President Donald Trump on Thursday said he told Apple CEO Tim Cook that he doesn’t want the tech giant to build its products in India, taking shots at the company’s moves to diversify production away from China and urging him to pivot stateside. “I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday,” Trump said. “I said to him, ‘Tim, you’re my friend, I’ve treated you very good. You’re coming here with $500 billion, but now I hear you’re building all over India. I don’t want you building in India.’” Trump was referencing Apple’s commitment of a $500 billion investment in the U.S. which was announced in February. Apple has been ramping up production in India with the aim of making around 25% of global iPhones in the country in the next few years, as it looks to reduce reliance on China, where around 90% of its flagship smartphone is currently assembled. “I said to Tim, I said, ‘Tim, look, we’ve treated you really good, we’ve put up with all the plants that you built in China for years, now you’ve got to build us. We’re not interested in you building in India, India can take care of themselves ... we want you to build here,’” Trump said. The U.S. president added that Apple is going to be “upping” its production in the United States, without disclosing further details. CNBC has reached out to Apple for comment. Trump made the comments about the U.S. tech giant while discussing Washington’s broader trade relations with India. Trump said India is “one of the highest tariff nations in the world,” adding the country has offered a deal to the U.S. where “they’re willing to literally charge us no tariff.” Trump was referencing Apple’s commitment of a $500 billion investment in the U.S. which was announced in February. Apple has been ramping up production in India with the aim of making around 25% of global iPhones in the country in the next few years, as it looks to reduce reliance on China, where around 90% of its flagship smartphone is currently assembled. “I said to Tim, I said, ‘Tim, look, we’ve treated you really good, we’ve put up with all the plants that you built in China for years, now you’ve got to build us. We’re not interested in you building in India, India can take care of themselves ... we want you to build here,’” Trump said. The U.S. president added that Apple is going to be “upping” its production in the United States, without disclosing further details. CNBC has reached out to Apple for comment. Trump made the comments about the U.S. tech giant while discussing Washington’s broader trade relations with India. Trump said India is “one of the highest tariff nations in the world,” adding the country has offered a deal to the U.S. where “they’re willing to literally charge us no tariff.” Under the White House’s trade protectionist policies revealed in April, Trump has imposed a so-called reciprocal tariff of 26% on Indian goods, which has been temporarily lowered until July. Apple’s main assembly partner in India, Foxconn, received approval from the Indian government on Monday to build a semiconductor plant in the country in a joint venture with HCL Group. Apple has spent decades building up its supply chain in China, but has looked to other countries like Vietnam and India to expand its production capacity. Experts generally agree that moving production of the iPhone to the U.S. would be highly unlikely because of the final price of the end product. Varying estimates put the cost of an iPhone between $1,500 to $3,500, if it were made in the U.S. Apple currently makes very few products in the U.S. The Cupertino, California, giant produces the Mac Pro in the U.S. In February, it announced it would launch a manufacturing facility in Texas to produce servers for Apple Intelligence, its artificial intelligence system.

As the new head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is now in charge of disbursing $35 billion a year, the largest amount of funding for biomedical research in the world. That is, if he continues the NIH’s support of the research that has been behind many medical breakthroughs, including mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Bhattacharya emerged during the pandemic as a critic of the government and its response, and gained notoriety for claiming that federal health officials were assessing the risk of the pandemic all wrong. He argued that masking and lockdowns were misguided policies fueled by a skewed analysis of only the most severe COVID-19 cases among people who were hospitalized or died. As the new head of NIH, it’s likely similar questioning of how data is interpreted will permeate the types of grants the Institutes will fund; the day after he was confirmed as NIH’s new director, according to some NIH employees, they received an email asking for a comprehensive list of contracts exhibiting censorship and misinformation, listing the dangers of COVID-19 and not wearing masks as examples.

The revelation that top Trump Administration officials used an encrypted messaging app to discuss sensitive military operations set off an escalating battle in the Capitol on Tuesday, as lawmakers suggested significant national security protocols may have been breached and pushed for further investigation. Lawmakers from both parties are now calling for the full exchange to be released after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified on Tuesday that no classified information was shared in the Signal group chat, which had mistakenly included a journalist. The Signal chat, which reportedly included Vice President J.D. Vance, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, has raised concerns that the Trump Administration is not taking the security of sensitive national security deliberations seriously enough. The chat came to public attention after The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed on Monday that he had been accidentally included in the discussion. In his article, Goldberg quoted discussions in the chat about an active military operation, but omitted information he described as relating to weapons packages, strike timing, and target details for an active military operation—the March 15 U.S. air assault on Yemen’s Houthi militants. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, tells TIME that Goldberg should release the messages in their entirety in light of what Trump officials testified to at Tuesday’s hearing. “Yes, especially since they said there’s nothing classified, which is absurd on its face, because you have disputes between senior policy leaders about a potential military attack,” Warner says. “The CIA would give an arm and a leg to get that on China and Russia… Trump officials are saying ‘There’s no problem here.’ Well, let’s see.” The White House has downplayed the controversy, with President Trump himself claiming there “was no classified information” shared on the Signal chain. Republican lawmakers have largely aligned with the Administration’s stance, viewing the concerns as politically motivated attacks. Still, some Republicans expressed unease after Tuesday’s hearing, and said they hoped to see more information. “Well, I think we need to find out what the facts are,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, tells TIME. “The Intel committee will look and see if it meets the definition of classified information.” Pressed on whether resignations should be expected if the messages did meet the definition of classified information, he hedged: “I don’t know. We’ll find out.” Others were even more reluctant to discuss anyone involved in the chat facing any consequences. Sen. Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas and chair of the Senate Intelligence panel, refused to comment when asked by TIME if National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth should be fired if classified material was sent over the unsecured platform—a possible violation of federal law. Sen. James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma who is on the Intelligence Committee, outright rejected the idea of calling for resignations even if the messages contained classified information. “No, I would say, first off, way ahead of knowing what was actually there,” Lankford told TIME on Tuesday. “Second, this is an internal conversation among the White House team, and many of those folks are people that work directly for the President at his pleasure. So they don't work for me. They work for the President.” Lankford also dismissed calls for Goldberg to publish the full text of the messages, saying, “No, I think that he should use his best judgment on that.” Asked whether releasing the messages would help with fact-finding, he responded, “I have no idea, honestly, because internal conversations are internal conversations.” During Tuesday’s hearing, Gabbard and Ratcliffe repeatedly insisted that the group chat did not contain classified information. But under scrutiny from Democratic Senators, their answers became increasingly nuanced. While Gabbard initially deflected about her participation in the chain, she later said that no information under the direct purview of the intelligence community was discussed. Ratcliffe also attempted to shift responsibility, arguing that it was up to the Department of Defense to determine classification standards and that “Signal is a permissible work-use application” for the CIA. Signal is often recommended for use by privacy advocates because of its encrypted messaging, but it is generally not considered secure enough for national security issues. Goldberg reported that some of the messages in the Signal group were set to disappear after one week, and some after four. Democrats found the responses from Trump officials unsatisfactory. Sen. Angus King, independent of Maine, pressed Gabbard on what would have happened if details about military targets and strike sequencing had been made public the morning before the attack in Yemen took place. She declined to answer directly, saying she would defer to the National Security Council and the Pentagon on whether targeting information should have been classified. “You’re the head of the intelligence community,” King said. “You’re supposed to know about classifications.” The broader political implications of the controversy are also coming into focus. For years, Republicans have fiercely criticized past administrations for alleged mishandling of classified materials. “I would imagine if you looked at what those Senators had to say about Hillary's emails, you’d see a pretty striking contrast,” Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, told TIME, referring to the years of unrelenting attacks from Republicans over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while in the Obama Administration. Despite these calls for accountability, Republican leaders have shown little appetite for aggressive oversight. Not one Republican Senator on the Intelligence Committee asked Gabbard or Ratcliffe about the chat scandal during Tuesday’s open hearing. Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi, confirmed to CNN that his committee would look into the matter but provided little details. “If we can't unite around national security, if we can't unite about this kind of careless behavior…” Warner told TIME, “I think there will be concerns [from Republicans] but they’ve got to be moved from private concerns to public concerns.” Goldberg remains at the center of the storm, as Warner and other Democrats call on him to release more of the conversation he was inadvertently let in on. Doing so could provide clarity on whether the chat was the reckless breach of national security protocols critics argue it was. At the Senate hearing on Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel refused to say that Goldberg would not be held legally liable if he decided to publish the full messages. “I'm not going to prejudge the situation, and that legal call is ultimately for the Department of Justice,” he said.

As Americans prepare to spring forward on Sunday, some might dread the looming loss of an hour of sleep. In fact, over half of U.S. adults now oppose daylight saving time, according to a recent Gallup poll—and the reason might be backed by science. Experts say the time change does more than just make the mornings a little tougher, it impacts our health. Read More: How Daylight Saving Time Could Change Under Trump “The spring time change leads to society-wide sleep deprivation,” says Jennifer Martin, former president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and professor of medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Advertisement A big impact While losing an hour of sleep might not sound like a major change, Martin says it has a big impact on our health—in large part because most Americans are already not getting enough sleep. “Many Americans are already chronically sleep deprived or suffering from sleep disorders,” she says. “This extra disruption amplifies any of the symptoms that they're already having.” The time change also brings with it other adverse health impacts due to changes in our circadian rhythm. “Our circadian rhythm is our internal clock, and it is very tightly linked to the 24 hour day,” Martin says. “[Daylight saving] actually alters the relationship between our internal clock and the external environment.” Read More: Daylight Saving Time Makes No Sense Anymore Moving to daylight saving time means that our circadian rhythms are no longer aligned with rising and setting of the sun—and that impacts our health. “When we're on Standard Time, the daylight hours are more closely aligned with our circadian rhythms,” says Martin. That changes when the clocks spring forward: “When we shift to daylight saving time, it's dark later in the morning, and that is not good for our overall health and well being.”

Before being confirmed as the head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on March 25, Dr. Marty Makary was an influential critic of the medical establishment, targeting hospitals on patient safety and criticizing the necessity of vaccine mandates. His book Blind Spots, published in Sept. 2024, became an instant New York Times bestseller and asserted that groupthink has plagued mainstream research on health and medicine. The Johns Hopkins pancreatic surgeon has continued this contrarian streak as FDA Commissioner, even as his agency battles low morale after losing around 3,500 workers—about 20% of the staff—to layoffs. Now, he is questioning whether the FDA will approve COVID-19 vaccines for next winter; requiring Novovax to run another clinical trial for its updated COVID-19 vaccine, a version of which has been out since 2022; and asking food companies to cut Red Dye No. 3 faster than planned. “Under this administration, we are prioritizing the Gold Standard of Science—not what saves pharma companies ‘tens of millions of dollars,’” he wrote, on a post on X, about the Novovax clinical trial.