After you’ve competed in gymnastics for nearly every year of your life, and earned more world and Olympic medals than any other gymnast in history, what do you do? “My life is easy, it’s chill, and I’m not mad about it,” says Simone Biles, who competed in her third Olympic Games, bringing home four medals—three gold and a silver—from Paris. All eyes were certainly on Biles at the Games, and she delivered, performing a spectacularly difficult vault that no other female gymnast uses in competition. “It is wild now that I think about it,” she says, reflecting on the difficulty, and danger, of that vault. “I was 27 years old doing a Yurchenko double pike—maybe I’m crazy!” But even as the world’s attention was on her, her own focus was decidedly inward. At the Tokyo Games in 2021, after a scary vault in the opening team event where Biles lost her orientation in the air in what gymnasts call the twisties, she made the difficult—and controversial—decision to withdraw from that event and nearly all of her remaining ones. That included the all-around, in which she was the reigning Olympic champion, a title she was widely expected to defend. She didn’t fully appreciate it then, but the twisties were a physical warning sign of the stress and pressure that had been building around her from shouldering the world’s expectations. “I neglected my mental health,” she says. “I was like, ‘it’s just a couple more months, then another couple more months, and then I can get help.’” Biles took two years off from competing before starting to train again for her third Olympics—but this time on very different terms. “The only reason I came back for Paris was because of the mental work I had put in following Tokyo, and getting myself more comfortable and confident enough to compete again.” That included seeing a therapist, which Biles continued to do while competing in Paris, and acknowledging that she needed support from her family and friends. Her decision to compete in Paris was a way to both celebrate the help she received and, she says, “prove that it worked. It was a personal choice for me so I could be the best version of myself. At the end of the day, the gymnastics is the easy part—I can do that, and I’ve known I can do that. At this point it was making sure that my mental [side] was in tune with everything else.” Advertisement She took a different approach leading up to last summer’s Games—prioritizing therapy, strengthening her family support, which now included her husband Jonathan Owens, NFL’s Chicago Bears safety, and granting very limited interviews so she could keep all of the hype and expectations surrounding her Olympic comeback at bay. Her decision in Tokyo to prioritize her mental health and step back from competing has become a rallying cry of sorts for other young people, from well-known athletes to teens who have found strength in her vulnerability. “It makes me happy that people can feel honest with themselves and the people around them who care about them,” she says of the precedent she set in showing it’s acceptable to admit when you’re struggling, and to ask for help, no matter how famous you are, or where you are when you need it. “They should know that they deserve that help. It just shows the strength in numbers—you are the strongest you can ever be when you’re vulnerable enough to say ‘listen, I need help.’ It makes me really, really happy that people are able to stand up and speak for themselves.” Advertisement Finding that voice was particularly challenging for Biles and other elite gymnasts for decades, since the national training structure that groomed them for the Olympics required rigorous monthly camps where they were separated from their families, and discouraged them from speaking out or even admitting they were injured. That culture enabled widespread sexual abuse of dozens of gymnasts, including Biles and many of her teammates, by the national team doctor, which went on for years. Along with some of her teammates, Biles testified to Congress questioning the FBI’s handling of the abuse reports, and she and other gymnasts have also called for both USA Gymnastics and the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee to be held accountable for allowing the abuse to occur. Thanks to the bravery of Biles and other gymnasts, more athlete safety protocols are now in place, and both organizations have made additional mental health support and services available for Olympic-level athletes who may be struggling. In Paris, Biles says the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee “made it very known that there were people on site to help us if we need anything mentally. That’s been a change over the past few years.” During the Games, she continued to talk to her therapist from home even while competing, calling in for sessions before every major event in the Olympic schedule. “It made a difference to make me more comfortable and it was what I thought I needed,” she says of the regular sessions. That comfort translated into a confidence that drove her to earn a second all-around title, help Team USA win the team gold, and collect a gold and silver in the individual events. Will she be back on the mats for the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028? “I have to decide by 2027 if I want to compete,” she says. “I am getting a little bit older, but never say never.” Advertisement Whether or not she returns for a fourth Olympics, Biles has already assured her place in gymnastics and Olympic history as the most decorated gymnast ever. But it will likely be what she did, and continues to do, off the floor to prioritize mental health that truly makes her the "Greatest Of All Time."

A slow-moving storm brought deadly flooding to Oklahoma on Wednesday, shutting down roadways and sweeping away cars. Parts of Oklahoma and Texas were expected to see more rain on Thursday that could cause more flash flooding, the National Weather Service warned, after several inches of rain fell in both states. One man was killed in Pottawatomie County in Oklahoma, the sheriff’s office said, after it received a report of a vehicle that had been swept off the road. A deputy sheriff tried to rescue the man, according to the sheriff’s office, but “was caught in a powerful current and became trapped in a life-threatening situation.” The deputy was transported to the hospital, and the man died at the scene, the sheriff’s office said. In neighboring Lincoln County, an 86-year-old woman from Prague, Okla., died after her vehicle entered into high water and was swept away, said Sarah Stewart, an Oklahoma Highway Patrol spokeswoman. Another passenger in the car, a 58-year-old woman, survived after the Prague Fire Department rescued her, Ms. Stewart added. Parts of central and southern Oklahoma received up to eight inches of rain on Tuesday and Wednesday, with up to six inches falling in parts of Texas. The National Weather Service said areas in southwestern Oklahoma and across the Red River into Arkansas were expected to receive more than an inch of rain, and some spots just north of the river could get over two inches on Thursday. Rainfall could come down at a rate of one to two inches per hour, which would easily overwhelm the already soaked ground. The heaviest rain was expected on Thursday evening and overnight, according to forecasters. Flooding forced road closures in at least 32 counties in Oklahoma on Wednesday, the state’s department of emergency management said Wednesday evening. “Though the water has receded on some of the roadways, the condition of the infrastructure of the roads due to wash outs will need to be inspected for your safety,” Lincoln County’s emergency management department said. Oklahoma’s Highway Patrol warned drivers to avoid floodwater: “Be careful driving if you have to get out. Reduce your speed. And always remember — don’t drive into standing water.” More thunderstorms could bring large hail and more flash flooding to Oklahoma and North Texas throughout the day and night on Thursday, according to forecasters. Storms were expected to continue into Friday, with the risk of flooding spreading farther south and east, especially across central and northeastern Texas, southeastern Oklahoma, central and southern Arkansas and northwest Louisiana, forecasters said. The Weather Prediction Center warned that the region along Interstate 35 between Austin and San Antonio would be especially vulnerable because its terrain and soil does not absorb water well. The interstate was shut down briefly near Oklahoma City on Wednesday because of flooding, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol said. The storms follow severe weather this week in Pennsylvania, where about 240,000 people were still without power on Thursday morning, according to Poweroutage.us. Those storms claimed four lives. The severe weather in Oklahoma and Texas was expected to clear on Friday, but the respite may be brief. Another storm system will approach from the west next week. “Texas and Oklahoma have to get ready for more rounds of heavy rainfall,” said Peter Mullinax, a meteorologist with the Weather Prediction Center. “They’re going to be expecting more rain as we head into the next week again.”

The U.S. Department of Education announced on April 21 that the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) will restart its student debt collections on May 5. The announcement marks the first time in five years that the federal government may penalize Americans who fall behind on their student loan payments. Part of that penalization includes the resumption of “involuntary collections,” which can lead to the garnishing of wages. According to the announcement, borrowers will begin receiving collection notices through the U.S. Treasury Offset Program before any further action is taken. “The Department will also authorize guaranty agencies that they may begin involuntary collections activities on loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program,” per the press release. There is the disclaimer, though, that “all FSA collection activities are required under the Higher Education Act and conducted only after student and parent borrowers have been provided sufficient notice and opportunity to repay their loans under the law.” Involuntary collections are “one of the harshest consequences borrowers can face when federal student loans fall into default,” says Ken Ruggiero, co-founder and CEO of Ascent Funding, an education loan provider. This occurs typically after 270 days, or close to nine months, of missed payments. “It’s an aggressive, automated system that often catches borrowers off guard and deepens their financial hardship,” says Ruggiero. “In addition to the financial hardship, the student borrower is often embarrassed when their employer is notified and then implements wage garnishments.” What can be withheld under involuntary collections? Through involuntary collections, the government can garnish wages, withhold tax refunds, and seize portions of Social Security checks and other benefit payments to go toward paying back the federal loan. According to the Treasury Department, for those who have defaulted on their federal loans, the Treasury Offset Program can withhold to 100% of federal tax refunds, up to 15% of federal salaries, up to 15% of Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits, up to 25% of federal retirement payments, 100% of payments to vendors, and 100% of travel payments for federal employees. Wage garnishment, which the Education Department’s announcement said will begin late in the summer, is when your loan holder can order your employer to withhold up to 15% of your disposable pay to collect your defaulted debt, without taking you to court. What have Trump officials said about involuntary collections? Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal in conjunction with the announcement of collections restarting, in which she articulated the department's outlook. “Borrowers who don’t make payments on time will see their credit scores go down, and in some cases their wages automatically garnished,” she wrote. “Why? Not because we want to be unkind to student borrowers. Borrowing money and failing to pay it back isn’t a victimless offense.” Jonathan Collins, assistant professor of political science and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, says that though this is a pre-2020 system, there is a difference here with the Trump Administration. “Usually standard practice for the federal government is to work with the borrowers, and if there are issues with repayment, they usually grant forbearance periods, and you can apply for extension on forbearance periods,” Collins says. “But, what [The Trump Administration is] trying to do is get rid of, if not drastically reduce, the amount of people who are in this forbearance zone.” What can student borrowers do to avoid involuntary collections? Experts’ main advice is to be proactive and act now. “All of the responsibility is on the borrower,” says Nicholas Hillman, professor in the school of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. But there are options out there for borrowers. Ruggerio suggests that those struggling to meet payments should explore an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan, with the intention of reducing their monthly payments in accordance with their income and family size. “The window to get out of default through options like consolidation or rehabilitation is still open—waiting until collections begin only limits your options,” he says. On Feb. 18, 2025, a federal court issued a new injunction preventing the Department of Education from implementing the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. But other repayment programs remain available, including the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) program and the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan. Hillman recommends navigating through the federal loan servicers to identify who your loan servicer is, and then contacting said federal loan servicer for further information. Collins adds that in order to do this, borrowers must first make sure that their loans were federally supplied, rather than serviced through the private sector. This way, borrowers can have a clear idea of where their loan stands. Khandice Lofton, counsel at the Student Protection Borrower Center (SPBC), recommends that borrowers look at the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), which has a toolkit that provides information for how borrowers can seek consolidation or rehabilitation—two ways borrowers can get out of default by either making payments or consolidating their loans. Furthermore, Lofton also recommends looking into legal and political modes of protesting the way in which the Trump Administration is continuing the student federal loan collections. “What we're pushing right now is for every borrower to take steps to reach out to their elected officials. Why? Because these officials [are] now responsible for helping them get engaged in government programs,” she says. Understanding the timeline of student loan relief over the last few years Part of the confusion related to involuntary collections, experts say, relates to both the pause on student loan collections and repayments brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic—a pause which occurred from March 2020 until September 2023, as well as the efforts by former President Joe Biden to grant student loan forgiveness—attempts that were struck down at the courts and differ from President Donald Trump and his Administration. Still, federal student loan repayments began again in Oct. 2023, though the Biden Administration gave one year as an “on ramp” for borrowers to transition back to repayments, notes Hillman. For that one year—from Oct. 1, 2023 until Sept. 30, 2024—the records of student borrowers who missed monthly payments would not be considered delinquent, nor would the individuals be reported to credit bureaus, sent to collections, or referred to the Treasury Offset Program. But after Sept. 30, 2024, Hillman says the “ramp was closed, and it's sort of business as usual”—a return to the 2020 repayment system. And now, starting May 5, major consequences may be felt by around 9.7 million borrowers who are past due on their bills since the end of the relief period, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But, the confusion regarding these systems, Hillman argues, means that many Americans may have defaulted on their student loans without fully understanding the consequences. This is exacerbated as Biden’s SAVE program makes its way through the courts and Republicans propose to overhaul the repayment plans, all while the Trump Administration attempts to dismantle the Department of Education, which houses the FSA. “It’s so confusing for borrowers,” says Lofton. “Borrowers should understand this isn't their fault, and they shouldn't be forced to pay the price for this dysfunction that's going on right now.” Lofton also argues that the Trump Administration's commitment to restarting collections is misaligned with the affordability arguments upon which the President campaigned. “This could not have come at a worse time where things right now are so uncertain, financially and economically, and during a time where borrowers are already struggling to pay for things like rent, groceries, medical bills, just day to day life,” Lofton says. The important thing to remember, Hillman notes, is that student loan borrowers who have found themselves in limbo are not alone. “You have like a third of borrowers who are current, they're making payments. You have a third of borrowers who are either in some sort of deferment or forbearance … and the other third are either going for or [already] in default,” Hillman says. "It's massive, because the loan repayment system is fundamentally broken.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report on Thursday, May 1, aiming to discredit gender-affirming-care and instead encouraging transgender and nonbinary individuals to try “exploratory therapy”—or psychotherapy—and stating that mental health care alone is a way to treat gender dysphoria in children. “There is a dearth of research on psychotherapeutic approaches to managing gender dysphoria in children and adolescents. This is due in part to the mischaracterization of such approaches as ‘conversion therapy,’ the report said. “Psychotherapy is a noninvasive alternative to endocrine and surgical interventions for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria.” Though the report argues that this “exploratory therapy” is not the same as the long practice of “conversion therapy”—which is a practice of attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—advocates see little difference. “This report not only rejects health care best practices for transgender people, it goes a step further by recommending conversion therapy, though under a new, rebranded name, ‘exploratory therapy,’” said Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the LGBTQ+ advocacy group the Trevor Project, in an emailed statement. “Despite the report’s claims, this is, in fact, the same harmful practice of conversion therapy, just using friendlier language. We urge this Administration to respect and support people for who they are—and to let families and doctors make decisions based on what keeps people healthy, not government ideology.” The report arrives following a Trump Executive Order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which threatens to cut federal funding to hospitals and medical providers that provide gender-affirming-care to people ages 19 or younger. The Executive Order directed HHS to release a report on the existing literature for treatment for children with gender dysphoria in 90 days, which fell on April 28. The language used in the report expresses a shift in policy and in sentiments regarding gender-affirming care—referring to the practice only as “Pediatric Medical Transition” and referring to “gender confirmation surgery” as “sex reassignment surgery.” This shift is in line with language brought about by Trump’s Jan. 20 Executive Order which proclaimed that there are only two sexes and that gender identity is “disconnected from biological reality,” calling for an erasure of the term. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the order—and though the order hasn’t fully been enforced, some federal offices, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, issued notices stating that they will change their practices to comply with Trump's restrictions on gender-affirming-care. Conversion therapy aims to alter someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It has been proven to be ineffective and harmful to LGBTQ+ people, and it can include a wide variety of practices. "Endorsing this kind of therapy is devastating,” says Shannon Minter, vice president of legal of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Being gay, being transgender is not a choice. No amount of talking or persuasion or any kind of counseling can change that.” Gender-affirming-care is supported by the major medical associations in the U.S., including the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association. Meanwhile, conversion therapy has been discredited by numerous medical associations. As the Trump Administration ushers in an era of anti-trans policy at the federal level, Supreme Court cases could also dictate LGBTQ+ rights. In March, the nation’s highest court announced it would be hearing oral arguments for Chiles v. Salazar, which challenges Colorado’s conversion therapy ban under the premise that it infringes on free speech. A decision for U.S. v. Skrmetti—expected in June—will decide whether gender-affirming-care bans for minors are unconstitutional. “Those cases just raise the stakes of the issue even higher and create really maximum danger for transgender young people,” says Minter. “Worst-case scenario would be for the Supreme Court to uphold state laws banning essential medical care for these young people, and then turn around and strike down state laws protecting LGBTQ+ youth from conversion therapy. That would be a devastating double blow.” A 2022 report estimated that there were some 300,000 transgender youth ages 13 to 17 in the U.S., according to UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute. Trump’s Executive Order on gender-affirming-care also called for investigations into this type of health care in sanctuary states, stating that medical professionals were “maiming… impressionable children.” Trump also declared April as “National Child Abuse Prevention Month,” and in his proclamation stated that he is “taking action to cut off all taxpayer funding to any institution that engages in the sexual mutilation of our youth.” More than 500 anti-LGBTQ+ bills were introduced on the state level for the 2025 legislative session, per the ACLU’s legislative tracker. In Kentucky, legislators voted to overturn their existing conversion therapy ban, legalizing the practice in the state. Attacks on gender-affirming-care have been much more rampant in recent years, as 26 states have passed laws limiting access to such care for trans and nonbinary people, according to the Human Rights Campaign. “This isn't about us as doctors. This is about our patients and ensuring that they continue to get the science-based, evidence-based, standard-of-care medicine that really keeps them whole and healthy,” says Dr. Morissa Ladinsky, an academic general pediatrician at Stanford Medicine who treats children with gender dysphoria. Ladinsky was named as a plaintiff in Ladinsky v. Ivey, a 2022 lawsuit against an Alabama law that criminalizes parents for allowing their children to access gender-affirming-care. (The case was later taken down and another lawsuit against the Alabama law was filed.) Experts and advocacy organizations warn of the detrimental effects of conversion therapy. A peer-reviewed study conducted by the Trevor Project in 2020 found that young LGBTQ+ people who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report attempting suicide compared to those who did not. Nearly half of all U.S. states ban the controversial practice, though attempts to ban it at the federal level have never proven fruitful. A 2023 Trevor Project report found that conversion therapy still happens across the country. Two years ago, there were at least 1,300 practitioners believed to be still offering the practice in the U.S.

On the hierarchy of healthy beverages, seltzer bubbles up to the top. Research has found that sparkling water (another name for seltzer) is just as hydrating as still water, and the human body absorbs it the same way. After all, seltzer is little more than plain water infused with carbon dioxide gas to make it fizzy. “Seltzer or carbonated water is generally beneficial because we are all underhydrated, and most people do not hydrate sufficiently during the day,” says Dr. David Poppers, a professor of medicine and director of GI quality and strategy initiatives at NYU Langone Health. “It’s hydrating, and it doesn’t have the calories that are associated with other drinks.” Advertisement So for those who prefer seltzer over still, it’s fine for most people to drink it regularly. But there are some caveats. Here’s what you need to know before you start subsisting off of seltzer. It may irritate your bladder For most people, it won’t have this effect. But if you have interstitial cystitis (a chronic condition that causes pain and pressure in the bladder area), or an overactive or sensitive bladder, “the carbonation in seltzer can potentially irritate the bladder lining and exacerbate symptoms like urgency or discomfort,” says Dr. Dana Cohen, a physician specializing in integrative medicine in New York City and co-author of the book Quench: Beat Fatigue, Drop Weight, and Heal Your Body Through the New Science of Optimum Hydration. The best way to tell if this is happening to you is to pay attention to your urinary symptoms after drinking seltzer.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a report on Thursday, May 1, aiming to discredit gender-affirming-care and instead encouraging transgender and nonbinary individuals to try “exploratory therapy”—or psychotherapy—and stating that mental health care alone is a way to treat gender dysphoria in children. “There is a dearth of research on psychotherapeutic approaches to managing gender dysphoria in children and adolescents. This is due in part to the mischaracterization of such approaches as ‘conversion therapy,’ the report said. “Psychotherapy is a noninvasive alternative to endocrine and surgical interventions for the treatment of pediatric gender dysphoria.” Advertisement Though the report argues that this “exploratory therapy” is not the same as the long practice of “conversion therapy”—which is a practice of attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—advocates see little difference. “This report not only rejects health care best practices for transgender people, it goes a step further by recommending conversion therapy, though under a new, rebranded name, ‘exploratory therapy,’” said Casey Pick, director of law and policy at the LGBTQ+ advocacy group the Trevor Project, in an emailed statement. “Despite the report’s claims, this is, in fact, the same harmful practice of conversion therapy, just using friendlier language. We urge this Administration to respect and support people for who they are—and to let families and doctors make decisions based on what keeps people healthy, not government ideology.” Read More: Is Conversion Therapy the New Frontier for Anti-LGBTQ+ Groups? The report arrives following a Trump Executive Order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which threatens to cut federal funding to hospitals and medical providers that provide gender-affirming-care to people ages 19 or younger. The Executive Order directed HHS to release a report on the existing literature for treatment for children with gender dysphoria in 90 days, which fell on April 28.

For thousands of years, people have waited on karma to catch up with their good behavior—or promised it would roll around for anyone who crossed them. The lure of karmic thinking is that if you do good things, positive outcomes will rain down on you, while the opposite is true for those who don’t uphold the same standard of morals. In other words: You reap what you sow. “It’s a fairly common belief—at least the general idea that there’s a bigger force outside of human beings, like a cosmic force that ensures that in the long run, good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people,” says Cindel White, an assistant professor of social and personality psychology at York University in Toronto who has long studied karma. Despite the fact that so many people subscribe to this supernatural belief system, researchers still don’t know a lot about it, including “how that belief looks in their daily life, how they feel about it, and how they think about it,” she says. Advertisement That’s why, in a study published May 1 in the journal Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, White and her colleagues investigated how people’s psychological motivations drive their beliefs about karma. They found a rather self-serving distinction in exactly how those views play out: Across populations, when people think about their own karma, it tends to be quite positive. But when they consider how karma affects others? Well, let’s just say there are a lot of people who had it coming. The enduring draw of karma The concept of karma is rooted in the worldview of many Asian religious traditions, like Hinduism and Buddhism, but it’s also become prevalent in other places, including nonreligious communities. In the last couple years, it’s saturated pop-culture: Taylor Swift, Chappell Roan, and JoJo Siwa, among other artists, all released karma-themed songs. In Swift’s tune, she compares good karma to everything from her boyfriend to a cat purring in her lap because it loves her. “Karma's a relaxing thought,” she croons. “Aren't you envious that for you it's not?”

This week marks 100 days since President Donald Trump took office for a second term. In that time, Trump has made several moves that affect abortion and reproductive health care access across the country. Within his first month in office, Trump acted quickly on a number of issues related to reproductive health. He pardoned several anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law intended to protect abortion clinics and patients by barring people from physically blocking or threatening patients. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said it would be curtailing prosecutions against people accused of violating the FACE Act. The Department of Defense rescinded a Biden-era policy that helped facilitate travel for active service members and their families to obtain certain reproductive health care services, including abortion. Internationally, the Trump Administration’s freeze on foreign aid halted reproductive health care services for millions of people. Trump also reinstated what’s known as the Mexico City Policy or the Global Gag Rule, a policy often implemented by Republican presidents that prohibits foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing or discussing abortion care. Since February, the Trump Administration has taken additional actions that have limited or threatened access to reproductive health care. Here’s what else Trump has done on reproductive health care in his first 100 days—and what reproductive rights advocates fear could happen next. The Administration dropped a Biden-era lawsuit seeking to protect access to emergency abortions In March, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit it had inherited from the Biden Administration. The original lawsuit was about a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies before discharging or transferring them, whether or not the patient is able to pay. The Biden Administration had argued that emergency abortion care is required because of EMTALA, and that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicted with the federal law. The state of Idaho has rejected that claim. Advertisement Branded Content XPRIZE at the 2025 TIME100 Summit: Making the Impossible, Possible By XPRIZE The Trump Administration dropping the lawsuit would have allowed Idaho to fully enforce its near-total abortion ban, even in medical emergencies. But the state’s largest health care provider, St. Luke’s Health System, had filed its own lawsuit a few months earlier in anticipation of the Trump Administration dropping the case, and a judge temporarily blocked Idaho from fully carrying out its ban. Abortion rights advocates condemned the Trump Administration's decision to drop the lawsuit. Amy Friedrich-Karnik—director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health—says the case was, at its core, about protecting people’s access to “life-saving care” in the most urgent situations. The Administration froze Title X funding for 16 organizations On April 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began withholding Title X funding from 16 organizations. Enacted in 1970, Title X is the country’s sole federally funded family planning program. The program, which does not fund abortion services, allocates more than $200 million a year for clinics that provide birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and other health care services for people from low-income households. HHS said it was withholding funds from the organizations in the Title X program “pending an evaluation of possible violations” of federal civil rights laws, and the President’s Executive Order that said undocumented immigrants are prohibited “from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.” The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), a membership organization for family planning providers, and the American Civil Liberties Union have sued the Trump Administration over the freeze. According to NFPRHA, the freeze is threatening about $65.8 million in Title X funds, potentially affecting more than 840,000 patients. Reproductive rights advocates have said the freeze would prevent some of the most vulnerable community members from accessing a range of health care services. “When you go after Title X for contraceptive access, there’s a ripple effect across all types of reproductive health care,” Friedrich-Karnik says. Mass layoffs at HHS On March 27, HHS announced that it would reduce its staff from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees—about 10,000 from layoffs and an additional 10,000 from staffers who retired or resigned. Included in those cuts was eliminating “the majority of employees” in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) reproductive health division, according to the legal advocacy group Center for Reproductive Rights. A team at the CDC focused on compiling data on abortion access—including the number of people getting abortions and what methods they choose—has been eliminated, according to Shannon Russell, federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “It really stymies efforts to understand the impact of state abortion bans in the aftermath of [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization],” Russell said during a press briefing. The staff working on the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), which collected data on maternal and infant health, was cut. The team working on the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System, which provided patients with information about options such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), was also eliminated. “This is really hampering HHS’s efforts to ensure that people are getting quality, essential reproductive health care and that they know their options,” Russell said. What experts anticipate could happen next Experts are waiting to see what actions the Trump Administration will take on mifepristone, a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for abortion use more than two decades ago. Years of research have proven that the drug is safe, but anti-abortion groups have tried—so far unsuccessfully—to challenge it in court, and during his confirmation hearing, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Trump has expressed an interest in launching further research into mifepristone. Russell said the Center for Reproductive Rights also anticipates that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will seek to limit abortion care. In March, the VA submitted for review an interim final rule regarding reproductive health services; the details of the rule have not been publicized, but abortion rights advocates fear that the rule will reinstate the VA’s previous abortion ban, repealing a Biden-era policy that had allowed VA medical facilities to offer abortion counseling and abortion care to veterans and their beneficiaries in certain situations. Friedrich-Karnik says the Trump Administration could withhold additional Title X funds or place restrictions on grant recipients, as the Administration did during Trump’s first term. She adds that the DOJ may continue to take an anti-abortion stance in various cases, such as declining to prosecute protesters accused of violating the FACE Act. Trump’s actions on reproductive rights have drawn support from anti-abortion activists. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement that Trump “set the bar for a pro-life president” in his first term, and applauded the actions he’s taken within the first 100 days of his second term. In March, Trump said that he would be known as the “fertilization president,” and the New York Times reported last week that the White House has been evaluating ways to convince women to have children. But Russell criticized the Trump Administration for offering what she called “sweepstakes style incentives” to encourage people to have children without implementing policies to ensure that people have the support and resources they need to do so, while curtailing access to reproductive health care. “They have made it more dangerous to be pregnant,” Russell said, “and they've done nothing to ensure that people who want to grow or build their families are able to do so more affordably and more accessibly.”

The White House has announced measures aimed at reducing the cost of cars for U.S. consumers, easing the effect of tariffs on imported cars imposed by the Trump Administration. "It's a little bit of help," President Trump, who will mark his first 100 days in office during a rally in Michigan, told reporters Tuesday. "We just wanted to help them enjoy this little transition, short-term." In late March, Trump announced a 25% tariff on all imported automotive goods into the U.S. which went into effect on April 3. Trump had also declared tariffs on steel and aluminum, which are key materials for auto production. The measures announced on Tuesday mean that these tariffs will not be additional to the 25% rate on cars, a White House spokesperson said, easing potential production costs for U.S. manufacturers. A further 25% tariff on imported car parts is still set to go into effect on May 3, but there are expected to be some reimbursements to reduce the impact for consumers. Read more: What Are Tariffs and Why Is Trump In Favor of Them? In a statement to Reuters, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said: "This deal is a major victory for the President's trade policy by rewarding companies who manufacture domestically." Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the President will later be signing an executive order in relation to these expected measures. Without further details not yet outlined, it will likely focus on encouraging manufacturers to move operations to the U.S. in order to avoid tariff costs. What will this mean for consumers? Car dealerships in the United States have warned about the potential impact of auto tariffs on their businesses, and the need of passing costs on to the consumer. After the widespread imposing of global tariffs on April 3, automakers quickly responded with temporary job cuts, halting car shipments to the States, and expected price increases. For a number of international car manufacturers, the U.S. market makes up a large portion of their global sales. In 2024, 39% of international sales for Honda were in the U.S. For Nissan, Porsche and Kia, the U.S. made up 28% of their international sales. With such large portions of the consumer market being U.S. based, the impact of automakers passing on the cost of tariffs could hit American buyers significantly. Economist Arthur Laffer estimated that a 25% tariff on autoparts could add an average $4,711 to the cost of a car in the U.S. How are U.S. car makers responding? For automakers based in the United States, the White House announcement signals optimism. The Trump Administration has put the goal of increasing U.S. production at the center of its reasoning behind tariffs, but domestic companies are likely to still feel the hit of tariffs. Manufacturers including Ford, General Motors and Stellantis will see this as potential respite on higher production costs. An industry report from the Center for Automotive Research estimated that tariffs could cost these three manufacturers $42 billion. In a statement, Stellantis Chairman Elkann said: “While we further assess the impact of the tariff policies on our North American operations, we look forward to our continued collaboration with the U.S. Administration to strengthen a competitive American auto industry and stimulate exports,” General Motors CEO Mary Barra also welcomed the measures from the Trump Administration. She said in a statement: “We believe the President’s leadership is helping level the playing field for companies like GM and allowing us to invest even more in the U.S. economy.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney clinched a narrow win against Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party in Canada’s historic election on Monday night, securing a fourth term for the Liberal Party. The election was framed as a fight against U.S. President Donald Trump and his threats against the country—with all other issues falling by the wayside. Even Carney’s climate background wasn’t enough to put climate action on center stage—one recent poll found that climate change wasn’t among the top 10 priorities for Canadian voters. It’s a big shift from previous elections. “It doesn't really seem like this election was a climate change election,” says Jennifer Winter, professor at the school of public policy at the University of Calgary whose research focuses on climate policies. “The two overriding narratives, have been Trump and U.S. tariffs and its effect on Canada, and then the other predominant narrative is cost of living.” But the Liberal Party’s win means that Canada will likely stay the course on many existing environmental policies—including a zero-emission vehicle sales mandate along with clean electricity and fuel regulations. “In most respects, it is a continuation of a slate of policies that were put in place by the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau,” says Kathryn Harrison, professor of political science at the University of British Columbia. Carney’s career has often straddled the line between the private sector and the climate fight. He became a U.N. Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance in 2019, and in 2021 launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, an initiative aimed at bringing together financial institutions to support the transition to a net-zero economy. His experiences were reflected in many of the Liberal’s campaign proposals, Harrison says. “A couple of the items you see in the platform, [like] that commitment to sustainable investment guidelines, is very consistent with Carney's work as a special envoy,” she says. Carney, however, has vowed to make Canada “an energy superpower”—both in clean energy, as well as oil and gas. Harrison says the shift comes as Canada is looking to distance itself from importing natural resources from the U.S. “He seemed to be envisioning a pipeline that would serve Canada's own oil demand, rather than proposing new pipelines to get more of Canada's oil to the coast or to export it to [other] markets.” Advertisement And after first taking office when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down in March, one of Carney’s first moves was to scrap the country’s carbon tax, a divisive climate policy that placed an added fee on consumers using fossil fuels. The initiative was often blamed for rising costs of living in the country—even though 80% of families received more money in rebates than they paid in the tax. An essential next step for Carney, experts say, will be to find a replacement for the carbon tax. “It opens up the question of if Canada is still going to meet its emissions reduction goals without consumer emissions pricing, and what would replace it,” says Green. “I think this is one of the key things that will be answered in the coming weeks and months after the election.” Some, meanwhile, believe the government needs to think bigger. Canada wasn’t on track to meet emission reduction standards even with the carbon tax, says Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, who notes that the new leadership could provide momentum for Canada to embrace more ambitious policies. “There's a number of policies that need to be improved, that need to be added to the table to get the country back on track for the scale of emission reductions that we committed to under the powers agreement,” says Smith. While much debate has focused on the future of the consumer carbon tax, he recommends Canada instead focuses on solutions with greater potential for reducing emissions, like accelerated methane reduction policies or the creation of a national carbon market. “The question needs to be broadened.”