The Trump administration has frozen more than $1 billion in funding for Cornell and $790 million for Northwestern amid civil rights investigations into both schools, two U.S. officials said. The funding pause involves mostly grants from and contracts with the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education and Health and Human Services, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the unannounced decision. The moves are the latest and largest in a rapidly escalating campaign against elite American universities that has resulted in billions in federal funds being suspended or put under review in just over a month. Other schools that have had funds threatened include Brown, Columbia, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and Princeton. Cornell and Northwestern are both facing investigations into allegations of antisemitism and into accusations of racial discrimination stemming from their efforts to promote diversity. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Cornell officials said in a statement that they had received more than 75 stop-work orders from the Defense Department on Tuesday, but that they had no information to confirm that more than $1 billion in funding had been suspended. The affected grants, they said, supported research that they described as “profoundly significant to American defense, cybersecurity and health.” “We are actively seeking information from federal officials to learn more about the basis for these decisions,” said the joint statement from Michael Kotlikoff, the university president; Kavita Bala, the provost; and Robert Harrington, provost for medical affairs. Jon Yates, a spokesman for Northwestern, said that the university had not been notified by the federal government that funding had been frozen. Northwestern, a Big Ten university, is the first non-Ivy League school to have funding from the Trump administration targeted under investigations of alleged discrimination. The university issued a “progress report” last week that highlighted its efforts to protect Jewish students, including mandatory antisemitism training for all students, faculty and staff. “Federal funds that Northwestern receives drive innovative and lifesaving research, like the recent development by Northwestern researchers of the world’s smallest pacemaker, and research fueling the fight against Alzheimer’s disease,” Mr. Yates said. “This type of research is now at jeopardy.”Mr. Yates added that Northwestern had “fully cooperated” with federal and congressional investigations. Linda McMahon, the education secretary, has been explicit about the administration’s focus on elite universities, which Mr. Trump has criticized as bastions of left-wing thought. She has said that taxpayer support is a “privilege” that can be withdrawn if universities do not adhere to civil rights law. Like other universities, Cornell and Northwestern were the site of clashes over the war in Gaza. Cornell and Northwestern were among 60 universities that the Trump administration warned last month of potential enforcement actions over investigations into allegations of antisemitism. Each school also has investigations pending into accusations of racial discrimination. Last month, the Republican-controlled House Education Committee chided Northwestern over legal clinics at its law school that had represented organizers of an anti-Israel protest. University officials have said the legal clinics were providing training for students and were not representing the views of the school. In a letter to the school, Representative Tim Walberg, the chairman of the committee, and Representative Burgess Owens, the chairman of the panel’s subcommittee on higher education, described the training as “illegal, antisemitic conduct.” Cornell also recently defended itself against claims that it was not doing enough to stop antisemitism. In a New York Times opinion essay, Dr. Kotlikoff, the president of Cornell, described the nation’s universities as institutions built to uphold and advance democratic norms even in the face of escalating political and legal risks. “A messy event that turns into viral videos causes understandable concern to trustees and alumni, and adds more fuel to already burning fires,” Dr. Kotlikoff wrote last week. “But if we are to preserve our value and our meaning, we cannot let our caution overtake our purpose. Our colleges and universities are cradles of democracy and bulwarks against autocracy.”

Hopkinsville, Ky., was first inundated by rain, a deluge that came with lightning that streaked the sky. Then, there was another invasion, as the water spilled over the banks of a nearby river, swamping homes and vehicles as well as the city’s downtown. On Sunday morning, the city of 31,000 hummed as pumps were fired up to draw out the water that had seeped into buildings. One of them belonged to Tony Kirves, who owns a photography studio. His building’s basement had flooded, and the water nearly reached entrances protected by sandbags. “It had all receded,” Mr. Kirves said. “Then last night, it came up again.” The past few days have been restless, he said, his concern rising and falling with the floodwaters. He was exhausted. It was a weariness that was shared across a vast swath of the country, from Texas to Ohio, that had been battered for days by a huge storm system. A reprieve from the rain was finally coming for much of that area, as the storm started to shift to the east. Yet even as the deluge subsided, other uncertainties began to emerge, particularly the perils posed by engorged rivers gushing over their banks. “Rivers have not yet crested, so we still have a day — if not more — of rising waters,” Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky said on Sunday, renewing his warning yet again for residents to stay vigilant. At least 18 deaths have been attributed to the storm system since Wednesday, including those of a 5-year-old boy in Arkansas, a 9-year-old boy in Kentucky and a 16-year-old volunteer firefighter in Missouri. So far, the heaviest rains of the weekend have fallen in Arkansas, Missouri and Kentucky, where rising water and flooding have prompted water rescues, road closures and evacuation orders. Some areas received more than 15 inches of rain over the past four days. Parts of the region could still receive up to five more inches of rain before the long stretch of bad weather finally clears, according to the National Weather Service. “Moderate to major” flooding was forecast on many of the region’s rivers. Frankfort, Ky., was one place still getting pummeled on Sunday. Officials said at least 15 people were rescued from water in the area on Sunday, and the National Guard has been deployed. Frankfort, the state’s capital, was also alarmed by National Weather Service projections that raised the expected crest of the Kentucky River, which had been bumped to 49.5 feet on Monday from earlier forecasts of 47 feet. The city’s flood wall is built to withstand 51 feet. “There is not much margin for error,” said Michael Mueller, the judge-executive for Franklin County, which includes Frankfort. If the crest surpasses 51 feet, he added, “that changes everything and it would turn into something horrific.” Sherry Hopper, 67, had to flee the campground near the city, where she had lived for about three years. “The water started coming up fast,” she said. Now, she was unsure about what was to come. She said she did not have the means to afford the expenses of evacuating or having to move her trailer. “This is a mess,” she said, “but there’s not much you can do.” Some rivers in areas like northern Arkansas and southern Missouri crested on Sunday. Others may continue rising for two or even three more days, but there will be less chance of dangerous flooding than there was on Friday and Saturday, forecasters say. For many, another unknown is the extent of the physical damage. A knee-level line marked the walls of Lawrence Schuetta and Jennifer Thompson’s home in Hopkinsville. The floodwaters had receded, leaving them with soaked furniture and damaged walls and floors. The jolt from quickly evacuating, grabbing clothes and medicine at the urging of firefighters, had been replaced by the sobering realization of the mess they had to clean up. “Everything that you see in there, we have just built up little by little, piece by piece,” Mr. Schuetta said. “And within 30 minutes, it was all gone.” “I thought we’d be took out by a tornado," he added. “Flooding was the last thing on our mind.” In Poplar Bluff, Mo., Mount Calvary Powerhouse Church had to reschedule and relocate its Sunday services after the nearby Black River surged past its banks, turning the church’s parking lot into a muddy brown lake. The church sits atop a small hill, but the congregation didn’t know whether it was high enough from the floods. The pastor, Bishop Ron Webb, needed someone to take him there by boat after he had preached. The answer came hours later, when the county sheriff, Mark Dobbs, delivered Bishop Webb to the church’s front steps. The water had not reached the entrance. Bishop Webb was especially worried about the downstairs and went to check out the electrical system. He returned about 15 minutes later. Relief had washed over his face. “Hallelujah,” Bishop Webb said. About an hour northeast of the church in Scott City, Mo., Brian Bowles, 51, helped his son and grandchildren resettle after a tree fell on their house. Mr. Bowles, who works for a company that does road and infrastructure construction, was also anticipating busy days ahead. Many roads and culverts had been washed out. “They told us to be prepared for extra work,” he said. The brunt of the storms moved on Sunday to eastern Mississippi, nearly all of Alabama, northwestern Georgia and eastern Tennessee. Areas to the east, from southeastern Virginia to northern Florida, face the greatest risk of excessive rainfall from the storm on Monday. The Weather Prediction Center expects between 1.5 and 2.5 inches of rain there, with more possible in some sections, especially northern Florida and the eastern Carolinas. As the storm system moves east, parts of the southern Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern states may experience gusty winds, thunderstorms and possibly tornadoes.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is cutting $325 million in grants that was to go to New York State, much of it destined for essential flood mitigation efforts in New York City, according to Gov. Kathy Hochul’s office. The cuts are part of a broader assault by President Trump and Kristi Noem, his homeland security secretary, on the federal government’s disaster response responsibilities, with both arguing that states should shoulder the burden for this work. But the loss of the FEMA funds will be particularly damaging to the New York City area, where the remnants of Hurricane Ida killed 14 New Yorkers in 2021, drowning 11 of them in basement apartments. Ms. Hochul, a Democrat, questioned the wisdom of the cuts, saying the grants were “critical to help us rebuild” after a litany of major weather disasters that had hit the state in recent years. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “Cutting infrastructure funding for communities across New York is shortsighted and a massive risk to public safety,” Ms. Hochul said in a statement. FEMA announced on Friday that it was canceling the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, calling it in a statement “wasteful and ineffective” and “more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.” BRIC has distributed $5 billion in grants nationally since it started in 2020, during Mr. Trump’s first term. Close to $1 billion that has been awarded but not distributed to government entities will be diverted back to the Treasury Department, the agency said — adding that it was “canceling all BRIC applications from fiscal years 2020-2023.” Just one year ago, FEMA celebrated some of the projects supported by those grants, saying they would help local governments “address high-level current and future risks to natural disasters,” including “extreme heat, wildfires, drought, hurricanes, earthquakes and increased flooding.” Kayla Mamelak Altus, a spokeswoman for Mayor Eric Adams of New York City, said the funding reductions “pose serious risks to multiple communities across the five boroughs.” Ms. Mamelak Altus noted that the program was designed to protect communities from natural disasters and to save the federal government money it might otherwise spend on disaster relief. “Multiple studies have shown that $1 spent in advance saves $6 in response and recovery costs down the line,” she said. “This incredible return on investment is why we have already reached out to our federal partners, but are also simultaneously reviewing our legal options to protect New York City and ensure our residents receive every dollar they deserve.” A report last year from Allstate, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the chamber’s foundation said the potential savings were even greater. When taking into account the local economic effects of such investments, “every $1 spent on climate resilience and preparedness saves communities $13,” the report said. The cuts affect all of New York State but are largely concentrated in New York City. More than $11 million has been eliminated for a storm surge barrier to protect the Polo Grounds Towers public housing development and a neighboring public school in Harlem; $100 million has been eliminated for storm water mitigation measures in East Elmhurst, Queens, and in Central Harlem. State Senator Jessica Ramos of Queens, who represents East Elmhurst and Corona, was outraged by the news that climate resiliency projects in her district would be cut. “My neighbors could die if we have another rainstorm like we had during Hurricane Ida,” said Ms. Ramos, who is running for mayor. She pledged to push the state to make up the shortfall. More than $20 million in federal funding has been eliminated for storm water mitigation efforts designed to protect residents of the Breukelen, Nostrand and Sheepshead Bay Houses, all public housing developments in Brooklyn. The FEMA webpages describing those projects have been taken down. One erased webpage, available on the Wayback Machine, a digital repository operated through the Internet Archive, noted that the Nostrand and Sheepshead Bay Houses, which are home to more than 4,000 low-income New Yorkers, “are at risk of extreme flooding due to their proximity to a coastal water body and increased rainfall from climate change.” Latrice M. Walker, a Democratic assemblywoman whose district is just north of the Breukelen Houses, said that completing climate resiliency projects was both a logistical and moral imperative. “To not do so is egregious — and it’s racist,” she said. The Trump administration is also cutting more than $40 million for coastal protections in Lower Manhattan. In March, Zach Iscol, the head of New York City’s office of emergency management, told the City Council that the Trump administration had put as much as two-thirds of the city’s emergency response budget at risk; federal funds underwrite 66 percent of the department’s budgeted head count. “I might fall off the couch,” said Amy Chester, the director of Rebuild by Design, a New York University-based nonprofit that helps communities adapt to climate change, when told about the cuts. “These are so important — every single one of these programs are life and death.”

The White Lotus creators started planting seeds about Thailand’s deadly pong pong tree in the very first episode. “What am I supposed to do here all week without my phone?” a petulant Saxon asked hotel worker Pam. “Eat a bunch of fruit?” Even then, Pam’s response clearly foreshadowed future events: “We do have a lot of amazing fruit here, but I wouldn't eat that,” she responded. “That is the fruit of the mighty pong pong tree, and the seeds of the fruit are toxic.” Advertisement In the finale, Tim Ratliff tossed the pong pong seeds into the blender—and ended up accidentally poisoning Lochlan, who then recovered. But how realistic was the portrayal? We asked medical toxicologists what to know about the so-called "suicide tree"—and how Lochlan managed to survive.

Romulus and Remus are doing what puppies do: chasing, tussling, nipping, nuzzling. But there’s something very un-puppylike about the snowy white 6-month olds—their size, for starters. At their young age they already measure nearly 4 ft. long, tip the scales at 80 lb., and could grow to 6 ft. and 150 lb. Then there’s their behavior: the angelic exuberance puppies exhibit in the presence of humans—trotting up for hugs, belly rubs, kisses—is completely absent. They keep their distance, retreating if a person approaches. Even one of the handlers who raised them from birth can get only so close before Romulus and Remus flinch and retreat. This isn’t domestic canine behavior, this is wild lupine behavior: the pups are wolves. Not only that, they’re dire wolves—which means they have cause to be lonely. The dire wolf once roamed an American range that extended as far south as Venezuela and as far north as Canada, but not a single one has been seen in over 10,000 years, when the species went extinct. Plenty of dire wolf remains have been discovered across the Americas, however, and that presented an opportunity for a company named Colossal Biosciences. Relying on deft genetic engineering and ancient, preserved DNA, Colossal scientists deciphered the dire wolf genome, rewrote the genetic code of the common gray wolf to match it, and, using domestic dogs as surrogate mothers, brought Romulus, Remus, and their sister, 2-month-old Khaleesi, into the world during three separate births last fall and this winter—effectively for the first time de-extincting a line of beasts whose live gene pool long ago vanished. TIME met the males (Khaleesi was not present due to her young age) at a fenced field in a U.S. wildlife facility on March 24, on the condition that their location remain a secret to protect the animals from prying eyes. Subscribe Apr 7, 2025 6:20 PM IST The Return of the Dire Wolf Science animals Photographs by Robert Clark for TIME Story by Jeffrey Kluger Romulus and Remus are doing what puppies do: chasing, tussling, nipping, nuzzling. But there’s something very un-puppylike about the snowy white 6-month olds—their size, for starters. At their young age they already measure nearly 4 ft. long, tip the scales at 80 lb., and could grow to 6 ft. and 150 lb. Then there’s their behavior: the angelic exuberance puppies exhibit in the presence of humans—trotting up for hugs, belly rubs, kisses—is completely absent. They keep their distance, retreating if a person approaches. Even one of the handlers who raised them from birth can get only so close before Romulus and Remus flinch and retreat. This isn’t domestic canine behavior, this is wild lupine behavior: the pups are wolves. Not only that, they’re dire wolves—which means they have cause to be lonely. Advertisement 00:13 03:00 Read More The dire wolf once roamed an American range that extended as far south as Venezuela and as far north as Canada, but not a single one has been seen in over 10,000 years, when the species went extinct. Plenty of dire wolf remains have been discovered across the Americas, however, and that presented an opportunity for a company named Colossal Biosciences. Dire Wolf Time Magazine cover Photograph by Robert Clark for TIME Buy a copy of the Dire Wolf issue here Relying on deft genetic engineering and ancient, preserved DNA, Colossal scientists deciphered the dire wolf genome, rewrote the genetic code of the common gray wolf to match it, and, using domestic dogs as surrogate mothers, brought Romulus, Remus, and their sister, 2-month-old Khaleesi, into the world during three separate births last fall and this winter—effectively for the first time de-extincting a line of beasts whose live gene pool long ago vanished. TIME met the males (Khaleesi was not present due to her young age) at a fenced field in a U.S. wildlife facility on March 24, on the condition that their location remain a secret to protect the animals from prying eyes. Advertisement Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang Branded Content Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang By China Daily The dire wolf isn’t the only animal that Colossal, which was founded in 2021 and currently employs 130 scientists, wants to bring back. Also on their de-extinction wish list is the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger. Already, in March, the company surprised the science community with the news that it had copied mammoth DNA to create a woolly mouse, a chimeric critter with the long, golden coat and the accelerated fat metabolism of the mammoth. If all this seems to smack of P.T. Barnum, the company has a reply. Colossal claims that the same techniques it uses to summon back species from the dead could prevent existing but endangered animals from slipping into extinction themselves. What they learn restoring the mammoth, they say, could help them engineer more robust elephants that can better survive the climatic ravages of a warming world. Bring back the thylacine and you might help preserve the related marsupial known as the quoll. Techniques learned restoring the dire wolf can similarly be used to support the endangered red wolf. “We are an evolutionary force at this point,” says Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer, speaking of humanity as a whole. “We are deciding what the future of these species will be.” The Center for Biological Diversity suggests that 30% of the planet’s genetic diversity will be lost by 2050, and Shapiro and Colossal CEO Ben Lamm insist that genetic engineering is a vital tool to reverse this. Company executives often frame the technology not just as a moral good, but a moral imperative—a way for humans, who have driven so many species to the brink of extinction, to get square with nature. “If we want a future that is both bionumerous and filled with people,” Shapiro says, “we should be giving ourselves the opportunity to see what our big brains can do to reverse some of the bad things that we’ve done to the world already.” The woolly mouse, to a minor extent, and the dire wolves, to a scientifically seismic one, are first steps in that direction. But not everyone agrees. Scientific history is rife with examples of newly introduced species becoming invasive species—the doctrine of unintended consequences biting humans when we played too cute with other animals. An exotic pet escapes and multiplies, decimating native species. A toad brought in to kill off beetles ends up killing off the marsupials that eat the toads. And genetic engineering is still a nascent field. Nearly 30 years after Dolly the sheep was cloned, the technology still produces problems in cloned animals, such as large birth size, organ defects, premature aging, and immune-system problems. What’s more, cloning can be hard on the surrogate mother that gestates the cloned embryo. “There’s a risk of death. There’s a risk of side effects that are severe,” says Robert Klitzman, professor of psychiatry and director of the bioethics master's program at Columbia University. “There’s a lot of suffering involved in that. There are going to be miscarriages.” Still, Colossal’s scientists believe they are on to something powerful. Matt James, the company’s chief animal officer—who once worked as senior director of animal care at the Dallas Zoo and Zoo Miami, where he managed the welfare of 7,000 animals representing 500 species—felt the significance of the science when Romulus and Remus were just 5 or 6 weeks old. The staff was weighing the little pups, and one of the veterinary techs began singing a song from The Little Mermaid. When she reached a point at which she vocalized first up, then down, Romulus and Remus turned her way and began howling in response. “For me,” James says, “it was sort of a shocking, chilling moment.” These pups were the first to produce a howl that hadn’t been heard on earth in over 10,000 years. It takes surprisingly few genetic changes to spell the difference between a living species and an extinct one. Like other canids, a wolf has about 19,000 genes. (Humans and mice have about 30,000.) Creating the dire wolves called for making just 20 edits in 14 genes in the common gray wolf, but those tweaks gave rise to a host of differences, including Romulus’ and Remus’ white coat, larger size, more powerful shoulders, wider head, larger teeth and jaws, more-muscular legs, and characteristic vocalizations, especially howling and whining. The dire wolf genome analyzed to determine what those changes were was extracted from two ancient samples—one a 13,000-year-old tooth found in Sheridan Pit, Ohio, the other a 72,000-year-old ear bone unearthed in American Falls, Idaho. The samples were lent by the museums that house them. The lab work that happened next was painstaking. Cloning typically requires snipping a tissue sample from a donor animal and then isolating a single cell. The nucleus of that cell—which contains all of the animal’s DNA—is then extracted and inserted into an ovum whose own nucleus has been removed. That ovum is allowed to develop into an embryo and then implanted in a surrogate mother’s womb. The baby that results from that is an exact genetic duplicate of the original donor animal. This is the way the first cloned animal, Dolly, was created in 1996. Since then, pigs, cats, deer, horses, mice, goats, gray wolves, and more than 1,500 dogs have been cloned using the same technology. Colossal’s dire wolf work took a less invasive approach, isolating cells not from a tissue sample of a donor gray wolf, but from its blood. The cells they selected are known as endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), which form the lining of blood vessels. The scientists then rewrote the 14 key genes in the cell’s nucleus to match those of the dire wolf; no ancient dire wolf DNA was actually spliced into the gray wolf’s genome. The edited nucleus was then transferred into a denucleated ovum. The scientists produced 45 engineered ova, which were allowed to develop into embryos in the lab. Those embryos were inserted into the wombs of two surrogate hound mixes, chosen mostly for their overall health and, not insignificantly, their size, since they’d be giving birth to large pups. In each mother, one embryo took hold and proceeded to a full-term pregnancy. (No dogs experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth.) On Oct. 1, 2024, the surrogates birthed Romulus and Remus. A few months later, Colossal repeated the procedure with another clutch of embryos and another surrogate mother. On Jan. 30, 2025, that dog gave birth to Khaleesi. During their pregnancies, the mama hounds were kept at Colossal’s animal-care facility, where they were regularly monitored and given weekly ultrasounds by staff scientists and veterinarians. All three wolves were born by planned cesarean section to minimize the risk of birthing complications. A four-person team performed the surgery and lifted out the pups; four more attendants cleaned and swaddled the newborns while the surgical team looked after the mother as she emerged from anesthesia. “We elected to put both pups with the surrogate who was displaying the best maternal instincts,” says James. “That reintroduction occurred just about two or so hours after birth, and she immediately began caring for them and allowing them to nurse.” The pups fed from the surrogate for just a few days, after which the Colossal team removed them and bottle-fed them because the surrogate was actually becoming too attentive—disrupting the pups’ regular sleeping and feeding schedules. They were weaned at eight weeks and have been living the lives of healthy young dire wolves since then. “The idea that we could just take a vial of blood, isolate EPCs, culture them, and clone from them, and they have a pretty high cloning efficiency, we think it’s a game changer,” says George Church, Colossal co-founder, and professor of genetics at both Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The less invasive cell-sampling process will make the procedure easier on animals, and the fact that Colossal’s methods worked on this early go-round boosts company confidence that they are on track for much broader de-extinction and rewilding. Since their births, the dire wolves have lived on a 2,000-acre ecological preserve at a location in the U.S. that Colossal also keeps secret to protect the animals; the grounds are much larger than the relatively small enclosure TIME visited. The 2,000 acres are surrounded by a 10-ft. fence and include a smaller six-acre site with a veterinary clinic, an extreme-weather shelter, and natural dens where the wolves can satisfy their innate desire for a secure retreat. A staff of veterinarians looks out for the animals around the clock. The wolves are fed a diet of beef, horse, and deer meat as well as liver and other offal, along with puppy chow to provide vital nutrients. When they were just weaned, the meat was served pureed, which is similar to the partially digested meat a mother will regurgitate to feed her young. Now the food is presented whole so the wolves can tear it apart as they would if they had hunted it down. So far they have not actually killed any small, live prey that may have ventured into their enclosure. “We have not seen them attempt to hunt any live prey, and we do not provide live prey,” says Paige McNickle, Colossal’s manager of animal husbandry. “But if I were a deer I would stay away from their preserve.” “I think they are the luckiest animals ever,” says Shapiro. “They will live their entire life on this protected ecological reserve, where they have all sorts of space. These animals were hand reared. They’re not capable of living in the wild, and we want to study them for their lives and understand how these edits might have modified things that we can’t predict. They’re not going to be able to get a splinter without us finding out.” So far nothing worrisome or unexpected has turned up in the wolves. The effort to produce a woolly mammoth is on something of a tight schedule. The woolly mice gestated fast, popping out into the world after a pregnancy of 20 days. The wolf pups took just 65 days to bake. Asian elephants—the extinct woolly mammoth’s closest surviving kin—require 22 months, the longest gestation period of any mammal. And this genetic transformation will involve even more than the one that created the wolves. “We were originally talking about editing about 65 genes,” says Lamm. “We’re now talking about 85 different genes, and some of those will have multiple [functions] like cold tolerance—which includes additional subcutaneous fat layers and their shaggy coat.” As with the dire wolves, no ancient mammoth DNA will be spliced into the elephant’s genome; the elephant genes will simply be rewritten to match the mammoth’s. The company says it has so far edited 25 of those genes, and is “on track for our embryos to be ready for implantation by the end of 2026,” to meet its goal of a calf being born in 2028. No matter how the resulting woolly baby might look, Colossal admits that in some respects it will be a mammoth in name only. “They’re elephant surrogates that have some mammoth DNA to make them re-create core characteristics belonging to mammoths,” says Shapiro. But that might be a distinction without a difference. If it looks like a mammoth and behaves like a mammoth and, if given the opportunity to breed with another engineered elephant with mammoth-mimicking DNA, produces a baby mammoth, it’s hard to say that the species hasn’t been brought back from the dead. “Our mammoths and dire wolves are mammoths and dire wolves by that definition,” says Shapiro. “They have the key traits that make that lineage of organisms distinct." The question then becomes what to do with the mammoth you’ve made once it’s at large in the world—a question that bedevils all of Colossal’s work. Shapiro might not be wrong when she says Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are lucky wolves, at least in terms of the round-the-clock care, feeding, and love they will receive throughout their lives, but those lives will also be limited. Subscribe Apr 7, 2025 6:20 PM IST The Return of the Dire Wolf Science animals Photographs by Robert Clark for TIME Story by Jeffrey Kluger Romulus and Remus are doing what puppies do: chasing, tussling, nipping, nuzzling. But there’s something very un-puppylike about the snowy white 6-month olds—their size, for starters. At their young age they already measure nearly 4 ft. long, tip the scales at 80 lb., and could grow to 6 ft. and 150 lb. Then there’s their behavior: the angelic exuberance puppies exhibit in the presence of humans—trotting up for hugs, belly rubs, kisses—is completely absent. They keep their distance, retreating if a person approaches. Even one of the handlers who raised them from birth can get only so close before Romulus and Remus flinch and retreat. This isn’t domestic canine behavior, this is wild lupine behavior: the pups are wolves. Not only that, they’re dire wolves—which means they have cause to be lonely. Advertisement 00:13 03:00 Read More The dire wolf once roamed an American range that extended as far south as Venezuela and as far north as Canada, but not a single one has been seen in over 10,000 years, when the species went extinct. Plenty of dire wolf remains have been discovered across the Americas, however, and that presented an opportunity for a company named Colossal Biosciences. Dire Wolf Time Magazine cover Photograph by Robert Clark for TIME Buy a copy of the Dire Wolf issue here Relying on deft genetic engineering and ancient, preserved DNA, Colossal scientists deciphered the dire wolf genome, rewrote the genetic code of the common gray wolf to match it, and, using domestic dogs as surrogate mothers, brought Romulus, Remus, and their sister, 2-month-old Khaleesi, into the world during three separate births last fall and this winter—effectively for the first time de-extincting a line of beasts whose live gene pool long ago vanished. TIME met the males (Khaleesi was not present due to her young age) at a fenced field in a U.S. wildlife facility on March 24, on the condition that their location remain a secret to protect the animals from prying eyes. Advertisement Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang Branded Content Grottoes bear the enduring touch of Tang By China Daily The dire wolf isn’t the only animal that Colossal, which was founded in 2021 and currently employs 130 scientists, wants to bring back. Also on their de-extinction wish list is the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger. Already, in March, the company surprised the science community with the news that it had copied mammoth DNA to create a woolly mouse, a chimeric critter with the long, golden coat and the accelerated fat metabolism of the mammoth. If all this seems to smack of P.T. Barnum, the company has a reply. Colossal claims that the same techniques it uses to summon back species from the dead could prevent existing but endangered animals from slipping into extinction themselves. What they learn restoring the mammoth, they say, could help them engineer more robust elephants that can better survive the climatic ravages of a warming world. Bring back the thylacine and you might help preserve the related marsupial known as the quoll. Techniques learned restoring the dire wolf can similarly be used to support the endangered red wolf. Advertisement “We are an evolutionary force at this point,” says Beth Shapiro, Colossal’s chief science officer, speaking of humanity as a whole. “We are deciding what the future of these species will be.” The Center for Biological Diversity suggests that 30% of the planet’s genetic diversity will be lost by 2050, and Shapiro and Colossal CEO Ben Lamm insist that genetic engineering is a vital tool to reverse this. Company executives often frame the technology not just as a moral good, but a moral imperative—a way for humans, who have driven so many species to the brink of extinction, to get square with nature. “If we want a future that is both bionumerous and filled with people,” Shapiro says, “we should be giving ourselves the opportunity to see what our big brains can do to reverse some of the bad things that we’ve done to the world already.” Advertisement The woolly mouse, to a minor extent, and the dire wolves, to a scientifically seismic one, are first steps in that direction. But not everyone agrees. Scientific history is rife with examples of newly introduced species becoming invasive species—the doctrine of unintended consequences biting humans when we played too cute with other animals. An exotic pet escapes and multiplies, decimating native species. A toad brought in to kill off beetles ends up killing off the marsupials that eat the toads. And genetic engineering is still a nascent field. Nearly 30 years after Dolly the sheep was cloned, the technology still produces problems in cloned animals, such as large birth size, organ defects, premature aging, and immune-system problems. What’s more, cloning can be hard on the surrogate mother that gestates the cloned embryo. “There’s a risk of death. There’s a risk of side effects that are severe,” says Robert Klitzman, professor of psychiatry and director of the bioethics master's program at Columbia University. “There’s a lot of suffering involved in that. There are going to be miscarriages.” Advertisement Still, Colossal’s scientists believe they are on to something powerful. Matt James, the company’s chief animal officer—who once worked as senior director of animal care at the Dallas Zoo and Zoo Miami, where he managed the welfare of 7,000 animals representing 500 species—felt the significance of the science when Romulus and Remus were just 5 or 6 weeks old. The staff was weighing the little pups, and one of the veterinary techs began singing a song from The Little Mermaid. When she reached a point at which she vocalized first up, then down, Romulus and Remus turned her way and began howling in response. “For me,” James says, “it was sort of a shocking, chilling moment.” These pups were the first to produce a howl that hadn’t been heard on earth in over 10,000 years. It takes surprisingly few genetic changes to spell the difference between a living species and an extinct one. Like other canids, a wolf has about 19,000 genes. (Humans and mice have about 30,000.) Creating the dire wolves called for making just 20 edits in 14 genes in the common gray wolf, but those tweaks gave rise to a host of differences, including Romulus’ and Remus’ white coat, larger size, more powerful shoulders, wider head, larger teeth and jaws, more-muscular legs, and characteristic vocalizations, especially howling and whining. Advertisement The dire wolf genome analyzed to determine what those changes were was extracted from two ancient samples—one a 13,000-year-old tooth found in Sheridan Pit, Ohio, the other a 72,000-year-old ear bone unearthed in American Falls, Idaho. The samples were lent by the museums that house them. The lab work that happened next was painstaking. Dire wolf petrous bone ancient DNA sampling Dire wolf petrous bone ancient DNA sampling. Courtesy Colossal Biosciences 3D rendering of dire wolf LCORL gene 3D rendering of dire wolf LCORL gene. Courtesy Colossal Biosciences Advertisement Cloning typically requires snipping a tissue sample from a donor animal and then isolating a single cell. The nucleus of that cell—which contains all of the animal’s DNA—is then extracted and inserted into an ovum whose own nucleus has been removed. That ovum is allowed to develop into an embryo and then implanted in a surrogate mother’s womb. The baby that results from that is an exact genetic duplicate of the original donor animal. This is the way the first cloned animal, Dolly, was created in 1996. Since then, pigs, cats, deer, horses, mice, goats, gray wolves, and more than 1,500 dogs have been cloned using the same technology. Colossal’s dire wolf work took a less invasive approach, isolating cells not from a tissue sample of a donor gray wolf, but from its blood. The cells they selected are known as endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), which form the lining of blood vessels. The scientists then rewrote the 14 key genes in the cell’s nucleus to match those of the dire wolf; no ancient dire wolf DNA was actually spliced into the gray wolf’s genome. The edited nucleus was then transferred into a denucleated ovum. The scientists produced 45 engineered ova, which were allowed to develop into embryos in the lab. Those embryos were inserted into the wombs of two surrogate hound mixes, chosen mostly for their overall health and, not insignificantly, their size, since they’d be giving birth to large pups. In each mother, one embryo took hold and proceeded to a full-term pregnancy. (No dogs experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth.) On Oct. 1, 2024, the surrogates birthed Romulus and Remus. A few months later, Colossal repeated the procedure with another clutch of embryos and another surrogate mother. On Jan. 30, 2025, that dog gave birth to Khaleesi. Advertisement Read more: The Science Behind the Return of the Dire Wolf During their pregnancies, the mama hounds were kept at Colossal’s animal-care facility, where they were regularly monitored and given weekly ultrasounds by staff scientists and veterinarians. All three wolves were born by planned cesarean section to minimize the risk of birthing complications. A four-person team performed the surgery and lifted out the pups; four more attendants cleaned and swaddled the newborns while the surgical team looked after the mother as she emerged from anesthesia. “We elected to put both pups with the surrogate who was displaying the best maternal instincts,” says James. “That reintroduction occurred just about two or so hours after birth, and she immediately began caring for them and allowing them to nurse.” The pups fed from the surrogate for just a few days, after which the Colossal team removed them and bottle-fed them because the surrogate was actually becoming too attentive—disrupting the pups’ regular sleeping and feeding schedules. They were weaned at eight weeks and have been living the lives of healthy young dire wolves since then. Advertisement “The idea that we could just take a vial of blood, isolate EPCs, culture them, and clone from them, and they have a pretty high cloning efficiency, we think it’s a game changer,” says George Church, Colossal co-founder, and professor of genetics at both Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The less invasive cell-sampling process will make the procedure easier on animals, and the fact that Colossal’s methods worked on this early go-round boosts company confidence that they are on track for much broader de-extinction and rewilding. Since their births, the dire wolves have lived on a 2,000-acre ecological preserve at a location in the U.S. that Colossal also keeps secret to protect the animals; the grounds are much larger than the relatively small enclosure TIME visited. The 2,000 acres are surrounded by a 10-ft. fence and include a smaller six-acre site with a veterinary clinic, an extreme-weather shelter, and natural dens where the wolves can satisfy their innate desire for a secure retreat. A staff of veterinarians looks out for the animals around the clock. Advertisement The wolves are fed a diet of beef, horse, and deer meat as well as liver and other offal, along with puppy chow to provide vital nutrients. When they were just weaned, the meat was served pureed, which is similar to the partially digested meat a mother will regurgitate to feed her young. Now the food is presented whole so the wolves can tear it apart as they would if they had hunted it down. So far they have not actually killed any small, live prey that may have ventured into their enclosure. “We have not seen them attempt to hunt any live prey, and we do not provide live prey,” says Paige McNickle, Colossal’s manager of animal husbandry. “But if I were a deer I would stay away from their preserve.” “I think they are the luckiest animals ever,” says Shapiro. “They will live their entire life on this protected ecological reserve, where they have all sorts of space. These animals were hand reared. They’re not capable of living in the wild, and we want to study them for their lives and understand how these edits might have modified things that we can’t predict. They’re not going to be able to get a splinter without us finding out.” So far nothing worrisome or unexpected has turned up in the wolves. Advertisement The effort to produce a woolly mammoth is on something of a tight schedule. The woolly mice gestated fast, popping out into the world after a pregnancy of 20 days. The wolf pups took just 65 days to bake. Asian elephants—the extinct woolly mammoth’s closest surviving kin—require 22 months, the longest gestation period of any mammal. And this genetic transformation will involve even more than the one that created the wolves. “We were originally talking about editing about 65 genes,” says Lamm. “We’re now talking about 85 different genes, and some of those will have multiple [functions] like cold tolerance—which includes additional subcutaneous fat layers and their shaggy coat.” As with the dire wolves, no ancient mammoth DNA will be spliced into the elephant’s genome; the elephant genes will simply be rewritten to match the mammoth’s. The company says it has so far edited 25 of those genes, and is “on track for our embryos to be ready for implantation by the end of 2026,” to meet its goal of a calf being born in 2028. Advertisement No matter how the resulting woolly baby might look, Colossal admits that in some respects it will be a mammoth in name only. “They’re elephant surrogates that have some mammoth DNA to make them re-create core characteristics belonging to mammoths,” says Shapiro. But that might be a distinction without a difference. If it looks like a mammoth and behaves like a mammoth and, if given the opportunity to breed with another engineered elephant with mammoth-mimicking DNA, produces a baby mammoth, it’s hard to say that the species hasn’t been brought back from the dead. “Our mammoths and dire wolves are mammoths and dire wolves by that definition,” says Shapiro. “They have the key traits that make that lineage of organisms distinct." The question then becomes what to do with the mammoth you’ve made once it’s at large in the world—a question that bedevils all of Colossal’s work. Shapiro might not be wrong when she says Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are lucky wolves, at least in terms of the round-the-clock care, feeding, and love they will receive throughout their lives, but those lives will also be limited. Advertisement Dire wolf Remus at 2 months old Remus at 2 months old. John Davidson—Courtesy Colossal Biosciences Remus at 5 months old Remus at 5 months old, currently at 80 lb. with an expected weight of 150 lb. when fully grown. Andrew Zuckerman—Courtesy Colossal Biosciences Wolf packs can, on occasion, be as small as two members, but typically include 15 or more. What’s more, the animals’ hunting territory can range anywhere from 50 to 1,000 sq. mi. Against that, Colossal’s three dire wolves spending their entire lives in a 2,000-acre preserve could be awfully lonely and claustrophobic—not at all the way wild dire wolves would live their lives. Already, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi are exhibiting behaviors that would serve them well in the wild but do little for them in semicaptivity. They began howling when they were just 2 weeks old, and early on began stalking—hunting leaves or anything that moved. They also exhibited wolflike caution, running to hide in dark places if they were surprised or alarmed. “From day one they have always behaved like wolves and have rarely shown doglike behavior,” says McNickle. So far, the wolves have never menaced any humans, but a risk does exist. Colossal is thus being careful. “Our protocols ensure that people are never in a situation where the wolves might be frightened or become aggressive toward their caretakers,” she says. Whether later dire wolves Colossal might create can ever live beyond the preserve is open to question. Rick McIntyre, a retired wolf researcher with the U.S. National Park Service and a Colossal adviser, warns that dire wolves vanished in the first place because they were specialized hunters, preying on huge animals like the mammoth and the 3,500-lb. Ice Age bison. When those beasts died out, so did dire wolves. “My guess is that they specialized in dealing with the very large megafauna of the Ice Age, whereas I would say that gray wolves are a bit more of a generalist,” says McIntyre. “We see gray wolves catch voles, ground squirrels, marmots, all the way up to the 2,000-lb. bull bison. A general principle in wildlife is that it’s good to be flexible. The more that you specialize, that can hurt you in the long run.” The mammoth creates even greater challenges. Elephants are exceedingly intelligent, exceedingly social creatures, gathering in herds of up to 25 individuals. Sometimes, those groups combine in much larger clans of up to 1,000 animals around a vital resource like a watering hole. In the wild, the animals will travel up to 40 miles a day in search of food and water—and that’s only average. Sometimes their daily wanderings may cover 125 miles. No one knows if mammoths would exhibit the same social and exploratory needs, but if they do, confining one or even a few individuals to an enclosure like the dire wolves’ would amount to a sort of near-solitary confinement. “I really feel that bringing back one or even five woolly mammoths is not a good idea,” says Stephen Latham, director of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University. “A single woolly mammoth is not a woolly mammoth leading a woolly mammoth life with a woolly mammoth herd.” Just as important as Colossal’s mission to restore extinct species is its efforts to stop endangered ones from winking out entirely. At the same time the company’s scientists are bringing back the dire wolf, for example, they are attempting to save the red wolf. Once common across the U.S. Southeast, red wolves began dying out because of habitat loss and predator-control programs that targeted the animal for elimination. In the 1960s, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service introduced a captive-breeding program to save the species and preserve the role it plays in the larger ecosystem: keeping populations of deer in check, which prevents them from overgrazing, as well as controlling populations of smaller prey like raccoons and opossums, which menace native birds. Ultimately, the program produced 250 individuals, released mainly in North Carolina, but today fewer than 20 survive, most of the others having been claimed by poaching and car strikes. Colossal aims to turn that around. Along with its news about the dire wolves, the company also announced that it had cloned four red wolves—a small but important step in fortifying the species as a whole. With so few individuals remaining, the species suffers from what is known as a “genetic bottleneck,” a lack of diversity in the genome that can lead to infertility and inherited birth defects. What is needed is a way to refresh the gene line with new DNA, and science may have a way. In the days before advanced genomics, conservationists identified all species—including the red wolf—principally by their phenotype, or appearance. Plenty of wolves that did not fit the right size or color for the red wolf might have been carrying what researchers refer to as “ghost alleles”—or red wolf gene variations that did not show up in the wolves’ color, size, or shape. Recently, Bridgett vonHoldt, a Colossal scientific adviser and an associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University, and Kristin Brzeski, an associate professor of wildlife science and conservation at Michigan Tech, discovered populations of canids along the coasts of Louisiana and Texas whose DNA included both coyote genes and red wolf ghost alleles. The four red wolves the Colossal scientists created used that natural genetic reservoir to produce what they call the first Ghost Wolf, with an eye to eventually fortifying the red wolf species with more such young carrying a variety of genes. The cloned red wolves now live in a separate fenced area within the same 2,000-acre preserve as the dire wolves. Like Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, they will spend their lives there and not be rewilded. But later red wolves might be, as Colossal learns more about the clones’ health and fitness. The company says it’s in advanced discussions with the state of North Carolina about “conservation tools that can be used to help rescue the red wolf and accelerate its recovery.” “It’s the lost genetics of the world’s most endangered wolf,” says James. “And we now have the opportunity to use our cloning and genetic-engineering tools to be able to confer that genetic diversity back into the recovery of the species.” Similar science might work to save the northern quoll, a small, carnivorous marsupial native to Australia. Quolls are threatened by the cane toad, which was introduced to Australia in 1935 in an attempt to control beetle pests that were devouring sugarcane roots. The experiment failed, with the toads showing no particular appetite for the target insects, all the while doing a fine job of feasting on other insect prey, and becoming an invasive species themselves. Quolls, in turn, prey on the toads—but often lose their lives in the process because of a toxin that the toads carry on their skin, pushing the little marsupial to the edge of extinction. Through their work trying to bring back the extinct thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger, one member of the marsupial family that includes the quoll, Colossal scientists have identified a single change in a single nucleotide—a basic building block of DNA and RNA—that could confer a 5,000-fold resistance to the cane toad neurotoxin. “We as humanity introduced this cane toad species. We as humanity are now inadvertently killing off the quoll as well as other marsupials,” says Lamm. “This one change can make these super quolls that can love eating cane toads. Those are the types of wins that we can get using these genetic technologies.” So far, Colossal has mostly successes on its tote board. No animals have yet been rewilded, but though the woolly mouse and dire wolves are the first edited animals that have come from the labs, both represent progress. Still, scientists not affiliated with the company stress that genetic engineering is head-crackingly complex, and all manner of unintended downstream consequences can occur when you start mucking around in the engine room of the cells. “There’s a phenomenon called pleiotropy in which one gene has an effect on more than one trait,” says Alison van Eenennaam, professor of animal biotechnology and genetics at the University of California, Davis. “That’s true for many, many, many genes. There could be some genes they’re targeting for specific traits that have effects that are not compatible with survival.” Even if Colossal gets the gene editing right, the business of gestating the desired young could present other obstacles. Cloning of livestock still results in more misses than hits. “You get high rates of perinatal and pregnancy loss,” says van Eenennaam. Then, too, there’s always the possibility that a precious handful of de-extincted animals could run riot in the modern world. The cane toad’s transition from pest eater to invasive species is a reminder of how quickly human intrusion into wild processes can spin out of control. Bioethicist Latham points to mosquito control as one more concerning example. “There are a number of efforts to genetically modify mosquitoes so that they will have mass die-outs or so that they won't be able to carry particular diseases like dengue or malaria,” he says. “I worry about our losing control of some of those efforts, because mosquitoes—even though they carry diseases that are bad for people—occupy a niche in ecology, in that they’re eaten by certain kinds of birds.” There’s precedent for this kind of genetic hegemony beyond the cane toad. Asian carp, introduced into the U.S. in the 1970s by the aquaculture industry, are overwhelming the Great Lakes, crowding out other species. Burmese pythons, imported to the U.S. as exotic pets, have established a similar invasive niche in the Everglades, released there by owners who tired of caring for them. Colossal scientists are pressing ahead nonetheless, and the company is already thriving in an adaptive niche of its own—not just as a scientific enterprise, but as a formidable business. It has reached decacorn status, currently valued at $10.2 billion, and while it may not be easy to monetize a mammoth or a dodo or a dire wolf pup, Lamm sees plenty of commercial potential in the technologies his scientific team is developing. Colossal has spun off two new companies so far. One, called Breaking, uses engineered microbes and enzymes to break down plastic waste. The other, Form Bio, provides AI and computational biology platforms for drug development. And none of that touches Colossal’s core expertise in cellular and genetic engineering, which has uncounted applications in the biomed domain, including treating and preventing diseases. “Those genome-engineering technologies alone are worth tens of billions of dollars,” says Lamm. Colossal does not have the field to itself—even if it is currently the most conspicuous player. Revive & Restore, a California-based conservation organization, provides funding for projects worldwide involving de-extinction, increasing biodiversity, and saving endangered species. Another group, Rewilding Europe, is providing support to scientists working to preserve and restore species across the European continent, including the bearded vulture, the Iberian lynx, the marbled polecat, the imperial eagle, and the auroch—the extinct ancestor of domestic cattle. But they are small compared with Colossal. In 2024, Rewilding Europe disbursed 20 million euros to support rewilding efforts across Europe. Revive & Restore, founded in 2012, has so far raised $40 million to support similar conservation efforts. Lamm sees both groups as partners rather than competitors in the shared goal of conservation. Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, of course, are going about their young lives unaware of the groundbreaking science behind their births and the promise they represent. During TIME’s visit, Romulus and Remus gamboled about their enclosure, gnawing on bark they had found on the ground while keeping a discreet distance from the gawking humans. “They have different personalities,” says McNickle. “Romulus was a very brave pup and the first to go exploring on his own even when he was just a few days old. Remus was much more reserved and would follow Romulus’ cues. As they are growing up, Remus has become the more confident of the two and the first to explore new things and new areas.” Whether the existing dire wolves or others Colossal might produce will be allowed to mate and spawn a next generation of wolves naturally is not yet known. Handlers can monitor the female estrous cycles and separate the animals at key times or employ contraceptive implants that keep the wolves from producing young until it is determined whether they have any abnormalities that could be passed on. The MHA Nation tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) have expressed a desire to have dire wolves live on their lands in North Dakota, a possibility Colossal is studying. If the company succeeds in its mission to save existing animals from extinction and restore ones that walked the world well before the rise of the humans, Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi will be long remembered. One species, our own, is increasingly crowding out the millions of others that call the planet home, and Colossal is working to claim the power to reverse that—at least a little. “I think of that famous Teddy Roosevelt quote,” says James, paraphrasing the 26th President. “In the moment of any choice, the first thing to do is the right thing. The next thing to do is the wrong thing. The worst thing to do is nothing at all.”

Nature gave the world the dire wolf 2.6 million years ago, and then, through the hard hand of extinction, took it away—some 10,000 to 13,000 years ago when the last of the species died out. Now, the dire wolf is back, brought bounding into the 21st century by Colossal Biosciences, a Dallas-based biotech company. On April 8, Colossal announced it had used both cloning and gene-editing based on two ancient samples of dire wolf DNA to birth three pups, the six-month-old males Romulus and Remus and the two-month-old female Khaleesi. “Our team took DNA from a 13,000 year old tooth and a 72,000 year old skull and made healthy dire wolf puppies,” said Colossal CEO Ben Lamm in a statement that accompanied the announcement of the births. “It was once said, ‘any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ Today, our team gets to unveil some of the magic they are working on.” So what, exactly, does that work involve? Traditional cloning—the kind that famously resulted in Dolly the sheep in 1996, and has since been used to create clones of pigs, cats, deer, horses, mice, goats, gray wolves, dogs and more—is a relatively straightforward, if invasive, process. First, a single cell is taken from a tissue sample of the animal to be cloned. That cell’s nucleus—which contains the individual’s entire genetic code—is then extracted and inserted into a donor ovum from the same species whose own nucleus has been removed. The ovum carrying the new genetic material is allowed to develop into an embryo and then transferred into the womb of a surrogate, which ultimately gives birth to an exact duplicate of the animal from which the donor cell was taken. Colossal says its dire wolf work had key differences. Scientists first analyzed the genome of the dire wolves contained in the ancient tooth and skull. Comparing those genomes to that of the gray wolf—the dire wolf’s closest living relative—they identified 20 differences in 14 genes that account for the dire wolf’s distinguishing characteristics, including its greater size, white coat, wider head, larger teeth, more powerful shoulders, more-muscular legs, and characteristic vocalizations, especially howling and whining. Next, they harvested endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), which form the lining of bloodvessels, from the bloodstreams of living gray wolves—a less invasive procedure than taking a tissue sample—and edited the 14 genes in their nuclei to express those 20 dire wolf traits. This is trickier than it seems, since genes often have multiple effects, not all of them good. For example, as the company explains in its press release, the dire wolf has three genes that code for its light coat, but in gray wolves they can lead to deafness and blindness. The Colossal team thus engineered two other genes that shut down black and red pigmentation, leading to the dire wolf’s characteristic light color without causing any harm in the edited gray wolf genome. Once this was finished, the edited nuclei were next extracted from the cells and inserted into denucleated gray wolf ova. The ova were left to grow into embryos and 45 were transferred into the wombs of two domestic hound mixes. One embryo in each surrogate mother took hold, and after 65 days of gestation, Rolulus and Remus were born. A few months later, the procedure was repeated with a third surrogate who ultimately gave birth to Khaleesi. All three births were conducted by scheduled cesarean section to minimize the chances of injury during delivery. No surrogate dogs had a miscarriage or stillbirth during the process. Colossal plans to use similar techniques to bring back the Ice Age woolly mammoth in 2028, editing living cell nuclei from Asian elephants—the mammoth’s closest living kin—to express mammoth traits preserved in nearly 60 sets of Ice Age remains. In early March, the company announced that it had successfully tested its methods in laboratory mice, producing 38 woolly mouse pups which bear the mammoth’s signature shaggy coat. Now it says it’s on track to have a surrogate elephant pregnancy in 2026 (elephants take nearly two years to gestate). Other work in Colossal’s labs involves not bringing back extinct animals but attempting to save endangered ones. Endangered species can suffer from several issues, including a lack of genetic diversity—known as a “genetic bottleneck.” The relatively few animals left repeatedly mate with one another, and the inbreeding results in birth defects, sterility, and health problems proliferating through the species. Colossal has targeted some species with these problems, and is working to genetically edit more diversity into their populations. One such project involves the all-but vanished pink pigeon. The pink pigeon species is indigenous to the island nation of Mauritius and once thrived there, until it lost its habitat as more and more of the island was given over to sugar plantations. Humanity’s introduction of rats and cats—which attack pigeon nests—drove the bird’s numbers down to just ten individuals. With the help of captive breeding programs, more than 650 pigeons were hatched and raised and released back on Mauritius. But with so few birds from which the captive population was bred, the species is experiencing high levels of infertility because of the genetic bottleneck. To get around that, the scientists first tap into the fertilized egg of a pink pigeon and extract what are known as primordial germ cells (PGCs)—the cells that eventually become sperm and egg. In the lab, scientists then genetically edit the PGC genome to introduce greater genetic diversity—though at the moment Colossal is still studying the pink pigeon alleles and doesn’t yet know what traits that more-diverse coding will produce. Then, using the fertilized egg of a common chicken—which is far more plentiful than a pink pigeon egg—they inject the PGCs into the embryo. Once there, the cells travel to the gonads and create an embryo that, after it hatches, grows, and reaches sexual maturity, will produce not chicken chicks, but pigeon chicks. Eventually, those pigeons would be released into the wild population, producing genetically diverse young and helping to fortify the species. None of this is easy and none of it comes cheap—though with a valuation of $10.2 billion, Colossal has the resources to pursue the science without too much concern about the price. And the company is not going it alone. It is partnering with conservation organizations such the American Wolf Foundation, The Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, Save the Elephants, and Conservation Nation. The company worked with the indigenous MHA Nation tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) on the dire wolf project, and the tribes have expressed a desire to have dire wolves live on their lands in North Dakota. Colossal also says it's in advanced negotiations with the government of North Carolina to use its conservation strategies to help strengthen the endangered red wolf population there. The company also believes that the new EPC cloning technique will allow them to save blood samples of existing species in a biobank as a hedge against their ever becoming endangered in the future. Romulus, Remus, and Khaleesi, the most conspicuous of the animals to emerge from Colossal’s labs, will surely not be the last.

Nearly 300 international students were abruptly stripped of their ability to stay in the United States in recent days, according to universities and media reports, sowing fear among students and confusion at schools scrambling to help students facing detention and possible deportation. The moves targeted students at a wide range of universities, from private institutions like Harvard and Stanford to public ones like the University of Texas at Austin and Minnesota State University-Mankato. The University of California had dozens of cases reported across its campuses. Several immigration lawyers told The New York Times that they began receiving frantic emails and calls late last week from students who had been notified by the State Department or their universities that their visas or statuses had been terminated without clear justifications. Criminal convictions have always put students at risk of losing their status, but participation in political actions and committing traffic infractions have rarely been cited as justifications. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT In some cases, immigration officers have arrested international students related to their involvement in pro-Palestinian causes. In other cases, students had committed legal infractions, such as driving over the speed limit or while intoxicated, often years ago, several immigration lawyers said in interviews. But lawyers said the Trump administration had often given no reason at all, leaving them to guess why students were targeted.“This upends all usual practice by the government,” said Miriam Feldblum, chief executive of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, which represents more than 570 public and private colleges and universities across the country. “They are terminating students’ statuses in a way they have never done before and with virtually no explanation and little recourse to correct or appeal by either the institution or the students.” Late last month, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, ordered diplomats to scour the social media postings of some visa applicants to keep away from the country those suspected of criticizing the United States and Israel. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The recent moves add more anxiety to an already precarious environment for international students and scholars in the United States. Advocates for international education worry that such moves will chill the ability of U.S. schools to attract foreign students. Last month, Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate student who was involved in pro-Palestinian activism during campus protests last year, was arrested at his apartment and sent to Louisiana for possible deportation, despite being a permanent resident. Shortly after, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student from Turkey, was detained by masked agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while she was on the way to meet friends. Ms. Ozturk, who had written a pro-Palestinian opinion essay, was also taken to Louisiana.The moves aimed at international students fit with the Trump administration’s broader policy agenda of reducing the number of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, and of forcing universities to crack down on what the president says is rampant antisemitism on campuses. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The United States issued more than 400,000 visas to students in 2024. Some of the students targeted recently had committed offenses like speeding or driving while intoxicated, the lawyers said. They said that such offenses did not ordinarily rise to deportation. Without a visa an international student becomes undocumented, and must leave the United States or risk being detained and placed in deportation proceedings. Several attorneys said that they had clients who had opted to leave the country out of fear that they could be arrested by agents from ICE, the Homeland Security agency charged with carrying out Mr. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations. Some of the affected students are graduate students who have doctoral dissertations that they are supposed to defend next month. Others are undergraduates. Still others have completed their studies and have been working in the United States, under a special program that allows recent international graduates to remain in the country for up to three years if employed. “This is totally unprecedented,” said Fuji Whittenburg, an immigration lawyer in Calabasas, Calif., who has been practicing law for 20 years. “I have never seen anything close to this.” She added, “A brush with law enforcement that didn’t necessarily result in an arrest or a conviction is all it took.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Ms. Whittenburg said that one of her clients was an Indian national who got a DUI when he was studying in the United States more than a decade ago. When he applied for a second student visa more recently, he disclosed the charge to U.S. consular authorities in his home country. They ultimately granted him the visa to pursue further studies in the United States. Harvard advised international students last week during a webinar to think carefully about traveling abroad, according to The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper. The staff also warned students that pro-Palestinian speech could be risky. During the webinar, Jason Corral, an attorney, said there seemed to be a change from President Trump’s first term, according to The Crimson. “The difference is we have seen situations where it seems as though people’s visas are being revoked simply based on their speech or protests,” he said. In an alert, a coalition of national student media organizations urged student media last week to “minimize harm,” citing threats to student speech. On Monday a letter sent to Michael Drake, the president of the University of California, and others by the Council of University of California Faculty Association said the university should help students who had been targeted, arguing it had a “moral obligation” to protect students and scholars’ legal rights. The letter, which was co-signed by the University Council AFT, a teaching faculty and librarians union, called on the university to allow deported or detained students to continue their programs remotely, to continue providing stipends, salaries and fellowships and to help students in the courts. Several students have sued the government to challenge their terminations, and lawsuits are expected to pile up. Stacy Tolchin, an immigration lawyer in Pasadena, Calif., filed two suits in federal court in Los Angeles on Saturday, and said that she would be filing more this week. In one case, the American Civil Liberties Union is representing a Chinese doctoral student at Dartmouth College who has been studying computer science. According to a complaint filed on April 4, the student, Xiaotian Liu, had not committed any crimes or participated in any protests. The college told the student in an email that this was “not standard or normal procedure,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New Hampshire. “Xiaotian’s dream of finishing his doctoral program and obtaining a Ph.D. at Dartmouth College is now in severe jeopardy,” the lawsuit said.

On April 2, President Donald Trump held his long-promised “Liberation Day,” during which he took to the Rose Garden of the White House and announced a vast swath of tariffs that he will be implementing. Trump’s “Liberation Day” moves saw the introduction of a 10% tariff on all imported goods, and additional import taxes—of varying degrees—placed on 60 other countries. The U.S. and global markets have already started to feel the impact of Trump’s tariffs, with the U.S. stock market taking the worst hit thus far. At the end of Thursday, April 3, Dow Jones closed at 1,700 points lower. Plus, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes had their worst day since 2020. Thursday also ended with the U.S. dollar dipping to a six-month low against the EURO, falling along with U.S. bond yields. On Friday, April 4, morning reports showed that as of 10:30 a.m. ET, the S&P 500 index was down 193 points (3.58%). The Wall Street slump and global dip in stocks has sparked fresh fears in economists and concerns as to whether the U.S. is heading into a recession. However, in the midst of the market turmoil, a news release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday showed a stronger-than-expected employment report, with 228,000 jobs created in March. Trump addressed the employment numbers in a Truth Social post on Friday morning, stating that the report was “far better than expected.” “It’s already working,” he wrote. “Hang tough, we can’t lose.” During an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday, April 6, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked about the market turmoil and said “there doesn't have to be a recession.” “We get these short-term market reactions from time to time. The market consistently underestimates Donald Trump,” Bessent said. “I remember that in 2016, the night President Trump won, the market crashed. And it turned out he was going to be the most pro-business president in over a century, maybe in the history of the country. And we went on to very high after-inflation returns for the next four years.” But Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat serving in California, expressed deep concerns from across the aisle during his own interview on the Sunday morning show. “I hope and pray we stay out of recession. But if we head into a recession, it will be the Trump recession. He will completely own it. This is a completely self-destructive economic act that he's engaged in,” Schiff said. “And it's not just the tariffs. It's also the freezing of funds, the firing of people, the alienation of our allies in California. I'm hearing from farmers who still haven't recovered market share from the tariffs during the first Trump administration. I'm hearing from people in the tourist industry. You have people from other countries now who don't want to come here, most particularly Canadians.” Economists also expressed concerns when talking to TIME. Felix Tintelnot, associate professor of economics at Duke University, says that though tariffs are meant to stimulate economic growth and production in the U.S., the uncertainty generated from the Trump Administration’s tariff delays and changes has had the opposite effect. “Looking back over the last few weeks, we have had so many revisions to past tariff proposals that it's really difficult to tell for decision-makers in the industry what the tariff policy will be in the next couple of months, and then the rational response to that is to delay investment,” Tintelnot says, remarking that people are expecting even further changes. “If everyone does that, then you're generating a recession.” Here’s what you need to know about the fresh recession fears amid Trump’s highly controversial tariffs. What tariffs did Trump announce on April 2? Trump had initially publicized his tariffs as “reciprocal tariffs”—meaning taxes on other countries equal to the existing tariffs foreign countries have set against American goods. However, the tariffs announced on Trump’s “Liberation Day” were not, in fact, reciprocally calculated but instead were calculated based on countries’ U.S. trade deficit levels. Countries with which the U.S. has a higher trade deficit received a higher tariff. In addition to this, the math used by the Trump Administration to come up with these tariffs also factored in each country's exports to the U.S. Per an Axios breakdown: "The formula is to divide the U.S. trade deficit with each country by that country's exports to the U.S. The final reciprocal tariff was then divided by 2, with a minimum of 10% (which applies even to those countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus)." Tintelnot says that the logic is confusing—for example, Israel eliminated tariffs on U.S. goods on April 1, but were still hit hard by a 17% tariff in the April 2 announcement. The resounding response from the global economist community has been one of confusion about how exactly the incremental tariffs added on top of the 10% tariffs was calculated. “It’s murky,” says Brian Bethune, professor of economics at Boston College, emphasizing his belief that the tariffs are likely to change again, adding even more “uncertainty” to trade policies. “The fact that countries that charge zero tariffs on the U.S. have been hit with tariffs illustrates that these are not reciprocal tariffs in their true meaning,” Tintelnot says, in agreement. “It is perfectly normal in an integrated global economy for a bilateral trade deficit to exist. A little introspection helps: You have a bilateral trade deficit with your grocery store, but a bilateral trade surplus with your employer. Why would you put a tariff on your local grocery store?” Tintelnot also notes that this method of tariff calculation hits a wall because “trade deficit can change.” This only adds to the uncertainty already being expressed by businesses, and again, economists are in agreement that uncertainty is not good for recession calculations and only fuels the risk. Per analysis conducted by The Budget Lab at Yale, Trump’s April 2 tariffs are the equivalent of a rise in the effective U.S. tariff rate of 11.5 percentage points. “The average effective U.S. tariff rate after incorporating all 2025 tariffs is now 22 ½%, the highest since 1909,” per the policy research center’s data. Some countries, including Brazil, are seemingly intending to impose retaliatory tariffs back onto the U.S., thus raising concerns of a far-reaching trade war. On Friday, April 4, China announced that they will respond with a 34% retaliatory tariff on U.S. goods beginning on April 10, matching the U.S.’ “Liberation Day” tariffs placed on them. Although Canada has not been hit with the so-called reciprocal tariffs issued on April 2, the auto industry-related tariffs and others will impact Canada. In a public address on April 3, the newly-instated Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said: "Three different sets of U.S. tariffs remain in place and will continue to pose significant threats to Canadian workers and business. They are all unjustified, unwarranted, and in our judgement, misguided.” Tintelnot highlights that it’s important to note how “extreme” all of Trump’s tariffs are. “There is no other industrialized country currently in the world that charges tariffs as high as those announced by the U.S.” he says. Is the U.S. at risk of a recession? Here’s what economists are saying According to Tintelnot, recession indicators have risen as the impact of Trump’s tariffs take hold. On Thursday, Dow Jones plunged 1,700 points, the broader S&P 500 index was 4% lower, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq sank almost 6%. Bethune says Americans are already concerned about a possible U.S. recession, pointing to the drop in consumer sentiment seen over the past couple of months. In March, a University of Michigan survey showed a significant drop in consumer sentiment as respondents cited tariff whiplash and policy uncertainty. “[Consumers] are not even going to the grocery store and paying more for vegetables because there's none available from Mexico, or going to Whole Foods, for example, and finding the big sections of fresh fruit are being shut down. They haven't really felt the full impact [yet], and they're already saying something isn't right,” Bethune says. However, while some economists, including Tintelnot, are more cautious in their discussion about a possible recession, Bethune says it’s “inevitable.” The question, he says, is just how long until it happens and for how long will it occur? He sees Trump’s admission of there being “some pain” on the horizon as only proof of the inevitability. “At least they [the Trump Administration] are not pretending that it's not disruptive, but they’re basically soft-selling it, reflecting their ignorance about the way business operates,” Bethune claims. What has Trump said about the tariffs and mounting recession fears? On April 3, as markets dipped, Trump told reporters that “it’s going very well.” “The markets are going to boom. The stock is going to boom. The country is going to boom,” Trump said as he left the White House. Trump had previously addressed recession fears in the lead-up to the April 2 tariffs. After signing his memorandum announcing the reciprocal tariffs on Feb. 13, Trump spoke to reporters and said that prices “could go up somewhat” at first, but then “prices will also go down.” Since then, Trump has expressed the same sentiment—stating there could be “some pain” felt by consumers, but in the end it will be worth the trouble, and he believes our economy will ultimately benefit from the tariffs. “I hate to predict things like that,” Trump said when asked if he is expecting a recession this year, during an interview with Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures on March 9. “There is a period of transition, because what we’re doing is very big. We’re bringing wealth back to America. There are always periods of… it takes a little time. It takes a little time. But I think it should be great for us.” During another interview on Saturday, March 29, Trump told NBC News that he “couldn’t care less” if automakers raised prices because of new moves he announced on March 26 to impose a 25% tariff on imports of automobiles and certain automobile parts. “I couldn’t care less if they raise prices, because people are going to start buying American-made cars,” Trump said in response to a Wall Street Journal report that stated Trump held a call in March with automaker CEOs and threatened them with even higher tariffs if they raise prices because of the import taxes. Trump denied making such a threat. Doubling down that he “couldn’t care less,” Trump added: “If the prices on foreign cars go up, they’re going to buy American cars.” On April 2, ahead of Trump unveiling his tariffs, the White House posted an article titled “Tariffs Work—and President Trump’s First Term Proves It,” pointing to tariffs in his first term as evidence that these new tariffs will stimulate the economy. “Despite the rhetoric from politicians and the media, studies have repeatedly shown tariffs are an effective tool for achieving economic and strategic objectives—just as they did in President Trump’s first term,” the article reads. Tintelnot says, though, that these tariff announcements are unlike other tariffs in the past, pointing to how the U.S. dollar has now fallen “substantially against the Euro.” “I think what this is indicative of is that there's just a flight of capital and assets outside away from the U.S. in response to this policy announcement,” Tintelnot says, adding that the tariffs are much higher this time around, “meaning we are in for a bigger price shock than in 2018-2019.”

It’s Sunday night, and you’re feeling sad and anxious about going back to work in the morning. Say hello to the Sunday scaries. You’re not alone in your workweek dread: “They’re very, very common,” says Susanne Cooperman, a neuropsychologist and psychoanalyst at New York University Langone Huntington Medical Group. “There’s nothing wrong with a person if they feel sad that the weekend is over. It’s when it really interferes in your functioning—when you can’t focus, when you can’t sleep, when you feel yourself medicating with alcohol—then you need help.”

In his attacks on law firms, universities and other American institutions, President Trump is relying on an illusion. The illusion is that the institutions are powerless to fight back and that they face a choice between principle and survival. These institutions do not have to capitulate to Mr. Trump. They have a realistic path to defeating his intimidation. Some law firms and others have begun to fight. In doing so, they have provided the beginnings of a playbook for standing up to his attempts to weaken core tenets of American democracy, including due process, free speech and the constitutional system of checks and balances. For anybody who is skeptical of this idea and sees Mr. Trump as all-powerful, it is worth recognizing that law firms have already won court rulings that block Mr. Trump’s executive orders against them. Many legal analysts believe that higher courts will likewise reject the orders as illegal. It is also worth remembering the many legal defeats of Mr. Trump’s first term. Courts, including the Supreme Court, rejected his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election result; prevented him from adding a citizenship question to the census; and blocked his family-separation policy at the southern border. A grass-roots political movement helped defeat his effort to repeal Obamacare even though Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Yes, Mr. Trump has adopted a more extreme approach to executive power in his second term. He has won some early policy victories, and he will win more. Nonetheless, he faces real constraints on his power. Indeed, the most likely path to American autocracy depends on not only a power-hungry president but also the voluntary capitulation of a cowed civil society. It depends on the mistaken belief that a president is invincible. Anybody who has dealt with a schoolyard bully should recognize this principle: The illusion of invincibility is often his greatest asset. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT We understand why the leaders of major institutions are nervous. Taking on the president of the United States requires courage. This is a moment for courage.The playbook begins with a recognition that capitulation is doomed. Some law firms and corporations, as well as Columbia University, have made a different bet, obviously. But the example of law firms demonstrates the problems with capitulation. Mr. Trump has signed executive orders punishing several firms that have done nothing wrong. They have merely employed lawyers who represented Democrats, defended liberal causes or participated in investigations into Mr. Trump. The orders lack any meaningful legal argument and yet contain severe punishments. They seek to bar the firms’ lawyers from entering federal buildings and meeting with federal officials, provisions that would prevent the firms from representing many clients. One firm that was subject to an executive order — Paul, Weiss — surrendered and promised concessions, including $40 million in pro bono work for Trump-friendly causes. Three other firms — Milbank; Skadden, Arps; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher — proactively agreed to deals with the White House and made their own concessions. A crucial fact about these agreements is that they include no binding promises from the White House. Mr. Trump can threaten the firms again whenever he chooses and demand further concessions. These firms are in virtual receivership to Mr. Trump. So is Columbia, which yielded to Mr. Trump after he threatened its federal funding. The university did not even win the restoration of that funding when it agreed to his demands; it won merely permission to begin negotiating with the administration. Editors’ Picks His Life Savings Were Mailed to Him by Paper Check. Now, It’s Gone. Timothée Chalamet Is Living a Knicks Fan’s Dream It’s Time to Put Away Your Winter Clothes. Here’s How to Store Them Safely. Mr. Trump’s influence over the compliant law firms should be especially chilling to their clients. The firms have just signaled their willingness to abandon clients that have fallen into disfavor with the federal government. That does not seem like a quality one would want in an attorney. “Once you make concessions once, it’s hard not to make them again,” Christopher Eisgruber, the president of Princeton University and a legal scholar by training, said when discussing the attacks on higher education. The second item in the playbook is an insistence on due process. The American legal system has procedures to deal with Mr. Trump’s various allegations against these institutions. If law firms are behaving inappropriately, courts can punish them. If a university is violating students’ civil rights — by tolerating antisemitism, for instance — the Justice Department can file charges. These processes allow each side to present evidence. They prevent abuse of power and establish ground rules that other organizations can follow. Mr. Trump may well win some cases that follow due process, and that is OK. Some universities have indeed allowed their Jewish students to be menaced. But the appropriate remedy is not the arbitrary cancellation of unrelated research funding, potentially slowing cures for cancer, heart disease, childhood illnesses and more. Columbia managed to adopt the wrong strategy in both directions. It was too slow to fix its problems and then prostrated itself to Mr. Trump. Other universities should both get their houses in order and stand ready to sue the administration. The three law firms that have filed suits to block Mr. Trump’s executive orders — Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — provide a model. So far, they are winning in court. Importantly, they have won the backing of many conservatives. As our counterparts on The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board wrote, Mr. Trump’s campaign against law firms “breaks a cornerstone principle of American justice.” Paul Clement, perhaps the most successful living Republican advocate at the Supreme Court, represents WilmerHale and wrote a thundering brief on its behalf. “It is thus a core principle of our legal system that ‘one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit,’” Mr. Clement wrote, quoting a 1974 Supreme Court ruling. He described Mr. Trump’s orders as “an unprecedented assault on that bedrock principle.” Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, granted Mr. Clement’s request for a temporary restraining order. This pattern should give law firms confidence that they will continue to prevail, so long as they fight. The Supreme Court is deeply conservative on many issues and favors an expansive definition of executive power. But it has defied Mr. Trump before, and conservative legal experts who share the court’s outlook are aghast at his assault on the legal system. Any institution that stands up to Mr. Trump should be prepared to make sacrifices. Universities may have to spend more of their endowments, as they do during economic downturns. Law-firm partners may lose some income. But they can afford it; partners at Paul, Weiss made $6.6 million on average in 2023. One mistake that the submissive law firms made was imagining they had any chance of emerging unscathed once Mr. Trump targeted them. Fighting him has costs, and surrendering has costs. Already, some students at top law schools say they will no longer interview with firms like Skadden. “We’re not looking to sacrifice our moral values,” one student at Georgetown University said. Finally, the playbook calls for solidarity, especially for institutions that Mr. Trump has not (yet) targeted. The initial response to his executive orders from many other law firms has been the opposite of solidarity. They reportedly tried to steal clients and hire lawyers from the threatened firms. Most big firms also refused to sign a legal brief in defense of their industry. Their meekness is ultimately self-defeating. The campaign to subdue law firms will either be defeated or it will expand. We are glad to see that other firms have spoken up. Even better, a few firms — Williams & Connolly, Cooley and Clement & Murphy — are representing the three fighting the executive orders. Corporate executives can also make a difference by making clear, even privately, that they will not abandon any law firm that Mr. Trump attacks. The business world has much at stake. The United States is home to an outsize share of financial and corporate activity partly because investors have confidence that the rule of law prevails here. If political power instead supersedes signed contracts and the rule of law, American business will suffer. Standing up to the abuse of power is inherently difficult. It can also be inspiring. People who do so often look back proudly on their actions and are justly celebrated for it after a crisis has passed. But crises usually do not end on their own. Resolving them requires courage and action.