This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. To put it bluntly: no one working for a three-letter agency in Washington trusts President Trump to keep his mouth shut. From early in his first term, Trump showed so little regard for the nation’s secrets that it shifted relationships between the U.S. intel community and those of our strongest allies. Less than a month into the job, Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister plotted their response to a North Korean missile launch in the open-air patio of Mar a Lago, photos of which ended up on Facebook. Then Trump shared Israeli-passed intelligence with Russia’s Foreign Minister in May 2017, horrifying Israeli intel leaders. Subsequently, a spy for the U.S. inside Vladimir Putin’s regime was extracted on fears Trump and his team were being sloppy with the nation’s secrets and could put the spook at risk. Also that year, Trump boasted to his Filipino counterpart that he had two nuclear submarines off the coast of North Korea and shared details of a Manchester arena bombing before the Brits were ready to release them—leading U.K. spy services to shut off the spigot of secrets for a spell. And he demanded his interpreter turn over his notes after a meeting with Putin, prompting some in the intel community to suspect he had spilled more secrets to Moscow. Trump’s Florida retreat became a mark for spies from around the world. Two years later, Trump tweeted—yes, tweeted!—spy satellite images over Iran that confirmed U.S. capacity to look into any adversaries’ backyards and confirmed a capacity that had been in doubt, at least publicly. That same year, he boasted to Bob Woodward that the United States had nuke tools that would shock Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin. All that happened before August of 2022, when FBI agents raided Mar a Lago to retrieve classified documents that seemed to follow Trump from his presidency into his return to private life. This Trumpian trail of recklessness with the nation’s most valuable secrets puts the revelations that Trump’s senior leadership discussed an active military operation over an unprotected messaging platform in a different light. During his first term, the intelligence community could view Trump as the chaos agent who those around him were doing their best to contain. But the details of the Signal chat that Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg inadvertently gained access to show how different things are in Trump’s second term. The carelessness has spread beyond the Big Guy himself, seeping into those tasked with carrying out his agenda. The indifference to keeping America’s dirty laundry buried in the basket has been one of the rare constants in Trumpism, as has been a see-no-evil ethos by the President in response to forehead-slapping details that have stunned national security hawks of every background. “They’ve made a big deal out of this because we’ve had two perfect months,” Trump said Tuesday, responding to—but not really answering—questions from reporters about why his national security adviser Mike Waltz added Goldberg to a conversation that also included Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and spy chief Tulsi Gabbard. In an interview with NBC News on Tuesday, Trump described it the “only glitch in two months.” In fact, Trump seemed to treat the whole incident as an annoyance that was taking him away from his chaos-soaked agenda. “This was not classified,” Trump said during a session with visiting diplomats. “Now if it’s classified information, it’s probably a little bit different. But, I always say, you have to learn from every experience.” Early Wednesday, The Atlantic released a tranche of the messages to let the public have a broader look at what had been discussed in that Signal chat, including messages from Hegseth that included the precise timeline of air strikes scheduled to commence around two hours later—details that are routinely classified. The Administration called the whole story a “hoax” and “misinformation,” and said it proved no wrongdoing, while Democrats argued the exact opposite in real time. It was a classic choose-your-own-adventure reality. Instead of addressing the terrible mistake, GOP lawmakers mostly ignored it over two days of previously scheduled hearings featuring the nation’s top nat-sec players. At Tuesday’s Senate hearing on global threats, they asked exactly zero questions about the conversation that included the name of a CIA official, active targets, and the timing, weapons and aircraft involved in the surprise March 15 attack on Yemen’s Houthi militants. As TIME’s Nik Popli, on the Hill for the hearings, reported, Trump’s top intelligence officials insisted nothing was improperly shared—internally or externally—about the strikes. On Wednesday, when a House intel panel convened with the same Administration officials, the tone continued to be one of disbelief that details of any unfolding military action were being shared on an app widely seen as a vulnerability for hackers—by people widely seen as top hacking targets of foreign adversaries. Republicans maintained their defense of their team, with Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas even joking about the details. “I will note I always use fire emojis when I see terrorists getting killed,” he said, referencing Waltz’s response in the chat to an unfolding military attack apparently hitting its target. Crenshaw’s quip mirrored the attitude of much of Trump’s base, which has largely brushed aside Signal-gate, while also embracing a case of amnesia about how almost everyone on the leaked chain had blasted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016 over the apparent national security catastrophe of her using a private email account—on par with what predecessor Colin Powell used during his time as President George W. Bush’s top diplomat. Those allegations birthed years of “lock her up” chants during Trump’s rallies. MAGA world’s reaction to Trump’s team using a similarly non-secure platform couldn’t be more different, proving once again that seemingly nothing will dent Trump’s invincibility among Republicans. “Lock her up” has found its update: Let it go.

Despite distancing himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump’s early actions have taken plenty of inspiration from the conservative policy playbook created by think tank the Heritage Foundation. A Time analysis conducted in January found that nearly two-thirds of the executive actions Trump issued during his first days in office mirrored, either in full or in part, proposals in the 900-page document. This includes withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. Since then, Trump has continued to draw from Project 2025 when it comes to his cuts to the government’s climate efforts—from targeting national monuments and the weather service, to culling scientists from the Environmental Projection Agency. The deregulatory push mirrors the Heritage Foundation’s long history of opposing climate action. The think tank has also had a close relationship to the administration over the years. According to CNN, several former Trump staffers helped shape Project 2025. And during Trump’s first term, both the president and members of Congress cited a Heritage study on the economic costs of climate action that was found to be “strongly influenced by the subjective assumptions made by study authors,” according to a review by the World Resources Institute. (The report concluded that participation in the Paris Agreement would result in an aggregate GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion by 2035. That's compared to a 2024 estimate by the Climate Policy Initiative that puts the global cost of inaction at $1,266 trillion.) Here are the major ways that the Trump Administration is enacting the Project 2025 goals for targeting environmental regulations and climate action in the United States. Withdrawing from International Climate Agreements Project 2025 called for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Accords, the landmark climate initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On his first day in office,Trump did just that, issuing an executive order to initiate the process. The playbook has also proposed that the U.S. withdraw entirely from the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC), an intergovernmental body which facilitates negotiations on climate change. Trump has said that the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. would submit formal written notification of this, though it has yet to happen. Project 2025 also opposed U.S. participation in climate reparations funds, arguing that any fund administered by a non-U.S. organization “provides no assurance that U.S. interests will be protected.” Following through on this, in early March the United States withdrew from the board of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, created to help developing countries respond to the impacts of climate change. Advertisement Targeting the National Weather Service Project 2025 calls for the dismantling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which houses the National Weather Service, the National Ocean Service, the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and other agencies the group deemed “a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” The document called for NOAA to be “broken up and downsized,” which the Trump Administration is in the process of doing. In February, the Trump Administration attempted to fire hundreds of NOAA employees. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the move in March, but though the employees were reinstated by the Department of Commerce, the staffers were placed on administrative leave pending further litigation. The decision is already taking a toll. In mid-March, NOAA said it would reduce weather balloon launches—which provide key data for weather forecasting—in several locations due to staffing shortages. Advertisement Reviewing National Monument Designations The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to protect federal lands that are of historic or scientific importance. Under the Biden Administration, the government used this act to establish, expand, or restore eight national monuments totaling more than 3.7 million acres. The Heritage Foundation nodded to this in Project 2025 by calling for the “review” of those monument designations, saying that President Biden “abused his authority” in protecting those lands. A recent study from the Center for American Progress and Conservation Science Partners, however, found that the establishment of those monuments played a significant role in reducing the “nature gap” and providing access to nature deprived communities. The Heritage Foundation also called for a repeal of the Antiquities Act. Trump targeted the Antiquities Act during his first term, directing the Secretary of the Interior to review national monuments that had been designated in the past two decades. Two national monuments in Utah were downsized as a result, though the Biden Administration restored its original boundaries. The Trump Administration has not yet issued any orders on the Antiquities Act, however the Washington Post has reported that the White House has plans to eliminate two national monuments in California established by the Biden Administration. Reshaping the U.S. Global Change Research Program Project 2025 calls for an Executive Order to “reshape” the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a federal effort to study the impact of human and natural forces on the environment. The organization is responsible for the National Climate Assessment, which researches the impact of climate change in the United States. It also puts together the National Nature Assessment, which looks at the state of U.S. lands, waters, and wildlife. In the weeks after Trump took office, three science reports relating to climate change—two of which are mandated by Congress—were removed from the USGCRP website, according to Politico. Advertisement Reviewing FEMA’s Effectiveness The Project 2025 blueprint calls for “reforms” to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the organization responsible for responding to natural disasters in the U.S. Among the proposals include privatizing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and cities. Trump has echoed this goal; on Jan. 24th, the president announced a council to assess FEMA and its effectiveness. The privatization of the NFIP would place the burden of responding to floods—and covering the costs incurred by these disasters—on cities, especially as flood insurance is not covered by standard insurance policies. As climate change worsens, floods are becoming more devastating. The number of flood-prone areas around the country is expected to grow by nearly half by the end of this century. Extracting Natural Resources in Alaska Advertisement The conservative blueprint refers to Alaska as a “special case” that “deserves immediate action” and calls for previously protected lands to be opened up for drilling and mineral extraction. The plan also calls for the end of wildlife and water resource protections and the approval of logging and infrastructure projects in the Tongass National Forest. “Alaska has untapped potential for increased oil production, which is important not just to the revitalization of the nation’s energy sector but is vital to the Alaskan economy,” the document says. Trump has signed an executive order implementing this, and the U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently announced that the department would be taking steps to open up more acreage for oil and gas leasing and lift restrictions on building a pipeline and mining road in the state. Culling EPA Staff In a chapter focused on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Project 2025 said that the EPA’s staff and activities, “far exceeded its congressional mandates and purpose.” The document also calls for “reform” of the Endangered Species Act. It calls for the delistment of the Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf as endangered animals and wants an “end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations.” It also plans to abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, an agency that provides scientific research to support the conservation of public lands and their resources. In March, Trump announced planned cuts to the agency, including the elimination of the Office of Research and Development, which would impact over 1,000 employees, including scientists. Also in March, the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries said it will consider legislation put forward to amend the Endangered Species Act. It will also consider a separate bill to remove the Gray Wolf from the endangered species list.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are among the most common medical issues women experience; up to 60% of women will get one during their lifetime. Older, post-menopausal women are especially susceptible, since lower estrogen levels can lead to decreased levels of beneficial bacteria that suppress infection-causing bacteria. On March 25, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first new antibiotic to treat UTIs in 30 years. The medication, gepotidacin, targets E. coli bacteria, which is responsible for the most common types of infections, called uncomplicated UTIs, that affect women. Advertisement Called Blujepa, the drug works differently than existing antibiotics. It targets two enzymes that E. coli uses to make more copies of itself when it generates and snips off circles of its DNA. During that process, the DNA can become knotted, but the bacteria can undo those knots. Blujepa interferes with that process, which prevents the bacteria from replicating and producing more bacteria that can infect cells. Read More: Menopause Is Finally Going Mainstream Tony Wood, chief scientific officer at GSK (which makes Blujepa), said during a press briefing that this process is unique to E. coli bacteria, and the fact that the drug focuses on this unique property could make it harder for the bacteria to develop resistance against the drug. Existing antibiotics that are used to treat UTIs have broad activity against a number of bacterial species—which makes it more likely that bacteria can find ways to develop resistance to them.

The genetic testing company 23andMe, which holds the genetic data of 15 million people, declared bankruptcy on Sunday night after years of financial struggles. This means that all of the extremely personal user data could be up for sale—and that vast trove of genetic data could draw interest from AI companies looking to train their data sets, experts say. “Data is the new oil—and this is very high quality oil,” says Subodha Kumar, a professor at the Fox School of Business at Temple University. “With the development of more and more complicated and rigorous algorithms, this is a gold mine for many companies.” Advertisement But any AI-related company attempting to acquire 23andMe would run significant reputational risks. Many people are horrified by the thought that they surrendered their genetic data to trace their ancestry, only for it to now be potentially used in ways they never consented to. “Anybody touching this data is running a risk,” Kumar, who is the director of Fox’s Center for Business Analytics and Disruptive Technologies, says. “But at the same time, not touching it, they might be losing on something big as well.” Read More: 23andMe Filed for Bankruptcy. What Does That Mean For Your Account? Training LLMs Companies like OpenAI and Google have poured time and resources into making an impact on the medical field, and 23andMe’s data trove may attract interest from large AI firms with the financial means to acquire it. 23andMe was valued at around $48 million this week, down from a peak of $6 billion in 2021.

On March 17, PepsiCo announced that it has entered into an agreement to acquire the prebiotic soda brand Poppi. Poppi and other prebiotic soda brands, like Olipop, have gained popularity in recent years with flavors like strawberry lemon, orange, grape, and cherry limeade. The companies claim that their sodas are healthy alternatives to regular soft drinks partly because they contain prebiotics, which serve as food for the bacteria in our gut (which are called probiotics). Both prebiotics and probiotics are important to maintaining a healthy gut microbiome and have been linked in research to better health outcomes, including improved digestion and a stronger immune system, says Julia Zumpano, a registered dietitian and media nutrition liaison for the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Human Nutrition. Advertisement But do these health benefits hold up when prebiotics are delivered in the form of a soda? “I think in moderation they can be a fair, good choice,” Zumpano says. “I definitely think they are better than traditional sodas…but really they should be consumed in moderation.” In 2024, Poppi was sued over allegations that its prebiotic sodas don’t improve gut health as much as the brand’s marketing claims it does. Poppi denied the allegations; it stopped using the phrase "gut health" on its packaging in 2023 and recently agreed to a settlement of $8.9 million, pending court approval, according to the Associated Press. Zumpano says there’s limited research proving that prebiotic sodas lead to positive gut microbiome changes, and Marion Nestle, emeritus professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University, adds it’s not clear if the sodas contain enough prebiotics to significantly affect the gut. Both experts say that eating fibrous foods—such as fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans—are far superior sources of prebiotics than these drinks.

When you go to the doctor, you’re probably the one answering most of the questions. Yet it’s essential to make sure you're asking plenty of your own. “We need to get someone to fund a bazillion-dollar PSA to tell people to be bolder when they talk to their doctors,” says Risa Arin, founder and CEO of XpertPatient, a patient education platform. “I see this over and over again: People aren’t asking any questions, never mind the right ones.” We asked experts to share the questions you should ask your doctor to help you get well or stay that way. Advertisement “What screenings should I get?” Exactly which health screenings you need, and when, depends on factors like age, sex, personal medical history, and family history. When you’re at your annual physical, ask your doctor what you should prioritize in the coming year, so you can be certain you don’t miss anything, suggests Dr. Jessica Edwards, founder and CEO of Zara Medical, a hybrid primary care practice. Screening yearly for mental health disorders like depression is important, too—so if your doctor doesn't bring it up, initiate the conversation yourself, she advises. “What vitamins and supplements might be helpful?” Some vitamins and supplements are a waste of money. Others could be harmful. And then there are the ones that could actually benefit your health. To figure out which is which, ask your doctor, Edwards advises. “It matters because if you live in an area that isn't sunny, you should take vitamin D,” she says. “If you’re a vegetarian, you might need to supplement vitamin B12.”

Talking about money is almost always awkward—especially when it’s with a romantic partner. Perhaps that’s why so many people avoid it, sometimes for decades into their married lives. “Money is a huge source of shame,” says Brad Klontz, a financial psychologist and author of books including Start Thinking Rich: 21 Harsh Truths to Take You From Broke to Financial Freedom. “If you were to ask me about my net worth, or how big my 401(k) is, or what percentage of my income I’m saving or investing, I'm going to be anxious: ‘Do you think I should have more? Do you think I should have less? How am I stacking up here?’” he says. Advertisement Yet delaying the conversation is one of the biggest mistakes couples make. Ideally, Klontz says, people should start talking about money around the time they discuss whether they want to have children, where they envision themselves living, and other future-oriented topics. We asked experts for their favorite ways to broach the subject. “I’d love for us to feel completely aligned about money. Could we set aside some time to chat about our finances?” This is a great way to bring up money with a significant other for the first time, says Alex King, an accountant and financial coach who’s the founder of the personal finance platform Generation Money. “Frame it as something collaborative you can tackle together,” he suggests. “You’re saying, ‘We’re a team—let’s get on the same page.’” Read More: 14 Things to Say Besides ‘I Love You’ It’s also helpful to acknowledge that money can be overwhelming, but that talking about it, especially early on, helps reduce stress in the long run. Make a plan to have the conversation when you're both feeling relaxed, King advises.

If you love someone, learn how to fight with them. That’s the best advice Krystal Mazzola Wood, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Phoenix, gives the couples she works with. “It makes all the difference in the world,” she says. “Most of us don't innately have the skills to communicate well when we're feeling overwhelmed or unheard, because we literally go into fight-or-flight mode. We have to actively practice how to communicate well during a conflict to protect and strengthen the relationship.” Advertisement That includes having a handful of go-to phrases in your back pocket to deploy when things get heated. We asked experts what to say during your next fight with your partner—and how it might help you find your way back to each other. “You’re right about ___.” Couples often land in Mazzola Wood’s office because, when they argue, they get stuck on who’s right and who’s wrong. They tend to especially fixate on “perceiving themselves as correct,” she says. “That makes the other person feel completely unheard and unseen, which encourages them to get defensive and argue back.” There’s a better way: Instead of ruminating over how you’re going to prove your point, draw attention to something your partner said that you agree with. That will help diffuse the tension and remind both of you that you’re on the same team, she says. “I’m sorry for ___.” Apologizing for your role in an argument—which doesn’t mean taking all of the blame—is a shortcut to a peaceful resolution. “When someone hears an apology, they automatically soften,” Mazzola Wood says. “I always think about giving the love that we want to receive.” Be specific (and genuine) about what you're apologizing for, she urges, looking your partner in the eye and speaking from the heart. Don't try to justify your behavior, minimize your partner's feelings, or guilt-trip them. It’s also a good idea to steer clear of quasi-apologies, like “I’m sorry you feel that way” or “I’m sorry, but,” which is more offensive than saying nothing at all.

More people are drinking less alcohol—and sometimes, their friends take that personally. People who have ditched booze describe being hammered with questions about why they’re staying sober, treated like they’re sucking all the fun out of the room, or, if they’re women, inevitably asked if they’re pregnant. Being prepared with a handful of comebacks when you’re encouraged to drink—or asked why you're abstaining—can help you stick to your goals and diffuse any tension. Here, experts and sober influencers share their favorite go-to responses. Advertisement “Well, alcohol was really impacting my mental health.” In 2020, during the long pandemic days when it felt like there was little to do but drink, Madeline Forrest realized she had a problematic relationship with alcohol. Overdoing it, which became a daily norm, “gave me crippling anxiety in the morning,” she recalls. “Even if people assured me, ‘You didn’t do anything,’ I couldn’t remember, and it sent me into this shame spiral.” She finally realized: “‘Oh my god, I can't feel this way anymore.’” Today, Forrest—who runs a virtual sober community called the Happiest Sober Hub—is thriving sans alcohol. But explaining herself in social situations hasn’t always been easy. In the early days, she encountered a lot of comments downplaying the way alcohol affected her. “People would say, ‘Oh, you weren't that bad. You don't have to stop,’” she says. “It was really hard, because I was in a place where I wasn't comfortable with it yet. I really struggled with, ‘Am I being dramatic? Could I go back and start over?’ It makes those doubts louder.” Read More: Why, Exactly, Is Alcohol So Bad for You? The best way to respond to these comments, Forrest has found, is to switch the emphasis from whether she had a drinking problem—which could become a matter of debate—to the impact it had on her, which couldn’t. That means clearly and simply explaining that alcohol doesn’t mesh with her mental health. “No one can argue with that,” she says. “You’re the only one who knows your internal struggle.”

Everyone has a morning routine. But yours probably doesn’t start before 4 a.m. or involve spending hours guzzling bottles of fancy water (and dunking your face into an icy bowl of it), scrubbing your skin with a banana peel, or diving into a rooftop pool. Still, you may be one of the hundreds of millions of people who enjoyed (and probably rolled your eyes at) the video of fitness trainer Ashton Hall’s elaborate morning routine that went viral recently and now has more than 741 million views on X. While many have speculated the video is marketing for the water brand or a gimmick, it’s understandable to be fascinated by glimpses into other people’s habits. Advertisement “For better or for worse, it is in our nature to compare ourselves to others,” says Raphael Wald, a neuropsychologist at Marcus Neuroscience Institute, part of Baptist Health South Florida. “It is difficult for us as people to appreciate our successes without using others as a measuring tape.” Many competing feelings can arise during social comparison: Envy, admiration, motivation, fear of missing out, validation, and social connection, says Bisma Anwar, a licensed therapist at Talkspace. But often, shame and inadequacy bubble up to the top, Wald says. The video is the latest in a slew of other morning habits shared on social media, which are also racking up millions of views. Why are other people’s morning routines so fascinating? Here’s what psychology experts say. Our long fascination with morning routines People have been obsessed with how famous, successful figures spend their mornings for centuries. Benjamin Franklin wrote about his morning routine in his autobiography in the late 1700s, describing how he woke up at 5 a.m., set intentions for the day, read, and studied. In his 1854 book Walden, Henry David Thoreau discussed going for a swim during the “awakening hour.” These old-fashioned routines have even roused interest now; people in the present day are posting about their experiences trying, for instance, "The daily routine of the original OG Benjamin Franklin.”