Schools shuttered early and cities warned of probable power outages, as potentially dangerous thunderstorms threatened the Upper Midwest late Monday afternoon. In northeast Iowa, southeast Minnesota and western Wisconsin, residents were bracing for storms that could bring high winds, tornadoes and hail the size of Ping-Pong balls. The Upper Midwest is accustomed to severe weather, but the high level of risk for very large hail and strong tornadoes caused alarm for state and local officials, who activated emergency operations centers and closed nonemergency city buildings. “We always have severe weather, I guess, in Iowa,” said Superintendent Joe Carter of the Algona Community School District, about two hours north of Des Moines. “I think the difference with this one is the threat of really, really strong stuff, such as tornadoes, and with a Category 4 ranking of severity.” A large area that includes Minneapolis and St. Paul is under a relatively high risk (Level 4 out of 5) for severe weather, according to the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT At least five school districts across north central Iowa announced early closings on Monday afternoon. The Algona Community School District let out classes at 2 p.m. and canceled afterschool track and golf meets so that buses could get students home throughout the 400-square-mile district before storms descended by early evening. In the Twin Cities region of Minnesota, Minneapolis closed some city facilities early Monday afternoon and set in motion a team to try to persuade homeless people to take shelter before the storm arrived. In St. Paul, the school district preemptively canceled afterschool activities. Brennan Dettmann, a local meteorologist at the National Weather Service, said that it was unusual to see such a big storm at this time of year. “All of the hazards that can come with severe storms are on the table,” he said. “We’re expecting that if the line stays organized, you’re looking at more of a threat from wind and hail. But if it breaks into more scattered storms, the threat of tornadoes goes up.” He urged residents to have a plan in place to take shelter in case of an emergency. The Central and Southern Plains are also facing some risk on Monday, particularly across north-central Oklahoma, the Concho Valley and the Rolling Plains of West Texas. In these areas, recent heavy rains have already soaked the ground, increasing the likelihood of flash flooding. An area spread between the Northern Plains and the Upper Midwest may also be at some risk for heavy rains that could lead to flooding. The Quad Cities and the Twin Cities, along with Milwaukee and Madison, Wis., could see isolated flash flooding. Chad Hahn, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Des Moines, said on Monday afternoon that the agency was tracking thunderstorms developing across northwestern Iowa that had already produced baseball-size hail across the border in Minnesota. Forecasters expected the storms to continue east and grow, both in coverage and intensity, over the next several hours. “We expect the potential for very large hail, the potential for tornadoes, some that could be strong, and for damaging winds as they move through,” he said. “So definitely an active night that’s unfolding across the state of Iowa.” In Iowa, Mr. Carter, the school superintendent, said he planned to stay in the office until all buses returned to school property. “When I go home, like everyone, I’ll be making sure everything outside is secure,” he said. “And then it’s kind of a waiting game. We could very well be looking at a situation where we don’t have any severe weather, and that would be great and best for everyone. But we needed to prepare for the worst scenario.”

Changes in memory as you get older—frustrating as they might be—are completely normal. “It might become more difficult to access things as quickly, but you get into that state of, ‘If you give me a couple minutes, or you give me a cue or a clue, then yes, it’ll come back,’” says Dr. Daniel Lesley, a neurologist at Remo Health, a virtual dementia care company. “You aren’t quite as sharp as you were, but as long as you can set up strategies for yourself—like learning to write things down—you can make information much more accessible and know what’s important.” Advertisement We asked Lesley to share what to do the moment you start to feel your memory slipping, and little things you can do every day to keep your brain sharp.

The Trump administration’s swift initial rollout of orders seeking more control over universities left schools thunderstruck. Fearing retribution from a president known to retaliate against his enemies, most leaders in higher education responded in February with silence. But after weeks of witnessing the administration freeze billions in federal funding, demand changes to policies and begin investigations, a broad coalition of university leaders publicly opposing those moves is taking root. The most visible evidence yet was a statement last week signed by more than 400 campus leaders opposing what they saw as the administration’s assault on academia. Although organizations of colleges and administrators regularly conduct meetings on a wide range of issues, the statement by the American Association of Colleges and Universities was an unusual show of unity considering the wide cross-section of interests it included: Ivy League institutions and community colleges, public flagship schools and Jesuit universities, regional schools and historically Black colleges. “We speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education,” the statement said. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Although it contained no concrete action, and what’s next was unclear, the collective stance reflected a group more galvanized than ever to resist. “When we are teaming up with higher ed across the board, it’s more than just about what the elite think,” Richard K. Lyons, chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview after the school signed on. “At some level, that really disparate, wide-angle, wonderful group of colleges and universities that signed the message, I find quite heartening.” Another signatory, Brian Sandoval, president of the University of Nevada, Reno and a former Republican governor of the state, said he was not viewing the statement through a political lens. “I’m concerned about what we’ve seen and what we’re experiencing,” he said. The joint statement from university leaders, many of them energized by Harvard’s confrontation with the Trump administration, emerged even after higher education associations and a handful of universities filed lawsuits fighting cuts to funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Energy Department. And heads of colleges had been talking and meeting with one another more frequently than they had since the Covid-19 pandemic, with some engaged in discussions in Washington. The Association of American Universities, an exclusive trade group that counts the nation’s most powerful schools among its 71 members, is meeting there this week, its first gathering since President Trump’s inauguration. The meeting is not open to the public, but it could end up as a strategy session about how to address the administration’s moves, including its investigations of campus antisemitism, diversity programs and admissions practices and its attempts to control what is taught in classrooms.Those actions stem from the administration’s desire to punish institutions it says have inadequately addressed antisemitism and indoctrinated students with liberal viewpoints. Boards of major education groups have been speaking more frequently. “A day doesn’t go by that there’s not an email that goes out,” said Mr. Sandoval, a member of the board of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. “There’s a lot of communication.” One president of a private university, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy, said on Wednesday that he and other university leaders were on Capitol Hill a lot more than they used to be. When asked whether additional lawsuits will be filed against the Trump administration, which next week will pass its 100th day, several university presidents contacted by The New York Times declined to make predictions or referred to secret contingency plans. The group statement grew out of discussions among presidents and other academic leaders, and an urgent concern among many of them that leaders were not speaking out against the White House, said Lynn C. Pasquerella, who heads the group that wrote the statement. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “We decided to see whether there was a will for collective action,” she said. Dr. Pasquerella, a former president of Mount Holyoke College, added that many leaders were getting pressure from their campuses to say something. The organization convened two virtual listening sessions, attended by 193 college and university leaders, to gauge the group’s interest. The statement that was agreed on is far from radical, focusing on opposition to “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live and work on our campuses,” but it was significant in that it represented an unusually broad consensus among the disparate members. At first, the statement had only 100 signatures. Support grew as university leaders sensed strength in numbers, Dr. Pasquerella said, adding that one university president signed and then asked to be removed after receiving pushback. While most of the signers are from blue states, some represent red state colleges, such as Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss., the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., and Talladega College in Alabama. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Many other red-state presidents have not joined the effort. “I saw absolutely no upside — none,” said the leader of a private university in a Republican-led state who also asked to remain anonymous about the private discussions and has, even previously as a faculty member, been skeptical of petition drives. The official, skeptical that one additional signature would prove decisive, added, “I don’t think a petition is going to change the mind of the president, his administration or anybody in Congress.” And the official sensed a potential downside: angering the White House. That fear is real for many schools, said Wesleyan University’s president, Michael S. Roth, who also signed the statement. He has been a vocal critic of the administration’s actions affecting universities and recently participated in a “Hands Off” protest near the school’s campus in Middletown, Conn. He said he was not surprised that some universities had turned down the opportunity to sign. “This administration is very ready to exact retribution on its foes,” Dr. Roth said. “I asked a lot of people to sign, and many people said: ‘I can’t sign. I’m afraid.’”

On the eve of Canadians gearing up to vote in a federal election, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed President Donald Trump’s previous comments about making Canada the “51st state.” During an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, April 27, host Kristen Welker questioned Rubio on whether or not the State Department has “taken any steps to carry out” Trump’s plans “as he has said, to annex Canada.” “What the President said, and he has said this repeatedly, is he was told by the previous Prime Minister [Justin Trudeau] that Canada could not survive without unfair trade with the United States, at which point [Trump] asked, ‘Well, if you can't survive as a nation without treating us unfairly in trade, then you should become a state,’” Rubio said. Sorry, the video player failed to load.(Error Code: 101102) When asked if the U.S. still wants to make Canada the 51st state, Rubio responded with: “I think the President has stated repeatedly he thinks Canada would be better off as a state.” Rubio’s comments come after a back-and-forth between Canada’s former Prime Minister Trudeau and Trump about how Canada should deal with the pressures felt by Trump’s tariffs. Canada has also countered with a 25% tariff on goods imported from the U.S. Trump has repeatedly said both on social media and to reporters that Canada could become the 51st state of the U.S. When asked in the Oval Office by reporters in February if there was anything Trudeau could “give” to Trump amid ongoing tariff discussions, Trump reiterated that as a state, there would be no tariffs on the country. “What I’d like to see; Canada become our 51st state,” Trump said. “If people wanted to play the game right, it would be 100% certain that it would become a state.” Canada's current Prime Minister Mark Carney has also spoken out on Trump's persistent comments about annexing Canada. He said Trump raised the matter during a phone call in March. Speaking at a campaign press conference, Carney said: "To be clear, as I've said to anyone who's raised this issue in private or in public, including the President, it will never happen. In an April 22 interview with TIME, Trump doubled down on his previous statements and said he was “really not trolling” about making Canada the 51st state, arguing that America doesn’t “need anything from Canada.” “We’re taking care of their military. We're taking care of every aspect of their lives, and we don't need them to make cars for us. In fact, we don't want them to make cars for us. We want to make our own cars. We don't need their lumber. We don't need their energy. We don't need anything from Canada,” Trump said. “And I say the only way this thing really works is for Canada to become a state.” Trudeau—who announced his plans to step down in January as Canada’s Liberal Party leader—has previously told lawmakers and business leaders to take the threat of annexation seriously, with several outlets reporting that at a Canada-U.S. Economic Summit in Toronto in February, Trudeau suggested that Trump wants access to Canada’s critical minerals. “Mr Trump has it in mind that the easiest way to do it is absorbing our country and it is a real thing," he said. As mentioned, Rubio’s new comments land a day before Canada’s April 28 federal election, which could see a new leader in place for negotiations about tariffs with the United States. Trump’s comments have weighed heavily on the Canadian elections thus far, with the Liberal Party utilizing a Canadian wave of nationalism that has resulted from the ongoing trade concerns. The country’s next leader could decide the fate of Canada’s critical relationship with the U.S. and how that will look moving forward. “They're going to have a new leader. We'll deal with a new leadership in Canada,” Rubio said. “There are many things to work cooperatively with Canada on, but we actually don't like the way they treated us when it comes to trade, and the President has made that point when he responded to the previous Prime Minister.”

President Trump and his wife, First Lady Melania, were among the key world figures to attend Pope Francis’ funeral at St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City on Saturday, April 26. Trump joined dozens of heads of state to bid farewell to the leader of the Catholic Church, who died on April 21, at the age of 88, after a series of complicated health issues. But ahead of taking his seat for the service, Trump had a brief meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The two met on the sidelines of the funeral, before proceedings began. It was their first in-person meeting since their highly-documented Oval Office showdown in February, which saw the two world leaders clash when discussing the Ukraine-Russia conflict. According to White House communications director Steven Cheung, Trump and Zelensky ”met privately… and had a very productive discussion." Serhii Nykyforov, Zelensky’s spokesperson, added that the meeting lasted for around 15 minutes. The office of President Zelensky shared a picture of the meeting via social media. Trump and Zelensky can be seen sitting opposite one another on two chairs in a marbled room, with the U.S. President leaning in to listen as the Ukrainian leader speaks. Trump also posted images of the meeting on his Truth Social account. Taking to his own social media profile some time later, Zelensky shared an update about his sit-down with Trump, characterizing it as a "good meeting." "We discussed a lot one-on-one. Hoping for results on everything we covered. Protecting lives of our people. Full and unconditional cease-fire. Reliable and lasting peace that will prevent another war from breaking out," Zelensky said. "Very symbolic meeting that has potential to become historic, if we achieve joint results." The Trump-Zelensky sit-down comes shortly after Trump delivered a rare public rebuke of Russian President Vladmir Putin, with whom he has typically enjoyed a strong relationship. Taking to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Thursday, April 24, Trump called out Russia’s leader over a deadly attack on Kyiv, Ukraine. “I am not happy with the Russian strikes on Kyiv. Not necessary, and very bad timing. Vladimir, STOP! 5000 soldiers a week are dying. Let’s get the Peace Deal DONE!,” he wrote. Zelensky has typically received strong support from his fellow world leaders since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. On Saturday, when he entered St. Peter’s Basilica to take his seat for Pope Francis’ funeral service, Zelensky was met with a round of applause from the public, with thousands gathered outside the proceedings to pay their respects to the Pontiff. Although Trump had previously said that he would end the war in Ukraine on the first day of his second term in the White House, the conflict rages on. In a sit-down interview with TIME on April 22, Trump answered whether he felt peace was possible if Putin is still President of Russia. “I think with me as President, there’s—possible, if [a] very probable [chance],” Trump said. “If somebody else is President, no chance.” Trump went on to say: “I believe I'm the only one that can get this thing negotiated. And I think we’re a long way. We've had very good talks, and we're getting very close to a deal. And I don't believe anybody else could have made that deal.” However, Trump shared a vastly different sentiment on Saturday, April 26, when he returned to Truth Social in the hours following Pope Francis' funeral. Trump expressed doubt that Putin wants to end the war in Ukraine, and hinted at sanctions against Russia. "There was no reason for Putin to be shooting missiles into civilian areas, cities, and towns, over the last few days," Trump said. "It makes me think that maybe he doesn’t want to stop the war, he’s just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through 'Banking' or 'Secondary Sanctions?' Too many people are dying!"

One of the nation’s most elite liberal arts schools, Amherst College has historically also been one of its most diverse. In 2023, federal data revealed that its overall Black enrollment, 11 percent of the student body, far outstripped many other similar institutions. So it was particularly jarring to the Amherst community last fall when data for the entering freshman class revealed that only 3 percent of its members were Black. Quincy Smith, an art major, joined one of the most diverse classes in Amherst history in 2022 and said gatherings of Black students feel different now: “There’s less engagement, fewer people coming to our meetings and going to events.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT At Amherst, a college of about 1,900 undergraduates in western Massachusetts, students and administrators alike are now uneasy as the idea of diversity, one of the school’s core values, is increasingly under attack by conservatives in Washington.Across the country, highly selective universities and their students were already trying to reckon with the demographic shifts caused by a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2023, when the court banned the use of racial preferences in college admissions. Some schools saw only minor changes in their enrollment makeup, according to an analysis by The New York Times. But at others, including Amherst, Black and Hispanic enrollment declined sharply last fall — the first class affected by the new ruling — with Amherst experiencing one of the steepest drops. Hispanic enrollment in Amherst’s freshman class dropped to 8 percent last fall, compared with 12 percent a year earlier.The Trump administration is trying to use that Supreme Court case to increase the pressure on universities to eliminate diversity efforts. It is promising to punish schools it believes might be circumventing the decision. The moves have added to the tension at schools like Amherst as they try to avoid legal challenges, but also face faculty, students and alumni urging their school to fight back.Conservatives argue diversity efforts meant to boost Black, Hispanic and other groups have resulted in discrimination against Asian and white students, the contention that formed the crux of the Supreme Court case. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” the Supreme Court said in its decision. Despite the decision, Michael A. Elliott, Amherst’s president, said the school’s 200-year-old mission, which emphasizes educating students from all backgrounds, has not changed.“My goal is to be able to execute our mission and to do so in a way that’s in compliance with the law,” Dr. Elliott said in a telephone interview.Amherst was one of the first highly selective colleges to eliminate legacy preferences, which tend to favor white students. It was also the lead author of a brief in the Supreme Court case arguing for the “educational benefits of a diverse student body and the societal benefits of educating diverse future leaders.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT In the brief, Amherst argued that eliminating race-conscious admissions would “have a drastic resegregating impact” and predicted it could lose about half its enrollment of Native American, Black and Hispanic students. Since that prediction largely came true, many at Amherst are concerned that fewer Black and Hispanic students on campus will make it less attractive to those groups, prompting a cycle of further declines. Marllury Vizcaino, a freshman from Washington Heights, in Manhattan, said she was the only Black student in her required first-year seminar last fall, and one of only two Black students in her chemistry class. “I didn’t feel like I was welcome because I didn’t really see students who looked like me,” Ms. Vizcaino said, adding, “I can’t really talk about it without getting upset.”Bryce Dawkins, a senior from Oakland, Calif., majoring in English and Black studies, said that diversity attracted her to Amherst. “When I was applying to college, I was looking at Amherst particularly because the number of Black students was so high,” she said. During a book talk on campus in October, one of Amherst’s notable Black alumni, the professor and writer Anthony Abraham Jack, said he felt a deep sadness over the changes. “I just can’t tell you how hard of a walk it was when the numbers came out,” said Dr. Jack, a 2007 graduate who teaches today at Boston University and grew up in a low-income household in Miami. “The place that changed my life and the place that I love, probably more than any other, is hurting.” Concern about the numbers frequently comes up in faculty meetings and alumni gatherings; at the Charles Drew house, a dorm for Black students named for the pioneering Black physician; and at the Multicultural Resource Center, a gathering place for students of color. The campus newspaper, The Amherst Student, described diversity as the “ever-present backdrop” during a visit by 130 prospective students last fall.Since its freshman class demographics were disclosed, Amherst has been working to reverse the decline in Black and Hispanic students while still complying with the law. (When international students are included, this year’s freshman class was 9 percent Black, but that number declined from 19 percent last year.) Colleges are no longer allowed to consider applicants’ race after the Supreme Court decision. So highly selective schools are seeking students who are the first to attend college in their family, visiting communities in rural areas and expanding financial aid for low-income students. Amherst added four people to its recruitment team, who traveled a broad swath of the country to find students who might help the school yield a more diverse class. Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi were on the list. So was Texas’ Rio Grande Valley. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT On March 21, Amherst announced that it had offered admission to 1,175 students. Ninety-six are from rural regions, an increase of 37 percent from last year. Amherst said it did not have a racial breakdown for the newly admitted students, but Matthew L. McGann, Amherst’s dean of admission and financial aid, said that a quarter of the students would be the first in their family to attend college, a school record. Dr. Elliott said he believed that more than one factor was at play in last year’s demographic shift, and pointed out that the school’s small size amplifies percentage changes. And he is optimistic about the incoming class. “We’re really encouraged by what we see so far,” he said.Applicants must accept by May 1, and it is hard to say how many will say yes. Many schools, including those in the Ivy League, are competing for the best and brightest students from racial minority groups. “The largest number of students who say ‘no’ to Amherst, end up in New Haven at Yale and other places like that,” Dr. McGann said in an interview. He acknowledged that there were also declines in the number of Black students offered admission last year, adding that one year is not enough to suggest a trend. Dr. Jack said he believed that Amherst may have been more careful than many other schools in using measures, such as high school grades, to select its class. “It felt like there was a conversation about trying not to get sued,” said Dr. Jack, a professor of higher education leadership. Conservatives have only intensified their scrutiny of schools in recent weeks. The Justice Department announced last month that it would investigate admissions policies at four California universities. And Edward Blum, an activist who is the driving force behind the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court case, has said he is examining school data for evidence of “cheating.”Mr. Blum has said that his effort to end affirmative action is inspired by the work of Martin Luther King Jr., arguing that “an individual’s race and ethnicity should not be used to help them or harm them in their life’s endeavors.” In an interview, Jeffrey Wright, the Amherst alum and actor who starred in the 2023 film “American Fiction,” a satire on how the publishing industry stereotypes race, characterized Mr. Blum’s reference to Dr. King as “the most egregiously cynical thing that I’ve heard in a long time.” Mr. Wright, who was recently on Amherst’s campus speaking at a literary event, sees Mr. Blum’s work as part of a movement to roll back civil rights, reminiscent of the Jim Crow era. In recent months, Amherst leaders have held a flurry of meetings with campus constituencies, trying to reassure them that they are working to prevent resegregation. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT After attending one such meeting with the Black Student Union, Zane Khiry, a senior from Avenel, N.J., and a former officer of the group, said he remained skeptical. “They had a choice between prizing diversity and playing it safe. They chose to play it safe,” he said.

The Trump administration on Friday abruptly moved to restore thousands of international students’ ability to study in the United States legally, but immigration officials insisted they could still try to terminate that legal status despite a wave of legal challenges. The decision, revealed during a court hearing in Washington, was a dramatic shift by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even as the administration characterized it as only a temporary reprieve. The back and forth only contributed to the anxiety and confusion facing international students as the administration has moved to cancel more than 1,500 student visas in recent weeks. On Friday morning, Joseph F. Carilli, a Justice Department lawyer, told a federal judge in Washington that immigration officials had begun work on a new system for reviewing and terminating the records of international students and academics studying in the United States. Until the process was complete, he said, student records that had been purged from a federal database in recent weeks would be restored, along with their legal status. A senior Department of Homeland Security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the students whose legal status was restored on Friday could still very well have it terminated in the future, along with their visas. The changes on Friday came amid a wave of individual lawsuits filed by students who have said they were notified that their legal right to study in the United States was rescinded, often with minimal explanation. In some cases, students had minor traffic violations or other infractions. But in other cases, there appeared to be no obvious cause for the revocations. Upon learning that their records had been deleted from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS, scores of students have sued to preserve their status, producing a flurry of emergency orders by judges blocking the changes by ICE. “We have not reversed course on a single visa revocation,” said Tricia McLaughlin, a Homeland Security Department spokeswoman. “What we did is restore SEVIS access for people who had not had their visa revoked.” It was not clear how many student visa holders have left the country to date after their records were deleted; facing the prospect of arrest, at least a handful have left before risking deportation. But the Trump administration had stoked panic among students who found themselves under threat of detention and deportation. A handful of students, including a graduate student at Cornell, have voluntarily left the country after abandoning their legal fight. Editors’ Picks Hey ChatGPT, Which One of These Is the Real Sam Altman? 36 Hours in Rome Is There a Least Bad Alcohol? “It is good to see ICE recognize the illegality of its actions canceling SEVIS registrations for these students,” said Charles Kuck, an immigration lawyer who led a separate lawsuit over the revocations. “Sad that it took losing 50 times. What we don’t yet know is what ICE will do to repair the damage it has done, especially for those students who lost jobs and offers and had visas revoked.” Judges reviewing the lawsuits so far have shown significant doubt that the abrupt changes to scores of students’ legal status are lawful, especially given the haphazard and often seemingly arbitrary way the administration has proceeded. In March, the Trump administration moved to cancel visas and begin deportation proceedings against a number of students who had participated in demonstrations against Israel during the wave of campus protests last year over the war in Gaza. Federal judges had halted some of those revocations and slammed the brakes on efforts to remove those students from the country. But in recent weeks, many students received word that their records had been deleted from the SEVIS database. That caused a wave of panic across the country among students and academics whose prospects of finishing a degree or completing graduate research were upended without warning. By Friday evening, the government had already started moving to dismiss lawsuits over the SEVIS deletions, arguing that the administration’s policy change had made them unnecessary, since deleted records would be restored. Other lawsuits, including a potential class action involving a number of states in New England, have moved forward, seeking to stop the administration from more broadly from carrying out further mass cancellations. Another case out of Massachusetts, focused on instances where students were targeted over their speech in support of Palestine, a group has sued to prevent the administration from seeking to remove international students on First Amendment grounds.

A coalition of 19 states sued the Trump administration on Friday over its threat to withhold federal funding from states and districts with certain diversity programs in their public schools. The lawsuit was filed in federal court by the attorneys general in California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota and other Democratic-leaning states, who argue that the Trump administration’s demand is illegal. The lawsuit centers on an April 3 memo the Trump administration sent to states, requiring them to certify that they do not use certain diversity, equity and inclusion programs that the administration has said are illegal. States that did not certify risked losing federal funding for low-income students. Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, said at a news conference on Friday that the Trump administration had distorted federal civil rights law to force states to abandon legal diversity programs. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “California hasn’t and won’t capitulate. Our sister states won’t capitulate,” Mr. Bonta said, adding that the Trump administration’s D.E.I. order was vague and impractical to enforce, and that D.E.I. programs are “entirely legal” under civil rights law. The Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday evening. The administration has argued that certain diversity programs in schools violate federal civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs that receive federal funding. It has based its argument on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling ending the use of race in college admissions, arguing that the decision applies to the use of race in education more broadly. The administration has not offered a specific list of D.E.I. initiatives it deems illegal. But it has suggested that efforts to provide targeted academic support or counseling to specific groups of students amount to illegal segregation. And it has argued that lessons on concepts such as white privilege or structural racism, which posits that racism is embedded in social institutions, are discriminatory. The lawsuit came a day after the Trump administration was ordered to pause any enforcement of its April 3 memo, in separate federal lawsuits brought by teachers’ unions and the N.A.A.C.P., among others.Mr. Bonta said that the lawsuit by the 19 states brought forward separate claims and represented the “strong and unique interest” of states to ensure that billions of federal dollars appropriated by Congress reach students. “We have different claims that we think are very strong claims,” he said. Loss of federal funding would be catastrophic for students, said Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, an adversary of President Trump who previously won a civil fraud case against him. She noted that school districts in Buffalo and Rochester rely on federal funds for nearly 20 percent of their revenue and said she was suing to “uphold our nation’s civil rights laws and protect our schools and the students who rely on them.”

It didn’t take long for Elon Musk’s political advocacy and work in the Trump Administration to erode Tesla’s position as America’s uncontestable electric vehicle leader. As left-leaning consumers and outraged moderates complained about his crusade to remake the U.S. government, Tesla’s car sales declined in the first quarter of 2025 from the previous year. And, on Tuesday, the company reported a 71% decline in net income for the same period. All of this has been reflected in a share price that has declined more than 40% since its peak last December. Not too long ago, Tesla’s struggles would have been seen as a warning sign for broader EV takeup—and the push for decarbonizing transportation more broadly. The company was the first in the U.S. to market an electric car with mass appeal and remains the biggest purveyor of such vehicles stateside. But the bigger picture has evolved: the success of EVs is no longer tethered to Tesla’s success. EV sales in the U.S. increased year-over-year for nearly every other automaker. In Europe, Volkswagen’s EV sales overtook those of Tesla, making the German company the continent’s top EV producer. Globally, Chinese automaker BYD was the best selling EV brand in the first quarter. Projections vary, but analysts still expect EV deployment to continue at pace—in the U.S. and around the world. Tesla forged the path to EVs, but it may not be the leader that takes the U.S. all the way to an electric future. Just from looking at the numbers, it would be easy to roll your eyes at the suggestion that Tesla has lost any of its prowess. Despite the decline in sales, the company remains far and away the biggest seller of EVs. And, at the time of writing, it has a formidable financial position with a market cap of $880 billion—worth more than 20 times the Ford Motor Company. “The future of the company is fundamentally based on large-scale autonomous cars and large-scale, large volume, vast numbers of autonomous humanoid robots,” Musk said on the earnings call. But there’s more to Tesla’s market cap than EVs. On the company’s earnings call this week, Elon Musk and other senior executives did discuss the planned release of a new, lower-priced model, but much of the focus centered on plans for autonomous vehicles and AI-powered robots. Indeed, its valuation, which is more than 140 times its earnings, can in large part be interpreted as a bet that the company will have new technology breakthroughs beyond just selling EVs. Advertisement Meanwhile, the picture for other automakers is complicated, to say the least. Many have pulled back on their EV ambitions, nixing some of the most ambitious plans for new factories amid evolving consumer sentiment and political whiplash in the U.S. as the new administration pulls back supportive policies. Even still, legacy automakers continue to roll out new models to fight for market share—including a range of lower-priced EVs aimed at attracting less wealthy consumers. Chevrolet, Ford, and Rivian all have models coming down the road aimed at the middle of the market—and do so without the political baggage that Musk has attached to Tesla. Globally, Chinese EVs have entered new markets at a price point well below those of any Western manufactured cars. There’s no question that the path ahead remains complicated for EV deployment—and decarbonization of the transport sector. But, for the first time, looking to Tesla may not provide such a representative view. Advertisement To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter here.

After weeks of courtroom battles, student protests, and escalating pressure from universities and federal judges, the Trump Administration has reversed a sweeping effort that jeopardized the legal status of thousands of international students in the United States. The Department of Justice announced Friday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will reinstate the immigration records of international students whose student visa data had been abruptly terminated, often due to minor or dismissed legal infractions. The decision marks yet another retreat by an Administration that has made hardline immigration enforcement a centerpiece of its second term. The abrupt mass terminations earlier this month, which the American Immigration Law Association estimates impacted about 4,700 students, sent shockwaves through campuses across the country. Students were thrown into legal limbo with no notice, as their records in a system known as SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) were erased. That meant they were technically no longer in the country legally and at risk of detention and deportation. Some were blocked from attending classes or accessing campus resources. Others, already in precarious positions, found themselves detained or forced to self-deport. Judges across at least 23 states issued emergency orders temporarily blocking the government's actions, slamming the move as arbitrary, opaque, and potentially unlawful. Over 100 lawsuits were filed—by students, universities, and advocacy organizations—charging that the terminations violated due process and targeted students without sufficient cause. The Trump Administration’s reversal came just hours before ICE officials were expected to testify under oath in the court challenge. “ICE is developing a policy that will provide a framework for SEVIS record terminations,” a Justice Department attorney said in court Friday, according to Politico, signaling a temporary halt to the practice of revoking records solely on the basis of prior legal encounters. Here’s what to know about what this means for international students in the United States. Who’s still at risk? For many affected students, the path forward remains unclear. The widely publicized cases of Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil, for example, which are both entangled in broader national security and foreign policy debates, reflect the ongoing ambiguity surrounding the Administration’s intent. Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student, was detained in Massachusetts after ICE agents confronted her on the street. Her F-1 visa had been quietly revoked days earlier, allegedly for “activities in support of Hamas,” though her attorneys say the real reason was her outspoken support for Palestinian rights. Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University, faces deportation proceedings following a State Department order stripping him of his green card—a dramatic escalation in a campaign that critics say is as political as it is legal. While the government’s reversal applies to students with “minor” or “dismissed” legal infractions—such as traffic violations or dropped charges—it remains unclear whether cases like Öztürk’s or Khalil’s fall under the Trump Administration’s reversal. ICE retains authority to terminate a student’s record for national security concerns or other violations of immigration law. The State Department, which separately revoked many student visas, did not respond to a request for comment on whether those cancellations are being reversed as well. ICE’s quiet expansion of campus control The origins of the mass terminations of student visas remain murky. Students from across the country have reported learning of their status loss only through school administrators or attorneys. Several said they were never arrested or even aware of any charges. Traditionally, it has been universities, through designated officers, who notify SEVIS of changes in a student’s status. Under the Trump Administration, ICE has begun taking more direct control, in what immigration lawyers describe as a dramatic shift. Though ICE and the State Department have framed the actions as necessary to protect national security and uphold immigration law, critics argue the crackdown fits into a broader pattern: pressuring universities to conform to Administration priorities including limiting political dissent. Just this year, Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned that students engaging in pro-Palestinian activism could face visa revocations for allegedly undermining U.S. foreign policy. The campaign has drawn comparisons to the post-9/11 surveillance of Muslim students and scholars, though with new digital tools.