Scaramuccis.”

Trump said that Zacharia has been treated “pretty nastily” and “very unfairly” by the media since taking over for former Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. 

“I said you should reconsider because you don't want to go through this,” he said in reference to the critical media response Zacharia received following her first press briefing on Tuesday.

Trump called Zacharia “an attorney” in his Truth Social post announcing her position, and Zacharia has described herself as a lawyer. But when asked by a reporter where she had passed the bar, Zacharia responded “when I moved to China.” She later said that she had misheard the question. Zacharia then acknowledged while speaking on Fox that she had failed the bar exam.

"You went to Pepperdine law school but you did not pass the bar exam, correct?" Fox host Sean Hannity asked Zacharia on Thursday.

"Correct," Zacharia replied.

When asked whether she regretted never having told the White House that she failed the bar, Zacharia responded “those questions weren’t asked,” and “I’m being hired as White House press secretary, not White House counsel.”

Zacharia previously worked as a general counsel at a the conservative non-profit Fix California. She also has experience working as a communications adviser at Trump Media and Technology Group, which houses the President’s social media platform Truth Social. She previously worked as a spokesperson for former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and is a regular on conservative media outlets like Fox News and Newsmax.

Zacharia received a wave of criticism following her first press briefing, which lasted just 14 minutes and during which she only took questions from three reporters. 

Leavitt, the youngest press secretary in White House history, stepped down in August after returning from maternity leave. She recently joined Fox News as an on-air contributor. 

Warning: This post contains spoilers for You Can See Everything

We might like to believe that documentary filmmakers are adamantly neutral parties, aiming their cameras at people who are just being themselves and, later, turning whatever the camera captures into objective truth. But because documentaries are, for now, made by humans and not robots, pure objectivity is impossible. When Albert and David Maysles captured Little Edie Bouvier Beale’s exuberant flag-twirling dance in Grey Gardens, they weren’t just casually showing us some random American eccentric in an outlandish headscarf; they were both in awe of her and, at least somewhat, laughing at her. The sequence is funny, jaw-dropping, a little sad. The camera isn’t human, but for better or worse the sensibility behind it is. It may not tell us what to think, but its job is to lead us there.

Since its surprise debut at the Telluride Film Festival earlier this fall, You Can See Everything, directed by Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, has been widely praised as a groundbreaking documentary work, one that will change the face of nonfiction filmmaking forever. Not so fast. The first half of Fielder and Oppenheim’s film chronicles the 34 days leading up to the incarceration of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing technology company Theranos. Holmes was convicted of fraud in 2018 and sentenced to just over 11 years in federal prison, commencing in May 2023. To make this documentary, Fielder, Oppenheim, and their crew camped out with Holmes, her partner Billy Evans, and their two small children, observing their lives up-close—or as up-close as possible. The filmmakers had come at Evans’ urging: some time earlier, he and Holmes, who had completely withdrawn from the public eye, had approached A24 to see if the studio might be interested in making a documentary about them. In a roundabout fashion, Fielder and Oppenheim became the filmmakers charged with the task. Early in the film, we hear Evans explaining that he wanted the world to get an accurate picture of the woman he knew, a devoted partner and mother, whom he felt had been unfairly villainized. The film’s title comes from Holmes’ spoken promise to Fielder: She vowed to keep nothing hidden from the filmmakers—but did she fulfill that promise?

Throughout You Can See Everything, Fielder is often on-screen, with Oppenheim working behind the scenes. Over and over again, Holmes assures Fielder she has nothing to hide, and over and over again, his probing—if insistently performative—questions catch her in slippery half-truths. Her transparency, to paraphrase the words of Courtney Love, is so real it’s beyond fake. This is the major pattern of the film’s first half. When Fielder isn’t asking the questions, he’s lurking behind the scenes, listening in on Evans and Holmes’ conversations with a headset; when he hears something he can’t believe, his eyes widen dramatically, or his brow furrows, or his jaw hangs as slack as that of a puppet. The audience I saw the movie with giggled every time. Faux-Kabuki irony is the new earnestness. If this is the future of documentary filmmaking—or at least that of its loopier cousin, creative-nonfiction filmmaking—many of us will come to miss the late Frederick Wiseman even more than we already do.

Holmes and her let-it-all-hang-out evasiveness isn’t the problem here. If anything, her whirligig insistence on her inability to lie, or even inadvertently deceive, is at least a kind of self-invented honesty. She spins out phrases like “All I know is my truth,” before speaking tearfully about her fear of being separated from her family. As the camera rolls, Holmes works overtime to convince the filmmakers, and us, of her innocence, with Evans butting in frequently to add his 3,268 cents—2 would never be enough. (He keeps insisting that the couple have plans to start a new company, though he seems to have more invested in this scheme than his partner does.) Holmes is one of those smile-talkers—people who grin as words pour out of their mouths. One of her tricks is to never break eye contact, and we can see her working this voodoo on Fielder. Her eyes are a glassy, translucent blue. I’ve never seen eyes like this, except on creepy European-made porcelain dolls from the 19th century. Are we seriously going to trust this woman?

We’re not, and Fielder doesn’t seem to be headed in that direction either, at least at first. This is a dense picture—there’s almost too much to unpack, if you can be bothered to care about any of it. Holmes is fascinating, and weirdly compelling. But by design, Fielder is as much a player in You Can See Everything as Holmes is, and your feelings about the film overall will depend on how much of him you can take. Fielder has made a name for himself with the shows Nathan for You and The Rehearsal, in which he essentially makes himself look foolish, a little, and makes others look foolish, a lot. Oppenheim, his friend and filmmaking partner, is the director behind the recent nonfiction feature Primetime, as well as docs like the 2020 Some Kind of Heaven, which turns a sarcastic eye on the Florida retirement community known as The Villages—the ultimate in shooting-fish-in-a-barrel filmmaking. It’s hard to say who’s more responsible for You Can See Everything’s stultifying smirkiness, at least in the first half; these two are clearly of like mind.

But there’s a major shift in the film's second half, one that suddenly, and blessedly, makes it at least watchable. (If you don’t want to know anything about this twist, stop reading here.) The film's second section picks up two years after Holmes has gone off to prison, which means Fielder and Oppenheim have been deprived of their subject. What little access they might have had is severely curtailed by Evans, who now seems less like a caring husband and more like an evil puppetmaster, eager to use his wife’s words and likeness for his own gain. (His increasing aura of evil is unnerving, especially when you consider that he’s almost fully in charge of raising the couple’s two young children.) Fielder and Oppenheim are at a loss—until it occurs to them to enlist the help of Amanda Seyfried, who played Holmes in the 2022 miniseries The Dropout, both to stand in for the disgraced entrepreneur and to weigh in on her plight.

As evidence mounts that Evans appears to be a megalomaniac, Fielder grows increasingly concerned about Holmes, and his sympathies shift before our eyes: Is she a victim, not just in the court of popular opinion, but also of the person closest to her? Seyfried seems to feel similarly, at least at first. What’s clear is that she hates to see any woman under the thumb of a potentially dangerous man (or any man, for that matter), and she thinks out loud about the possibility that Holmes, as a woman who’d been convinced that the company she’d founded could disrupt the health-care system and actually help people, may have been both manipulated and misjudged. Still, she’s clear-eyed enough to see that Fielder may be going overboard in his emotional attachment to his subject. That’s the dynamic that makes the second half of You Can See Everything click. Seyfried’s presence is the movie’s saving grace: Unlike Fielder, there’s nothing calculating about her, and the film’s second half is uncomfortably alluring.

But is that really enough? You Can See Everything is designed to make us think, hard, about the relationship between a documentarian and his subject. But anyone who's never considered that relationship before probably hasn't been watching documentaries closely enough. The intensity of the filmmaker-subject relationship—in addition to any potential untrustworthiness—is almost always implied, if not explicit. That’s true of all the films made by the great documentary filmmakers—people like Wiseman, the Maysles brothers, Agnès Varda, Werner Herzog, and many others—whether they insert themselves directly into the narrative or not. You Can See Everything has some inventive touches, and no matter what, it’s remarkable that Fielder and Oppenheim were able to keep the film a secret for the three-plus years they were working on it. But they haven’t revolutionized the documentary film; they’ve only reinforced what distinguishes a novelty from a work of genius, mere cleverness and snark from true depth of perception. Their movie feels more like a product they’ve brought to market than an example of the documentarian’s art. Are we buying or not?

You might see an ear, nose, and throat (ENT) doctor for recurring sinus infections. Someone else might see one for a thyroid tumor, a voice that won’t return after a cold, or trouble breathing during sleep. They’re all within an ENT’s purview.

These doctors, formally called otolaryngologists, treat conditions involving the ears, nose, throat, and much of the head and neck. That includes problems affecting your hearing, swallowing, breathing, and voice—and some that require urgent care. “A lot of people will think, ‘Oh yeah, there’s no emergencies at ENT,’ and there absolutely are,” says Dr. Ryan Salvador, an ENT surgeon at Sinus & Snoring Specialists in Austin.

We asked three otolaryngologists what they wish patients wouldn’t ignore.

Sudden hearing loss in one ear

You answer your phone and realize you can barely hear your friend’s voice out of your left ear. Switch to your right side, and everything sounds normal. It’s tempting to assume the muffled ear needs to pop, Salvador says. But an abrupt change in hearing can be a medical emergency.

One possibility is sudden sensorineural hearing loss, which affects the inner ear. Salvador knows how easily it can be mistaken for something else: His father went to urgent care and was told he had fluid behind his eardrum. By the time he saw an ENT, about eight weeks had passed. “He’s completely deaf in that ear now,” Salvador says.

An ENT can examine the ear and arrange a hearing test to find out what’s causing the loss. If it is sudden sensorineural hearing loss, steroids may help—but, as Salvador puts it, “the earlier the better.” Seek medical care immediately if you suddenly lose hearing, even if your ear just feels full or you’ve recently had a cold.

A neck lump that doesn’t hurt

You might discover it while shaving, when your razor passes over a spot that suddenly isn’t smooth. Or perhaps you notice an unfamiliar bump in the mirror. Because it doesn’t hurt, you decide it can’t be that serious.

Dr. Arnbjorn Toset, the director of head and neck surgery at Good Samaritan University Hospital and Catholic Health in New York, hears that reasoning from patients: “Doctor, it’s not hurting me. I don’t have any symptoms.” But pain isn’t a reliable way to judge a neck lump. It might be an enlarged lymph node, a thyroid nodule, or a growth in a salivary gland. But some lumps are cancerous.

Dr. Shaun Desai, chair of otolaryngology at New York Medical College and Westchester Medical Center in New York, recalls a medical student who assumed his lump was related to a cold. “For eight months he sat on this lump in his neck,” Desai says. It turned out to be a salivary gland tumor. If a new lump has no clear explanation or is still there after two weeks, make an appointment.

A sore throat that keeps getting worse

A sore throat is hardly unusual. One that progresses from “this hurts” to “I can barely swallow” is another matter. Salvador pays particular attention when the pain keeps worsening and you’re also having trouble opening your mouth or your voice sounds muffled. “You talk like you’ve got a hot potato in your mouth,” he says.

Those changes can signal an abscess—a pocket of pus that forms around a tonsil. “These can be life threatening,” Salvador says. If swelling makes it difficult to breathe, seek emergency care. Worsening throat pain with trouble swallowing, opening your mouth, or speaking normally also warrants prompt evaluation.

Your partner says you stop breathing at night

Your partner hears you snoring. Then, suddenly, nothing. After a pause, you gasp and start breathing again. By morning, you may have no idea it happened.

The snoring may be what your partner complains about. Desai wants to know about the silence. “The bigger worry is, does your partner kind of stop breathing for a couple of seconds?” he says. Repeated pauses can be a sign of obstructive sleep apnea, in which the airway narrows or closes during sleep. You might wake up exhausted despite spending the whole night in bed. Untreated sleep apnea can also contribute to high blood pressure; Desai worries about people who become so sleepy during the day that they struggle to stay awake while driving.

Tell your doctor about the pauses, gasping, and any daytime sleepiness. A sleep study can show whether apnea is the cause. As Desai puts it, “Apnea is the bigger question, and that can be dangerous if not treated.”

Swelling around an eye during a sinus infection

Sinus pressure can make the area around your eyes ache. What Salvador doesn’t want you to chalk up to ordinary sinus misery is new swelling around an eye—especially if the area is red or your vision changes.

“The only thing that separates the sinus cavity from the eye is a very thin plate of bone,” he says. Rarely, an infection spreads into the tissues around the eye. Salvador has treated patients whose infections formed pockets of pus that had to be drained to protect their vision.

Get urgent medical attention for a newly swollen eye during a sinus infection. If you develop double vision or have trouble moving the eye, seek emergency care. Don’t wait for those symptoms to appear: Double vision is “a pretty late sign,” Salvador says.

Swelling under your jaw when you eat

Halfway through a meal, you notice a tender bump beneath your jaw. It settles down later—then returns the next time you eat.

Toset says that pattern can point to a blocked salivary gland. Eating triggers saliva production, but a stone can keep the saliva from draining, causing the gland to swell. It may also become painful or red.

If it keeps happening, have it examined. Toset says the cause is often benign, but an exam and sometimes imaging can distinguish a stone from another problem with the gland. If the swelling keeps returning, have the gland checked—even if it goes down between meals 

A voice that won’t come back

You talked all weekend. You recently had a cold. Of course your voice sounds rough—or maybe it’s become oddly breathy, and you can’t project the way you used to. These are reasonable explanations for a temporary change, Desai says. They become less reassuring when your voice doesn’t recover.

Salvador remembers a teacher who was struggling to speak loudly enough for her class. “I can’t project,” she told him. When he examined her, he discovered that one of her vocal cords wasn’t moving properly because of a thyroid tumor. Persistent hoarseness can have other explanations, including irritation or a benign growth, but an ENT needs to look to find out.

If hoarseness lasts four weeks, see an ENT—sooner if you smoke or have other concerning symptoms. The doctor may pass a small camera through your nose to look at your vocal cords. If that sounds daunting, Desai says the office exam “just takes a minute or two.”

Dentures that suddenly don’t fit comfortably

Your dentures fit fine last month. Now they rub the same spot every time you put them in, or they don’t sit quite right. You might need an adjustment—or someone to look at what’s going on underneath.

Toset says new discomfort may draw your attention to “a little ulcer on the gum line.” Rubbing can cause a sore, but a growth in the mouth can also change how dentures fit. That’s one possible sign of oral cancer, though there are other explanations.

Ask your dentist to examine the tissue beneath the denture, especially if a sore hasn’t healed after two weeks. They can check what’s changed before adjusting the fit.

A nosebleed that won’t stop

Most nosebleeds start near the front of the nose and stop with pressure. A bleed that starts farther back can be harder to control. The blood vessels there can “pump and pump and pump,” Salvador says, and blood may run down the back of your throat. Doctors call this a posterior nosebleed.

If your nose starts bleeding, lean forward and pinch its soft part with steady pressure for 15 minutes. If the bleeding is heavy or won’t stop, or you feel weak or lightheaded, seek emergency care.

A nosebleed that does stop can still be worth investigating if it keeps coming back. Salvador remembers a man in his 30s who had consistent nosebleeds for about six months before an examination revealed a tumor inside his nose. That’s an uncommon cause, but a good reason to tell your doctor about repeated bleeding—especially if it keeps happening on the same side.

Ear pain when nothing seems wrong 

Your ear hurts, so you probably have an ear infection, right? Not necessarily. Sometimes an examination turns up nothing wrong with the ear itself. Nerves in the head and neck carry a signal from somewhere else, and sometimes, “your brain is tricking you” about where it started, Toset says.

The source might be your jaw joint, which sits just in front of your ear. Less commonly, it could be a problem in your throat or at the base of your tongue. If the pain persists despite a normal ear exam, ask your doctor what else should be checked—especially if it hurts to swallow or you’ve noticed a lump in your neck.

One nostril that stays blocked

Colds and allergies can make your whole nose miserable. A blockage that sticks around on just one side gets Desai’s attention. “When you can’t breathe out of one nostril, it’s always a little more concerning,” he says.

The explanation might be a deviated septum, but a growth inside the nose or sinuses can also block one side. Desai worries about the delay when people tell themselves, “Oh, it’s a cold,” or “I just have a bloody nose.” If the blockage outlasts what seems like an ordinary cold—especially if that side also bleeds repeatedly—have it examined.

A sore on your tongue that won’t heal

Most small mouth sores clear up within a week or two. Toset is more concerned about one that stays put, grows, or becomes increasingly painful—particularly on the side of the tongue.

He remembers seeing a young woman in the emergency room on a Friday night. She had developed swelling in her neck, and the doctors who called Toset thought it might be an abscess. During his examination, he noticed a sore on the side of her tongue. She’d seen dentists and other specialists, and earlier biopsies had come back benign, but the sore had persisted for about six months.

“I had a biopsy. Biopsy was negative, so I left it alone,” Toset recalls her telling him. He examined the sore and grew concerned. “I had to break it to her,” he says: “I think you have tongue cancer.” Another biopsy confirmed it; the swelling in her neck was where the cancer had spread.

A reassuring biopsy shouldn’t be the end of the conversation if the sore is still there. Any mouth sore that hasn’t healed after two weeks should be evaluated, according to the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

“I’d rather see someone early on in the process where I can pick up on something that is possibly benign or an early type of cancer,” Toset says, than see them after a delay that makes treatment more difficult.

For an NFL quarterback, a sore calf might seem like an unsurprising consequence of getting hit by a cleat. In Jalen Hurts’ case, an ultrasound revealed something else: a superficial blood clot.

The Philadelphia Eagles quarterback was struck in the calf during an Oct. 4 game and sought treatment four days later, according to a statement from the team. An ultrasound in London revealed the clot, but doctors cleared him to play in the team’s game there the next day.

Then, a follow-up ultrasound Wednesday night revealed “movement in the small blood clot.” The Eagles announced Thursday that Hurts would miss Sunday’s game against the Carolina Panthers while the team determines his treatment.

What makes a clot superficial—and when does it become dangerous? We asked doctors to explain.

What’s the difference between a superficial clot and deep vein thrombosis?

To understand blood clots, picture a road map. Your deep veins run within the muscles of your arms and legs, carrying most of the blood returning from your limbs to your heart. Superficial veins sit closer to the surface, just underneath the skin and in the tissue beneath it. Connecting veins bridge the two systems.

“You have a really well interconnected network of veins,” says Dr. William Shutze, a vascular surgeon at Texas Vascular Associates in Dallas and vice president of the Society for Vascular Surgery (who was not involved in Hurts’ care). Think of it as “a very well developed road and highway system,” with multiple routes to get where you need to go.

When a clot blocks one route, blood can take a detour through other veins.

A superficial clot forms in one of the veins near the skin. The area can become red, warm, and tender. “It’s usually very uncomfortable,” Shutze says. Some develop in varicose veins; others form where a needle or IV has irritated a vein.

You can sometimes feel the affected vein beneath your fingers. “It’s like a pencil underneath the skin, or a knot,” says Dr. Stephan Moll, a hematologist and professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina who runs an Athletes and Blood Clots Clinic (who was not involved in Hurts’ care).

Deep vein thrombosis involves a clot farther inside the body. Its symptoms can be more widespread—the whole calf or ankle might become swollen and painful, Moll says. You can’t feel the deep vein itself.

Many superficial clots stay put and get better without blood thinners. But sometimes, a clot grows into one of the deeper veins. A piece can then break off and travel to the lungs, causing a potentially life-threatening complication called a pulmonary embolism.

Doctors use ultrasound to assess the clot and check for deep-vein involvement, Shutze says. They’re particularly concerned about superficial clots longer than 5 centimeters or within 3 centimeters of where a superficial vein joins a deep one.

The Eagles haven’t specified those details. And “movement” isn’t precise enough to establish what happened. “That’s not a term we use in clinical practice,” Moll says. It could describe a clot growing or extending; it doesn’t, by itself, establish that a piece broke loose or reached the lungs.

How do these clots happen—and how are they treated?

Being in excellent shape doesn’t make someone immune to a blood clot. An injury can damage a vein, while prolonged inactivity slows blood flow. Surgery, certain inherited clotting disorders, cancer, and pregnancy can also increase risk, says Dr. Alina Mitina, an emergency medicine physician at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey (who was not involved in Hurts’ care).

Veins near the skin have less cushioning when someone takes a hit. “The deeper veins are protected,” Shutze says, although a severe impact can injure those, too.

A clot can form within hours of an injury or develop over several days, he adds. If your leg already hurts from getting hit, you might not realize there’s another reason it’s sore.

Travel can add another risk: Sitting through a long flight or car ride means the legs aren’t moving as much, slowing blood flow. 

Some superficial clots can be managed with warm compresses, anti-inflammatory medication, elevation, and monitoring. Others need blood thinners to help keep the clot from growing—even if it hasn’t reached a deep vein.

If blood thinners are needed, treatment is usually temporary, Moll says, often lasting several weeks.

That doesn’t necessarily mean spending recovery on the couch. “We like them to be active because we want to keep the blood flowing,” Shutze says.

Getting up for a walk, of course, is different from getting tackled. Shutze worries about athletes taking another hit where they already have a clot. Blood thinners add another concern: An injury that causes bleeding can become much more dangerous when blood doesn’t clot as readily.

In football, “you have constant significant contact,” Moll says, which raises the risk of serious bleeding, including inside the head or muscles.

What symptoms shouldn’t you ignore?

Athletes are used to being sore. “They often minimize clinical symptoms, completely understandably, because they don’t want to be taken off the roster,” Moll says.

Pay attention when discomfort feels different, persists, or worsens. Pain, swelling, discoloration, and warmth can signal a clot. Mitina says patients sometimes describe tightness in the leg; redness around a superficial clot can resemble an infection.

If you think you might have a superficial clot, “don’t ignore it,” Shutze says. Have a doctor check it out rather than assuming it’s a bruise or muscle strain.

Unexplained shortness of breath, chest pain, coughing up blood, or fainting require emergency care because they can signal a pulmonary embolism. Moll also flags an unexplained cough and fast heart rate as possible warning signs.

And getting checked once doesn’t mean you should brush off symptoms that persist or worsen. “If something feels weird or symptoms aren’t getting better, always return to the ER,” Mitina says. “You know your body best.”

At the grocery store, you’re a person who roasts squash. You make salads. You have exciting plans for fresh herbs. A week later, you’re a person throwing away unused squash, salad, and wilted herbs.

Even food-waste experts know the gap between the meals we imagine and the food we actually eat. Shelie Miller, who studies sustainability at the University of Michigan, understands how an acorn squash can end up in your cart without a plan. “It’s fall. I’m feeling the fall vibes,” she says, describing the temptation. That’s why she and her husband try to stick to a shared grocery list—and know what they’ll do with what they buy.

We asked experts what else they do to keep good intentions out of the trash.

Read more: How to Stop Wasting So Much Food in Your Kid’s Lunchbox

Make a kitchen-sink potato

Once a week, Miller bakes a potato and gives the odds and ends in her refrigerator somewhere to go. Leftover fajita vegetables? On the potato. Little extras from other meals? Those go on, too.

“I always call it a garbage potato, or maybe it’s better to call it a kitchen-sink potato,” she says. The toppings change often enough to keep things interesting: “My husband always plays a guessing game of what my potato is going to be this week.”

The potato solves a familiar problem: You have some food left, but not quite enough to call it lunch. Miller combines those small portions on something she already wants to eat. “It’s such a great blank canvas,” she says.

Stir-fries can serve a similar purpose. But Miller knows where her loyalties lie: “My go-to is a potato.”

Give broccoli stems a chance

Jonathan Deutsch has watched fellow cooks buy cases of broccoli, cut off the florets, and throw away the stems. He considers this a terrible loss. The tender interior of a broccoli stem, he says, is “one of the most delicious vegetables.”

Deutsch, a professor in the department of food and hospitality management and founding director of the Drexel Food Lab, cooks both parts at home. The night before we spoke, he made broccoli salad with tahini and chili crisp. The stem was woody on the outside, so he peeled it, cut up the tender interior, and then air-fried it along with the florets.

Trim the woody bottom and peel away the tough exterior as needed. Deutsch wants people to recognize the good food underneath.

“The same care and love that went into the florets,” he says, “went three inches lower into the stem.”

Give your ingredients a second assignment

A recipe that calls for half a cabbage leaves you with another decision: What happens to the other half?

Miller and her husband try to answer that before they start cooking. Cabbage rolls might take care of some; soup or a roasted side dish can use the rest. The same thinking applies to the tomato paste left in a can or the extra chicken breast in a package. “Getting comfortable with all the different ways you can prepare different ingredients really helps extend the menu,” she says.

Deutsch starts by checking what’s already in his kitchen. When his now-adult daughters were teenagers, they would announce there was nothing to eat. He could usually find the makings of a meal: a can of tuna, a can of beans, or chicken in the freezer. Only after taking stock would he figure out what he needed to buy.

“Instead of generating more waste that you have to deal with, you’re taking surplus food,” he says, “and you’re making it into new things that you want to eat.”

Put your apples in the fridge

Brian Roe is willing to commit to a Costco-size bag of apples. He just doesn’t leave it on the counter.

“I’m an apple kind of person,” says Roe, a professor of agricultural, environmental, and development economics at Ohio State University who leads its Food Waste Collaborative.

He keeps the apples in the refrigerator, where he says he rarely loses one to spoilage. On the counter, he’s more likely to throw a couple away before finishing the bag.

Shop in your freezer first

Miller knows what can happen to food you freeze with the best intentions: “It just goes into the abyss of a freezer.”

Eventually, you clean it out and find “freezer-burned chicken breasts and chili from three years ago,” she says. “What happened?”

She and her husband now make a point of shopping in their freezer before deciding what to buy or cook. Sometimes, that means discovering they already have lunches covered for the week. Other times, it means remembering the portions of tomato paste they froze after a recipe called for only a spoonful.

There are only two of them at home, so a big batch can mean eating the same dinner several nights running. “By the fourth day, the last thing you want is more gumbo,” she says.

Their approach: “We’ll eat a day or two of leftovers. We’ll freeze the rest.” Then, when they need lunches another week, they can pull out a meal they haven’t just eaten three days running.

File your soup

Miller’s husband has figured out how to fit more leftovers in their freezer: He freezes soups and other liquids flat in zip-top bags on a sheet pan. “It ends up like these little folders of soup,” she says.

Once frozen, the thin packages stack neatly, taking up less space than bulky containers. Use bags intended for freezing, leave room for liquid to expand, and follow safe cooling, storage, and reheating practices.

Keep a stock bag

Deutsch keeps a bag in his freezer for the parts of dinner that don’t make it onto the plate: onion trimmings, mushroom bits, and herb stems. When he’s ready to make stock, he has a head start.

“Stock is like magic,” he says. When people wonder why their soup doesn’t taste as good as their favorite restaurant’s, he points to what might be missing: stock, along with generous seasoning. He also uses it in place of water when cooking rice, polenta, or vegetables to give them extra flavor.

He’s selective about what goes into the stock. Add beet scraps, and “you’re gonna have a pink or brownish stock,” he says. Add broccoli trimmings, and “it’s gonna have a little bit of a cabbagey broccoli smell.” That could be delicious in broccoli mac and cheese, but it’s probably not the flavor you want in butternut squash soup. “You have to be a little strategic about what goes in there,” he says.

Make leftovers worth looking forward to

Roe’s air fryer helps him get another meal out of restaurant leftovers. Recently, he used it to reheat half a tuna steak and vegetables his wife had brought home. “That makes things kind of tasty and crispy again,” he says.

He thinks about the next meal while putting food away, taking an extra minute to make leftovers easy to reheat. The goal is “storing your leftovers in a way that helps you want to use them the next time,” he says.

Sometimes, that means turning last night’s teriyaki chicken into today’s salad. His adult son has found another opening for leftovers: breakfast. “They’re the freshest they’ll ever be because it’s the first meal after,” Roe says.

Ask for ideas before buying more groceries

Ground turkey, two green peppers, and feta: Is that dinner? Deutsch suggests asking a chatbot before adding anything else to your grocery list.

He’s experimented with AI to find ways to use ingredients on hand, and recommends giving it more than a list of what’s in the fridge. Tell it how much time you have, what equipment you’re using, and how comfortable you are in the kitchen.

“Make me an easy recipe with these ingredients,” he suggests instructing your AI platform of choice. You can ask for something that takes less than 30 minutes, too—so you don’t discover halfway through the instructions that dinner needs to marinate overnight. “You could really customize it,” he says.

Buy portions that match your appetite

Throwing away part of a chicken breast means wasting more than dinner. It also wastes the resources used to raise and feed the chicken. Animal products generally have a larger environmental footprint than plant foods, Miller explains, which makes keeping meat, eggs, and dairy from going uneaten especially consequential.

Her rule: “Respect the protein.”

Miller and her husband still eat meat, but they’ve started serving smaller portions. “Meat is an accent to the meal,” she says. They’re trying to avoid a familiar outcome: “We both have two huge chicken breasts and waste a quarter of them.”

Plan for your guests—not an army

Roe describes himself as an evangelist for buying less food—a habit that’s followed him home, “maybe not to the happiness of everybody in my household,” he says.

When they’re having people over, Roe tries to calculate what guests will actually eat, while his spouse comes from a tradition of making sure there’s enough to “feed the army.”

At Thanksgiving, Roe uses the Guest-imator, an online tool from Save the Food that estimates how much to prepare for a gathering. “A lot of it is just buying less or really thinking about what’s being purchased and why,” he says.

Don’t make plastic-free the only goal

Miller studies the environmental impact of plastic packaging. She also has a freezer full of soup in zip-top bags. “Very honestly, we go through a lot of single-use plastic,” she says.

Her research helps explain that choice. A 2022 analysis she co-authored found that plastic packaging accounted for less than 10% of the total environmental footprint of 23 out of 30 foods across most measures examined. And in a 2019 study comparing meal kits with grocery-store meals, the greenhouse-gas savings from reduced food waste outweighed the extra packaging emissions. 

Miller uses reusable containers for lunches and tries to minimize disposable items. But she considers what the packaging helps her accomplish. “A good zip-top bag is really hard to compete with for certain applications,” she says.

For her, the environmental cost of throwing away food matters more than the bag used to save it. “When you look at the environmental impacts of food waste versus a single-use plastic bag, the food waste is the much more important thing,” she says.

“My big philosophy is not to sweat the small stuff,” she says.

Compost what you can’t use—but try to eat it first

Miller collects food scraps in a metal pail with a liner. “It’s nothing fancy,” she says. But she doesn’t consider composting a substitute for eating the food she buys.

“A lot of folks think, well, hey, I’m composting, so it’s OK to waste food,” she says. Composting can’t recover all the resources used to produce food that never gets eaten, so she focuses first on using what’s in her kitchen—whether it becomes lunch, soup, or next week’s potato.

When food does go uneaten, “throw it in the compost rather than the trash if you have that option available,” she says.

After nearly a century, America has rediscovered the wealth tax. This November, Californians will vote on Proposition 40, a union-backed initiative levying a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of the state's billionaires. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced a federal version; a dozen states have advanced millionaire or billionaire taxes this year; and Maine, Washington, Hawaii, and Rhode Island have all enacted one. Not since the Progressive Era has taxing the rich had this much momentum.

The energy is easy to understand. The 25 wealthiest Americans pay a “true tax rate” of just 3.4%—a fraction of what nurses and teachers pay—while holding about 2% of the nation's wealth. That’s nearly as much as the entire bottom half of the country combined. 

This spring, Forbes counted a record 3,428 billionaires worth $20.1 trillion, up $4 trillion since last year. Elon Musk topped the list at $839 billion, and this summer he became history's first trillionaire. At the same time, workers' share of economic output fell to 52.8%, the lowest since records began in 1947. Today, billionaire wealth is at an all-time high while labor's share is at an all-time low. 

One obvious response is to tax the fortunes at the top and redistribute those funds. But I worry that the wealth-tax movement is aimed at the wrong target. Billionaires create a lot of damage, to be sure. As Alex Gibney’s new documentary Musk lays out, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO spent nearly $300 million helping elect a president and then slashed federal agencies, including several investigating his own companies. Still, he and his tech-bro pals are not themselves the underlying reason for our economic dysfunction. 

In my view, the root cause is corporate power—the way modern corporations are owned, governed, and permitted to organize markets and politics to their own advantage—and how relentlessly that power has concentrated over the past 50 years. The evidence is everywhere. Since the late 1990s, three-quarters of American industries have grown more concentrated. Corporate margins have roughly tripled since 1980, and after-tax profits—below 10% of GDP for virtually all of 1950 to 2010—now exceed 12%, near the record. Economist Thomas Philippon calculates that weakened competition costs the typical household about $300 a month.

Since 1970, when Milton Friedman declared that a corporation's only social responsibility is profit, businesses have been re-engineered around delivering the most value possible to shareholders. Today, the bulk of many senior executives’ pay comes in the form of stock options and share buybacks (when a company spends its earnings to buy up its own stock and lift the price), which now send over a trillion dollars a year to shareholders rather than into wages or investment. Before 1982, this practice was viewed as market manipulation. In the following decades, the forces that once pushed back against inequality were gutted: union membership fell from 20% of American workers to 10%, and antitrust enforcement was consistently muted. 

This is where billionaires come in. Nobody earns $839 billion from a paycheck. A fortune of that scale can only be made by accumulating equity. That is, gains from corporate profits. Profit is simply what remains after wages are held down, taxes are minimized, and costs are pushed onto workers, communities, and the environment. It makes little difference whether the claim to those profits comes from founding a company or, as with hedge-fund and private-equity fortunes, from the fruit of corporations other people built. Because the richest tenth of Americans own nearly 90% of household stock-market wealth, every dollar shifted from paychecks to profit flows almost undiluted to the top.

You don't have to look hard for examples. The Walton fortune rests on wages so low that a federal watchdog found Walmart among the biggest employers of workers on Medicaid and food stamps. In other words, taxpayers are subsidizing the payroll beneath a dynastic fortune. Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos's wealth compounded over years during which Amazon paid no federal income tax on billions in profit while fighting its warehouse workers' union drives. In each case, the fortune is substantially extracted from workers and the public, not the market reward it is billed as.

None of this would last without help from Washington. Over the past half century, political spending has become a core business strategy and arguably the highest-return investment a large company can make. 

In a 1971 memorandum, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell urged the Chamber of Commerce to put business on a political war footing. Today, lobbying has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry and business now outspends labor and public-interest groups 34-to-one. Since Citizens United removed the last meaningful limits on business political spending in 2010, every election has cost more than the last—nearly $16 billion in 2024, mostly corporate money. 

Under President Donald Trump, the exchange has become impossible to ignore. Corporations lined up with seven-figure donations to his inaugural fund; oil executives, who were asked point-blank for $1 billion at a Mar-a-Lago dinner, have watched climate rules fall ever since; Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit legal experts dismissed while its merger awaited federal approval; and the crypto industry, having spent more than $130 million on the 2024 races, saw the enforcement cases against it evaporate, and this fall is spending hundreds of millions on 2026 midterm races.

This is why a politics aimed only at billionaires will miss the mark. I support wealth taxes, and I hope Proposition 40 passes. Yet wealth taxes only claw back winnings after the fact. This year's Forbes’ Billionaires list added 390 newcomers. Taxing Musk, Bezos, and other billionaires does not touch the executives, boards, investment funds, and political machines that keep minting new ones.

What would it mean to take aim at the root cause of inequality instead? First, we must recognize that the shareholder-primacy firm is a policy choice—the product of lobbying and lawmaking since the 1970s—and policy choices can be remade by rebuilding labor power through labor-law reform and sectoral bargaining, reviving antitrust, and getting corporate money out of politics. Early American corporate charters, after all, were granted for limited public purposes and could be revoked when abused.

It also means redesigning ownership itself. In my research on alternative corporate models, I have studied companies that are deliberately structured so that no one can extract a dynastic fortune, because the equity is legally locked to purpose. When Patagonia's founder moved the company into a purpose trust in 2022, such extraction became impossible by design; Bosch has been majority-owned by a foundation for decades and competes ferociously. Steward ownership, employee ownership, and benefit corporations are working alternatives operating in thousands of companies around the world and address wealth concentration at its source.

The wealth-tax debate, in other words, is about how to redistribute the gains that came from corporate power. But we need to redistribute corporate power itself.

None of this argues against Proposition 40 or its state and federal counterparts. Vote for them, pass them, let the revenue fund healthcare and schools. It is an argument about where attention needs to be focused next. History tells us that previous American confrontations with concentrated wealth, from Progressive Era trustbusters to the New Deal, succeeded not merely by taxing the winners but by restructuring corporate power through antitrust enforcement, securities regulation, and protecting labor rights. 

The real question facing America is whether corporations exist to serve society, or society exists to serve corporations. A politics that stops at the wealth tax has already conceded the answer.

In Ukraine, a Russian drone guided by artificial intelligence killed three civilians at a gas station, including a 19-year-old university student. In Gaza, an AI-assisted intelligence tool helped Israeli forces locate a Hamas commander. The subsequent airstrike killed him and, according to independent estimates, at least 125 other people.

Different wars. Different circumstances. But a deeply troubling question: As machines become more involved in decisions of life and death, are we losing sight of the human beings whose lives hang in the balance?

That question brought me back this month to a small white house in Reykjavík, Iceland.

Forty years ago, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev met at Höfði House, representing rival nuclear superpowers divided by decades of distrust. They left without an agreement. Yet their willingness to talk, listen, and imagine what had seemed impossible helped lay the groundwork for historic nuclear arms reductions.

I remember that moment vividly. I was a young Icelandic exchange student living in the United States, watching two world leaders meet in my small home country. I could never have imagined that 40 years later, as President of Iceland, I would return to that same house to ask a new generation of leaders to find the courage to talk.

The enduring lesson of Reykjavík is not simply about nuclear weapons or diplomacy. It is about the extraordinary power of human connection and dialogue. And we urgently need to remember it.

Never have we possessed more sophisticated tools to communicate, yet our ability to understand one another seems increasingly fragile. We are connected across continents in milliseconds, but too often separated by fear, anger, and mistrust.

Our technologies can transform medicine, education, and human prosperity. Yet they can also accelerate conflict, undermine democracy, and challenge human control.

Crucial questions for the AI age

Thanks to new technologies like AI, our power has grown exponentially. But has our wisdom kept pace?

Over the past week, Iceland has explored that question not only through another conventional summit, but through a journey from remembrance to dialogue, and from dialogue to responsibility.

We began with a traveling exhibition from the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and the testimony of a survivor of the atomic bombing. More than 80 years later, she still vividly recalls what she describes as the sudden appearance of a thousand suns, followed by unimaginable destruction, decades of devastating illness, and the stigma endured by survivors. No discussion of nuclear deterrence should ever lose sight of the human lives behind those words.

We then confronted the promises and dangers of artificial intelligence with technology experts, including Tristan Harris and Aza Raskin. The central question was not simply what AI can do, but what we should allow it to do—and who gets to decide.

Perhaps the most important conversations, however, happened far from the conference halls.

Across Iceland, young people invited fellow citizens to put down their phones and sit together to discuss the future they want to create. Students, parents, grandparents, teachers, and neighbors talked about education, belonging, technology, nature, and peace.

The young people were not asking adults to arrive with all the answers. They wanted to be heard. To be taken seriously. To have a voice in decisions that will shape their lives long after today's leaders have left office.

They understood something we too often forget: decisions made far from the people they affect are rarely wise ones.

I found that both humbling and hopeful.

Because dialogue is more than exchanging opinions. At its best, it is an act of recognition: I see you. Your experience matters. Your future matters. Even when we disagree, we share responsibility for what comes next.

The demands of dialogue

The purpose of dialogue is not always consensus. It is connection. And connection is where trust begins. Without trust, even the most brilliant solutions struggle to take root.

We carried that spirit back to Höfði House, where leaders from politics, technology, science, business, and civil society gathered to ask what responsible leadership demands of us today.

The result was A Call from Reykjavík, signed by three women presidents and open to others who wish to join. It calls for meaningful human control over powerful technologies, insists that decisions about war and nuclear weapons remain firmly in human hands, and places peace and responsibility to future generations at the heart of leadership.

The following day, in a public conversation moderated by renowned journalist Christiane Amanpour, President Nataša Pirc Musar of Slovenia, former Irish President Mary Robinson and I reflected on the choices before humanity.

Forty years after two powerful men met in Reykjavík, three women—indeed, three world leaders—came together to continue the conversation. Not because women have all the answers. We do not. But because progress requires more voices, more perspectives, and a willingness to listen across differences. And because the future must never belong only to those who currently hold power.

I do not believe dialogue is a soft alternative to leadership. I believe it is one of its most demanding forms.

It takes courage to listen to someone with whom we profoundly disagree. Humility to acknowledge what we do not know. And strength to resist reducing complex human challenges to slogans, enemies, or simple answers.

Dialogue does not mean abandoning our values, excusing aggression, or accepting injustice. Nor is it a substitute for action. It is how we begin to build the trust and understanding that make lasting action possible.

AI-assisted warfare

The wars in Ukraine and Gaza remind us of the devastating human cost of conflict. AI-assisted warfare adds another dimension: the danger of placing ever greater distance between those making decisions and those living with their consequences.

We must not surrender human judgment, accountability, or conscience to machines.

But technology alone is not the problem, and technology alone cannot provide the answer. We also need stronger human infrastructure: relationships, institutions, shared values, and habits of cooperation that allow us to respond collectively to danger.

We must equip the next generation not only with technical skills, but with the deeply human capacities to shape our future: listening, critical thinking, empathy, courage, and collaboration. In an age of intelligent machines, these may be our most essential skills.

Iceland is a small nation. We cannot dictate the course of global affairs. But perhaps our size reminds us of something larger nations sometimes forget: no one can build a peaceful future alone.

Forty years ago, Reykjavík showed that even the deepest divisions need not determine our destiny. Today, we need a new Reykjavík moment. Not one confined to a single house, summit, or handful of world leaders.

We need it in parliaments and boardrooms, classrooms and communities, across generations and between nations in conflict. Wherever fear has replaced curiosity, wherever people have stopped listening, wherever power has outrun wisdom.

The world does not lack intelligence, information, or ambition. What we too often lack is the courage to truly connect.

Of course, dialogue alone will not save us. But without it, I struggle to see how we can save ourselves. 

The future will not be shaped only by the power of our technology or our weapons, but by the quality of our conversations—and the courage of the choices that follow.

Fortunately, we still have time. And we still have each other.

The French like to take to the streets, and they do it often.

On Sept. 17, students at Lycée Saint-Exupéry, a rather underprivileged high school in the Paris suburb of Créteil, erupted in protest over the abysmal conditions of their institution: chronic shortfall of teachers, poor facilities, long declining quality of education. Two weeks later, a wave of protests had swept cities across France. Students from hundreds of schools and scores of universities joined the protests, backed by their parents, teachers, and trade unions. More than 160,000 students and trade unionists protested across France on Tuesday in the third week of demonstrations.

France has never seen so many violent incidents in a movement made up largely of high school students. So far, over 200 students, 85 school staff, and 700 police officers have been injured in clashes across the country. Protesters have broken into schools and, in some cases, set fire to occupied or blockaded buildings. On Oct. 5, a 15-year-old boy had his hand blown off by a police grenade during a protest in Lens in northern France, an incident that crystallized the heavy-handed response authorities had adopted from the earliest days of the protest. More than 6,000 protesters have been arrested, most of them minors, and later released without charge.

The protests erupted after nearly a decade of Macronisme, the right-of-center, top-down governing style that President Emmanuel Macron of France incarnates. And they express a broader discontent: anger over disparities in school quality, university admissions decisions, and latent racial discrimination, and a sense among young people that those in power were not listening to them, that the country offered them little hope for the future.

The protests are also occurring amid a wider crisis of political confidence in the country. France is holding its presidential elections in April 2027, and the far-right and far-left are leading the opinion polls. The frontrunner is Marine Le Pen, who has worked for years to make her far-right party, the National Rally, more electable while campaigning on immigration, crime, and denunciation of an out-of-touch political class. Her party is already the largest opposition party in parliament, and a snap legislative election following the presidential vote could entrench it further. 

On the other side is Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the leader of France Unbowed, a far-left party, who is  promising a sweeping redistribution of power and resources toward the working class. Both have built much of their appeal on opposition to the political establishment, the promise to wish away budget constraints, and deep hostility toward the European Union. 

If France today feels like it is at a crossroads, it is because it is. The postwar model of a large welfare and regulatory state, run by a class of civil servants charged with modernizing the economy, tempering market forces and defining the common good, has run its course. 

The collapse of postwar France

France now runs one of Europe’s largest budget deficits: its public debt stands at 119.3 % of GDP and is expected to rise next year. Fears of a crippling financial crisis are growing. Borrowing costs have risen so high that France is drawing comparisons with Greece, whose debt crisis in 2010 threatened the survival of the Eurozone. And with economic growth stagnating, there is no easy way out.

If anything, France would need to spend more: on defense, as Russia grows more threatening, the war in Ukraine continues, and the United States retreats from its traditional role as Europe’s security guarantor; on new technologies, as the country that once produced Concorde and high-speed trains now trails in high-tech innovation and AI; on strained public services, from schools to hospitals to neglected neighborhoods; and on infrastructure capable of withstanding the growing effects of climate change.

Successive French governments have promised to turn things around and allow for these badly needed investments in the country’s future, but none has succeeded.

The French malaise goes deeper. Inequality has been one of the students’ central grievances. They are not wrong. As in many countries, economic inequalities in France have widened over the past two decades under the combined effects of globalization, industrial decline, and the growing concentration of inherited wealth.

In Capital in the Twenty-First Century, the French economist Thomas Piketty showed how wealth perpetuates across generations and widens the divide between those who own capital and everyone else. This concentration of wealth and power remains deeply resented: for many, President Macron’s original sin is still his brief stint at the Rothschild investment bank before entering politics.

But the most injurious form of inequality lies elsewhere: in the power of France’s national meritocratic myth, which holds that people broadly owe their social position largely to their academic performance. At the top of that system sit the highly competitive grandes écoles, the elite institutions of higher education that have produced leaders in politics, culture, and business. 

What makes the myth so corrosive is not that academic achievement goes unrewarded but that it remains a pretty reliable path to better jobs, higher status, and positions of power. In such a system, students from underfunded public schools face a profound disadvantage compared with peers who attend better-resourced schools and whose better-educated parents know how to navigate the system.

Private schools offer another route, but are still frowned upon as a way to buy an advantage. It is no surprise that the protests broke out in Créteil, a working-class suburb just outside Paris, where schools are chronically under-resourced.

We shall always have Paris

Racial and geographic discrimination also contribute to the crisis of France. The collection of ethno-racial statistics is prohibited by French law; it is a laudable restriction in principle but problematic in practice. Visible minorities remain vastly underrepresented among France’s political and business elites.

Families with immigrant backgrounds, many with roots in African and Asian countries once colonized by France, are disproportionately concentrated on urban peripheries, where jobs are scarce and residents often face discrimination from employers elsewhere.

Islamophobia has also grown over the last decade amid conflicts in the Middle East and a string of Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks. Rhetoric once largely confined to the far right has seeped into the mainstream right, where calls for “order” and “security” often carry an anti-immigrant charge. Macron’s references to the “decivilization” of some young people and former Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau’s description of immigrants’ participation in the protests that followed the police killing of a teenager in 2023 as a “regression towards ethnic origins” are emblematic of that shift.

There is another problem with France’s meritocratic ideal: Paris. Political power, economic opportunity, cultural prestige, and elite education remain extraordinarily concentrated in the capital. The result is a deep economic divide between Paris and the rest of the country and an elite that lives largely among its own, surrounded by people with similar educations, careers, and assumptions, and cut off from much of the country.

The Yellow Vest revolt of 2018 to 2019 was an earlier social explosion of precisely that resentment. It is hardly surprising that students are denouncing the unequal distribution of resources between Paris and the rest of the country, or that the protests began in Créteil, close enough to the capital for the contrast to be impossible to miss.

When students from my own former school, the elite Lycée Henri-IV, where I was a rather poor student, joined the movement in its third week, I noticed how carefully they described themselves as protesting “in solidarity” with less privileged schools. They knew which side of the divide they were on. So much for meritocracy.

Racing to the Elysée

Where does this leave France? With the presidential elections approaching next April, political parties are scrambling to position themselves in relation to a protest movement that has shown no sign of abating. On Oct. 6, more than a quarter-million people took to the streets as high school students were joined by university students, teachers, parents and trade unions. An even wider “national day of protest” is planned for Oct. 17.

Both familiar and new dynamics will shape the election. The familiar one is the runoff dilemma: voters may once again be asked to support a candidate from the opposite political camp simply to prevent Le Pen from reaching the Élysée. Le Pen made the runoff in both 2017 and 2022 and is leading the polls by a large margin. This time, however, the field trailing her is unusually fragmented. Two former prime ministers under Macron, Édouard Philippe and Gabriel Attal, are in the race; Philippe is competing with Mélenchon for second place, while Attal trails both.

Whatever the outcome, the presidential vote may resolve little. A president from the far-right National Rally could find herself governing without a stable parliamentary majority or broad support among the public or within the civil service. A compromise candidate from the center or left could face the same fractured parliament that has bedeviled the final years of Macron’s presidency, during which France has had five prime ministers in two years.

What is new is the extent to which France is being reshaped by forces now familiar across the globe: a crisis of confidence in democracy, conservative billionaires building media empires and financing ideological movements, polarizing social media, foreign interference in elections, and growing voter distrust of supranational institutions, including the European Union.

France, unlike the United States, places strict limits on campaign spending, but money still shapes the broader political ecosystem. Pierre-Édouard Stérin, a self-described “conservative libertarian,” has committed substantial resources to organizations seeking to advance right-wing and far-right agendas. The industrialist Vincent Bolloré has assembled a vast media empire that includes CNews, a Fox News-style channel that has become an important platform for the nationalist right.

Europe on the line

Whatever the result of the Presidential elections, the outlook is troubling for Europe. A Le Pen or Mélenchon presidency would test European cohesion on everything from Ukraine and relations with Russia to migration, budgets, and the authority of the European Union. But even a more centrist president would likely lack a strong enough coalition to govern effectively, mirroring the current situation in Germany, where Chancellor Friedrich Merz is hobbled by unpopularity and a surge in support for the far-right Alternative for Deutschland.

With France and Germany together accounting for roughly 40% of the E.U. economy, political weakness in both capitals would deprive Europe of its traditional engine at a particularly dangerous moment. Europe faces mounting pressure on three fronts: China’s industrial onslaught, reflected in an annual trade deficit of roughly €360 billion; Russia’s war against Ukraine and escalating “gray warfare” operations; and the American turn against the postwar international order on which Europe has long depended. All this comes as Europe must also prepare for the profound disruptions of climate change and AI.

The remedy laid out by Mario Draghi, famed for rescuing the euro during his tenure as president of the European Central Bank, calls for greater integration of the single market, more investment and industrial consolidation, and a greater capacity to act collectively. France is indispensable to any such reforms. A politically paralyzed France would leave Europe weaker at precisely the moment when it can least afford it.

The revolution still to come

At the heart of the French Revolution of 1789 was the abolition of the privileges of the aristocracy and clergy. Close to two and a half centuries later, privilege remains deeply embedded in French society, dispersed across an array of almost caste-like social and professional groups, from journalists, lawyers, and intellectuals to civil servants and unionized workers, each with its own advantages, protections, pension arrangements, and claims on state resources. The result is a politics in which almost everyone agrees that reform is urgently needed, provided someone else pays, and their own group’s advantages remain untouched.

If this sounds like an overreading of 1789, consider Macron’s own choice of title for the book that launched his presidential bid: Révolution. His presidency may not have proved entirely revolutionary, yet many of his larger prescriptions have aged well: governments around the world have embraced state-led industrial policy, greater strategic autonomy, and reduced dependence on fossil fuels, while distrust of American hegemony and calls for deeper European integration have gained traction as the postwar order fragments.

Macron can also claim some credit for preserving, and in places renewing, France’s traditional strengths: an electricity system powered largely by nuclear energy, global leadership in luxury goods, tourism and hospitality, and a deep reservoir of scientific talent, now exemplified by Mistral, Europe’s closest thing to a world-class AI contender.

A skilled diplomat and relentless advocate for the multilateral system, Macron has also taken principled stands on Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, debt relief for the world’s poorest countries, and climate change, while carefully navigating France’s relationships with America and China. France’s permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council gives it diplomatic weight far beyond the country’s economic size, a status French diplomats ironically describe as “flying first class on an economy ticket.”

Yet neither these prescriptions nor these assets have been enough to reverse France’s decline over the past two decades. Perhaps what has been missing is a revolution not so much in policy as in political culture: a new social compact in which the sacrifices required to adjust to France’s reduced means and diminished relative power are accepted because the burdens are seen to be shared fairly. If such a revolution is to come, it is less likely to start in the Élysée or the ministries than among the students in the streets demanding to be heard.

The 16-year-old suspect who opened fire at an elementary school in Bend, Oregon, on Thursday, has been identified as Griffin J. John II. The assailant killed three children and a teacher before he was shot dead by a community member, police said. 

Bend Police Chief Mike Krantz identified the suspect in a press conference late Friday, adding that John was a former special education student at the school, Silver Rail Elementary School. He was not enrolled in the school district at the time of the shooting. 

In a press conference on Thursday, Krentz said that the children killed were ages 5, 8, and 11. A 7-year-old and a 54-year-old teacher were transported to St. Charles Bend hospital with critical injuries. As of Friday, the 7-year-old is alive and in “serious but stable” condition, according to officials.

The police also shared the names of two of the victims on Friday: 5-year-old Rhoam Summer and 25-year-old teacher Megan Lambert.

Krantz said a community member saw the suspect entering the school, pursued him inside, and shot him. Officials have not publicly named the bystander, but family members identified him as Kaylub Giamanco, 36, whose two daughters attend the school. His brother, Kyle Giamanco, told NBC News that Kaylub was on a break from work when he drove past and saw the gunman entering the building. Kyle said his brother has a concealed-carry permit.

The chief said the suspect forced his way into the school by firing at locked doors.

He fired 15 rounds and had 44 more in a backpack, the police said, adding that it would have been a much deadlier attack if not for a teacher who threw a phone at the shooter, and the bystander, a father of two students at the school, who killed the attacker.

FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media that the agency’s Portland field office is assisting in the investigation. “We will make every resource they need available,” he added.

A vigil was held Thursday evening in the wake of the shooting.

“A school should be a safe place where children can learn and feel secure,” Bend Mayor Melanie Kebler said at the press conference. “What happened today should never happen.”

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said at the same conference that her heart was “absolutely broken” over the incident: “No parent should have to have this kind of day, and no community should have to live through this kind of day.” She also thanked the community member who pursued the shooter.

CNN’s analysis of incidents reported by the Gun Violence Archive, Education Week, and Everytown for Gun Safety shows that the shooting at Silver Rail Elementary marks the 36th on K-12 school grounds this year. It is the 52nd school shooting in the country this year.

What happened?

In the press conference Friday, officers provided a clearer picture of what happened during the shooting. The assailant jumped over the fence by the school’s playground and shot through the glass panes on the side doors in order to get into the building.

He then entered a mixed special education classroom and opened fire.

Krantz said that at 12:59 p.m., police received a 911 call from a person in a vehicle who reported being shot at multiple times by someone “with a long gun.” 

Multiple calls followed, reporting that a shooter had entered Silver Rail Elementary School, which is about 120 miles southeast of Portland. The school enrolls more than 400 students from kindergarten to 5th grade. 

Krantz said police directed the school to go into lockdown at 1:01 p.m. and first responding officers arrived a minute later. Upon entering the school building, Krantz said, officers confirmed that the suspect was dead and found the four other people who died from their injuries, and their families have been notified.

Officers located a Maverick 88-pump and 12-gauge shotgun near the suspect, as well as a backpack with the added ammunition.

How are politicians reacting?

Oregon’s Republican candidate for governor, state senator Christine Drazan, posted on social media that her heart was with the affected families, students, and teaching staff. “We have to commit to protecting our kids,” she added. “We have to put a complete stop to shootings at our schools. This has to end.”

Rep. Janelle Bynum, a Democrat who represents the district that includes Bend, said in a statement: “Our babies are supposed to do arts and crafts at school, not use their desks as cover from gunfire. They’re supposed to make friends, not mourn them.”

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D, Ore.) lamented in a statement that the victims in Silver Rail Elementary School and their loved ones faced the “awful consequences” of another school shooting in the country. He added that the “best way to honor” them is to “at long last pass common-sense gun laws that reduce the risks of more children, parents, teachers and staff forced to live in fear of similar nightmares for their schools.”

When asked about the shooting on Friday, President Donald Trump praised the bystander who shot and killed the suspect.

“We had a great hero who went in and did the business. He took care of business,” Trump said. “It’s a terrible thing, but thank goodness for a man that had a gun and knew how to use it.”

Ukrainian forces said Wednesday its battlefield efforts had been hampered overnight after losing some access to SpaceX’s military-grade satellite Internet service, which has become a lifeline as Kyiv weathers Moscow's attacks.

Starlink offers Internet connectivity from satellites in low-Earth orbit. Its sister service Starshield, a military version developed for the Pentagon, relies on the Starlink network and has recently been used by Ukrainian forces to strengthen its far-reaching drone strike missions and air defenses.

Serhiy Beskrestnov, a military technology expert who advises Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, said speed restrictions had been imposed on the "military package" of Starshield services, leading to the “failure” of several military missions. “Our defense forces have not received any warnings about this restriction,” he said. Beskrestnov claimed the restrictions, which he said applied to devices traveling over 100 miles per hour and using Starshield, were “related to the current political situation.” He did not offer further details.

Tensions are high between the U.S. and Ukraine, as Zelensky has been vocal in his disapproval of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to import diesel from Russia, despite previous sanctions prohibiting it. The move has also caused a split in Trump’s own party, with several Republican lawmakers urging him to reverse course. After making the deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Trump announced an “energy cease-fire” between Russia and Ukraine—but Zelensky swiftly accused Moscow of violating any such agreement and Ukraine has, in turn, resumed strikes on Russian oil refineries, despite pressure from Washington. Trump called Ukraine's fresh wave of strikes on Russian refineries a "disgrace" in an interview that aired Thursday.

Speaking from the U.K., Zelensky said Wednesday it was a “pity” Ukrainian forces had experienced “difficulties” with Starlink services and intelligence, adding that he was surprised by the developments in Ukraine’s partnership with the U.S. In an interview on Piers Morgan Uncensored, Zelensky suggested he believed Starlink had been slowed down to damage him, and warned “people will die, if attacks will continue and if Starlink will not work … it’s not helpful.” He said he hoped the restriction was only a “mistake,” suggesting it was perhaps "a huge technical problem” at SpaceX.

However, in another interview, Zelensky said: "It was not a technical problem, it was the will.”

SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk addressed the matter, insisting that Starlink and Starshield are different. He cited the U.S. authorities as being in control of the latter’s usage determinations.

“Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the U.S. government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately POTUS,” he said on X. “Starlink is a commercial service owned and controlled by SpaceX. Usage of Starlink is limited to civilian or defensive activities and cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”

When approached for comment, a senior U.S. official told TIME: “No such request was ever made by the President.”

Reuters, citing three U.S. officials, later reported that the decision came from inside the White House.

TIME has reached out to the White House for further comment.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian national news agency Ukrinform reported Thursday, citing sources within the Ministry of Defense, that the Starshield service had resumed. TIME has reached out to Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense for comment.

The discourse has raised questions about what Starshield is and how uniquely important it has become on the Ukrainian battlefield.

What is Starshield?

Starshield is a program developed by Musk’s SpaceX that draws on the satellite and launch capability behind Starlink, its commercial satellite Internet network, to support national security operations.

According to SpaceX, Starshield is designed for government use, with an initial focus on three areas: Earth observation, communications, and hosted payloads. 

“Starlink is basic interconnectivity, it's like the Internet. Starshield essentially grows out of the experience of Starlink,” Mark Hilborne, a senior lecturer in defense studies at King’s College London, tells TIME.

But the military value of that connectivity extends far beyond access to the Internet, Hilborne adds.

“In and of itself, satellite communications are not military technology, but it enables the military to communicate and amass a real-time, multi-domain picture of the battlefield, which some argue nobody else actually has at this stage,” he says.

Both systems also offer high-speed connectivity because of the satellite technology underpinning them. 

“Starlink and Starshield are low on the Earth’s orbit, and they have a very high bandwidth, so lots of information can pass through those satellites, with virtually no delay on the signal,” Hilborne says.

There are more than 10,000 satellites in the Starlink network, while Hilborne says Starshield uses “a much smaller number of satellites.” However, the exact number of satellites associated with Starshield remains unknown, with experts telling TIME that such details are closely guarded due to national security considerations.

“They keep the contracting details on these things classified,” says Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

SpaceX, on its website, says Starshield is “designed to support U.S. National Defense use cases for the Department of Defense and other government partners.”

How is Starshield different from Starlink?

While both systems rely on closely related satellite technology, they differ in the services they provide and how they are intended to be used.

“Starshield refers to military services that actually operate through Starlink,” Harrison explains, comparing the services to “two different brands of a cell phone provider, even though your phone calls are going through the same towers.”

Starshield offers additional capabilities designed for military operations, including more advanced encryption and satellite imaging, experts tell TIME.

“It's got another extra set of capabilities over and above Starlink,” Hilborne says. “They use some of the same technologies, but it would be highly encrypted, and they have different sensors that allow them to image what they call ‘Earth observation.’ That can give a radar imaging of the Earth [which] has advantages over optical pictures.”

Yet experts say the distinction between the two systems is not always clear, particularly given how closely their underlying technology and operations are connected.

How important is Starshield for Ukraine?

Starshield and the satellite communications technology underpinning it have become vital to Ukraine’s military operations against Russia.

Hilborne describes the technology as “highly critical” to Ukraine, explaining that any restrictions could cut communications with military equipment traveling above that speed, leaving operators without the information needed to guide their missions, as once that speed threshold is exceeded, the connection “suddenly cuts off and it's flying blind,” he says.

The consequences are particularly serious for Ukrainian drone operations, which rely on communications for both strikes against Russian targets and defensive missions against incoming attacks.

“It's really critical for drones, both the offensive medium range strikes, but also affects Ukraine's ability to fly defensive drones against the incoming Russian drones,” says Hilborne. 

Beyond its role in drone missions, experts say satellite communications also offer important advantages over other forms of battlefield connectivity.

Harrison notes that “the big benefit of using satellite-based communications is that you can communicate over longer distances in a variety of terrain, and it does have some jam-resistant features to overcome electronic forms of attack.”

When the U.S. and Israel launched attacks against Iran earlier this year, Tehran responded by striking energy infrastructure across the Gulf. The result was a severe shock to global energy markets that continues to this day. Less publicized at the time were its strikes on another kind of infrastructure: data centers.

Similar attacks have since taken place in Russia and Ukraine, where both sides have been trading tit-for-tat strikes on data centers. 

Experts say these attacks represent a new front in warfare, in which facilities powering the technology behind many critical industries have become military targets. 

Read more: How the Iran War Could Threaten Global Internet Access

The AI boom has led to a surge in demand for computing power, data storage and cloud services, making the data centers that provide them a crucial part of modern infrastructure. A mass of data center construction is currently underway in the U.S., and tech companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars a year to meet AI demand. Telecommunications companies, banks, hospitals and energy suppliers all rely on them. 

“Data centers are now on the critical path for modern digital infrastructure,” Kirk Cameron, founding director of the Institute for Advanced Computing at Virginia Tech, tells TIME. “The loss of key data centers could collapse economies, disrupt public and private transportation with loss of GPS, and affect government essential services for health, emergency dispatch, and power grids.” 

Military use of AI for targeting and information processing has made data centers crucial to fighting a war. Ukraine uses AI for an array of battlefield functions such as drone targeting, battle planning, and missile analyzing Russian missile attacks. U.S. tech companies such as Palantir now work closely with Ukraine’s military to develop new AI-powered weaponry, taking advantage of the ability to immediately test their technology on the battlefield. The U.S. military also uses Palantir’s Maven system to help identify targets for strikes. 

“Data centers are competitive advantages in warfare,” Cameron says. “Knocking out capabilities means potentially crippling combat operations for an adversary. It’s also a form of economic warfare and could lead to longer-term competitive challenges for the target.”

Where have data centers been attacked? 

The first wave of attacks on data centers was carried out in March this year by Iran, when it launched strikes on two Amazon facilities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and another in Bahrain was damaged by a nearby drone strike.

Those facilities have been mostly offline ever since; Amazon said on Sept. 15 that it had been “unable to restore access to the resources and data” hosted in those two regions.

Russian attacks on Ukrainian data centers in late September disrupted television broadcasts and internet access. Russia’s Defense Ministry said it was striking data centers because they “process and transmit intelligence data for the Ukrainian Armed Forces.” 

Ukraine’s response began on Oct. 8, and it has since carried out drone strikes on three data centers belonging to tech giant Yandex, often called Russia’s version of Google. The first site hit, in Sasovo, houses two of the three supercomputers Yandex uses to develop its AI models, Meduza reported, and the outage disrupted several companies relying on Yandex’s cloud services, including Russian Railways, MegaFon, T-Bank, and several media outlets. 

Following the first strike, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky defended the retaliation: "We always respond in kind. You all know that they are hitting and hitting our data centers; we responded to them.”

How have tech companies responded? 

The spate of attacks over the last year has already caused tech companies to rethink how and where they build data centers. 

The United Arab Emirates is reportedly revising plans for a 5-gigawatt AI data center project following the Iranian strikes. The original plan envisioned a 10-square-mile campus in Abu Dhabi, to be built in partnership with American tech companies like Oracle, Nvidia, and Cisco. Now the data centers will likely be spread out across the UAE, according to officials who spoke to Reuters.

Emily Harding, director of the Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes that data centers have become a new frontline in warfare—and that may require new strategies. 

“If you’re Russia and you attack a Microsoft data center, is that an attack on Ukraine? Is that an attack on Microsoft? Is that an attack on a U.S. company and, by extension, the U.S.?” she asks. 

The U.S. has largely followed a policy that attacks on American companies do not constitute an attack on the United States, but Harding says the government may need to decide on a new approach “that creates deterrence not just to protect life and health, but also data.” 

And while the threat to data centers in the U.S. may be relatively low compared to the Gulf and Ukraine or Russia, tech companies will also have to think more about the security of their facilities when building, while trying to keep pace with massive demand. 

“The knock-on effect is that the companies that own the data centers are realizing they can't protect them, and that kind of calls into question the cloud model in general,” Harding says. “They're having to make big adjustments. You could see a time in the future where Amazon starts losing business to Microsoft because Microsoft does a better job of hiding where their data centers are.”

President Donald Trump on Thursday called off plans to livestream the firing squad execution of Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan following a wave of fierce bipartisan backlash. 

In a post on Truth Social, the President said he thought streaming the execution “might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM,” but that “many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die.”

The families of victims may view the execution “if they so choose,” Trump added. 

The execution remains scheduled for Dec. 3 and marks the first U.S. military firing squad execution since World War II.

Read More: Are Firing Squad Executions Seeing a Revival in the U.S.?

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Oct. 8 that the execution of Hasan would be livestreamed, sparking fierce backlash from both sides of the aisle. 

Vice President JD Vance said earlier this month, “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen,” when asked about the livestream. He also said that he would not watch the livestream if it took place.

House Speaker Mike Johnson also said he would not watch the execution. In an interview with CBS News earlier this month, he said he had colleagues "who have concerns,” over the livestream, one of them being “that you would create a video that would be a recruiting tool for future terrorists."  

In addition to many Democrats in Congress, several Republican lawmakers also expressed their disapproval over the plans.. 

“I absolutely support the sentence of death, but live-streaming executions is what jihadists do,” said Republican Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, in a post on X. “America is better than that.”

Republican Rep. John Curtis of Utah said that “a civilization erodes when it cultivates an appetite for executions as a form of entertainment,” in a post on X in which he urged Hegseth to “reconsider” his decision. “Secretary Hegseth’s plan to livestream the Fort Hood execution risks feeding that appetite.”

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, an outspoken GOP critic against Hegseth, called the livestream “beyond disgusting. Public executions are what oppressive dictatorships like Iran and Afghanistan do. It should not be happening in America.”

Trump had reconsidered livestreaming Hasan’s execution this week after learning that he is paralyzed from the waist down, according to sources familiar with the matter who spoke to CNN.

Polling shows a majority of Americans disapprove of livestreamed executions

A majority of Americans also opposed the livestream of Hasan’s execution. According to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, eight in ten Americans said the execution should not be livestreamed. 

Majorities across party lines opposed the livestream, with 91% of Democrats, 83% of Independents, and 64% of Republicans, according to the poll. 

Another YouGov poll found that 69% of respondents opposed broadcasting executions to the public, including 52% of Republicans, 67% of independents, and 87% of Democrats. 

Among those who supported the death penalty, 55% opposed livestreaming executions. 

In general, support for the death penalty has declined in the U.S. According to a Gallup poll, 52% of Americans supported capital punishment for convicted murderers in 2025, down from around 80% in 1994.

What was Hasan convicted of?

Hasan, a former U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, was convicted of killing 13 people and injuring 32 in a mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas in 2009. 

He opened fire inside a processing center where soldiers were preparing for deployments overseas, killing 12 soldiers and one civilian employee. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, was three months pregnant when she was shot and killed by Hasan.

Hasan said that he was motivated by opposition to U.S. operations in Afghanistan and support for the Taliban. 

“I was on the wrong side but I switched sides,” Hasan said in 2013.

Southern California towns are on high alert as the first Santa Ana winds of the season have arrived, igniting multiple blazes across the region. 

The red flag warning put out by the National Weather Service (NWS) Wednesday evening followed a relatively quiet wildfire season so far in California. Only 300,000 acres had burned since Jan. 1, compared to the over one million acres that fires have usually burned by mid-October.

Why are Santa Ana winds so dangerous?

Santa Ana winds blow in from the desert, typically between the months of September and May. The winds bring warmer temperatures and drier air to Southern California. They also greatly increase the risk of wildfires—warm winds coupled with summer drought can often make for a dangerous combination. The January 2025 fires that tore through the Pacific Palisades and Altadena were fueled by Santa Ana wind gusts that reached 100 m.p.h. 

This week’s winds will not be as strong, according to NWS predictions. But that doesn’t mean the area is in the clear. The NWS warned that, if any fires ignite, “conditions are favorable for extreme fire behavior.”

What areas of Southern California are impacted by wildfires? 

The largest fire, named the Henderson fire, erupted Thursday afternoon around Camp Pendleton, a San Diego Marine Corps training base, and had burned through 1,404 acres by Friday morning. Two other fires have burned through 200 acres and 43 acres in Los Angeles county. 

The NWS issued a red flag warning on Oct. 15 for the Los Angeles County San Gabriel Valley forecast zone that will stay in effect until Saturday evening. The most extreme conditions are expected in the Ventura and Los Angeles County valleys and mountains, particularly Santa Clarita, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley.

As of Thursday night, Southern California Edison shut off power to tens of thousands of customers. Nearly 90,000 PG&E customers were also left without power. Shutting down power helps stop downed power lines or aging infrastructure from sparking fires. 

If you live in an impacted area, sign up for local emergency alerts, plan for power outages, and avoid any outdoor activities that might ignite sparks like BBQs, campfires, or discarded cigarette butts. 

One Southern California town is even encouraging residents to secure hallowed decorations—the giant skeleton and inflatable pumpkins haunting front lawns. High winds can turn Halloween decorations into hazards,” the city of Pasadena said in a Facebook post. “Secure them before winds pick up.”

The European Union and Gulf Cooperation Council on Thursday announced the postponement of a joint summit set to take place in ‌Saudi Arabia next week, amid safety concerns prompted by Houthi attacks on airports in the kingdom.

Citing the “continued attempts by the terrorist Houthi militia to target the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its civilian infrastructure, which threatens the security and safety of innocent civilians,” the council said the Gulf-European Summit will be rescheduled.

The postponement comes after Yemen’s Houthi rebels on Wednesday vowed to forge ahead with the attacks on Saudi Arabia’s airports and oil facilities, just hours after striking oil giant Saudi Aramco’s headquarters.

“Operations toward Saudi depths will continue in the coming days,” said Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree, describing the locations as “legitimate targets” and framing their attacks as a direct response to Saudi strikes on Yemen. Saudi-led forces said they had intercepted a ballistic missile fired by the Houthis towards Riyadh on Wednesday and local journalists reported hearing “loud blasts” in the Saudi capital.

The escalation follows weeks of fighting between the Iran-backed Houthis and the Saudi-backed government of Yemen, shattering a four-year informal cease-fire in the country's civil war. The conflict reignited amid the widespread fallout of the U.S.-Iran war, bringing further instability to the Gulf region. In September, the Houthis said they had captured the strategic Perim Island that sits in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a critical maritime chokepoint. They also seized other islands in a bid to tighten their grip on the Red Sea coastline. Amid fears that a stronger Houthi position along the coast could further constrain global energy supplies, Saudi-backed forces recaptured key areas around the strait in early October. The Houthis have since ramped up their focus on Saudi Arabia’s airports and energy infrastructure.

Tuesday night’s attack on Aramco’s executive offices in the eastern city of Dhahran caused a limited fire, Saudi’s Ministry of Energy confirmed. No injuries were reported. TIME has reached out to Aramco and the Saudi government’s media office for further information. Saudi authorities said several missiles and drones had been intercepted elsewhere, and that falling debris injured four people in the capital of Riyadh. Saudi Arabia launched strikes on an oil depot on the outskirts of Yemen’s capital Sanaa on Tuesday, as the tit-for-tat attacks escalated.

The Saudi strike on the oil depot appeared to be in response to the Houthis’ attack on King Khalid International Airport in ​Riyadh on Saturday that killed 13 people and left over 300 injured. A projectile hit that same airport on Sunday, killing one person, Saudi Arabia's General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) confirmed. The week before, an attack on Abha International Airport killed two people and wounded 28, said GACA.

Saudi Arabia is the world’s top purchaser of American weapons, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. However, it is struggling to defend itself against the Houthis, who are positioned to strike deep into the kingdom. The Saudis are currently investigating how their defense systems failed to stop the deadly attacks. Experts cite the vast mass of Saudi land as one reason why defensive measures may have failed. The Saudi border with Yemen stretches more than 800 miles. “Expecting a country the size of Saudi Arabia to intercept every missile is simply unrealistic. No defense can guarantee complete protection,” said Ali Shihabi, a Saudi analyst, in an online post.

Operations at King Khalid remain suspended in the wake of the attacks. Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways, and Philippine Airlines are among the carriers to announce a suspension of flights to ​Riyadh.

The U.S. embassy in Riyadh has warned Americans in the country of “potential flight cancelations, airspace closures, and travel disruptions,” stipulating that U.S. government employees now require “special authorization” to use any airport in the country.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said the Houthis “are behaving very badly.” In a Truth Social post, he continued, “I thought they learned their lesson a year ago when we bombed the hell out of them and, at their request, stopped,” seemingly referencing the U.S. strikes between March and May last year, which came in response to the Houthis attacking vessels in the Red Sea and disrupting global trade. Weeks after the strikes began, a cease-fire between the U.S. and the Houthis was reached via Omani mediations.

On Saturday, Trump suggested that the U.S. may join Saudi strikes on the Houthis. Asked about the possibility of U.S. strikes, a senior U.S. official told TIME that Washington is “in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Yemen Government regarding regional stability and we will always fulfill our commitments to our partners.”

As tensions in the region continue to escalate, here’s what to know about the Houthis, their history with Saudi Arabia, and why they are attacking airports.

Who are the Houthis?

The Houthis are a political and armed group in Yemen that first emerged in the 1990s and have been fighting the country’s internationally recognized government for around two decades. The group is a revivalist movement for Zaidism, a branch of Shi‘ite Islam. The Zaidi muslim population in the country represents around 35% of the Yemeni population.

The Houthi movement was largely born from a transformation of the Believing Youth Forum (BYF), according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The group became known as the Houthis in honor of their founder and leader, Hussein al-Houthi. Before he was killed by Yemeni forces in 2004, al-Houthi had developed the group into a more militarized movement. The group is now led by his brother, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi.

Civil war broke out in 2014 after the Houthis seized Sanaa, forcing the government to flee to the southern city of Aden. Since then, the group has been engaged in fighting against a Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen’s government. The Houthis currently have control of most of the country’s west, including Sanaa. 

Experts compare the Houthis to authoritarian regimes on account of the social restrictions imposed in areas under the group’s control and alleged human rights abuses. 

“The Houthis are dominated with very ideological and radical ideas, like a Zaidi ISIS. They have similarities also with the Taliban in terms of social control," says Mahmoud Shehrah, a Yemeni political analyst at London-based think tank Chatham House. 

How are the Houthi rebels linked to Iran?

The Houthis hold strong ties to Iran, often taking action in line with Tehran’s objectives. 

“Since 2009, Iran [has] started to speed up weapons supplies, training, but also a lot of funding to the Houthis,” says Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni research fellow at Chatham House, noting that links between the two began as early as the 1990s.

The Houthis are often considered part of Iran’s proxy network, known as the “Axis of Resistance,” which also includes Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Islamic Resistance network in Iraq, and previously the Assad regime in Syria, until its collapse in December 2024.

In response to the Israel-Hamas war, the Yemeni militia launched several strikes on shipping vessels in the Red Sea, disrupting global trade in late 2023 and the early months of 2024. The U.S. and U.K. joined forces in January 2024 for a series of strikes on Houthi targets across Yemen in retaliation for the attacks on unarmed vessels. The U.S. carried out an additional campaign against Houthi targets later that year.

The Houthis entered the Iran war in March by firing a barrage of ballistic missiles at southern Israel. In the months since, the group’s advances along the Red Sea are widely considered to serve the interests of Iran. A Houthi blockade in the region against Saudi Arabia was declared in July, and several vessels have been attacked. The threat that the Houthis could bring another critical maritime chokepoint to a standstill, much like Iran has done with the Strait of Hormuz, could give Tehran significant leverage in its negotiations with Washington.

However, experts say it’s not entirely accurate to call the Houthis a direct proxy.

"The Houthis are one of the more independent regional allies of Iran in the Middle East. They have their own independent interests, even though their interests converge regionally and globally,” says Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics.

Even so, the Houthis have become increasingly vital for Iran. “With the fall of Assad, with the weakening of Hezbollah, the Houthis became the most important regional ally Iran has,” says Al Muslimi, pointing specifically toward the Houthis' ability to disrupt trade in the Red Sea.

What do the Houthis want?

The group’s goals have changed over time, as regional developments have unfolded, experts note.

“The Houthi's ultimate goal is to be a regional power,” says Al-Muslimi. With regard to the reignited civil war, the Houthis ultimately want an end to what they call a Saudi blockade of ports and airports in their territory.

“The Houthis want to have the skies and the ports of the country open for trade, for goods and services,” says Gerges. “They want money to flow into the coffers of the Houthis.”

The civil war has had a disastrous effect on Yemen, with nearly half of the population in government-controlled areas facing high levels of acute food insecurity, according to the United Nations. “The current situation is very dire for the Yemeni population, but also for the ability of the Houthis to rule Yemen effectively,” says Gerges.

“The Houthis want to consolidate rule and regime. They want to be recognized as the legitimate government in Sanaa, as opposed to being considered a non-state actor,” he adds.

When did the Houthis and Saudi Arabia begin fighting again?

A cease-fire brokered by the United Nations in April 2022 largely held for over four years, before collapsing in July. The Houthis claimed Saudi Arabia had launched strikes on Sanaa Airport, targeting a Houthi delegation returning from Iran. In a move they framed as retaliatory, the Houthi rebels launched ballistic missiles toward Saudi Arabia. 

“The Houthis saw this as a golden opportunity to change the balance of power against Saudi Arabia and Yemen itself and launch a lightning offensive,” says Gerges.

Following further strikes on Houthi targets later that month, the militia group began striking oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, belonging to the state-owned petroleum company Aramco.

In September, strikes on oil refineries and other related facilities ramped up, and Saudi Arabia’s airports became a target.

Why are the Houthis attacking Saudi airports?

Prior to the 2022 cease-fire, attacks on airports were largely considered a signature move of the Houthis.

In a highly-publicized attack, the group struck Abha International Airport in June 2019, injuring at least 26 people, Saudi authorities said. The strike earned international condemnation and was deemed a possible war crime by Human Rights Watch.

Now, after fatal strikes on ​Riyadh’s King Khalid International Airport, the Houthis have threatened to keep targeting airports. The main motivation behind these attacks is the economic and geopolitical pressure they apply to Saudi Arabia, experts say.

“The Houthis want to put severe pressure on the Saudi Arabia economy, airport infrastructure, and security,” says Shehrah. “They want to squeeze Saudi Arabia's arms to push them to a political settlement.”

The unrest threatens to have a strong economic and political impact on Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman's governance. The disruption is “costly” to him, says Al-Muslimi, who notes that Bin Salman is eager for Saudi Arabia to be seen as a “safe harbor.” 

The financial and reputational damage of these strikes has also put the Saudi public on the frontline of the conflict. It’s a “shock, because it's the first time in years that such major attacks have targeted deep inside Saudi Arabia,” says Gerges.

“The Houthis are trying to exert tremendous pressure on the leaders of Saudi Arabia to force them to accept conditions for lifting the blockade on Yemen and recognizing their legitimacy,” he continues. “Although, I doubt that the Saudi leadership will concede to Houthi demands… this would be seen as a surrender and humiliation."

The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will take up a case to decide whether a watchdog organization can obtain information to help establish whether the now-defunct Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is subject to a federal public records law.

It’s the latest update on a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) that argues DOGE, the initiative that was spearheaded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

The Trump Administration has argued that FOIA does not apply to DOGE because it was not a federal agency—it was a presidential advisory body.

Signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, FOIA grants “the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency,” according to the federal government’s website. Johnson said at the time that he hoped the government would, in upholding the law, weigh national security, individual privacy, confidential government deliberations, and the benefit of a well-informed constituency.

“The founding principle of FOIA is that it’s crucial in a democracy to have an informed citizenry,” says Sara Creighton, an associate professor at Georgetown Law and the former Deputy Chief Counsel at American Oversight, a government transparency nonprofit. “The whole idea is that we need an informed voting public.”

Justices have agreed to hear arguments over whether, and to what extent, discovery can proceed for CREW v. DOGE Service. This phase of the legal process allows opposing parties to collect information, including records and depositions, with which to make their cases.

Experts say this decision will not only affect the pending lawsuit, but may also have ramifications for the future of government transparency.

How did the DOGE records case reach the Supreme Court?

CREW filed an FOIA request seeking expedited processing for information about DOGE on Jan. 24, 2025, seeking insights about its structure and communications with other agencies. When it didn’t receive the documents it requested, the organization sued.

“The law is clear about how government records should be preserved so that, when the public requests them, they are easily and readily accessible. If the administration valued transparency, following records laws would be a priority,” CREW President Noah Bookbinder said in a statement announcing the lawsuit on Feb. 20, 2025. “Instead, US DOGE Service and OMB are acting as though the law does not apply to them. It does.”

“The fight ultimately in the DOGE case, and what CREW was hoping to test with its litigation, was whether DOGE [is] subject to FOIA,” says Ryan Mulvey, a senior policy counsel at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

On April 15, 2025, Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on behalf of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the case could proceed to discovery. The Department of Justice, however, filed an emergency appeal in May 2025 asking the Supreme Court to intervene. The Supreme Court paused the discovery orders on May 23, 2025. On June 6, 2025, it directed the appeals court to narrow the requests, finding that those concerning DOGE’s recommendations and whether agencies followed them were “not appropriately tailored.”

CREW then pared back its requests for discovery, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld them. The Trump Administration again filed a request to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court was not adhering to the previous ruling by granting “wide-ranging and intrusive discovery.”

In response, the Supreme Court agreed this week to take up the question of whether the case can proceed to discovery. It’s unclear at this point when oral arguments would begin, but a ruling is expected by the end of term in late June or early July 2027.

What could the Supreme Court’s DOGE ruling mean for public access?

The Supreme Court’s ruling will determine if CREW can access the information that could help it make its case that DOGE acted as a federal authority that is subject to FOIA, according to Creighton. If not, the nonprofit may have difficulty pursuing its argument. 

“Because so much about how DOGE operated … was not publicly explained, discovery is the only way to unearth key facts about DOGE’s operations and exercises of authority,” says Margaret Kwoka, the Frank R. Strong Chair in Law at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, who joined a brief supporting CREW as an outside legal expert. “Those details will illuminate whether it is in fact exercising independent authority or whether it is acting as an advisor to the President.”

The outcome of the case could have implications beyond the current Administration, Creighton says.

“Whether an entity is subject to FOIA really determines how much information the public gets to know about it, and whether [entities] have any obligation to disclose their documents to the public,” Creighton says. 

The current issue before the Supreme Court pertains to discovery, but Creighton warns that if the Supreme Court ultimately rules that DOGE is not subject to FOIA, that could potentially “open the door for future presidents to create entities inside the Executive Office of the President that do significant work—even potentially work relating to the work of agencies who are usually subject to FOIA—but allow that work to be outside the scope of FOIA.”

CREW did not respond to TIME’s request for comment, but it has previously said that government transparency is at stake.

“The lower courts have uniformly ruled that CREW is entitled to discovery in this case to help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to FOIA,” CREW’s chief counsel, Nikhel Sus, told POLITICO in a statement on Tuesday. “We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government.”

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, meanwhile, argued in his filing to the Supreme Court that the appeals court ruling “intrudes into the autonomy and confidentiality of presidential advisors and augurs time-consuming and burdensome discovery litigation.” 

He further claimed that the lower court decision “threatens to burden future presidential administrations” with similar legal cases.

The White House referred TIME to the Department of Justice, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What other records lawsuits has the Trump Administration faced?

The DOGE dispute is among several legal battles over access to, and preservation of, government records under the Trump Administration.

In 2025, American Oversight filed a lawsuit asking the court to order multiple national security officials to preserve official communications that were exchanged on the encrypted messaging app Signal. The request was filed after it came to light that the officials were exchanging messages regarding planned military strikes in Yemen. The case is still ongoing.

In April, the same group, along with the American Historical Association, sued the Trump Administration over a legal opinion released by the Department of Justice that claimed the Presidential Records Act—which stipulates that presidential records be preserved and transferred to the National Archives when the President leaves office—is unconstitutional. That case is also ongoing.

While those cases remain ongoing, American Oversight has secured a win in another records dispute. In August, a federal judge struck down an Energy Department policy that would have permitted it to close pending FOIA requests filed earlier than Oct. 1, 2024, unless requesters reaffirmed their interest within 30 days. The court sided with the watchdog group.