Donald Trump said he planned to hit goods from China with a new 10% tariff, the latest salvo in the US president's steadily escalating trade fights. Imports from China already face taxes at the border of at least 10%, after a Trump tariff order that went into effect earlier this month. China's ministry of foreign affairs said it "strongly" expressed its "dissatisfaction and resolute opposition" to the plans. Trump also said on Thursday he intended to move forward with threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, which are set to come into effect on 4 March. Trump's comments came as officials from Mexico and Canada were in Washington for discussions aimed at heading off that plan. Trump had announced the plans for 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada for 4 February unless the two nations increased border security. He paused the measures for a month at the last minute after the two countries agreed to increase border funding and talk more about how to combat drug trafficking. On social media on Thursday, Trump wrote that he did not think enough action had been taken to address the flow of fentanyl to the US. "Drugs are still pouring into our Country from Mexico and Canada at very high and unacceptable levels," he wrote, adding that "a large percentage" of the drugs were made in China. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, at a press conference from the country's National Palace, said in response: "As we know, [Trump] has his way of communicating." She added: "I hope we can reach an agreement and on 4 March we can announce something else." Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also said his country was working hard to reach a deal, warning tariffs from the US would prompt an "immediate and extremely strong response". Trump's threats against Mexico and Canada have raised widespread alarm, as the North American economy is closely connected after decades of operating under a free trade agreement. Leaders of the two countries have previously said they would impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States if the White House went ahead with its plans. Tariffs are a tax collected by the government and paid for by the business bringing the goods into the country. China, Mexico and Canada are America's top three trade partners, together accounting for more than 40% of imports into the US last year. Economists have warned tariffs on goods from the three countries could lead to higher prices in the US on everything from iPhones to avocados. Trump's call for an additional 10% levy on goods from China - which he said would also go into effect on Tuesday - had not been previously announced, though during his presidential campaign he backed border taxes on Chinese products of as much as 60%. A spokesperson for China's ministry of foreign affairs, Lin Jian, said that Trump was using the issue of the drug fentanyl entering the US from China as an "excuse" to threaten tariffs, adding it had one of the "strictest" drug control policies in the world. "Pressure, coercion, and threats are not the correct way to deal with China," he said. Liu Pengyu, spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy, had earlier said that his country was already working with the US to address the concerns about fentanyl, and had made "visual progress" in areas such as information exchange, case cooperation and online advertisement cleanup. "Reducing domestic drug demand and strengthening law enforcement cooperation are the fundamental solutions," he said in a statement, which warned that Trump's tariff moves were "bound to affect and undermine future counternarcotics cooperation between the two sides". "The unilateral tariffs imposed by the US will not solve its own problems, nor will it benefit the two sides or the world." Trump's comments, which called for drug flow to stop or be "severely limited", seemed to set the stage for Mexico and Canada to negotiate, said trade expert Christine McDaniel, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. On Thursday, as tariff talks intensified, two imprisoned alleged leaders of the violent Zetas cartel long sought by the US - Miguel Angel Trevino Morales and his brother Oscar - were extradited. Mexican media said they were part of a larger group of drug lords sent from Mexico to the US - a major step in terms of US-Mexico security relations. Ms McDaniel said Trump's demands of China were less clear, raising the likelihood that those measures will come into effect. Trump's initial round of tariffs on China was eclipsed by his threats against Canada and Mexico. But the potential for further duties raises questions about how businesses will respond. Ms McDaniel said she expected the hit to be felt more in China. "It's not costless for the US, but so far it seems more costly for China," she said. The impact of tariffs, if they go into effect, is expected to be felt more in the Canadian and Mexican economies, which count on the US as a key export market. But analysts have warned that the threat of the levies, even if they are never imposed, is still likely to have a chilling effect on investment, including in the US. China has already responded to the first round of tariffs from the US with its own tariffs on US products, including coal and agricultural machinery. Trump has dismissed fears about damage to the American economy.
More than half of sleep sessions end with the snooze button, with people sneaking in an extra 11 minutes on average, a new study reveals — but experts say it may not be a good idea. Researchers from Mass General Brigham analyzed data from the Sleep Cycle app, which included sleep habits from more than 21,000 people globally. Among the more than three million sleep sessions tracked, nearly 56% ended with the snooze button. MOST SLEEP-DEPRIVED CITIES IN US REVEALED IN REPORT: WHERE DOES YOURS RANK? The heaviest users of the snooze button — who used it for more than 80% of the mornings included in the study — slept an average of 20 extra minutes. These heaviest snoozers were also shown to have "more erratic sleep schedules" than those who used the snooze button less often, the researchers found."Unfortunately, the snooze alarm disrupts some of the most important stages of sleep," said lead author Rebecca Robbins, PhD, in the Division of Sleep and Circadian Disorders Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in a press release. "The hours just before waking are rich in rapid eye movement sleep. Hitting the snooze alarm will interrupt these critical stages of sleep and typically only offer light sleep in between snooze alarms."
Proper handwashing could save a million lives a year, according to an expert — and yet many people are doing it improperly, often due to misconceptions surrounding the practice. Doctors recommend washing with soap and water for at least 20 seconds to reduce the spread of infectious diseases. The NFID 2025 State of Handwashing Report, recently released by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, provides details on Americans' handwashing habits (and mistakes). WHY YOUR LAUNDRY COULD BE MAKING YOU SICK AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT The report is based on a survey of 3,587 U.S. adults, conducted in November and December 2024 and March 2025."We have to recognize that there are a number of important infections that hand sanitizers are not effective at preventing," Hopkins said. One example is norovirus, a highly contagious stomach virus that is common on cruise ships and is also spread seasonally. The virus cannot be killed with hand sanitizer, but is "easily destroyed" with soap and water, according to Hopkins.Certain viruses are "encapsulated" and can be destroyed with either soap and water or hand sanitizer, the expert said. However, there is also an "unencapsulated" type of virus, which has an outer coat that does not break down from the alcohol in hand sanitizer. Using soap and water is a more effective way to kill the germs, the doctor noted. 2. Just coughing into your sleeve When people cough or sneeze into their sleeve, they could still spread germs afterward. "If you cough into your sleeve … go ahead and wash your hands with soap and water as well," Hopkins advised. COMMON MEDICAL TEST LINKED TO 5% OF CANCERS, STUDY SUGGESTS: ‘USE THEM WISELY’ "We also have to recognize that we often bring our hands up close to our face, touch our nose, our glasses, other parts of our face," noted the doctor, who is based in Arkansas. "If we have bacteria or viruses on our hands, we can introduce them into our mucous membranes, where we can get infections."
Note the time delay "The [cortisol] decline is different for everyone but typically occurs one-and-a-half to two hours after you wake," Zumpano said. That's the best time to have coffee, Zumpano said. SLEEP EXPERT REVEALS TOP FOODS AND DRINKS KEEPING YOU UP AT NIGHT That way, "you can rely on your body's natural alert system - cortisol - and when it declines, then you use caffeine to provide the boost.""There is no specific time that's best to drink caffeine," the dietitian added. "[It's] based on when you wake and your natural rise and drop in cortisol." Yet adhering to the body's natural wake-up processes can help sustain energy levels by avoiding one big cortisol, caffeinated crash. COFFEE CREAMER HEALTH RISKS: WHAT TO KNOW, WHAT TO CHOOSE INSTEAD Fox News Digital previously reported on smart ways to consume coffee, with an expert noting that coffee drinking should be tailored to each individual. "For some people, waking up and having a glass of water to rehydrate and then having coffee works well – but for others the morning ritual of having a cup of coffee first thing upon awakening is just too good to give up," said Wendy Troxel, a Utah-based sleep expert and senior behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation.
The Pandemic Agreement, just adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO), is a landmark for global public health. Had such an agreement been in place before 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic would have looked very different. The agreement now means that when the next pandemic begins brewing, the world will be much better equipped to mitigate or even prevent it. What exactly will the agreement do? In a nutshell, 124 countries have pledged to prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics. The countries that formally ratify the agreement will be bound to uphold a number of commitments including investing in health infrastructures, sharing intellectual property, and engaging in technology transfer. Advertisement One of the biggest benefits promises to be the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System. This will require U.N. member states to share information and data about potential pandemic viruses, including sequencing of new viruses or variants, as well as share relevant vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostic technologies. Vaccine manufacturers in participating countries will be expected to provide 20% of pandemic vaccines in real time to the WHO to distribute globally, including to poorer countries and those most in need of them. Of these vaccines, member countries will donate 10% of them for free. Such an arrangement would have saved many lives during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first few years, the unequal access to vaccines was one of the biggest challenges, with one study finding that up to half the COVID-19 deaths in many lower income countries could have been avoided with a more equitable supply of vaccines. Read More: Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus: Global-Health Architect Conspicuously absent from the agreement is the U.S., which has historically played a key role in global health, from HIV/AIDS to malaria and beyond. Although 11 countries abstained from voting, the U.S.'s omission due to its decision to withdraw from the WHO is notable. COVID-19 taught us that the health of people on the other side of the world is inexorably tied to our own. Isolationism doesn't work when it comes to infectious disease. Even countries that took the most drastic measures to contain COVID-19, like China, eventually succumbed to rapid and extensive spread of the virus when they relaxed international travel or strict lockdowns and social-distancing measures. Preventing the next pandemic will require us to ensure that all countries, including low- and middle-income ones, have the necessary resources to prevent outbreaks from happening and to quash them before they spread. Advertisement The agreement also proves that multilateralism and a desire for global cooperation are still shared goals among most countries. Some critics of the agreement, including U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, have argued that it would be a threat to national sovereignty or freedom, in that it would compromise countries’ ability to make pandemic-related health policy decisions. This is not the case. The agreement states that it “does not prejudice the sovereign right” of countries to consider it in accordance with their own national constitutions. Global agreements or treaties of this nature are rare. But when they do come about, they are far from being tokenistic documents full of legalese. Although the Pandemic Agreement is less formal and legally binding, several U.N. global treaties have already saved millions of lives. The Framework Convention for Tobacco Control, the first WHO treaty, has reduced tobacco use by one-third over the past 20 years and has saved lives with policies like indoor smoking bans.
The Israeli military fired warning shots at a large delegation of European and Arab diplomats on an official visit near the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday, drawing swift international condemnation. Delegations from more than 20 countries, including the United Kingdom, France, Canada and others, were on an official mission to see the humanitarian situation around the besieged camp, according to the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which called the incident a “deliberate and unlawful act.” Video from the incident shows Israeli soldiers firing toward the delegation as it backs away from a gate blocking the road. At least seven shots can be heard in the video. One member of the delegation cautions the group, “be close to the wall, be close to the wall,” as they walk away from the scene. “The ministry holds the Israeli occupying government fully and directly responsible for this criminal assault and affirms that such acts will not pass without accountability,” the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said the visit to the camp - the site of a major ongoing military operation that has destroyed more than 100 buildings and impacted thousands of families - was coordinated in advance. The military said it launched an initial investigation once it became clear that the group was a diplomatic delegation. “The delegation deviated from the approved route and entered an area where they were not authorized to be,” the military said in a statement Wednesday. “IDF soldiers operating in the area fired warning shots to distance them away.” The IDF said it will reach out to the delegations about the findings of the initial inquiry and “regrets the inconvenience caused.” The Palestinian Authority said the visit was announced 10 days in advance and that the group had been at the gate for more than 15 minutes before Israeli soldiers started shooting. Roland Friedrich, the director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in the West Bank, refuted the Israeli military’s version of events, saying that its explanations “do not fully capture the severity of today’s event.” “This incident is a stark reminder of the lax use of excessive force routinely deployed by Israeli security forces in the West Bank, often with lethal consequences,” Friedrich said. “This raises serious concerns over the way rules of engagement are applied to unarmed civilians.” Kaja Kallas, the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, said after the incident that “any threats on diplomats’ lives are unacceptable.” “We definitely call on Israel to investigate this incident and also hold those accountable who are responsible for this,” Kallas said at a press conference Wednesday. Italy’s foreign ministry summoned Israel’s ambassador in Rome for an official clarification. “The threats against diplomats are unacceptable,” the country’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani added in a social media post on X. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said that Israel’s ambassador to France would also be summoned following the incident, calling it “unacceptable,” while Spain’s Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares said that his government summoned the head of the Israeli embassy in Madrid. Canada’s Foreign Minister Anita Anand confirmed on social media that four Canadian personnel were part of the delegation that was shot at, adding that she has asked officials to summon Israel’s Ambassador to convey “Canada’s serious concerns.” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told a news conference in Ottawa that Canada expected a full and immediate explanation of what happened. “It’s totally unacceptable,” he said. “It’s some of many things that are totally unacceptable that’s going on in the region.” On Wednesday evening, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen told CNN’s Isa Soares that her country will be summoning the Israeli ambassador to Finland in response to the military’s actions. “Any deviation of any route – it is not an excuse,” Valtonen said. “It is prohibited to open fire against civilians, even under the laws of war. And, of course, these people were also under diplomatic protection.” A host of officials from other European nations condemned the shooting, including representatives from Ireland, Belgium, Slovenia, Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Foreign ministries from countries including Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Qatar also strongly condemned the incident. “This attack, which endangered the lives of diplomats, is yet another demonstration of Israel’s systematic disregard for international law and human rights,” Turkey’s foreign ministry said. “The targeting of diplomats constitutes a grave threat not only to individual safety but also to the mutual respect and trust that form the foundation of inter-state relations. This attack must be investigated without delay, and those responsible must be held accountable,” it added. Clarification: This story has been updated to reflect the shooting incident occurred near the Jenin refugee camp, not within the camp.
Britain’s government has been temporarily blocked from concluding its deal to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, PA Media reported, after an 11th-hour injunction by a High Court judge. Prime Minister Keir Starmer intends to return the islands to the African country, while maintaining control of the US-UK Diego Garcia military base, and it had been expected that the deal would be signed off on Thursday.
A British adventurer is aiming to travel solo across Canada's Baffin Island. Battling temperatures as low as -40C, Camilla Hempleman-Adams, 32 and originally from Wiltshire, will cover 150 miles from Qikiqtarjuaq to Pangnirtung, during the two week expedition. The daughter of adventurer Sir David Hempleman-Adams, she will complete the challenge on foot and by ski while pulling a sledge in winds of up to 68 mph. Ms Hempleman-Adams, who now lives in London, said she wanted to show women "that boundaries can be broken". "I hope this expedition inspires more women to take on adventures and challenges of their own," she added. Flying out with her father on Thursday, Ms Hempleman-Adams also hopes the trip, which will go through Auyuittuq National Park, will highlight the impact of climate change on the region and its local Inuit communities. "I have two sisters and growing up in a family of explorers, our dad would always encourage us to take on challenges regardless of our gender – it's a nightmare when we get together to play games at Christmas," Ms Hempleman-Adams said. "I was part of a similar trek group across Baffin Island two years ago and I thought, I can do this solo." Ms Hempleman-Adams said she had undergone weight and cardio training, along with dragging heavy tyres, in preparation for the trek. No stranger to challenges, Ms Hempleman-Adams previously became the youngest British female to ski to the North Pole at the age of 15. Correction 8 April: A previous version of this article claimed Ms Hempleman-Adams wanted to be the first to complete this journey. We have corrected this after several claims that she would not have been the first.
A Canadian judge overseeing a high-profile sexual assault case against five former members of the country's world junior hockey team has declared a mistrial, and ordered that a new jury be seated to hear the case. The decision on Friday came shortly after the prosecution called its first witness. A new jury was swiftly chosen to replace the 14 jurors dismissed from the case. Superior Court Justice Maria Carrocci did not give a reason for the mistrial. The reasons for it are covered by a publication ban, according to Canadian media. All five players, who each formerly played for the National Hockey League (NHL), have pleaded not guilty to the charges. The accused players are Michael McLeod, Cal Foote, Carter Hart, Dillon Dubé and Alex Formenton. According to reporters in court, on Wednesday the judge informed the jury that "something happened over the lunch hour that I need to think about and to discuss with the lawyers". The discussion was not heard by jurors, and is covered by the publication ban. On Friday, the judge declared a mistrial and began the process of selecting new jurors. The trial will re-start on Monday, and is expected to last around eight weeks. According to Canadian law, a mistrial can be declared if there is a "real danger that trial fairness has been compromised". The charges are tied to an alleged sexual assault that took place in London, about 190km (118 miles) southwest of Toronto, in 2018, following a Hockey Canada Foundation fundraising event in the city. A 24-year-old woman initially filed a lawsuit against Hockey Canada alleging that she had been assaulted by eight players on Canada's World Junior team in a hotel room that night. In her lawsuit, she said she felt pressured not to report the incident to the police. In May 2022, sports network TSN revealed Hockey Canada, which manages programmes and teams in the country from entry-level all the way to world championships and the Olympic Games, quietly reached a settlement with the woman. The revelation was met with national outcry in Canada, resulting in the organisation losing federal funding and several high-profile sponsorship deals. Police in London later reopened their investigation into the alleged assault, and apologised for waiting nearly six years to pursue the case. Under Canadian law, a sexual assault conviction carries a maximum of 10 years in prison.
President Trump was dealt a setback in his plans for American public education, as three federal judges issued separate rulings on Thursday pausing his ability to withhold funds from schools with diversity and equity initiatives. The rulings block the administration, at least for now, from carrying out efforts to cut off billions of dollars that pay for teachers, counselors and academic programs in schools that serve low-income children. Two of the judges who issued the decisions were appointed by Mr. Trump. A third was appointed by President Barack Obama. The cases were brought by teachers’ unions and the N.A.A.C.P., among others. In one of the cases, Judge Landya B. McCafferty of the Federal District Court in New Hampshire said that the administration had not provided an adequately detailed definition of “diversity, equity and inclusion.” She also said the policy threatened to restrict free speech in the classroom, while overstepping the executive branch’s legal authority over local schools. The loss of federal funding “would cripple the operations of many educational institutions,” wrote Judge McCafferty, who was appointed by Mr. Obama. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The three rulings followed a demand earlier this month by the Trump administration that all 50 state education agencies attest in writing that their schools do not use certain D.E.I. practices. Otherwise, they would risk losing billions in Title I money, which supports low-income students. The deadline for returning that document was Thursday, and about a dozen states, most of which lean Democratic, refused to sign. In a separate ruling on Thursday, Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the Federal District Court in Maryland postponed enforcement nationwide of a memo the administration sent to schools in February, which said that federal civil rights laws ban certain D.E.I. efforts. Judge Gallagher, a Trump appointee, said the administration had not followed proper procedure in adopting a new legal framework. A third judge, Dabney L. Friedrich of the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., also paused enforcement of the D.E.I. policy, saying from the bench that it provided “no clear boundaries” for what did and did not constitute D.E.I. Judge Friedrich is also a Trump appointee. These postponements will hold while the cases proceed. The Trump administration is expected to appeal any rulings against it.The Department of Education did not immediately respond on Thursday to a request for comment on the rulings. In issuing its ban on D.E.I., the administration had employed a novel legal strategy, arguing that the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning affirmative action in college admissions also applied to K-12 education. The government has said that the ruling means public schools should end programs meant to serve specific racial groups. The Trump administration has not offered a detailed definition of what it calls “illegal D.E.I. practices.” But it has suggested that efforts to provide targeted academic support or counseling to specific groups of students, such as Black boys, amount to illegal segregation. The administration has also argued that lessons on concepts such as white privilege or structural racism, which posits that racism is embedded in social institutions, are discriminatory toward white children. Several Republican-leaning states have signed the administration’s letter attesting that they do not use certain D.E.I. practices. But many already had regulations in place restricting how race and gender could be discussed in schools. North Carolina took a different approach. It signed the letter, but said it disagreed with Mr. Trump’s interpretation of civil rights law, and argued that the attempted ban on D.E.I. had overstepped the department’s authority. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “We will continue working to ensure fairness, remove barriers to opportunity, and make decisions based on merit and need,” wrote Maurice “Mo” Green, the Democratic state superintendent, in a letter to Linda McMahon, the education secretary. In a hearing in the New Hampshire case last week, Judge McCafferty noted that the administration had sought to ban lessons that caused white students to feel “shame.” She asked an administration lawyer whether students could still engage with history lessons that traced the concept of structural racism through events like slavery, Jim Crow and the Tulsa race massacre of 1921, in which a thriving Black neighborhood was destroyed by a white mob. Would teaching such a class be illegal, she asked, if it caused a student to feel ashamed of that history? A lawyer for the Justice Department, Abhishek Kambli, responded, “It goes toward how they treat the current students, not what they teach.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the lead plaintiff in that case, said, “Today’s ruling allows educators and schools to continue to be guided by what’s best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.” There were some bright spots for the government on Thursday. Judge Gallagher of the Maryland court declined a request from plaintiffs for the Trump administration to take down a website it created to collect reports from the public of D.E.I. practices in schools. “The government is entitled to express its viewpoint on its website and to maintain a reporting portal,” Judge Gallagher wrote. The future of Mr. Trump’s education agenda may be decided at the Supreme Court. Last year, the justices declined to hear a case on diversity efforts in the admissions system of a selective public high school in Virginia. That choice seemed to suggest that the court was not yet ready to make a statement on how its ruling against affirmative action in college admissions applied to K-12 education. But Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions, the conservative legal group that brought the case challenging affirmative action, said he continued to believe the Supreme Court decision had set a precedent for the entire education system, including K-12 public schools. His group has filed an amicus brief in the New Hampshire suit, backing the Trump administration’s reading of civil rights law. “As some of the justices have signaled, it is my belief that the court is waiting for a case with the right procedural posture and factual record to address K-12 racial policies and programs,” Mr. Blum said.
Paleontologists recently discovered a 506-million-year-old "moth-like" predator that lurked in prehistoric Canada. In a press release from the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), officials identified the creature as Mosura fentoni, an extinct arthropod, as news agencies including SWNS reported. (See the video at the top of this article.) The museum reported that most of the Mosura fossils were collected by ROM paleontologists at Raymond Quarry in Yoho National Park in British Columbia. Most were found between 1975 and 2022. "Mosura fentoni was about the size of your index finger and had three eyes, spiny jointed claws, a circular mouth lined with teeth and a body with swimming flaps along its sides," the museum noted. "These traits show it to be part of an extinct group known as the radiodonts, which also included the famous Anomalocaris canadensis, a meter-long predator that shared the waters with Mosura." What makes the discovery so interesting to researchers is that Mosura had an abdomen-like body region made up of multiple segments at its back end – which had not been previously observed in any radiodonts. Joe Moysiuk, a curator of paleontology and geology at the Manitoba Museum, said Mosura had 16 of these segments, all lined with gills. "This is a neat example of evolutionary convergence with modern groups, like horseshoe crabs, woodlice and insects, which share a batch of segments bearing respiratory organs at the rear of the body," Moysiuk described. The museum reported that the species has been nicknamed the "sea-moth" by field collectors based on its moth-like attributes. "This inspired its scientific name, which references the fictional Japanese kaiju also known as Mothra. Only distantly related to real moths – as well as spiders, crabs, and millipedes – Mosura belongs on a much deeper branch in the evolutionary tree of these animals, collectively known as arthropods," the statement added. Instead of arteries and veins, Mosura's heart pumped blood into large internal body cavities called lacunae. Interestingly, the fossils show details of Mosura's internal anatomy – including its nervous system, circulatory system, and digestive tract. Instead of arteries and veins, Mosura's heart pumped blood into large internal body cavities called lacunae. ROM curator Jean-Bernard Caron said that "few fossil sites in the world offer this level of insight into soft internal anatomy." "We can see traces representing bundles of nerves in the eyes that would have been involved in image processing, just like in living arthropods," the expert added.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he soon planned to decide whether to privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that help provide stability and affordability to America’s home mortgage market. “I am giving very serious consideration to bringing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac public,” Trump posted on his social media website, Truth Social, on Wednesday, saying he would consult with cabinet members and make a decision “in the near future.” “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are doing very well, throwing off a lot of CASH, and the time would seem to be right,” the post said. But at a time when mortgage rates remain stubbornly high and home prices keep climbing, some economists have warned that attempts at privatizing Fannie and Freddie could upset the balance in the mortgage market, making it even more expensive for Americans to borrow money to purchase a home. Many of Trump’s allies in the Republican Party have long advocated for ending the government conservatorship that Fannie and Freddie were placed under after their role in the 2008 global financial crisis. Government control of the two entities was intended to be temporary. In fact, Trump attempted to untangle Fannie and Freddie from US government control in 2019 during his first administration and failed. Fannie and Freddie essentially grease the wheels of America’s home lending market by buying mortgages from lenders and repackaging them for investors. This helps enable a reliable flow of money, allowing mortgage lenders to offer more affordable mortgage rates to would-be homebuyers. Many experts credit the two entities with helping to prop up the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, the most popular type of home loan in the US due to its relatively low monthly payments compared to shorter-term loans. Before 2008, Fannie and Freddie were private companies, backed by the US Treasury – though both were originally created by the government. They were placed under government control on September 7, 2008, after facing massive losses amid crashing home values that ignited the Great Recession. A week later, Lehman Brothers collapsed, sparking a global financial crisis. Privatizing Fannie and Freddie could spook the investors who buy up mortgage loans, leading them to demand a higher return for their investments and pushing up mortgage rates, experts warn. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, estimated in 2024 that privatization could cost the typical American taking out a new mortgage between $1,800 and $2,800 per year. Fannie and Freddie are currently controlled by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which has been run by William Pulte since his confirmation in March. At that time, Pulte told CNN that any effort to privatize Fannie and Freddie would need to include “significant study” on what the effort might do to mortgage rates. That may take a few years. In a note to clients on Wednesday, TD Cowen financial services and housing policy analyst Jaret Seiberg said he did not expect the Trump administration to attempt a spin-off until late 2026 or early 2027.
My mother’s name is Usha, and for years, when I told non-South Asian people her name, I’d watch them squint, trying to picture the spelling. But these days, it clicks immediately: Usha, like Usha Chilukuri Vance, the Second Lady of the United States. When people make the connection, I want to add that my family and I have nothing in common with the “Other Usha," the lawyer-turned-enigmatic political wife who stands by her man—the vice president—as he denigrates immigrants and women alike. But, in fact, I share a great deal with the Other Usha, whose life is, in some ways, a doppelganger of mine. We both come from academically-oriented Indian American families; our paternal grandfathers were both scientist-professors, as are our fathers, who are both named Krish. We are both Yale-educated, ambitious millennial women: she graduated from Yale Law School the same year I finished undergrad; if I ever brushed past Vance on campus, we would not have taken note of one another—two among many hardworking desi women, living the immigrant dream, hoping to have it all. Our shared touchstones might seem superficial, but as the country increasingly seems split into two separate Americas, each one unable to speak to the other, I’ve found myself obsessing over the things I, a progressive, have in common with Vance and her conservative ilk. Because our similarities reveal an uncomfortable truth: The country that formed Usha Vance and her husband also formed me, and its mythologies are also mine. Specifically, Vance embodies twin figures in the American imagination of meritocracy: the high-achieving child of immigrants, and the high-achieving woman—both near-mythic creatures who appear to prove that anyone can make it here, if they work hard enough, and lean in far enough. For many years, both liberal and conservative Americans celebrated these “bootstrapper” characters. When I was younger, I bought into this story of America, too; I believed that my second-generation work ethic and fierce feminist ambition could grant me access to the American dream. As the leftist writer Naomi Klein has written about her own right-wing doppelganger, Naomi Wolf, we all have twins on the other side of the aisle. I consider Vance my mirror image—a crucial reminder that liberal and conservative America share a great deal. It may be uncomfortable for Democrats to admit what they have in common with their right-wing rivals, but it is worth trying to see ourselves in the Other Side’s world. Only then can we finally abandon the flawed mythologies that brought us to this place. Since she is the child of immigrants, Vance’s ascent into the highest echelons of American society—Yale, the Supreme Court, the inauguration stage, and perhaps, one day, the East Wing of the White House—might be read as confirmation that America is a true land of opportunity: If you work hard, you can make it here, identity be damned. Indeed, some political observers spun this story about her last year, when J.D. Vance was named the Republican vice-presidential nominee: an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal entitled “J.D. Vance and the Indian-American Dream” extolled Vance as an example of “breathtaking” achievements of Indian Americans; a piece in The Times of India declared, “Usha is living her parents’ American dream.” I recognize myself in this story. Many Indian Americans cast our community’s collective success as affirmation of American meritocracy. In doing so, we pit ourselves against other minorities who conservatives would have us believe are asking for handouts—affirmative action, asylum. This is a dishonest story of our diaspora: as the journalist Arun Venugopal has written in The Atlantic, the Indian American diaspora was formed through complex feats of “social engineering.” Like many desis whose families arrived in the U.S. after 1965, Vance and I are both dominant-caste Hindus, children of intellectually elite Indians—yes, our parents worked hard to get here and worked hard once they arrived, but we were also beneficiaries of generations of privilege well before we were admitted to the ranks of the American cultural elite. This more precise explanation of Indian America helps answer the questions I heard many liberals ask when Usha Vance shot into the national conversation last summer: “How did this daughter of immigrants justify her husband spreading lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets?” “Didn’t she instinctively sympathize with other newcomers to America?” “Surely she was secretly a liberal”—she voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016—"just keeping her opinions to herself?” (People asked similar questions of pro-choice immigrant Melania Trump.) But those questions feel naïve. A standard-issue conservative peeks through Vance’s demureness: In 2024, she described her parents’ immigration story to Fox and Friends, responding delicately to a question from anchor Ainsley Earhardt about how the Vances each exemplify distinct aspects of the American dream—JD climbing the class ladder; Usha the immigrant one. Vance described her parents as coming “from a different country”—never saying “India”—arriving “legally” and “with this intention of belonging.” It was the classic, selective story many Indian Americans have learned to tell about ourselves, and which we in turn train Americans to tell about us: We are the model minorities who promise to put our heads down and assimilate; others are the “bad” kind. Vance isn’t just an example of the immigrant dream. Just a few years ago, she exemplified the 2010s Sheryl Sandbergian dream: the woman who leaned into her career at all the right moments. When she became a mother, she did not take “her foot off the gas pedal,” as Sandberg warned women not to do: instead, Vance began clerking for Chief Justice John Roberts seven weeks after giving birth. The Vances were living apart at the time, so J.D.Vance—a man who, in October 2024, made the blunder of saying “my wife has three children”—did not step in as the primary caregiver. Even after resigning from her law firm in 2024 to become a full-time political wife, she remained conspicuously brainy, toting around The Iliad on the campaign trail and leaving her Goodreads page public. The charm offensive worked: the media fawned over her reading diet, her pink cashmere inauguration coat, her elegant gray hair. The knock-on effect is that Vance—who initially said she would stay out of the limelight on the campaign trail before taking on a more vocal role after J.D. Vance’s comments about “childless cat ladies,” among other things—helps soften her husband’s image. This is where the American meritocracy too often leads women: to the top of corporate and political ladders, where we legitimize terrible people—often men. I recognize this version of Vance, too, because I am a variation on the theme: an ambitious millennial woman, raised to take herself seriously. Like some millennial women, I once considered the feminist battle generally won; our foremothers had gotten us the vote, our own credit cards, IUDs, all so we could be less hung up on our own womanhood. This attitude led me, at times, to a dangerously flexible politics, not unlike Vance’s. While she was clerking for conservative judges Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts, I was working for a man whose politics sometimes gave me pause. I took the job because it seemed prestigious, and because, like many Ivy Leaguers, I found power magnetic. In reality, I, like Vance, was settling into a world in which I could afford to treat political differences as superficial. I leaned in—right into complacency. Vance’s life proves that leaning in makes for a Pyrrhic feminist victory when not accompanied by substantive work on behalf of all women. Indeed, Vance is now actively facilitating a political agenda that will make it nearly impossible for people, including and especially working parents, to have it all, as she once did: Vance defended her husband after he mocked people without children, claiming that he was simply saying it was “hard to be a parent in this country,” never mind that he has called universal day care “class war against normal people.” Vance is a case study in what feminism of the Lean In era got wrong about the American dream: It promised access to the elite, to meritocracy. It has only delivered for a select few. Usha Vance scares and fascinates so many liberals, especially women and Indian Americans. How did she transform from one of us into one of them? But on closer inspection, there may not have been much of a transformation at all. So-called “model minorities” have a history of xenophobia, and individualistic, achievement-oriented women often teeter dangerously close to justifying societal misogyny. And the proximity between these worldviews matters, because many of us—including liberals—too easily accept the myths of American exceptionalism. If we want to challenge those people, we need to confront ourselves in the mirror first.