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.
Canada’s energy minister is angry. Speaking to me while in Houston for CERAWeek, Jonathan Wilkinson described the phases of Canada’s reaction to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and repeated taunting: shock, then hurt, and now anger. “We are resolute in our need to push back,” he says. Wilkinson says that the anger shouldn’t influence his government’s decision making. But, at the same time, no option is off the table—including restrictions on energy and natural resources. Because of the highly-linked energy systems of the two countries, such a move could wreak significant havoc on the U.S. economy. “We would be foolish to take tools out of the toolbox,” he told me. “In the context where there's no negotiation around trying to find a resolution here, certainly, export tariffs on energy remain in that toolbox.” There are many potential energy and climate change implications of the U.S.-initiated trade dispute. In the short term, Canada’s political conversation has been consumed by trade talks—squeezing out space for resolving some of the country’s thorny energy and climate policy debates. In the longer term, a sustained and intensified U.S.-Canada trade spat could lead to more investment in fossil fuel infrastructure in both countries. And, even under a new U.S. administration, this moment will not be forgotten, making it more difficult to build durable partnerships in areas like critical minerals—a key component of the energy transition. “Under the new Prime Minister, Canada remains committed to the fight against climate change,” says Wilkinson, referring to the newly elected prime minister Mark Carney. But “some elements of the climate plan probably have become a little tougher in the context of working with the Trump Administration.” Trump’s tariffs have shocked executives across the corporate world—and the energy industry is no exception. The sector is highly integrated, especially across the U.S.-Canada border. In the U.S. midwest, oil refineries run on crude that flows from Canada. In much of the northeast U.S., Canadian electricity helps keep the lights on. Meanwhile, Canada imports U.S. oil in its eastern provinces. “The integrated nature of the two economies, and in particular of the energy economies… pulling them apart is almost impossible,” says Wilkinson. And yet, nonetheless, Wilkinson says his country will be looking away from the U.S. “Canadians' confidence in their ability to simply rely on the United States to the exclusion of the rest of the world has been shaken.” A key area that may suffer is potential collaboration between the two countries on the critical minerals that will play an essential role in the energy transition. Canada has rich stores of lithium, cobalt, and nickel, among other resources, and had previously worked with the U.S. government to create a North American supply chain for batteries and other clean energy technologies. While Trump is no fan of the energy transition, he has homed in on critical minerals in his push to annex Greenland given the essential role the minerals play in manufacturing, defense, and advanced electronics. “Critical minerals in particular are a potentially useful tool, if we have to go there, given that the alternative sources of supply typically are going to be China, in some cases Russia,” Wilkinson said on March 12. “We're not there yet, and we prefer not to further escalate this at this point.” Advertisement A prolonged, deepened trade rift could push Canada to look more to Europe, South Korea, and Japan to help finance and purchase the product that comes with developing these resources. That would leave the U.S. at a disadvantage and reshape the centers of power in clean technologies. At CERAWeek, an energy conference that draws the world’s biggest players in the industry, some executives chatted about the possibility that Canada might revive plans to build an oil pipeline from the country’s oil producing west to its eastern cities. This would reduce Canada’s reliance on U.S. oil in the east and make it easier to sell Canadian oil domestically. Wilkinson offered deep skepticism, telling me that such a project would face difficult economics and likely require government subsidy. Nonetheless, he said, it could be worth considering on national security grounds should the situation deteriorate further. Advertisement “Presently, there is no one proposing to build a pipeline,” he says. “You could argue that there is an energy security issue, and that is a legitimate conversation… but we should be looking at all available options.” Like with much else tied to Trump Administration policy, it is hard to assess the exact climate implications of this trade rift. At the very least, it’s a distraction for Canada. When I first met Wilkinson last year, we had extensive conversations about the country’s carbon tax and engagement with the country’s Indigenous First Nations to build energy projects. Progress on those issues now feels miniscule in the scheme of things. But, more broadly, it provides a hint of what world may emerge in the wake of Trump’s wrecking ball: less collaboration and clean technology supply chains that don’t include the U.S.
After two years of doing their own back-breaking yard work on their acre-and-a-half property in Cold Spring, N.Y., Renata Kero and her husband were ready to finally give in and spend a few thousand dollars to hire a landscaping company. Then they started re-thinking the purchase, given the uncertainty roiling the economy. Tariffs are being levied and reversed. The federal government is cutting jobs across the country. The stock market is historically volatile. It seemed like any kind of big expenditure was not a good idea. “It feels like the Wild, Wild West every time you open the news,” says Kero, a 45-year-old freelance journalist with a 5-year-old son. "I feel a very real sense of instability and volatility, like who knows what economic pitfalls await us." Families and businesses across the U.S. are pulling back on spending amid President Trump’s trade war and abrupt reversals, including Wednesday’s announcement that he would pause the sweeping reciprocal tariffs he announced just days earlier, while ratcheting up levies against China even higher. As an index that measures economic policy uncertainty spikes, consumer confidence fell for the third straight month in March; it’s down more than 30% from November, according to the University of Michigan Survey of Consumers. Consumer spending fell for the first time in two years in January. Businesses are worrying, too. Delta CEO Ed Bastian said Wednesday that because of “broad economic uncertainty around global trade,” revenue might fall in the current quarter. Bastian predicted a recession might come soon, echoing the words of JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. FedEx lowered its full-year profits and revenue forecasts on March 20, citing “weakness and uncertainty” in the economy. And Warner Bros. Discovery has reportedly advised staff to cancel all “non-business critical” travel due to economic uncertainty. Small-business optimism declined in March, according to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which also said its uncertainty index decreased. New policies have “heightened the level of uncertainty among small business owners,” NFIB chief economist Bill Dunkelberg said in a release. “Small business owners have scaled back expectations on sales growth as they better understand how these rearrangements might impact them.” Uncertainty makes businesses uncomfortable because they don’t know what conditions they will be operating in. Once economic trends and policies are clear, they can adjust. But if those policies keep changing, they can’t respond or plan, so they reduce spending and avoid making major moves until conditions stabilize. Consumers pull back amid uncertainty too, putting off big purchases because they don’t know if they’ll have a job, how mortgage rates will respond to whiplashing policy decisions out of Washington, or what their investment portfolio will look like in a few months. When consumers and companies pull back on spending, GDP turns negative, which leads to a recession. Uncertainty causes “precautionary reductions in spending because of the lack of clarity and difficulty in terms of forecasting where we're going,” says Laura Jackson Young, an economics professor at Bentley University who has studied the economic effects of uncertainty. Trump’s moves have created a moment of acute uncertainty, and Young’s research suggests that makes people and businesses even more cautious. Her work found that when uncertainty is already high, people pay even more attention to “uncertainty shocks”—big changes that cloud the horizon even further. “When everything's okay and we're in tranquil times when nothing's really outlandish, people don't pay as much attention to that uncertain component,” she says. “Whereas in an environment where uncertainty is already pretty high, we're very attentive to something that's going to spike uncertainty, and it has a more pronounced effect.” Businesses are feeling this profoundly. TJ Semanchin runs Wonderstate Coffee, a small coffee roaster in southwest Wisconsin. Semanchin started the year optimistic about the business—he’d just won a prestigious award from a coffee roasting magazine, and hoped to increase sales at his retail locations as well as chains across the country, including Whole Foods, where he sells his product. Now he’s rethinking everything. Coffee prices are already near all-time highs because of climate conditions, and then the beans he imports from countries like Nicaragua were going to be slapped with tariffs so high that his costs would amount to about $20,000 more per shipping container, Semanchin says. Even though Trump has now paused those higher tariffs for 90 days, Semanchin’s worries remain. He’s put off plans to buy a new packaging machine, and is reducing investment for now until the uncertainty clears. “The climate we’re in definitely has me in a more defensive posture,” he says. When businesses and families move into the same defensive posture, it can push the economy into a recession. And when seemingly each day brings sharp new policy shifts, economists—let alone individuals trying to plan household budgets—can’t be sure what to think. The tariff reversal “does very little to resolve the uncertainty,” says Philip Luck, director of the Economics Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. The tariffs might have been “bananas,” he says, but no one can really predict whether they’ll return after 90 days—or even before then. Because of this uncertainty, Kero and her husband decided that they’d once again do their own yard work this year, no matter how miserable it is. She’s not buying a new phone either, even though it’s on its last legs. Summer travel is now out of the question. “We just need to sock away as much as we can,” she says.
A personal situation described in a viral Reddit post has drawn thousands of reactions as a man shared that he will not travel with his brother's children for food-focused reasons. The man wondered if he was wrong "for refusing to travel with my brother's family because his kids only eat junk food." Describing himself as 39 years old, the man said he's "currently undergoing cancer treatment." Once he completes it, he said he's "planning to take a holiday with a friend or family member to travel to the other side of the world." He's based in the U.K., he told others, so he is "thinking Vietnam, South Korea, Japan or somewhere around there where I have never been." The man said he asked his brother, who is 43, to consider going with him on the trip. "He got very excited and said his daughter, age 12, and son, age 8, would also come along." "I know my brother and his wife have tried hard to introduce them to other foods, but they just won't eat it." The Reddit poster added, however, that "they are both incredibly picky eaters — and my niece only eats plain beige foods. She won't even have a burger at McDonald's, just chips and nuggets, and that's pretty much 80% of the kids' diet." Said the man, "I know my brother and his wife have tried hard to introduce them to other foods, but they just won't eat it." The man wrote that while he "loves the kids to bits," he also wants to travel to experience the food culture and that is a major part of it for me. I want to get off the beaten path and experience things in life I haven't been brave enough to experience before." He continued, "For me, selfishly, this trip is about the end of my cancer and celebrating that there is life after cancer. It's also not something I can easily afford." So the man informed his brother — given his desire for the children to travel with them — that he'd now "rather travel with someone else." The brother expressed anger and frustration at this, the man shared, and said he feels "I am being selfish as traveling with his children can also be fulfilling … To make things worse, we live in different countries, so we don't see each other a lot. They will be very disappointed when they learn I have pulled the plug on the plans. I feel conflicted," he added. For further context, the man said that he's "currently having cancer treatment. I only just started. I have grade 3, stage 3 thyroid cancer that has spread … I have chemo now, started first round, and then surgery, then more chemo and then radiation." He said that his planned travel "won't be until late 2026 at the earliest" — and emphasized that he's looking "to go off the beaten path." Some 8,000 people reacted to the drama on Reddit — with the majority firmly deciding the man is not wrong for his decision or for the way he feels. Wrote one of the top commenters, "Traveling with kids would make your trip everything but what you want it to be. Your brother should be more understanding." The same person added, "Trying new food is an adult experience. Not only [because] adults react differently when they don't like something, but also, certain foods are not good for kids … Kids could even be allergic to certain stuff without knowing." Said another person, "You invited your brother, and he assumed his kids were invited, and got them excited. That's on him." "Also, cancer is kind of a big deal," the same individual noted. "Wanting to have a one-of-a-kind experience tailored specifically for you after going through that hell might be selfish, but it's also one of the few times in life where being 100% selfish is the only right choice." Said yet another user on Reddit, "Vacationing with kids is a much different experience than vacation[ing] with adults, and it will make it a very different trip. I'm a mother with two young, picky kids that I love very much. I wouldn't dream of hijacking such an important trip." She added, "Your brother needs to take a step back and think about what this is really all about."
President Donald Trump has doubled down on his highly-criticized plan to accept a luxury Boeing jet from Qatar, claiming that the “free” gift will save the United States money that can instead be spent to “Make America Great Again.” “The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME! It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, late on Tuesday, May 13. Advertisement “Only a FOOL would not accept this gift on behalf of our country,” he added, after stating that the gifted jet—a Boeing 747-8 worth an estimated $400 million—will be used as a “temporary Air Force One” whilst the U.S. waits for its official jet to be ready. Trump further explained his stance during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, which aired on Tuesday night. He said he’s still waiting to receive the Air Force One jet that he signed off on during his first term—a wait he predicts will last another two years—and that Qatar offered to help provide a plane in the interim. He claimed that other countries have far superior planes to the current Air Force One: “We’re the United States of America and I believe we should have the most impressive plane.” "Some people say you shouldn't accept gifts for the country, my attitude is: 'Why wouldn't I accept a gift? We're giving to everyone else,’” Trump argued. “I get nothing, I get to fly it like any other President would," he added, stating the Qatar-gifted jet will be "decommissioned" once the U.S.-ordered Air Force One plane is ready. (Two modified Boeing 747 planes serve as Air Force One.)Of the pre-ordered jet that’s currently under construction, Trump said: “We’re painting it red, white, and blue. Just like the American flag.” Trump’s planned acceptance of this gift has raised legal and ethical concerns from both Democrats and Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday that he would be placing a blanket hold on Justice Department nominees awaiting Senate confirmation until the White House provides a full accounting of the deal. “This is not just naked corruption, it’s the kind of thing that even Putin would give a double take,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts told TIME: “He’s going to turn Air Force One into Bribe Force One. Congress has to be involved with such a clear threat to our national security.” Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also voiced their concerns over the gift from the Qatari royal family, highlighting the security risks of accepting the jet and the potential high costs of checking the Boeing for foreign surveillance devices.
The number of abortions provided in most of the U.S. increased slightly in 2024 from the year before, according to new data released on April 15. The research was conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, which studies and supports sexual and reproductive health and rights. The organization uses both a statistical model and survey responses from providers to estimate the number of abortions provided by clinicians in states without near-total bans for its Monthly Abortion Provision Study. The data released on April 15 show that nearly 1,038,100 abortions were provided in 2024 across all states without near-total bans—a less than 1% increase from 2023 to 2024. Advertisement While that number is relatively steady compared to the year before, researchers noted that the finding “masked substantial variability across individual states,” with some states experiencing significant decreases and others seeing notable increases. For instance, there were roughly 12,100 fewer abortions provided in Florida in 2024 than in 2023, which researchers attributed to the state implementing a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, a policy that went into effect in May 2024. Similarly, South Carolina provided about 3,500 fewer abortions in 2024 than in 2023. Researchers attributed this to the state’s six-week ban, which was upheld by the state Supreme Court in August 2023. At the same time, researchers found that the number of abortions provided in Wisconsin increased from about 1,300 in 2023 to about 6,100 in 2024—an increase of 388%. Abortion access in the state became largely unavailable after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 until late 2023, when a Wisconsin judge ruled that an 1849 law that had been interpreted as a ban didn’t make abortion illegal. Arizona, California, Kansas, Ohio, and Virginia also saw significant increases in the number of abortions provided in 2024 compared to the year before.
