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.
Todd Brayman is no longer buying his favourite red wine, which is from California. A veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, he is one of a growing number of people in Canada, Europe, and other parts of the world, who are avoiding buying US products due to President Trump's tariffs and treatment of US allies. "I have in my life served alongside American forces. It is just profoundly upsetting and disappointing to see where we are given the historical ties that our two countries have," says Mr Brayman, who lives in Nova Scotia. "But I think right now it's time to stand up and be counted, and in my mind, that means buying local and supporting Canadian business." Together with his wife, Mr Brayman has replaced all the American products he used to buy, including his previous wine of choice, with Canadian alternatives. "Luckett Phone Box Red wine, which is from right here in Nova Scotia, is great," he says. Determining which products are Canadian isn't always easy however. "Sometimes labelling can be misleading," adds Mr Brayman. To help, he now uses an app on his phone that can scan a product's barcode and identify where it's from. If the product is identified as American, the app suggests Canadian alternatives. The app, called Maple Scan, is one of numerous emerging in Canada to help people shop local. Others include Buy Canadian, Is This Canadian? and Shop Canadian. Maple Scan's founder, Sasha Ivanov, says his app has had 100,000 downloads since it launched last month. He believes the momentum around buying Canadian is here to stay. "Lots of Canadians have told me, 'I'm not going back'. It's important that we support local regardless," he says. Canadians like Mr Brayman are boycotting American products in response to a raft of import tariffs introduced by Trump. These included tariffs of 25% on all foreign cars, steel and aluminium, and 25% tariffs on other Canadian and Mexican goods. Meanwhile, other European Union exports will get tariffs of 20%, while the UK is facing 10%. Trump says the tariffs will boost US manufacturing, raise tax revenue and reduce the US trade deficit. However, they have spooked global markets, which have fallen sharply over the past month. Trump has even expressed a desire for Canada to join the US as its 51st state, something the Canadian government was quick to strongly reject. Ottawa has also responded with C$60bn ($42bn; £32bn) in counter tariffs, as well as additional tariffs on the US auto sector. And there has been a substantial drop in the number of Canadians travelling to the US. Groups dedicated to boycotting US goods have also emerged in European countries. Momentum behind the boycott is particularly strong in Denmark, whose territory of Greenland Trump has said he wants to acquire. Denmark's largest grocery store operator, Salling Group, recently introduced a symbol, a black star, on pricing labels to denote European brands. Bo Albertus, a school principal who lives in Skovlunde, a suburb of Copenhagen, says joining the boycott was his way of taking action. "Statements that Trump made about wanting to buy Greenland, that was just too much for me," he says. "I can't do anything about the American political system, but I can vote with my credit card." One of Mr Albertus's first moves was to cancel his subscriptions to US streaming services, including Netflix, Disney Plus and Apple TV. "My 11-year-old daughter is a bit annoyed about it, but that's the way it is. She understands why I do it," he says. Mr Albertus is the administrator for a Danish Facebook group dedicated to helping people boycott US goods. In the group, which has 90,000 members, people share recommendations for local alternatives to US goods, from shoes to lawnmowers. Mr Albertus says: "It's a movement that is quite a lot bigger than just our little country, so it all that adds up." Mette Heerulff Christiansen, the owner of a grocery shop in Copenhagen called Broders has stopped stocking American products, such as Cheetos crisps and Hershey's chocolate, in her store. She is substituting them with Danish or European products where possible. Ms Christiansen is also swapping out products she uses at home. She's finding some easier to replace than others. "Coca-Cola is easy to substitute with Jolly Cola, a Danish brand," she says. "But technology, like Facebook, that's totally difficult to avoid." She believes the boycott movement in Denmark is helping people to channel their anger at Trump's policies and rhetoric. "I think it's more for the Danish people to feel good that they are doing something," she says. Douglas Irwin, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College in the US, who specializes in the history of US trade policy, believes the economic impact of the boycott may be limited. "It is hard to judge how economically significant the consumer boycotts will be in terms of reducing trade with the United States," he says. "In the past, boycotts have not lasted long and have not achieved much. It starts as a hostile reaction to some US action but tends to fade with time," he says. For now though, the rising Buy Canadian sentiment in Canada is boosting sales for many local brands. The CEO of Canadian grocer Loblaw posted on LinkedIn that weekly sales of Canadian products were up by double digits. Bianca Parsons, from Alberta in Canada, is behind an initiative to promote locally-made goods, called Made In Alberta, which she says has had a surge in interest since the tariffs were introduced. "We're now getting over 20,000 hits [to the site] every two weeks." Ms Parsons, who is the executive director of the Alberta Food Processors Association, adds: "I've had producers reach out to us and say: 'I'm selling out at stores that I would never sell out before, thank you so much'." Several Canadian provinces, including Ontario and Nova Scotia, have removed US-made alcoholic beverages from their liquor store shelves in response to tariffs, a move the boss of Jack Daniel's maker Brown-Forman has said is "worse than tariffs". Among the American businesses feeling the impact is Caledonia Spirits, a distiller based in Vermont, near the Canadian border. Ryan Christiansen, Caledonia's president and head distiller, says his business had an order on track for shipment to Quebec cancelled directly after tariffs were announced. "My sense is that everyone's just being a little too aggressive and, unfortunately, I think America started that," says Mr Christiansen. "I do understand that the action America took needed a counter reaction. "If it were up to me, I'd be at the table trying to resolve this in a friendly way, and I'm hopeful that the leaders in America take that approach." Ethan Frisch, the co-founder of Burlap & Barrel, an American spice company based in New York, which also exports to Canada, says he's more concerned with the impact of the tariffs on his company's imports and rising inflation in the US than the consumer boycott. He says: "I think there's this assumption that, if you boycott an American company, it's going to have an impact on the economy and maybe change the situation. I think that assumption, unfortunately, is not accurate. "The [US] economy is crashing all up by itself. Businesses like ours are struggling without boycotts."
Sara Sidner, an anchor and correspondent for CNN, has reported live from war zones, political uprisings, and natural disasters. But putting herself in the headlines was far more nerve-wracking. Staring straight into the camera, Sidner announced during a January 2024 broadcast that she had been diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. She urged women—and particularly Black women, who she noted are roughly 40% more likely than white women to die from the disease—to get screened and “catch it before I did.” Sidner, 52, didn’t always plan to be so public; at first, she thought she’d keep the news private and quietly muscle through her recovery. But when she learned her cancer was advanced enough to require intensive treatment, she realized there was no way to keep the situation to herself. Instead, she decided to tell the world. Speaking so publicly about her health was “uncomfortable,” Sidner says. “It is putting yourself in this very vulnerable position where you know there are likely going to be negative comments. But I don’t care. Living, and helping someone else live through this, is a far greater power.” Sidner has used her platform to share intimate details from her treatment, posting about chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation on Instagram and even allowing cameras into the room for her last radiation session. The goal, she says, was to demystify what can be a terrifying process—especially for women of color, who tend to be diagnosed when the disease is more advanced, and thus harder to treat, compared to white women. That’s true for lots of reasons, including disparities in socioeconomic status and access to medical care, but stigma plays a part, too. “Particularly in the Black community, and some other communities of color, there is a shame around it. There is a fear around just the word cancer,” Sidner says. “People are worried about being seen as weak.” Sidner has demonstrated that facing cancer is, in fact, about strength. At one point, she kept a bucket by her anchor desk in case she felt nauseated on air. She also went for a run six weeks after a double mastectomy. She has even thanked the disease for “choosing” her and transforming her outlook on life. “We don’t have much time in the dash between our birth and our death,” she says. “Do you want it to be filled with stress and worrying about things you can’t control or aren’t worth your time? Or do you want to wake up in the morning and say, ‘Thank you’? I choose the latter.” Though she’s done with treatments for now, Sidner isn’t done with advocacy. Next, she wants to raise awareness about the long tail of cancer recovery, which for her includes years of medications as well as early menopause. “That’s something we need to talk about more,” she says. “I want women to know that they are so amazing, resilient, and beautiful in their ability to get through it and work through it.”
President Donald Trump’s repeated threats to dramatically expand tariffs are now a reality. Tariffs of 25% on goods from Mexico and Canada went into effect Tuesday morning, alongside an additional 10% tax on Chinese goods. It’s a move that affects trillions of dollars in trade and will reshape prices for everything from cars to medication — while straining relationships with key U.S. trading partners. Imported goods are a key driver of the American economy, totaling $2.9 trillion in 2024, according to the U.S. Census Bureau — with China, Canada and Mexico accounting for more than 40% of that volume. It’s these top trading partners that Trump has frequently criticized. The U.S. has a trade deficit, meaning it imports more goods than it exports. Tariffs could help close that gap by raising the prices of foreign goods and encouraging Americans to purchase domestic alternatives. In some cases, even the threat of tariffs might accomplish some of that by incentivizing manufacturers to move operations elsewhere. However, those operations won’t necessarily be relocated to the United States.China was long the biggest exporter of goods to America. But its export total began to fall after Trump levied tariffs on the country during his first term, when companies began moving manufacturing from China to Mexico. As a result, Mexico surpassed it for total exports in 2023. Tariffs often lead to higher costs for consumers, as affected companies pass their new costs along. One economic study concluded that the costs of Trump’s 2018 trade war were “passed on entirely to U.S. importers and consumers.” A 2019 report from the Federal Reserve concluded the 2018 tariffs led to U.S. job losses and higher consumer prices.Among all categories of goods, the most imported in the U.S. are machinery-related products, electronics and automotive products. Canada, China and Mexico account for a meaningful share of these imports, which means consumers could soon see prices ratchet up on everything from new cars to smartphones to bicycles. While tariffs will increase the price of consumer goods, Trump has hinted at reducing or eliminating the personal income tax with the new tariff revenue.If that’s the case, it could ease consumer pain in the face of sky-high mortgages and rising prices on essentials including eggs and milk. However, income taxes make up most of the trillions in revenue the government collected last year.
America is at risk of losing a generation of scientists. Amid sweeping cuts to federal research funding by the Trump administration, job opportunities for young scientists are being rescinded, postdoctoral positions eliminated and fellowships folded as labs struggle to afford new researchers. As countless scientific projects come to a halt, the researchers who will suffer the most are those just beginning their careers. Times Opinion has heard from more than 100 readers who have shared stories of how they’ve been affected. Kristen Gram is a 22-year-old graduate student researching the type of materials and hardware that might one day help reduce the enormous amount of energy new computer processing technologies use to function. Her adviser recently warned her that federal funding cuts made it unlikely she’d secure a fellowship she needed to finish her degree. Melanie Reuter is a 29-year-old graduate student whose work focuses on how the gut microbiome shapes human health and chronic diseases like Type 2 diabetes. She wants to find more effective ways to treat diseases, with fewer side effects. She hoped to secure federal funding to cover her education and provide a livable stipend so she could concentrate on her research. But her application for a National Institutes of Health grant meant to support diverse candidates was pulled, without explanation, in February, just days before it was scheduled for review. Francesca Walsh, 28, is in the last six months of earning her Ph.D. in neuroscience and behavior. She wants to study how the brain functions when making economic decisions, in an effort to protect economic markets and consumers from financial harm. The postdoctoral jobs she planned to apply for have suddenly disappeared. “I felt the door of an entire sector of jobs, including federal research jobs, slam overnight,” she said. “It’s very disheartening, and sometimes I wish I just became an accountant.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Most American scientists understood a second Trump term was unlikely to be friendly to their kind, but few anticipated such a rapid bulldozing. The N.I.H. — the largest public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world — announced it would slash funding to universities for overhead, or indirect, costs, which often covers laboratories’ operational needs. Though legal challenges have stalled enforcement, federal grant money remains withheld in many cases. Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency team has also turned its hatchet on the N.I.H. The agency has lost nearly one-fourth of its 18,000 employees because of job cuts, buyouts and some employees’ choosing early retirement, according to reporting by NPR. Many research grants overseen by the N.I.H., the National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies are frozen or canceled. When federal money for scientific research disappears, so do the university labs that young scientists rely on as steppingstones of essential training and experience they can later apply toward projects of their own. Those actions could mean America’s demise as the most powerful force for innovation in science, health and technology for the 21st century. Competitors like China will be able to usurp that position, and other countries are already making concerted efforts to recruit American scientists.Many young researchers say they are having to choose between staying in the United States and staying in science. America shouldn’t take scientific progress in medicine, artificial intelligence, energy and more for granted. If the youngest, brightest minds aren’t soon reassured that the United States can support their work — and that scientific inquiry will be protected from political interference — they will walk away. *** American science has been a beacon for aspiring researchers since the end of World War II, when a rivalry with the Soviet Union spurred the United States to make huge investments in science and technology research and recruit the most brilliant thinkers from abroad. Scientists saw the United States as a kind of nationwide laboratory for pursuing work under the best conditions possible — a remarkable combination of positive pressure and competition that pushed them to their best work, paired with support that provided the time, space and resources needed to realize that work’s full potential. Editors’ Picks What a New American Citizen Learned on Route 66 Simple Sandals Are Always a Good Investment Is ‘Reef Safe’ Sunscreen Really Better? Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT This American brain trust has resulted in over 400 Nobel laureates, more than any other country in the world. As of 2023, an estimated 1.2 million people around the world held a Ph.D. in science, engineering or health earned at an American institution. The United States accounts for 27 percent of the world’s total research and development activity — the most of any nation — though China, at 22 percent, is closing in. This is still far ahead of the next largest players: Japan (7 percent), Germany (6 percent) and South Korea (4 percent). This investment has been essential to our economy. More than 408,000 jobs are supported by N.I.H. grants. It’s estimated that every dollar of N.I.H. funding produces $2.56 in economic activity. So much of that success is due to the U.S. government’s willingness to support the kind of basic science work that takes years, even generations, before resulting in monumental breakthroughs. Hundreds of millions of federal dollars established the groundwork for key breakthroughs in mRNA technology before the Covid-19 pandemic, which helped set up Operation Warp Speed for success. Ozempic and other GLP-1 drugs were inspired in part by N.I.H.-supported research into Gila monster venom in the 1980s; without that work, we might not have had the current weight-loss revolution. Fifty years ago, fewer than 60 percent of children diagnosed with pediatric cancer survived after five years. Now, thanks to treatments funded and spearheaded by the N.I.H., that survival rate is 85 percent. America had also been an attractive destination for science because of its express support for free inquiry — the ability of researchers to study what mattered most to them, even if there wasn’t a straight path to success and profit. That commitment appears to be crumbling. “I mourn a world in which science must defend itself through its end products, rather than its underlying search for truth and beauty,” said Daniel Bauman, a 25-year-old Stanford University graduate student studying evolution. “When efficiency is mandated, current and future careers are lost or abandoned. If science funding is made contingent on immediately beneficial results, who will be left to tell the story of nature? Will anyone even be listening?” Young scientists’ careers are inextricably tied to the grant application cycle. Carole LaBonne, a molecular biologist at Northwestern University, recently told the podcast “Odd Lots” to think of labs as small businesses that run on very tight operating margins. A grant that provides funding for, say, four years would need to be renewed in the third year. And if they can’t do that, people must be let go quickly — which almost always means junior members of the lab. Peter Jacobs, a senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is unsure whether Department of Energy and National Science Foundation grants that help fund his program will be renewed; he’s not certain he can keep on his three postdocs, all of whom are already looking at other positions, including in Europe or Asia. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT It’s already hard enough to establish oneself as a young scientist. The average age for researchers to receive a first N.I.H. grant has increased since 1995 and is now over 40 years. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds will find it especially challenging to make a career in science work, now that grants meant to help them are being dissolved. At Fort Lewis College in Colorado, where nearly 40 percent of the student population identifies as Native American, one researcher said he and his colleagues were told not to bother submitting a renewal application for an N.I.H.-associated grant that funds increased representation in the biomedical sciences and that has helped at least a dozen Native Americans earn Ph.D.s in the past 15 years. The Frist Center for Autism and Innovation at Vanderbilt University was expecting $7 million in National Science Foundation funding meant to train scientists and engineers with autism, but those awards have been rejected or are in limbo. “It is heartbreaking having to tell these students — who have persisted through challenges throughout their lives for the opportunity to apply their talents for their own careers but also for their country — that they aren’t so valued after all,” said Keivan Stassun, an astrophysics professor and the center’s founding director. *** “I grow ever more skeptical of a bright future for young scientists,” said Patrick Payne, 28, a data scientist at the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine. He recently decided to forgo pursuing an M.D. and a Ph.D. in favor of pursuing a medical degree exclusively. “This loss of a generation and of diversity makes me question research funding overall and has pushed me away from pursuing a permanent career in research.” Of 1,200 U.S. scientists who responded to a poll conducted by the journal Nature, 75 percent said they were considering leaving the country. Countries like France, China and the Netherlands are courting them. Those who are already abroad are considering staying there, like Atticus Cummings, a 24-year-old graduate student in Barcelona who is exploring how to make buildings out of carbon-reducing materials. He’d prefer to return to the United States and build sustainable, affordable housing in his home state, Montana, but wonders if that will be feasible by the time he graduates. “My heart is in the mountains at home,” he said. The Trump administration is squandering what was a real opportunity to improve the system around federally funded science. Critics have long suggested that some labs, particularly at very prestigious institutions, are awarded too much funding that could go elsewhere and that the process behind grant applications and approvals could use more streamlining and scrutiny. But the bulldozer approach of the past several weeks means people are hatching escape plans. Unfreezing the grant process and presenting a more thoughtful plan for improving federal funding for science may assuage young people’s fears that their lives are about to be upended permanently. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Early-career scientists cannot simply migrate to the private sector. Many scientists who work at private labs got their start in academic ones, often supported by federal grants. Private donors are highly unlikely to make up the funding shortfall caused by cuts to federal grants, and the private sector isn’t designed to completely support the kind of basic research that provides young scientists with essential education and training. *** A lot of people perceive scientific research as prestigious — the smartest minds working under pristine conditions with seemingly limitless resources. In reality, it’s grueling work fueled almost entirely by devotion. When I spent a semester working as an undergraduate researcher in an immunology lab at Virginia Tech, I watched the graduate students and postdocs I worked alongside spend up to 70 hours a week toiling on projects. They spent most of the day on their feet, paying meticulous attention to their experiments and trudging from one time-consuming task to another — calibrating delicate instruments to measure faint traces of chemicals, setting up and running bacteria culture experiments governed by rigid safety protocols, cleaning supplies and lugging heavy equipment from location to location, preparing reagents the entire lab needed, analyzing data and simply keeping the laboratory clean and organized. Experiments run into obstacles and failure all the time, and researchers must devote weeks, months or even years trying to troubleshoot what went wrong so they can move to the next step. They build resilience not just against seemingly constant discouragements but also against the pressure testing of their ideas by mentors, peers and outside scientists. Success sometimes feels hardly more likely than winning the lottery. That’s why Mike Gallagher, who has worked as a research scientist for 17 years, compares the work to a blue-collar job. “You roll up your sleeves, try to make or discover something useful and then let the scientific community try to punch holes in your work to make sure that it’s sound,” he said. Young scientists stick it out because they believe deep down that the work they’re doing could make a material difference in the real world if they’re allowed to see it all the way through. And that impulse can be nurtured when they have leadership and processes that provide encouragement in spite of setbacks. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “Being an early-career academic scientist does not pay very much, requires a very tough-minded attitude and generally is only worth it for people if they truly just love doing science to better understand the world and improve the quality of life for all people,” said Mr. Gallagher. In mid-February, he traveled to interview for a dream position as a tenure-tracked faculty member at a university where he’d get to lead a lab dedicated to understanding Alzheimer’s disease. When he returned home, however, he learned that amid the current funding turmoil, the hiring process had been put on hold. I couldn’t cut it as a researcher. And that’s precisely what the system is meant to do — weed out the individuals who don’t have the motivation to meet the challenges and keep competing with others. Young scientists are driven by a passion to imagine what is possible, by dreams of turning very idiosyncratic obsessions into something that stands some glimmer of a chance to change the world or, at the very least, contributes to that goal. Though that passion has been fractured, it still lives in America’s young scientists. They want to imagine a better world, and they want to pursue that dream here in the United States. If the country’s leadership continues with its plans, however, we will see the brightest minds of the next generation disappear with their dreams.
This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Judges are starting to restrain Donald Trump and Elon Musk, doing the work the legislative branch and activists seem unable to muster. The number of rulings pushing back against the President’s barrage of executive actions keeps climbing, as courts have halted plans to shut down congressionally authorized agencies, transfer transgender women in the prison system to male-only prisons, and offer unfunded buyouts to millions of federal employees. Judges were even working on it over the weekend, with one issuing an emergency order early Saturday to temporarily restrict Elon Musk’s team from access to the highly sensitive Treasury Department’s payment system. At least 40 lawsuits are rushing the legal system to oppose some aspects of the administration's efforts. Brian Schatz was counting on all of this. The senior Senator from Hawaii has emerged as one of Democrats’ standout fighters in the first three weeks of the second Trump era, thanks in part to his meeting the moment with hair-on-fire passion while still stressing a steady-as-she-goes long view. Schatz is working off a playbook that assumes the courts, remade over the last two decades to be decidedly right-of-center, will stick to the law as the mainstream legal community has long interpreted it. “I’m not here to suggest that people shouldn’t be alarmed,” he told The New Yorker. “I think they should be alarmed, but I also think that one of Trump’s great advantages is that he’s a very effective bluffer. And most of this stuff is going to cause a ton of damage, but will eventually be found to be illegal.” It’s lost on few in Washington that Schatz is having a moment. As many Democrats in Congress have struggled to respond to the fire hose of disruption—at times seeming downright doddering in response to the White House’s potential upending of the constitutional order—the 53-year-old Schatz has helped his party find their footing. Yet even Schatz understands his form of The Resistance is only nibbling at the edges. “There’s very little we can do but to scream about it and cause delays at the margins,” Schatz told New York last week. He pointed to Senate Democrats recently refusing to give Republicans a unanimous go-ahead on a procedural vote. The net cost: “all of 12 minutes” of delay. “So people need to understand there is no magic button called ‘courageously obstruct,’” he said. Schatz’s background as a former aid worker in Africa is proving especially apt for this moment, making him possibly the most effective spokesman for the pushback against Trump’s assault on foreign aid, despite some prominent Democrats arguing it’s a fight their party should concede. Even then, Schatz is stressing that the center will hold thanks to the resiliency of the courts. "A stable world means a stable America,” Schatz said a week ago in front of the headquarters of the U.S. Agency for International Development, doing his level best to buck-up soon-to-be-fired employees who at that point had only been abruptly locked out of their office. “They are counting on some sense of inevitability. This is a bluff. It is a harmful, dangerous, killer bluff. But they don't have the law on their side." That was last Monday. On Friday, workers riding a cherry-picker removed the signage outside of U.S. AID at the precise spot where Schatz had delivered his pep talk. They also put wide black tape over U.S. AID’s name on signposts around the headquarters, effectively vanishing it from the map. And then that very afternoon, a district judge nominated by Trump in 2019, blocked the administration’s plan to put 2,200 U.S. AID employees on administrative leave and withdraw nearly all of the agency’s workers from overseas. The ruling was to allow the court to hear arguments from the administration and unions representing many of the agency’s workers about the legality of shutting down an agency authorized by Congress. Yet even if Trump doesn’t get to, as Musk crowed, feed “U.S.A.I.D. into the wood chipper,” the agency’s work and reputation has still been damaged. And the fact that desperately needed food and medicine has been made into a political football says as much about this moment as anything. And of course, it’s worth remembering, it’s only been three weeks. Which is why so much of Washington is looking to the courts as the bulwark against Trumpism’s total domination. But assuming the judiciary knocks down the administration’s most disruptive efforts—no sure thing—there’s still the fear that Trump might barrel forward with what a judge expressly told him he could not do. At that point, the debate over whether we’re in the midst of a constitutional crisis will be over. So, for now, plugged-in players in D.C watch as a far-flung coalition of anti-Trump forces look to obstruction as a tool but not an answer, and hold to the belief that judges can curb most of the President’s overreach.
Houthi-run Al Masirah TV said the strike was one of the deadliest since the U.S. began its attacks on the Iran-backed militants in Yemen. U.S. strikes on a fuel port in Yemen killed at least 58 people, Houthi-run Al Masirah TV said, one of the deadliest since the United States began its attacks on the Iran-backed militants. The United States has vowed not to halt the large-scale strikes begun last month in its biggest military operation in the Middle East since President Donald Trump took office in January, unless the Houthis cease attacks on Red Sea shipping. Al Masirah TV said 126 people were also wounded in Thursday’s strikes on the western fuel port of Ras Isa, which the U.S. military said aimed to cut off a source of fuel for the Houthi militant group. Responding to a Reuters query for comment on the Houthis’ casualty figure and its own estimate, the U.S. Central Command said it had none beyond the initial announcement of the attacks. “The objective of these strikes was to degrade the economic source of power of the Houthis, who continue to exploit and bring great pain upon their fellow countrymen,” it had said in a post on X. Since November 2023, the Houthis have launched dozens of drone and missile attacks on vessels transiting the waterway, saying they were targeting ships linked to Israel in protest over the war in Gaza. They halted attacks on shipping lanes during a two-month ceasefire in Gaza. Although they vowed to resume strikes after Israel renewed its assault on Gaza last month, they have not claimed any since. In March, two days of U.S. attacks killed more than 50 people, Houthi officials said.
